The house at 3101 Albemarle Street and the grounds to the east of the driveway (right side of the photo) would be preserved under the Gottfrieds’ plan. (photo courtesy of Washington Fine Properties)
(Updated to include new site renderings, add the June ANC meeting video and correct the number of protected heritage trees from five to two.)
Five townhouses and one detached home would be added to the grounds of 3101 Albemarle Street under plans presented at the Tuesday, June 20th meeting of ANC 3F.
Father-and-son team P.G. and Bobby Gottfried purchased the former Polish ambassador’s residence in February. With their support, the property including the main stone house, the existing driveway and land to the east of the front driveway from Albemarle, including the pond area, was recently awarded historic landmark status. All of that would be preserved.
The proposed 3101 Albemarle Street site plan. (© Christian Zapatka Architect, PLLC – View the original PDF)
Under the plan presented to ANC 3F by Bobby Gottfried, a three-townhouse complex would face Albemarle Street to the west of the driveway.
A view of the Albemarle Street side with the three townhouses. (© Christian Zapatka Architect, PLLC – View the original site elevations PDF)
On the Appleton side of the property, the Gottfrieds plan a two-townhouse complex to the west of the driveway and a three-story detached home to the east.
A view of the Appleton Street side with the two townhouses and the added detached home on the left. (© Christian Zapatka Architect, PLLC)
In between the two townhouse complexes, a park-like area with a walk in entrance from 32nd Street NW would protect two heritage trees.
A view of the proposed additions from 32nd Street. The original home is in the center. (© Christian Zapatka Architect, PLLC)
Because this development requires higher density housing than zoning allows in this area, the Gottfriends must go before the Zoning Commission for a a planned unit development, or PUD. The DC Office of Zoning website explains: “The purpose of the PUD process is to provide for higher quality development through flexibility in building controls, including height and density, provided that the resulting development is superior to what would result from a matter-of-right development, offer a commendable number or quality of meaningful public benefits, and protect and advance the public health, safety, welfare, and convenience, and is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.”
Bobby Gottfried explained they will formally serve a written notice of intent to file a PUD to all neighbors within 200 feet of the property and to ANC 3F within a 45-day period. After that 45 days, they can file the PUD application. The Gottfrieds have already been meeting with the Office of Planning and Historic Review Board to discuss these plans. A sidewalk on 32nd Street and better lighting will be included as proposed public benefits – a part of all PUDs. The total benefits package is still being worked out. The Gottfrieds expect to break ground in January and February of 2018.
Two next-door neighbors came to register their concerns about stormwater runoff from the property. One has had ongoing problems with water seeping into her house. Gottfried assured them this would be addressed. A third neighbor, from Ellicott Street, liked the denser development. He hoped it would mean greater affordability and enable him to buy a house in the neighborhood.
Colden Florance says
These graphics are completely inadequate. The plan drawing is amateurish and the elevations do not express what these buildings are going to look like. They seem to delineate a warmed-over Corbusier style, questionable in that location.
The developer should be required to provide a carefully prepared site model with building materials carefully expressed and trees accurately located.
Colden Florance
Tracy J. says
There is a more detailed site plan that did not get included in the post. I’ll try to add it later today.
Elizabeth McPike says
I agree with the neighbor on Ellicott Street (mentioned in last paragraph of post): I hope this denser development — namely, the townhouses — will translate into improved affordability in the neighborhood. I recall in an earlier post that the townhouses would be “age-friendly.” Perfect for seniors who want to remain in the neighborhood. Clusters of, say, eight SMALL townhouses could provide both affordability and community. Did the developers provide approximate prices for the townhouses?
Ellen says
I also hope they are perfect for first-time home buyers as well, who typically cannot afford the housing prices in the neighborhood. My husband and I have rented in this area for several years but unfortunately, when looking at home prices, will not be able to afford buying a house here.
Marjorie Rachlin says
To me, the style and design of the houses clashes with the old original house and they look ugly, particularly the ones facing Albemarle.. I will wait and see for a better picture.
I cannot tell how close these houses are to the street — how much space between the front of the house and the sidewalk. We need to think about setbacks. and side yards. I suspect that the whole plot is now going to look very crowded.
I agree with the comment — what is going to be the price?
Paul says
The townhouse dimensions appear to include 2,000 square feet, give or take. Given Trulia’s current assessment of housing costs in Forest Hills — $528/square foot — that would put the selling price at over $1,000,000. Not including any premium for new construction, proximity to Metro and shopping, and so on. Not highly affordable, unless one is downsizing from a significantly more costly dwelling.
Colden Florance says
I stick with my original comment -see above -but the graphics are still inadequate to understand what the project will ultimately look like. There is insufficient indication of grades, no idea of materials and no indication of what the planting along the sidewalks will be.
It is not yet possible to judge the aesthetics of the project which are critical to our neighborhood as well as the Board of Zoning review.
Colden Florance says
I stick with my original comment -see above -but the graphics are still inadequate to understand what the project will ultimately look like. There is insufficient indication of grades, no idea of materials and no indication of what the planting along the sidewalks will be.
It is not yet possible to judge the aesthetics of the project which are critical to our neighborhood as well as the Board of Zoning review.
Colden Florance
Marjorie Rachlin says
The developer requires a PUD permit. This requires that the developer give something back to the neighborhood.
I suggest we ask that the developer agree to clean up the area across the street on Albemarle, a dirt path through unkempt weeds that is very unattractive. We should also try to get the horrible red and white barrier there, at the bottm of 32nd St., changed to something more attractive.
The developer should be asked to agree to keep this area clean, mowed or cut, and passable to look at, for a number of years.
Michele says
UGLY! This image of the pending townhouses is yet another reflection of the lack of imagination among builders and their politicos who are in their pockets (or beds!). The townhouses do not work with the old house (too bad it was not sold as a single family dwelling). It is a joke. Hey, we have an architect in the neighborhood. Give him a call to come up with a better design that compliments this refined stone house. Suburban tacky comes to Forest Hill!
I encourage everyone to protest this UGLY attachment to the main house. The townhouses look like a tumor coming out of the main house!
Please ALL readers, read the book, The Geography of Nowhere. Welcome to all that matters is the bottom line Amerika! Been ugly buildings since in this land since post WW2. ENOUGH.
Ruben says
Great comment! This is an ugly design, with aims only to maximize profits. An architect with appreciation for the neighborhood should buy the property and develop a design compatible with the low-density nature of the lots in Forest Hills. It is suburban tacky.
Green Eyeshades says
On June 29, Paul wrote “The townhouse dimensions appear to include 2,000 square feet, give or take.”
Accepting Paul’s estimate, this plan would add ten thousand square feet of residential space for the five townhouses, plus whatever square feet would be added by the “detached home.” I see some parking space(s) next to the townhouses facing Albemarle, but no parking space(s) for the townhouses or detached home facing Appleton. I see no new curb cut on either the Albemarle side or the Appleton side.
The PDF file showing four elevations does not include any information about density. The main article does not indicate what the density would be if the five townhouses and detached home are added to the existing structure. The main article does state that because “this development requires higher density housing than zoning allows in this area, the Gottfriends must go before the Zoning Commission for a a planned unit development, or PUD.”
I presume the Zoning Commission could not authorize an eleven-story apartment building on that site, but I do not know that to be a fact. Between another high-rise apartment building and the existing structure (historic former residence of Polish ambassador), what additional density, if any, is allowed for this site under the Comprehensive Plan?
If the proposed design exceeds the density allowed under the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Commission has no lawful authority to approve it. A PUD cannot violate the Comprehensive Plan, whether the Zoning Commission likes the PUD or not.
The notion of adding five townhouses and a gigantic “detached home” to this precious green site is repulsive.