HOME|RESIDENTS|BUSINESS|VISITORS|GOVERNMENT|FORMS|FAQs|CONTACT US
Home > Government > Boards and Commissions > Historic District Commission > 2001 > Minutes > June 19
Historic District Commission Minutes

Submitted: July 17, 2001
Approved: July 17, 2001

CITY OF ROCKVILLE
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES

Tuesday, June 19, 2001
Meeting No. 07-2001
The City of Rockville Historic District Commission convened in regular session
at City Hall, 111 Maryland Avenue,
7:00 PM

PRESENT
Andrea Hartranft, Chairperson
Craig Moloney
Beth Rodgers Jeff Broadhurst

Staff: Cynthia Kebba, Planner II

Absent: Anita Neal Powell, Commissioner; Staff liaison Judy Christensen

I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

II. EVALUATION FOR HISTORICAL, ARCHITECTURAL, OR CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE

A. 300 Reading Avenue

Planner Kebba stated that notices of the HDC evaluation were sent via first class mail to owners of record within _ mile of the property, appropriate citizen’s associations and other interested parties and that the agenda for the meeting was posted on the City’s web page. She said that the house was nominated by the current owners, Carl and Lisa Bretscher. She presented a history of the property and said that 300 Reading Avenue is also known as Carey and Hattie Kingdon House and sits on three lots (11, 12, and 13, Block 3) at the corner of Reading and Grandin Avenues in the Rockville Park subdivision of Rockville. Rockville Park is located on the east side of the CSX and Metro tracks near the Rockville stations and boasts many historic resources. Several houses neighboring 300 Reading Avenue, including 206 and 212, are in the Rockville Historic Buildings Catalog. Planner Kebba identified the property’s location and showed photographs of the subject and neighboring houses.

The house consists of a 26-foot wide, 30-foot deep, two-story main block with basement and attic. On the rear are a two-story and a one-story addition. The most distinctive features of the house are its gables. The roof of the main block is cross gable with an equally large front gable and a smaller rear gable.

From 1911 to 1977, 300 Reading Avenue was associated with the Kingdon family who were active in Rockville civic affairs and built two fine homes in the late 19th century on Reading Avenue in the newly developed Rockville Park. Carey Kingdon was a reporter for the Washington Evening Star newspaper. This house is an excellent example of local building style during the post-B&O Railroad era before 1900.

Reading Avenue derives its name from William Reading, a successful timber merchant, inventor, and owner of two 500-acre farms overlooking the C&O Canal who purchased 28-5/8 acres on the east side of the B&O tracks in Rockville from Edward and Martha Stonestreet in 1884. He subdivided this property as “Reading’s First Addition to Rockville.” When the plat was recorded in March 1888, there were no houses on Block 3 where 300 Reading Avenue now sits. There were three houses on Block 2, including 212 Reading Avenue, which sits across Grandin Avenue from the subject. Reading’s lot at the corner of Grandin and Reading, where 300 Reading Avenue is now located, was lot 18, Block 3, measuring 102 feet across the front and 168.5 feet deep, totaling 17,187 square feet.

In 1890, Reading transferred all unsold lots to Washington Danenhower for $10,000. Danenhower resubdivided, added sidewalks on Grandin and Reading, and filed his subdivision as Rockville Park. Rockville Park was valued for tax purposes at $300 per acre.

In 1893, Mary Lyons Hutton and her husband, Hobart Hutton, paid $2,400 for lots 11, 12, and 13 of Block 3 of Rockville Park, with improvements (the house at 300 Reading Avenue). In 1898, the widowed Mary L. Hutton transferred the house to the mortgage holder. It was purchased in 1911 by Hattie C. and Carey Kingdon. According to the MHT form for 206 Reading Avenue (survey no. M:26/13/3, known as the Kingdon Sisters House), Carey Kingdon was the son of John and Alverda Kingdon and the brother of the three Kingdon sisters, Isabel, Mary and Alverda who lived at 206 Reading Avenue. In 1946, Carey and Hattie C. Kingdon transferred the house to his sister Mary R. Kingdon. Mary Kingdon died in 1971, leaving the property to John Donald Kingdon and Joanne Kingdon Welsh. It was sold a number of times before its purchase in 2000 by Carl and Lisa Bretscher.

Chair Hartranft asked if the property is being nominated as a single site historic district and staff replied that it is, but that it would not preclude it from being expanded to include other properties in the future.

The HDC asked for public comments. The owners of the house, Carl and Lisa Bretscher, were not present. Janet McCool, of 709 Grandin Avenue, was the only person who spoke. She stated that 300 Reading Avenue is one of a number of houses that merits historic designation and she is delighted to see this nomination. She supports the application fully and believes that most of the neighborhood would also support it. No one spoke against the nomination.

Commissioner Broadhurst said that he lives in the part of Rockville where this house is located. He is familiar with this house and has walked by it many times. He noted that the house has gone through many owners but all seem to have respected the value of this house and its history and have maintained it well. He said that it is one of the most striking architectural pieces in the entire neighborhood and the original details are all there. Although there are other houses in the immediate vicinity that are also quite valuable, this one is a show piece of this portion of the neighborhood.

Commissioner Rodgers asked if there might be more information available on the family. Commissioner Broadhurst replied that his next door neighbor is a descendent of Hattie Kingdon and he would ask his neighbor for more information.

Planner Kebba stated that a staff report would be prepared for the next HDC meeting and that the record should remain open until July 1, 2001 to allow time to receive further public comment and incorporate it into the analysis.

MOTION: Commissioner Moloney moved, seconded by Commissioner Broadhurst, to hold the record open on the evaluation of 300 Reading Avenue for historical, architectural, or cultural significance until July 1, 2001 to allow time for further public comment and preparation of a staff report.
VOTE: 4-0

III. APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

A. HDC01-0191

Applicant: T.C. Gordon and Rita M. Wagner
Address: 201 W. Montgomery Avenue
Request: Build fence along side property line
Action: Approve or deny

Planner Kebba stated that 201 West Montgomery Avenue is known as the Wagner House and is owned by T.C. Gordon and Rita Wagner who were present at the meeting. The house was built in 1895 by Edwin West. It is a 2 _ story Queen Anne style structure and faces south on West Montgomery. It is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of West Montgomery Avenue and Van Buren Street.

The Wagners request a Certificate of Approval to install a 6-foot high wood fence along the west property line in the rear yard, between their house and the house at 203 West Montgomery Avenue. The location of the proposed fence will be behind a stand of trees. It will connect to an existing perpendicular fence which runs from the porch at 201 West Montgomery to the west side property line and it will extend to the front of the neighbor’s garage.

Planner Kebba showed views of the west side of the property where the fence will be located. She said that the proposed fence is intended to block the view of the neighbor’s driveway at 203 W. Montgomery. In submitting their application, the Wagners stated that the new fence would be a picket fence that would match the style of the existing fence between the two properties except that it would be taller. The existing fence is slightly more than 4 feet in height while the proposed fence is 6 feet. The fence would not be painted. According to the City’s zoning regulations, a fence may not exceed 8 feet in height in a side or rear yard. Staff noted that there are 8-foot tall fences to the rear and on the west side of the adjoining property at 203 West Montgomery Avenue. The Wagners have a white picket fence on the east side of their property along Van Buren Street which is approximately 45 inches tall.

The neighbors at 203 West Montgomery Avenue, Mr. and Mrs. Wagman, expressed concern about the height of the proposed fence. Staff received a letter from the Wagmans on June 13, 2001 which was addressed to the HDC. The letter was submitted to the record and read aloud by staff. In the letter, the Wagmans stated that they were not opposed to the erection of a fence, but were opposed to the 6-foot height of the fence. For aesthetic purposes, they stated that they did not want the fence to be more than 5 feet high. They also stated that they were unclear about the description of the fence with regard to the widths of the boards and the spacing between them.

Mrs. Wagner explained that they previously took down another fence that was in the same location along the west property line because the neighbors thought it was infested with termites. Mrs. Wagner showed the HDC a picture of the old fence that was taken down. She said that they wanted to replace the fence to better utilize their side yard.

Commissioner Rodgers asked the applicants if a 6-foot fence was necessary to achieve their goals. Mr. Wagner replied that a 3- or 4- foot fence would not allow them to achieve their goal of blocking the view of the neighbors’ driveway. He said that there are many fences in the neighborhood that are taller than 6 feet. Mr. Wagner showed the HDC a picture of a neighbor’s 8-foot fence.

Mr. Wagman, 203 West Montgomery Avenue, stated that there are a number of fences at the rear of his yard but they were all put up by other people, not themselves. He said that the fence that runs between the two properties was a joint effort with the financial participation and approval of both neighbors. Mr. Wagman said that he does not want to see any fence over 5 feet tall because it would be an eyesore from the street. He said that a 5-foot fence would be sufficient to hide cars in their driveway from the Wagner residence. He said that the Wagners’ own fence (that the proposed fence would connect to) is probably less than 4 feet tall.

Commissioner Broadhurst asked to clarify the style of fence requested. He said that the application indicates that it would consist of 4-inch boards with approximately one inch between them, but from the discussion it sounded like the applicants wanted something more solid than that. The Wagners did not have a brochure or specific design of the proposed fence to show the HDC. Mrs. Wagner explained that they wanted to get approval for a fence before they actually went shopping for one.

Chair Hartranft expressed concern that the discussion was going beyond the role of the HDC. She stated that the HDC must decide only if this proposal meets the Rockville Historic District Commission guidelines for fences. She noted that there are additional routes that the applicants will have to follow, including getting a fence permit, even if the fence is approved by the HDC.

Commissioner Moloney stated that the primary purpose of the HDC is to determine the impact that the fence will have on the historic resources, the houses themselves. He said there is potential for visual access to the houses to be impaired by a tall, solid wood fence but that it was difficult to determine because the HDC did not have a specific fence design before them. He said it was not the job of the HDC to work out problems between neighbors. He warned that putting up a fence like this after many years of living side by side without one could create a situation that may not have been intended.

Mr. Wagner stated that the fence would not be visible from West Montgomery Avenue because of the trees and the house would block the view of it from Van Buren Street. Commissioner Moloney asked if the fence would be at all visible from Van Buren and staff replied that a portion of the fence would be. Chair Hartranft said that one could probably see the fence from angles while walking along West Montgomery Avenue and Commissioner Moloney agreed. Staff presented photographs of the location during the winter season to indicate which trees are deciduous and what the view might be in the winter.

Commissioner Broadhurst said that a picket fence sounds like a nice thing but the 6-foot height makes it different in character than a regular picket fence and he also agreed that there would be certain times of the year when the fence would be quite visible. He said that a stockade type of fence would change the character of the property even more.

Chair Hartranft asked the applicants if they had considered an evergreen border. Mrs. Wagner explained that it would require too much maintenance. She did not want a painted fence either to avoid further maintenance.

Commissioner Moloney stated that 6 feet in height is unusual for this type of fence and would be used more often as a windbreak. He said that a more typical picket fence height would be approximately 42 inches. Commissioner Broadhurst added that a 6-foot fence might require three horizontal rails to support it which would change its appearance.

Sandy Deighton, 402 West Montgomery Avenue, suggested that the HDC approve a 5-foot fence, if it can be supported with two horizontal rails since the applicant came in requesting a 6-foot fence and the neighbors (at 203 W. Montgomery) said they would be content with a 5-foot fence.

Commissioner Rodgers asked if a fence would qualify for tax credits. Staff responded that a fence might be eligible only if it contributed to the restoration or preservation of the historic resource.

Mrs. Wagner asked how the fence height is measured. Commissioner Broadhurst replied that the intention is to measure from the grade to the top of the picket. The HDC expressed concern that they did not have specific information on the style and design of the fence.

1. MOTION: Commissioner Broadhurst moved, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, to approve HDC01-0191 to erect a fence as shown in the site plan submitted with the application with the following conditions:
1. The fence may not exceed five feet in height above grade level;
2. The fence must be stylistically in keeping with a picket fence and similar in style with the fence that currently exists between 201 West Montgomery and 203 West Montgomery Avenue and supported with two horizontal rails;
3. The fence should be natural wood and not painted;
4. Manufacturer’s information including the fence design must be submitted to the Preservation Office staff for final staff approval before installation
5. The applicant must comply with a receive a fence permit from the City of Rockville before proceeding.
VOTE: 4-0

B. HDC01-0193

Applicant: Hassan Akhlaghi
Address: 6 Thomas Street
Request: Build deck behind house
Action: Approve or deny

Planner Kebba identified the location of this house which is currently under construction at the corner of West Montgomery Avenue and Thomas Street. She presented the staff report, showed photographs of the house, and stated that although this structure is not a contributing resource to the West Montgomery Avenue Historic District, abutting, adjacent and confronting structures are contributing resources. She stated that the applicant, Mr. Akhlaghi, requests approval to build a deck at the back of the house. The deck will face the adjacent property at 8 Thomas Street.

The property is located in the R-90 zone. The rear setback in this zone is 25 feet and the side setback is 11 feet. Because this is a corner lot, the setback to the rear of the house can be considered a side setback, thereby decreasing the required setback from 25 feet to 11 feet. Plans submitted with the application show the edge of the deck to be less than the required 11 feet from the property line. The applicant was notified and he responded that he would amend the drawings to conform with the setback and would bring them to this meeting.

Staff stated that approval of this wood deck was recommended if all setback and other zoning requirements were met and if revised plans were submitted for HDC approval.

Mr Akhlaghi stated that the original plans for the deck showed it encroaching one foot into the setback. Originally the deck was 12 feet wide and he has reduced it to 11 feet. The house is 22 feet from the property line, therefore the deck can not be more than 11 feet in width. He said that he had a certified survey done on the lot to show that the setback requirement has now been met and he showed the drawings to the HDC.

Alex Daskalakis, 8 Thomas Street, asked the applicant about access and railings. Mr. Akhlaghi said that the height of the deck would be approximately four to five feet above grade and four inches below the doors that will access the deck. He identified where the stairs to the deck would be located.

Commissioner Moloney asked about the materials to be used and Mr. Akhlaghi responded that the deck would be built from pressure-treated wood with a natural stain.

Mr. Daskalakis asked about the tree protection area that exists in the vicinity of the proposed deck and expressed concern about the holly bushes. Chair Hartranft said that the HDC is also always concerned whenever old vegetation might be removed or disturbed on a historic property.
Mr. Akhlaghi responded that the posts to support the deck may not be installed in the tree protection area, although the deck will overhang the area by about 1.5 feet. He said that he would not have to remove any bushes to put the deck in.

MOTION: Commissioner Rodgers moved to approve HDC01-0193 to build a wood deck at the rear of the house at 6 Thomas Street that would have negligible impact on surrounding vegetation and that would adhere to all contingencies outlined in the staff report, specifically regarding the setback requirements. Commissioner Broadhurst seconded the motion.
VOTE: 4-0

C. HDC01-0195

Applicant: Alex Daskalakis
Address: 8 Thomas Street
Request: Remove two trees from front yard
Action: Approve or deny

Planner Kebba identified the location of the house on Thomas Street and showed photographs of the trees to be removed. She said that the house was built in 1906 and faces west toward the grounds of Chestnut Lodge. The original lot was subdivided in 1993. The northern portion was sold and is the location of the new house at 6 Thomas Street.

The applicant, Mr. Daskalakis, requests permission to remove two large norway spruce trees in the front yard. In his application, he stated that the trees are overgrowing the house, blocking light to the interior, allowing animals access to the roof and trapping moisture around the porch.

Steve Mader, the City Forester, examined the trees upon request from HDC staff. He reported to staff that the trees appear to be fairly healthy although the tree on the south side could have a structural defect. His opinion was that they do not need to be removed, but he did note that the applicant could be encountering problems due to the trees’ proximity to the house, which he estimated to be less than 12 feet.

Staff stated that the spruce trees were likely planted as a landscape feature to frame the house which originally had a symmetrical front façade. The trees have outgrown this framing function and are no longer fulfilling their original intention. They are much closer to the house than the recommended 20 to 30 foot distance for large trees. Staff noted that they are causing problems for the owner and he is willing to replace them with more appropriate ornamental trees. Staff believes that pruning the trees to alleviate some of the problems they are causing would not have a positive or attractive result. Ms. Kebba stated that staff had great difficulty recommending removal of large, mature trees but that the current and potential detrimental effects to the house made it necessary. Staff recommended removal of the trees and replacement with ornamental trees to fulfill the original intention of framing the house.

Mr. Daskalakis, the owner of 8 Thomas Street, stated that the trees are each 7 feet, at approximate 45 degree angles, from the corners of the front porch and they are approximately 50 feet tall. He reiterated that he is having problems with animals accessing the roof. He said that the trees block the view of the house from the street and block light from entering the house. Commissioner Moloney asked if he had seen any structural damage because of the proximity of the trees. Mr Daskalakis stated that water is seeping into his basement and that a portion of the porch had to be replaced because of moisture damage from the tree, but he has not noticed any structural damage to the foundation. He said that there is another large tree at the northwest corner of the property.

Elizabeth Reeve, of 100 Thomas Street, said she was born and raised in a house built by her grandparents on Forest Avenue. She said that several trees on this property were removed for similar reasons. She said that it is a shame to lose beautiful trees. Mr. Daskalakis responded that he empathized with her feelings but he thought it was better that the trees go than the house.

Chair Hartranft asked what type of trees would be chosen for replacements and Mr. Daskalakis replied that he has not yet determined what species he would choose but he wanted something more low-growing; perhaps Japanese maples.

Commissioner Broadhurst said that the size of the trees speaks to the age of this property, but that things do outgrow their intention. He said that it appears that the trees would have been a nicer feature 20 years ago. He agreed with staff that pruning the trees would only hurt their appearance. He said that even though the applicant is not currently experiencing damage, it will likely be an issue in the future as the trees continue to grow. He said that while he also hates to see old, magestic trees come down, the overall appearance of the property would be better served if the trees were replaced with something more in scale with the house.

Commissioner Moloney suggested that the applicant discuss replacement trees with the City Forester. Commissioner Broadhurst agreed and said that the owner should not plant something that will be insignificant for the next 15 to 20 years, but rather something that has some substance and will accomplish the intention of framing the house.

MOTION: Commissioner Moloney moved, seconded by Commissioner Broadhurst, to approve HDC01-0195 to remove the two norway spruce trees from the front yard of 8 Thomas Street and replace them with appropriate trees of a species and caliper recommended by the City Forester.
VOTE: 4-0

IV. COURTESY REVIEWS

A. ADDITION TO 113 SOUTH ADAMS STREET

The property at 113 South Adams Street is owned and occupied by John and Andrea Hartranft. Commissioner Moloney (CEM Design) is the architect for the addition proposed for this property. Both the architect and one of the owners (Andrea Hartranft) are members of the Historic District Commission. They requested a courtesy review by the HDC because of the house’s location adjacent to the Rockville Academy. Although 113 South Adams Street is not in a historic district, the Rockville Academy is in the West Montgomery Avenue Historic District. Both Chair Hartranft and Commissioner Moloney recused themselves from the discussion apart from explaining the plans and answering questions from the HDC.

Mr. Moloney presented the plans for the addition to the HDC. He explained that the property sits on what was supposed to be a corner lot. Church Street was to extend from Vinson past South Washington Street to South Adams Street. That right-of-way has not been officially abandoned by the City, although the City Attorney’s office says that the City holds no interest in the right-of-way. It is currently used as an easement, providing access to two properties that abut it and that are located behind the Rockville Academy.

The north elevation of the house faces the Rockville Academy. The house is in the R-90 zone and is a nonconforming lot. The owners must receive a variance from the City’s Board of Appeals because the house already encroaches the southern side setback and they must also receive permission to build the addition in the encroachment area of the north side yard.

The plans call for expanding the kitchen and the outdoor living space and better focusing the house toward the grounds of the Academy. The addition is only about 4 feet wide and the porch wraps around from the front of the house to the side and connects to an existing screened porch. The addition will provide outside living area in the front of the house. A reading nook will be provided on the second level. The original door and window on the north elevation will be retained. Columns will be square; the porch deck will be wood and the porch roof will be beaded board.

Commissioner Broadhurst asked for verification that the house is already over the setback and there is no way to build an addition within the envelope of the building restriction line. The owner affirmed this. He said the north elevation improvements are very helpful and take the emphasis off the earlier shed-like addition. Commissioners Hartranft and Moloney recused themselves from the discussion apart from explaining the plans and answering questions. The remaining members of the HDC unanimously approved of the design and materials.

B. ADD ORNAMENTAL IRON FENCE AT CIVIC CENTER

Commissioner Moloney presented the proposal prepared by Rob Orndorff for installing an ornamental picket fence along the stone wall that borders Baltimore Road on the grounds of the Rockville Civic Center Park. The primary purpose of the fence would be to protect individuals from falling over the wall onto Baltimore Road. A second purpose is to replace the short, non-continuous sections of chain link fence near the gate and opposite Gladstone Road.

The height of the proposed fence is 48 inches and the specifications were provided in a memorandum from Rob Orndorff. There was discrepancy as to the style of fence selected. Page 1 of the memo identifies the fence a Imperial Style “A” with a single horizontal rail at the top and at the bottom, while style Imperial “B”, with a double horizontal rail at the top and a single horizontal rail at the bottom, is identified with as asterisk on the drawings of available configurations. The HDC prefers style “B”.

Commissioner Broadhurst said that a site plan to show the exact location of the fence would be helpful. He also said that the fence should not be anchored into the existing stone wall because it would damage the wall. He also said that the fence could potentially raise maintenance issues because of the vegetation in the area. He asked if the fence would be stepped or follow the grade and Commissioner Moloney said that he thought it was intended to follow the grade.

The HDC expressed appreciation for being consulted on this issue. The HDC requested that staff send a letter to Rob Orndorff stating that they are in favor overall of the iron fence. The HDC recommends the Imperial “B” style fence and that the fence be recessed from the stone wall rather than placed on top of it. They also request a site plan to show the location of the fence and the relationship of the fence to the existing gates.

COMMITTEE/ ORGANIZATION REPORTS

Lincoln Park Historical Society- deferred to the next meeting due to the absence of LPHS representative Anita Neal-Powell.

Peerless Rockville – deferred to the next meeting due to scheduling conflicts for Peerless Rockville staff.

Staff Updates- Staff explained the recusal guidelines and their purpose and asked for comments from the HDC. Commissioners raised various scenarios and indicated that they did not want the guidelines to allow applicants to choose which commissioners would vote on their applications. Staff stated that the guidelines are meant to help them make their own decisions as to whether they should participate in particular situations that are not specifically dictated by the Code of Ethics.

Chair Hartranft suggested that a time be set for staff and the HDC to prepare for the July 30 meeting with the Mayor and Council.

Commissioner Broadhurst noted that irreparable damage is being done to the benches at the Red Brick Courthouse due to skateboarding. The HDC also brought up the fact that the fountain in front of the courthouse is not functioning properly. The HDC requested that staff prepare letters to the appropriate parties to inform them of these acts of destruction and deferred maintenance. They would like to request stricter enforcement against skateboarding in the area and take a proactive approach to this and similar issues.

The HDC commented on a draft flyer to be distributed to neighborhoods in the City to educate the public on the facts of historic designation. The HDC’s comments were that the flyer should be more of a marketing piece and reduced to one side of one page in length. Tax credit information should be highlighted. Pictures and/or graphics should be included. The bullet regarding “free architectural advice” should be removed or re-worded so that people do not misinterpret its meaning.

VIII. ADJOURN

There being no further business to come before this meeting of the City of Rockville Historic District Commission; the meeting was adjourned at 9:25p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Cindy Kebba
HDC Staff Liaison