Submitted: June 19, 2003
Approved: __________

CITY OF ROCKVILLE
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES

Thursday, May 15, 2003
Meeting No. 05-2003

The City of Rockville Historic District Commission convened in regular session in the Mayor and Council Chambers,
Rockville City Hall, 111 Maryland Avenue, at 7:35 PM following an Executive Session pursuant to Section 10-508 (a)(7) of the
State government Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, to consult with counsel to obtain legal advice.

PRESENT
Jeff Broadhurst, Chair pro tem
Andrea Hartranft
Craig Moloney

HDC Staff present: Judy Christensen, Cindy Kebba, Anne Brockett
Absent: Commissioners Anita Neal Powell and Beth Rodgers

I. MINUTES

Commissioner Broadhurst noted that he was not present at the previous meeting. Commissioner Moloney corrected the minutes regarding the porch roof at 112 Forest Avenue (Application HDC03-0244, p.6, 4th paragraph) to reflect that the porch roof will be standing seam copper, not metal sheets that snap together as written.

MOTION: Commissioner Hartranft moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Commissioner Moloney seconded the motion.
VOTE: 3-0 (Commissioners Neal-Powell and Rodgers not present)

II. W. LAWSON KING FARMSTEAD RECOMMENDATIONS

Planner Christensen introduced Burt Hall and Rob Orndorff and stated that the HDC was to act tonight on four demolition permits that had been filed for four structures at King Farm. These structures had been described at the previous HDC meeting. Burt Hall summarized the task force findings and recommendations that had been discussed at the previous HDC meeting. Mr. Hall said that the main house is to remain residential. There are long-term renters there now who want to stay. The City has put $300,000 worth of work into the house, including restoring all 56 windows, lead abatement, and installing new gutters and a new roof. The house is in excellent condition.

Mr. Hall stated that money was spent on the dairy barns for paint, lead abatement and to board up the windows to protect the buildings from vandalism. The buildings are earmarked for multiple uses, possibly to include artist studios, meeting space, social functions, etc. He said that the King Farm development has now reached the edges of the farmstead. Safety and security are crucial to protect people and the buildings, now that the farm is surrounded by new housing.

The hay shelter is slated to be turned into the City’s first picnic shelter but will need considerable renovation, according to Mr. Hall. There are two small farm employee (tenant) houses, one of which has been recommended for demolition. The task force has recommended to keep the small house with vertical siding further to the east, but to remove the later porch and addition as they are in very poor condition.

Mr. Hall said that the task force wants to retain the garage. The City has been approached by a model train group and others who may want to occupy it. The horse barn was recommended for future use as a performing arts center.

Mr. Hall said that funding so far has been used to stabilize the buildings, including removing lead paint and securing them so that they do not degrade any further. He said that the task force has recommended four buildings on the site for demolition. He remarked that the task force acknowledges that the building grouping is what makes this an excellent farmstead site, but the value of the overall site would remain even without these four less significant and deteriorated buildings.

Rob Orndorff, horticulturist with the Parks and Recreation Department, showed a 2002 aerial photograph of the entire site and photographs of each of the four buildings proposed for demolition. Demolition permits have been filed and utilities have been disconnected for each building. The permits are for the calf barn, one of the farm employee (tenant) houses, additions associated with the vertical sided tenant house, and the wood storage poleshed.

The calf barn is a large gambrel-roofed concrete block building with two shed additions to the rear. The doors and roof are deteriorated and there are cracks in the masonry walls. The added sheds are in particularly poor condition and there is a collapsed section at the end.

The wood storage shed is an open poleshed building that stands mostly (approximately 80%) on the King Pontiac property next door. It is in poor condition and its presence adjacent to the horse barn would make construction and accessibility difficult if the barn is converted to a theatre. Mr. Orndorff indicated that the City is in the process of obtaining a letter from the owners of King Pontiac agreeing to the demolition.

The first tenant house (#7 on map) is a frame house on a concrete block foundation and has decaying wood siding. The second small house with vertical siding may be used by the Rockville Police Department as a satellite station. Currently the porch roof and floor are in very poor condition and are proposed for removal. The remainder of the building is in reasonable shape. Mr. Hall mentioned that the ceilings are very low (approximately 6’).

Commissioner Broadhurst asked about compliance with City codes for such nonconformities as the low ceiling. Mr. Hall indicated that these issues would be handled when occupancy permits are sought. The City will likely overhaul the interior entirely and may convert the two-story building to a one-story space with a higher ceiling. He also stated that none of the buildings is currently compliant with City codes. Each building will have to be brought up to a reasonable code level in order to get occupancy permits. Much of the expense will be in meeting ADA compliance. He estimated that it will cost between $5 and $7 million to fully convert just the dairy barns to new use.

Commissioner Hartranft asked about screening between the Farm and King Pontiac. Mr. Orndorff replied that the City will work with the King Pontiac owners when they are ready to develop the property. Currently there are plans to install 6’-8’ berms along the property boundary between the Farm and King Pontiac at the northeast side of the lot. King Farm will donate the dirt and the City will landscape the berms.

Commissioner Hartranft also asked if the City planned to fit out the buildings for occupancy or leave that work to tenants. Mr. Hall responded that there are no plans currently and that the City is flexible. He added that it would be ideal if the City could find tenants that were interested in investing in retrofitting space in exchange for a long-term lease. He felt the fit-out will likely be funded by a combination of City, State, Federal, and private funds.

Commissioner Broadhurst asked how the spatial character of the site would be affected if the four buildings are demolished as proposed. Mr. Hall stated that the decision to request all four demolition permits was not unanimous, but the proposal keeps buildings that are representative of each building type on the property. The decision to request demolition of the calf barn (building #3) was a hard decision for the Task Force. The rear sheds are not attached and are of a different architectural style, but the front portion is suffering from structural damage, possibly due to the slope of the site. It would be costly to repair the damage and stabilize the building.

Commissioner Hartranft asked if the rear sheds could be removed from #3 without damaging the front portion. She stated that the front portion is a large building that could be usable and generate money.

Commissioner Broadhurst agreed that it was premature to decide on demolishing the entire calf barn until re-uses were considered the structural damage is more thoroughly investigated.

Commissioner Moloney stated that the calf barn was built later than the dairy barns and it has simpler architecture. He was not familiar with its structural condition but stated that the structural integrity should be investigated before demolition. He said that the shed-roofed additions to the rear have no architectural significance.

Suzanne Fisher, representing Peerless Rockville, stated that it would be very premature to demolish the front of the barn. She said that Peerless would also like to see the other tenant house retained, but she noted that it would be more difficult to support than the calf barn.

Mr. Hall and Mr. Moser concurred that the Task Force had initially hoped to keep the block structure of the calf barn (#3) and remove only the rear shed portion. They considered that it could be used as set building space for the theatre, but ultimately decided that it would be too costly to restore it. Mr. Hall stated that all materials that are reuseable will be salvaged from demolished buildings. He said that materials from Thomas Farm were successfully incorporated into the City’s nature center when it was built a few years ago.

Commissioner Moloney asked what the differences were between the conditions of the two tenant houses. Mr. Hall said that the Task Force wanted to preserve a representative example of a tenant house and the one that is proposed for re-use is larger. Ms. Christensen added that the tenant house that is proposed for restoration has vertical siding, which is an older style and less common than the horizontal siding on the house proposed for demolition. She said that the use of the site is being changed and that it is not intended to be preserved as a model farm. There will need to be significant work done to the site to make it useful, which may include demolition of some buildings.

Commissioner Moloney asked if there has been any progress made toward designating the entire farm. Mr. Hall said that he believes Peerless Rockville intends to bring forward a designation nomination for the site. Suzanne Fisher, representing Peerless, acknowledged that they are working toward a nomination. Mr. Hall stated that, in the meantime, his department plans to bring any work that would have a permanent effect on the site to the HDC for review.

MOTION: Commissioner Hartranft moved that the HDC approve demolition requests DEM2003-00027, DEM2003-00028, and DEM2003-00029, but delay a motion on DEM2003-00026, the front portion of the calf barn (building #3), until a better understanding can be obtained on its condition and structural integrity. The rear portions of building #3 are approved for demolition. Commissioner Moloney seconded the motion.
VOTE: 3-0

III. APPLICATIONS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY TAX CREDIT

Planner Kebba stated that staff recommended approval of the above tax credit applications.

MOTION: Commissioner Moloney moved that the HDC recommend that tax credit applications TXC03-0245, TXC03-0246, and TXC03-0247 be found eligible for the Montgomery County tax credit, per staff recommendations. Final approval and disbursement will be sought from the County. Commissioner Hartranft seconded the motion.
VOTE: 3-0

IV. COURTESY REVIEW

Buckingham property – Elm Street Development: work session on architectural guidelines.

The applicant, John Clark of Elm Street Development and the applicant’s legal counsel, Erica Leatham of Holland & Knight, were present. Planner Scott Parker reviewed the Buckingham draft design guidelines and architectural standards that were submitted by Elm Street Development and requested comments from the HDC so that the guidelines could be sent to the Planning Commission in June. He provided planning staff’s detailed comments, which were distributed to the HDC (see attached).

HDC comments were as follows:

Commissioner Moloney asked for a clarification of “wing walls.” Mr. Parker said that these were generally masonry and would enclose courtyards. If a wall is detached, it is considered a fence. Mr. Moloney also stated that roofing bay windows with black metal only was restrictive, as was requiring bays to be elevated above the ground. The HDC requested that the word “brick” be replaced with masonry so as not to preclude the use of stone or stucco. They also requested a clarification that not all masonry facades will have a chimney.

Ms. Brockett commented that in addition to the comments of the planning staff, HDC staff had also provided comments on the draft guidelines (see attached). These comments were provided to the HDC commissioners and had been faxed to the applicant. Rather than review them all, Ms. Brockett stated that most importantly, the comments request references in the proposed guidelines to the City’s adopted Recommended Architectural Design Guidelines for the Exterior Rehabilitation of Buildings in Rockville’s Historic Districts.

The HDC was asked to submit any additional comments to staff as soon as possible so that they could be included in the cumulative comments to the developer. The HDC indicated that it would like to see the revised guidelines at the June meeting.

V. AMENDED APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

The amendment to the original application is a request to install similar Anderson windows in place of the screening on the second story as was recently done on the lower level. Staff distributed copies of the new drawings and the application as they were submitted after the brief books were sent out to the commissioners. Commissioner Broadhurst stated that it appeared that the plans for the second story were consistent with those approved for the first level.

MOTION: Commissioner Hartranft moved to approve application HDC03-0235A as presented,with the second story windows the same width and in alignment with the first story porch windows and all materials being the same as those used on the first story porch. Commissioner Moloney seconded the motion.
VOTE: 3-0

VI. DISCUSSION / UPDATES

VII. COMMITTEE / ORGANIZATION REPORTS

VIII. ADJOURN

The HDC meeting of May 15, 2003 was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.