|
Home > Government > Boards and Commissions > Historic District Commission > 2003 > Minutes > August 21 Boards and Commissions |
Submitted: September 25, 2003 CITY OF ROCKVILLE Thursday, August 21, 2003
PRESENT Absent: Commissioners Beth Rodgers and Craig Moloney HDC Staff present: Cindy Kebba and Robin D. Ziek, Preservation Planners; Casey Weeks, Preservation Planner Intern I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Hartranft corrected the comments on page 4, paragraph 3, and said that Craig Moloney made the comment that the Activity Building and Cafeteria should be documented if it couldn’t be included in the preservation plan. Commissioner Broadhurst noted that Planner Ziek suggested that smooth siding be used at 701 Grandin Avenue, rather than wood-grained siding (page 3, last sentence of paragraph 4). He also noted a typographical error in the motion on page 5, and stated that the word should be “motion”, instead of “notion” as written. MOTION: Commissioner Broadhurst moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Commissioner Hartranft seconded the motion. VOTE: 3-0
MOTION: Commissioner Broadhurst moved to approve the minutes as written. VOTE: 2-0-1 (Abstained: Neal Powell)
Planner Cindy Kebba presented the application for the fence, noting that the rear half of the property that fronts Harrison Street is not in the historic district and does not come under the purview of the HDC. A very small portion of the proposed fence appears to be within the district. She showed slides of the property line area, with the existing neighbor’s stockade fencing and existing vegetation. The proposed new fence will not extend all the way to Harrison in order to protect some mature vegetation along the property line. Staff recommended that a board on board fence, possibly with a decorative top, be installed instead of the stockade fence style, as more appropriate for the 19th/20th century historic district. Commissioner Broadhurst agreed that the board on board style would be more appropriate in the district, but without the decorative top. He noted that the church has a simple and austere style and a simple fence would be more compatible. Commissioner Hartranft agreed. The applicants were not present. The adjacent property owner, Brian Geary, of 208 Harrison Street, spoke in favor of retaining all of the shrubbery along the shared property line to the maximum extent possible. This includes the mature shrubs near Harrison Street as well as the younger shrubs mid-way along the property line. MOTION: Commissioner Hartranft moved to approve the application for that portion of the fence within the historic district, with a recommendation that the applicant consider a board-on-board fence with a plain cap board instead of the proposed stockade style fence; and that the applicant try to retain as much of the existing shrubbery along the property line as feasible. Commissioner Broadhurst seconded the motion. VOTE: 3-0
Planner Cindy Kebba noted that neither Burt Hall nor Rob Orndorff from Parks and Recreation was available for the meeting due to vacation and a meeting conflict. She presented a visual overview of the requests, beginning with [B] the hay shed/picnic shelter, showing the area of the dryer and dryer structure. She noted that the City likely was concerned about the structural integrity and safety of the enclosed portion of the hay shed (which is proposed to be re-used as a public picnic shelter) but no reason was provided with the application for demolition. Peerless Rockville sent in written comments, asking why the City feels it is necessary to remove the dryer and dryer structure. Peerless Rockville recommended retaining it as part of what makes this building special. The HDC discussed the need for more information before approving the removal of this part of the building. The HDC wanted to know definitively if the City has a specific reason such as special structural requirements, safety concerns, etc. Lacking a specific reason for demolition, Commissioner Broadhurst thought it would be hasty to agree to its removal. He asked if the City could open up the sides of this part of the structure, and reveal the machinery in situ. Commissioner Hartranft agreed, saying if this presents a matter of structural instability, removal could be approved, but she would need further explanation/information. Commissioner Powell agreed. Staff will forward the HDC comments to Parks and Recreation. Regarding [A] the proposed removal of the porches on the tenant house, Staff noted that this building will be used as a police sub-station after renovation, a proposal that was presented to the HDC at a previous meeting. Comments submitted by Peerless Rockville indicated no objection to the porch removal. The HDC wanted clarification on the proposal, and staff noted that the original farm building was a simple rectangular block, and that the porches were added when the structure was renovated for use as a residence. The City plans to retain the original farm structure form, and felt that the porches compromised this, and would no longer serve functionally when the new use was put into place. Commissioner Broadhurst noted that the porches clearly read as later additions, and did not add to the general design of the building. MOTION: Commissioner Broadhurst moved to recommend approval to remove the porches, and to table the proposal to remove the hay dryer and dryer structure pending further information from Parks and Recreation staff. Commissioner Hartranft asked to amend the motion to note that the removal of the porches should be accomplished with great care to the original farm structure. After Commissioner Broadhurst agreed to the amendment, Commissioner Hartranft seconded the motion. VOTE: 3-0
Preservation Planner Intern Casey Weeks presented the staff report and a visual overview of the property. The owners, Robert Jones and Kathleen Hayes, requested the nomination but could not be present for this meeting. Ms. Weeks stated that the property has local significance as one of the early homes erected ca. 1896, in the first phase of development within East Rockville, on lots platted within the Rockville Park subdivision. The property, with a residence and two outbuildings, includes lots 19, 20, and 21 in Block 4. The house retains architectural integrity on the exterior and interior, despite modern additions at the rear and second story west elevation. It demonstrates the original massing, the original German siding is extant beneath asbestos shingles, and it retains many original windows and the original front door with transom above. The cornice returns and steeply pitched cross-gabled roof also give a sense of time and place characteristic of 19th century Rockville. The interior retains its original staircase with a highly decorative carved newel post and original bulls-eye corner blocks on interior doors and windows. The 1980s additions provided space for modern conveniences, including a powder room on the first floor and a full bath on the second floor, as well as extra storage. The owners have expressed an interest in using the tax incentives to restore the house, removing the asbestos siding and removing or reconfiguring the additions to achieve the needed space with a more compatible design. The HDC discussion was brief. Commissioner Broadhurst observed that some of the adjacent and confronting residences are noteworthy. He also applauded the owners for wanting to make positive changes, such as restoring the German siding. He added that it will be a significant design challenge to change the massing of the additions. The HDC deferred action to the next meeting, providing additional time to visit the site and evaluate the property and allow another opportunity for the owners to comment at the September meeting. MOTION: Commissioner Hartranft moved to keep the record open on this evaluation until the close of business on September 5, 2003. Commissioner Broadhurst seconded the motion.
Planner Robin D. Ziek gave the staff report, and provided a visual overview of the property. The owners have submitted a demolition request. As the property is more than 50 years old, it must be considered for architectural, historical and cultural significance before a demolition permit can be issued. The staff report noted that the platted lot has significance as a remnant of the 1890 West End Park subdivision, but that the house was built considerably after this date. The house has significance as part of the national trend to homeownership for middle-income families that was widespread in the mid-20th century. The specific house, however, lacks architectural integrity because the original doors and windows have been replaced, the house has been covered with replacement siding, the original porch railing has been replaced, and the historic rear additions have been modified. In addition, it would be more representative to the City to designate a multi-site district rather than a single site to exemplify this mid-20th century development theme. In a multi-site district, this building might qualify as contributing due to its massing, but its lack of integrity would be a non-qualifying factor. The prior owners of the property have not been identified as contributors to Rockville’s political, cultural or historical heritage. Staff recommended against designation. Liza Portillo, of 534 Beall Avenue (adjacent to subject property), stated that she was concerned about the transformation of the street, from small houses to very large and tall new houses and said that it is in danger of losing its historical significance. She said that just because it is not listed in the National Register of Historic Places does not mean it is expendable. She said she is afraid that Rockville’s history will slowly diminish if this trend continues because all of old Rockville will be torn down. Colin Duffy, of 308 Reading Avenue, spoke against demolition of the house. He noted that the newer and bigger homes infringe on the existing community. He also noted that the City’s population has not expanded much recently; that there has been plenty of new development (Falls Grove, Rose Hill, etc.) to accommodate additional people; and that the older neighborhoods also serve an important population. He said it is more appropriate to concentrate new development in the new subdivisions rather change the fabric of the existing community. Mary White identified herself as the contract purchaser of 532 Beall Avenue. She is a real estate agent presently living in Washington, D.C., at 229 Constitution Avenue, NE. She noted that the new house construction probably would not add more people to the neighborhood since it is still a single-family home. Tim Jones, of 519 Beall Avenue, noted that the neighborhood is changing quickly. He says the infrastructure is falling apart, and this is part of the modernization process. It would simply be too expensive to modernize and retain this small “cracker box” home, with vinyl siding and non-original windows. It is simply cheaper to tear it down and build a new house. In addition, the property values have sky-rocketed because of Town Center redevelopment. Commissioner Hartranft noted that this is a similar situation to the tear down on Forest Avenue, where an older 20th century home was demolished and a new home will be built. She said it is frustrating that the setback and height requirements don’t really assure compatible new construction. On the other hand, many people are happy there aren’t HOA-type design guidelines and restrictions as there are in Germantown. She asked the contract purchaser to please be mindful of the neighborhood when deciding on the new construction. Commissioner Broadhurst agreed, but also noted that he couldn’t really recommend this particular house for historic designation because it does not meet the criteria for single site designation. MOTION: Commissioner Broadhurst moved to decline to recommend this property for historic designation. Commissioner Hartranft seconded the motion. VOTE: 3-0 V. COURTESY REVIEW
Commissioner Hartranft wanted the applicant to be aware that the applicant’s architect is a client of hers, but she did not believe it would cause a conflict of interest. The applicant’s representative, Steve Beck (for property owner, John Bell), was present. Mr. Beck provided existing and proposed plans and elevations for the HDC’s comments. The applicant requested a courtesy review to obtain advice and guidance for this rehabilitation. He explained the plan calls for the removal of the existing aluminum siding and painting the original wood siding that is extant below. The applicant proposes to restore the original wrap-around porch at the front entrance, and install a front door with a 19th century “look.” He proposes to put on a new standing seam metal roof on the front porch, and a new wood porch floor, as well as new wood columns and brackets. New cedar “shakes” would be installed on the two-story front bay to match the existing cedar shake roof. The applicant proposes a full-width two-story rear addition with a shallow sloping roof. Commissioner Broadhurst thought that the proposed front work is logical and the new porch configuration is commendable. He was concerned with the proposed rear massing, as there was little relationship with the overall design and style of the house. He suggested perhaps a steeper rear roofline with dormer[s] as one possibility. He recommended setting in the rear addition by 6” – 1’ on both sides, to help define the original massing. Commissioner Broadhurst was also concerned with the shallow pitch of the roof, and discussed possible roofing materials, noting that nothing would be visible from the street with such a shallow pitch. He was concerned about the lack of windows on the proposed north elevation. Mr. Beck said they planned to install windows on that side, but they didn’t show up in the drawings. Mr. Beck stated that the original wood siding is beneath the aluminum siding. His experience revealing the original siding at 10 South Adams was good and he expects that the same can be done here. Mr. Beck also hopes to restore the original foundation. Mr. Beck was concerned about the stability of the chimney and would like to remove it. Staff noted that the applicant should consult with the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) if he wanted to apply for the state tax credits, because this is an item they have cared about retaining on other projects and the removal of which could jeopardize the entire application. Commissioner Broadhurst said that he agreed with staff’s preliminary written comments. He particularly noted that if shutters are used they should be used properly and be the appropriate sizes for the windows. The height of the shutters should be within the frame of the window. He said that when the applicant is ready to submit a Certificate of Approval application, such details should be carefully thought out and accurately shown on the plans. Planner Ziek added that an oval window in the front door is not a historic form; usually it would be a solid paneled door with a transom above, or if it was a half-light, the window would typically be square. She said that a transom may be revealed when the aluminum siding is removed. She asked the applicant if he would be willing to keep the transom if one is found and the applicant responded that he would. Commissioner Broadhurst said that restrained is the better option as far as the door is concerned and he agreed with Ms. Ziek’s comments.
VI. HDC VACANCY RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Broadhurst noted it was very exciting to see that so many people were interested in serving on this commission. Commissioner Hartranft noted that Max A. Van Balgooy has so much experience with historic preservation at so many different levels, that there would be a great benefit to the City to have him as a Commissioner. With a write-in vote from Commissioner Moloney (who could not be present at the meeting), and no vote provided from Commissioner Rodgers (whose term has expired), the Commission was unanimous in recommending Max A. Van Balgooy for the vacancy. The Commission also proffered Cornish Hitchcock as the second choice, for his expertise in preservation law. Staff responded that they would relay the Commission’s choices to the City Clerk.
The HDC reviewed a draft of a memo prepared by staff regarding the Commission’s request to the Mayor and Council to provide the option of serving consecutive terms as Chair. The Commissioners agreed on the language of the memo, noting that they had discussed their reasons at the previous meeting, and this was a fair statement of their concerns. Commissioner Hartranft volunteered to address the matter before the Mayor and Council when it comes up, tentatively scheduled for September 8, 2003.
Staff stated that the revised Rules of Procedure had been distributed for HDC comment and that written comments were requested from each Commissioner by September 5, 2003. Staff will then incorporate these comments into a final draft and distribute that for approval at the next meeting.
Planner Kebba summarized that all projects as listed on the agenda are progressing. She noted that there was a plat now submitted for 522 West Montgomery Avenue (Buckingham). The Chestnut Lodge/Rose Hill design guidelines were in process and the Commissioners had copies of the draft in their brief books. She requested comments from the Commissioners so that changes could be incorporated and the revision could be available for discussion at the September meeting. She said that Long-Range Planning Chief, Jim Wasalik, volunteered to update them on the progress of the Lincoln Park Neighborhood Plan, but as he was not in the meeting at the time, the HDC felt that it could wait until next month. She also noted that Mr. Maddox had called to request the use of an 18” stone veneer foundation on his new garage, and the HDC felt that it could be approved at a staff level if it is a reasonable match to the house. XII. ADJOURN The HDC meeting of August 21, 2003 was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
|
|
