Home > Government > Boards and Commissions > Historic District Commission > 2003 > Minutes > November 20

Submitted:  December 18, 2003
Approved:

 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES

Thursday, November 20, 2003
Meeting No. 12-2003

The City of Rockville Historic District Commission convened in regular session in the Mayor and Council Chambers, Rockville City Hall, 111 Maryland Avenue, at 7:10 PM.
 
Internet information:  www.rockvillemd.gov/government/commissions/hdc/2003/hdcagenda.html

 PRESENT
Anita Neal Powell, Chairperson
Craig Moloney
Andrea Hartranft
Max van Balgooy

Absent:  Jeff Broadhurst

Staff present: Anne Brockett and Judy Christensen, Preservation Planners

Commissioner Hartranft was appointed Chair Pro Tem to open the meeting in the absence of Chair Anita Powell.

I.  APPROVAL OF MINUTES

A.  Meeting No. 12-2003, October 16, 2003

MOTION:   Commissioner Moloney moved, seconded by Chairperson Powell, to approve the minutes of October 16, 2003. 

VOTE:         3-0-1  (Commissioner van Balgooy abstaining)

II. APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

 A. HDC03-0267  Applicant: Thomas Simpson
     Address: 110 South Adams Street
     Request: Replace asphalt shingle roof with imitation slate       and install two skylights

Planner Anne Brockett presented a visual exhibit of the house and affected areas including the placement of two skylights on the rear slope of the roof.   She noted that Mr. Simpson had amended the application to eliminate the Duraslate synthetic shingles as he had decided to install asphalt shingles in kind, which does not require HDC approval.  The two low-profile 21½ x 55” skylights on the rear roof slope will be minimally visible.  Staff recommended approval.

Applicant Thomas Simpson, 110 South Adams Street, said that it was a pleasure working with Planner Brockett.  He said that the Duraslate representative came to the house to make a recommendation and give a cost estimate.  The Duraslate must be installed over a perfectly flat substrate to avoid rippling of the material over time.  The present roof underlayment is composed of parallel boards with spaces between them and looks flat because it has three layers of asphalt shingles on it.  The shingle layers will have to be removed and a plywood substrate installed over the entire roof in order to properly install the Duraslate. Because of this increased cost and the recommendation of the HDC to install standing seam metal roofing on the porch and rear addition if Duraslate were used, Mr. Simpson decided that architectural asphalt shingles would be the best choice.    

MOTION:   Commissioner Moloney moved, seconded by Commissioner Hartranft, to approve HDC03-0267 for replacement of existing asphalt shingles with in-kind asphalt shingles as amended, and to install two skylights on the rear roof slope as submitted.  
 
 VOTE:         4-0

B. HDC03-0269  Applicant: Thomas Simpson
    Address: 110 South Adams Street
Request: Replace front porch steps, decking, railing, and walkway; add shutters and a storm door; enlarge and realign basement window; replace frame portion of the south elevation with like materials; and replace the south basement door.

Planner Anne Brockett presented a visual exhibit of the house and affected areas including the basement window and door replacement, the porch and walkway reconstruction elements, and shutters and storm door.  She compared the existing porch conditions with a photo from 1982, which showed a plain stick and rail balustrade and a gate across the stairway as proposed in this application. She noted that the application called for replacement of the current balustrade with one closely resembling the one shown in the photograph, with 2” square balusters placed 2” apart.  The handrails on either side of the steps would have this same configuration.  The application requested approval to replace the open wood steps with closed risers and to install lattice and a new fascia board under the porch and lay a brick paver walkway.  These alterations were recommended as compatible with the character of the property and with the historic photographs of the house. 

The wood-sided area at the southeast corner of the basement was originally a carport that has been enclosed.  Staff recommended approval for the replacement of the termite damaged siding with Hardiplank siding of the same board dimensions.  The current 6-pane window would be reinstalled and a wood 15-light door would replace the existing 4-pane, wood paneled door. 

The application requested to replace a 3-pane basement window with a double-hung 3/1 operable window and to move the window opening slightly to the south to align it with those on the first and second floors.  Staff did not recommend moving the location and raised concerns with enlarging the opening because of the detriment it might cause to the historic rusticated concrete block foundation. 

Staff did not recommend overall shutter installation, as requested, as the windows on the north façade are spaced too close to the corner of the building to allow for both shutter panels to be installed.  Also, the paired windows on the front first story façade would need bifold shutters. There is no evidence of previous shutters on the house.  It was recommended that only the front façade receive shutters, if any.

Owner and applicant Mr. Thomas Simpson said he needed to replace the 3-pane window with a full-size window to allow more light into the basement, which he is remodeling. All of the previous interior partitions were removed after he purchased the property to check if termite damage that affected the siding and door had spread to the interior.  He found that it did not, and now is preparing to rebuild the interior.  He said the relocation of the window would align it with the existing and similar windows on the first and second stories.  He also said that he believed that he could move the window opening and repair the foundation without interrupting or disturbing the concrete block pattern. 

Commissioner Moloney said that the window enlargement and relocation was an enormous project and he feared that it would not turn out as Mr. Simpson hoped.  It would be expensive and require a skilled and experienced craftsperson to retain the block pattern and bevel the blocks around the window appropriately to match. 

Commissioner van Balgooy stated that he was not in favor of the window enlargement and relocation.  The change would disrupt the window pattern and alter the architectural character of the house.  He also did not support the addition of shutters, which would be inappropriate to this house.

Mr. Simpson agreed with staff that shutters were probably not on the house exterior when built but were widely used on houses of this type and were available when it was built.  Commissioner van Balgooy said that, while this was true, it was not a satisfactory way to determine approval of building alterations.  He noted that many material choices existed in this period and others and all of them were not suitable for specific types of use or styles.  He believed the changes to this house should be dependent upon what was the original appearance, not what might have been. 

Commissioner Moloney proposed postponing the discussion of the shutters until documentation can prove that they were in place historically.  It was suggested that the request for shutters be removed from the application.  Planner Christensen stated that if the request for shutters was denied, Mr. Simpson could not submit the same request for a year.  Mr. Simpson agreed to remove the request for shutters from the application.

Commissioner Moloney stated that the plans for the porch and steps would be approvable.  The railing and step design and the use of Tendura were fine.  Pursuant to Mr. Simpson’s request for HDC advice, Commissioner Moloney stated that an aluminum storm door would not be appropriate to the house, that the new storm door should be wood.
Commissioner Hartranft raised the question of how the proposed basement window would be installed.  Mr. Simpson state that he would hire an experienced contractor and would follow staff’s advice to frame it like the existing basement windows, and not add trim like the upper windows.  Commissioners Moloney and van Balgooy both expressed concern over the window, stating that it was not appropriate in the foundation and would look like a later addition to the house.

As an alternative, Commissioner Moloney suggested replace the small window in the former carport area with the larger window when this area received the new Hardiplank siding.   Commissioner Powell indicated that she would support such an alteration.  Mr. Simpson reiterated that he believed he could have the window moved without damage to the design and needed the light in the location he proposed.  The 15-pane door would let in adequate light in the carport area, but he needed additional light at the west end of the basement.

Commissioner Moloney expressed support for the new door and the use of Hardiplank in the former carport area, but stressed the use of a smooth finish rather than wood grain siding.  Chairman Powell concurred with most of the findings but said the shutters should be granted. 

There was some discussion among HDC and staff members regarding the form of the motion because there were multiple requests on the same application and one had been removed.

MOTION:   Commissioner van Balgooy moved, seconded by Commissioner Moloney, to approve HDC2003-0269 as amended by the applicant to withdraw the installation of shutters, and to deny approval for the basement window enlargement and relocation.  
 
 VOTE:         3-0-1 (Opposed: Chairperson Powell)

Mr. Simpson asked if it was possible to submit an alternate plan for the basement window as he had a contractor hired to do the work soon and did not want to postpone it until spring.  Staff said it could be offered as an amendment to the approved plan, but still must be heard and approved by the HDC.  Mr. Simpson asked if he decided to install the larger window in the former carport area, as recommended by the HDC, could that be approved without a hearing?  Staff said that HDC staff could approve it if it met the directions and conditions specified by the HDC.

The HDC directed staff to approve an amendment to approved application HDC03-00269 to install the 3/1 window in the former carport area roughly where a smaller window is now installed if the casing around the new window is similar to that on the upper stories and the head height of the window matches the head height of the door.  

III. W. LAWSON KING FARMSTEAD RECOMMENDATION TO DEMOLISH TENANT HOUSE #8 AND RETAIN TENANT HOUSE #7, 16100 Frederick Road
 
Rob Orndorff of the Department of Recreation and Parks presented photographs of the two Tenant Houses (Building #7 and #8) under review.  He stated that the King Farm Task Force had recommended use of one of these structures as a Rockville Police Substation and building #8 had been selected as the more interesting and usable of the structures to rehabilitate.  The HDC had reviewed the demolition request at a previous meeting and approved removal of the inappropriate additions to #8 and the demolition of building #7.  There had been some confusion in identifying the structures and after analysis of the building condition and appropriateness for reuse, it now appeared that building #7 with three rooms and a good structural condition was a better candidate for rehabilitation and reuse than #8. 

Building #8 had originally been a one-story agricultural building and was converted into a two-story tenant house.  The ceiling height in the main building was extremely low and a leaking roof had caused interior water damage, although the roof has since been stabilized.  The King Farm Task Force had been contacted about the change and was supportive of the request to demolish #8 and retain #7.

Suzanne Fisher, President of Peerless Rockville and a member of the King Farm Task Force, said the preservation of building #7 was good news but it would be even better if building #8 could also be preserved until a use was found or it was proven to be impractical to retain.  She pointed out that a September storm and fire had damaged the calf barn to the point that it had to be removed.  This event drastically altered the site, opening it up and making the remaining buildings of the complex more valuable to its interpretation.  A shed like #8 would have been typical on a farm and the spacing and clustering of the buildings was important to retain in understanding King Farm.  She recommended retention of both buildings, even if they were only stabilized and painted and boarded up.  She did not believe identifying a future use or interior restoration was necessary for interpretation of a working farmstead.

Commissioner Moloney said that he was also a member of the King Farm Task Force and also favored retention of both structures.  He agreed with Ms. Fisher that the destruction of the calf barn had a profound effect on the property and that identifying a use is not important.  He noted that the City had limited funds for this project and the Task Force had endeavored to evaluate the farm buildings by condition and reuse possibilities when recommending demolition for some.  The calf barn was considered to contribute greatly to the farmyard enclosure and the agricultural character and part of it was to be retained and some lesser buildings removed.  Now that the calf barn is gone, the situation has changed.

Commissioner van Balgooy asked what the City’s preservation philosophy in regards to this site and if it was driven by reuse, economic factors, a period of significance and interpretation, or aesthetics. Commissioner Moloney replied that all of those factors had been taken into account and the Task Force had some difficulty balancing these considerations in their recommendation.  Commissioner van Balgooy stated that the City should formulate a preservation plan for King Farm and asked that the topic should be added to the Mayor and Council worksession agenda for January 20, 2004.   

After much discussion of the condition and appropriateness of various additions to the buildings, it was recommended that both buildings #7 and #8 be retained.  With an effort at stabilizing the building #8 and reducing the difficulty of maintaining a multi-roof structure, the HDC recommended that the City retain the main agricultural building core and the addition to the east (“front porch”).  They recommended removal of the utility shed and equipment, the one-story concrete block addition, and the screened porch since these additions are not primary to the integrity of the farm building.

IV.  DISCUSSION/UPDATES

A.   Update on designations in progress:

1. 522 West Montgomery Avenue (Buckingham/Thirty Oaks), Map Amendment Approval, 11/24/03

Staff reported that the meeting agenda for 11/24 was moved to the meeting of 11/17 and this Map Amendment had been adopted at that meeting.
 
2. 620 N. Horners Lane, Authorization to file, 11/24/03

Staff reported that this item was also on the 11/17 agenda but was removed from the consent agenda and not addressed by the Mayor and Council, which halted the designation process.  Staff signed off on the demolition application for the building at 620 N. Horners Lane. In response to questions from the HDC regarding documentation of the building, staff said that some information had been received from the owner’s consultant Kathryn Kuranda.  Soo Lee-Cho, the attorney representing Mt. Calvary Baptist Church (the owner), was in attendance and said copies of the photographic documentation would be submitted to the HDC staff.
 
3. 419 Reading Avenue, Planning Commission recommendation for adoption, 11/5/03

Planner Anne Brockett advised that the date is a typographical error and the correct date for this meeting is 12/10/03.

4. Nomination received for Chloethiel Woodard Smith Recreation Building at Chestnut Lodge, 500 West Montgomery Avenue, 10/24/03

Planner Christensen said that Planner Brockett of the Historic Preservation office had been assigned to research the site and present the material to the HDC at the public evaluation for significance at the meeting of 12/18/03.  The record will be left open until January 1, 2004 for further comment and a staff report and recommendation will be prepared.  Planner Cindy Kebba is attending the West End Civic Association Board meeting this evening where the developer is presenting plans for residential development of the Chestnut Lodge site.  She will distribute the draft Chestnut Lodge Design Guidelines and answer questions, if any, on the process at that meeting.
 
B.   Mayor and Council Work Session scheduled for 1/20/04

A worksession with HDC, staff, and the Mayor and Council is scheduled for 1/20/04 immediately following the M&C Public Hearing.  Proposed agenda items include revised Technical Briefs, Chestnut Lodge and Rockville Cemetery Design Guidelines, qualifying criteria for appointment to the HDC, HDC policy on demolition requests, historic property markers, and newly adopted Rules of Procedure.

C. Planning Activities and Projects

1. Rockville Cemetery design guidelines progress update

Anne Brockett – in progress, nearing completion.

2. East Rockville Master Plan Preservation Chapter progress update

In progress, the research plan was submitted to the HDC at this meeting.

3. Lincoln Park History (in progress with Lincoln Park Partners Project)

Planner Christensen said that the Lincoln Park Civic Association had voted at their meeting on 11/8/03 to request Mayor and Council consideration for Lincoln Park as a local historic district.  This action was taken in light of the current heightened activity in purchasing vacant lots in Lincoln Park for new residential construction, which probably will be followed by purchase of lots with small houses for demolition and new construction as the Stonestreet Avenue Corridor is developed under the East Rockville Neighborhood Plan.  Chairperson Powell stated that such a project will require intense public education and outreach to the community at large.  She also said that the HDC should be involved.  Staff was in agreement and welcomed the HDC’s help.

The merits of implementing a neighborhood conservation district in addition to or instead of local historic designation were discussed.  Planner Christensen also raised the idea of using a ranking system of sites as landmark, contributing, and non-contributing with different levels of review and treatment, which would be established in design guidelines.  One advantage of the ranking system used in Montgomery County was that it would not require creation of a new zoning category (as a conservation district would) and the County guidelines could be utilized as a model. 

Commissioner van Balgooy said that, in his experience, using historic districts as a tool to prevent mansionization has not been successful.  He recommended that the Neighborhood Conservation District idea be explored again before making a decision on method.  Staff said that the nomination had not been filed as yet and no action or public efforts would be undertaken until after the new year. 

4.  Plaques in progress:  Dawson Farm, Haiti Cemetery, and Hurley-Carter Farmhouse Historic Sites.

Chairman Powell asked if a timetable was established for these items.  Staff acknowledged that these items had fallen behind in priority and said the current deadline was January 2004.  The Mayor and Council are sponsoring interpretive plaques for Martin’s Lane and the Haiti Community.  HDC staff will work on the plaques but the Council will fund them.

5.  Other items

Chairperson Powell requested a report on the joint training session among the Maryland Historical Trust, Rockville, Gaithersburg and Montgomery County held on 11/13/03.  Ms. Christensen said that Planner Kebba had done a great job of organizing it and the session was well attended by staff and commissioners from all jurisdictions.  Commissioners Broadhurst, Moloney, and van Balgooy, and the Historic Preservation staff attended. The session generally covered defensible decisions.  Specific questions were asked about conflicts of interest situations, emergency approvals for fire and severe weather damage, and dealing with the County school board, among others.  Staff gave a short summary and said that a memo on the subject would be submitted as an addendum to the Rules of Procedure.

Chairperson Powell asked staff if a reply had been sent to Rev. Wood of Jerusalem-Mt. Pleasant United Methodist Church in response to her request for information on the withdrawal of the parsonage demolition application.  Chairperson Powell noted that she had been informed that the church had not received a response as of last week.

Ms. Christensen said a response had been sent at the end of last week, but did not definitively determine the date of withdrawal as the actual permit files have been sent away to be digitally scanned and have not been returned.  Staff went through the HDC meeting minutes to produce a documented chronology, which was sent to the church.  She said that the request for withdrawal of the application may have been in an email or verbal and the exact date would no longer be obtainable.  However, if it was written, it should be in the permit file, when it is returned from scanning.  In response to a question regarding the effect of the State-required 45-day approval or denial rule, Ms. Christensen said that an open-ended time extension from the Church was recorded in the minutes.  If the application is deemed to be open, the Church can request an HDC decision.  A new application can also be submitted.  

V.   COMMITTEE / ORGANIZATION REPORTS

From the Commission: No reports.

Lincoln Park Historical Foundation:  Chairperson Powell reported that she had been appointed to the Preservation Maryland Steering Committee for the Statewide Preservation Conference to be held April 30 through May 1, 2004.  Commissioner Moloney was invited to present at the conference, which he agreed to do.  Ms. Powell said she was appointed on November 12, 2003 to the Preservation Maryland Board of Directors for a three-year term. She announced that the Lincoln Park Historical Foundation would produce the second annual African American Preservation Conference on May 28-31, 2004.

Peerless Rockville:   President Suzanne Fisher reported that the Pre-WWI session of “Bringing it Home to Rockville” was held on November 18th at the Pump House.  It was co-sponsored by the East Rockville Civic Association and featured a talk on Pre-WWI architecture by Planner Robin Ziek.  After the talk, participants could visit various interest stations on history, landscape design, architecture, and photography.  Commissioner Moloney answered questions on architecture and Planner Christensen copied historic photographs.

The third session, Post-WWII housing in Rockville will be held January 29, 2004 at the Elwood Smith Center.  On the evening of December 9, 2003, Peerless will hold a holiday open house and book signing at the Red Brick Courthouse. January 1, 2004 will mark the 29th annual New Years Brunch at Glenview Mansion.  In conjunction with the Rockville Parks and Recreation Department, Peerless will present a workshop on “Researching Your Historic Home” on January 15, 2004.  Pre-registration through the Recreation Department is required.