|
Home > Government > Boards and Commissions > Historic District Commission > 2004 > Minutes > May 20 Boards and Commissions |
Submitted: June 17, 2004
Thursday May 20, 2004 The City of Rockville Historic District Commission convened in regular session in the PRESENT Jeff Broadhurst, Acting Chair Absent: Anita Neal Powell, Chairperson, Andrea Hartranft Staff present: Judy Christensen, Cindy Kebba and Robin Ziek, Preservation Planners. Also present: Bill Chen, attorney representing the Historic District Commission, and Chief of Planning, Robert Spalding. I. MINUTES
The Commission offered no comments or corrections.
II. APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
Planner Cindy Kebba presented a visual overview of the property and the location of the oak tree on the property. She stated that the City Forester’s office had examined two trees on the property and recommended removal of an ash tree, which staff approved. The City Forester reexamined the oak tree after it leafed out in May and found minimal dieback but the presence of bacterial leaf scorch. The tree might survive for several years but is not in prime health. Staff recommended removal as the tree is minimally visible from the public way, is diseased, and the lot has many mature trees. Owner Peter Neame said the staff report clearly explained the situation and he had nothing further to add, but was present to answer questions. The Commission had no further questions.
III. COURTESY REVIEWS A. 17 Wood Lane - Preliminary review of three concept plan options for New Life Center at Jerusalem Mt. Pleasant United Methodist Church, Rev. Jane Wood Planner Cindy Kebba stated that the application for demolition, HDC2003-00084, is on hold and Rev. Wood has signed a time extension that will extend the decision period to the end of June. The courtesy review subject is three building options for the site that will be presented for comments and suggestions, but no decisions are to be made. Rev. Jane Wood, Architect Alton Green and Attorney Soo Lee Cho represented the church. Ms. Lee Cho gave a procedural and progress update since the March 18, 2004 meeting. She stated that the plan submitted in March had been taken to the Development Review Committee (DRC) for a code and requirements review, and a zoning issues memorandum was generated with changes and suggestions that have been incorporated into the plans tonight. On May 5, church representatives met with staff to go over the three options to be presented tonight. In addition, the three plans were submitted to the DRC on May 6 for further review and the concerns expressed there were incorporated into revised designs. Therefore, some changes have been made to the plans received in the brief book packages. Ms. Lee Cho noted that the insurance company requires that either the building is renovated or it is demolished and a replacement building constructed by the end of this year in order to receive the money held back from the claim. The church realizes that the property must be rezoned before any building can commence, a process of several months, so none of the present options can be completed by the end of 2004. The church has given up the hope of receiving further payout from the insurance company. The three plans have a uniform scale and setback distances and rear, side, and front elevations. Interior plans are the same for options two and three. Option one differs due to the retention of the front portion the older building, which will have a higher floor level than the addition so it cannot be combined into one large space. The church needs approximately 1,700 square feet of usable program space, but the option that utilizes the existing parsonage has less usable program space, as there is a two-foot grade difference between the old and the new buildings. The church prefers option three, the entire removal of the existing building and replacement with a new building, as offering the most usable space for the least cost. Option three does not preserve any part of the parsonage and thus does not require structural shoring. The new building would be joined to the church by a glassed-in connector. The church has a contractor who can perform a total demolition and haul away the debris for a reduced price for additional savings. The new 1,742 square foot building with six regular and one handicapped parking spaces, and an elevator in the church would cost $340,540. In response to Commissioner Broadhurst as to changes to this plan, Mr. Green said the driveway curve was reduced and the four-foot sidewalk was increased to five feet. Option two incorporates the existing porch and façade into the new building but will incur costs to shore up the façade and porch during construction. Option one incorporates 40-45% of the existing building into the new construction in an effort to save some of original features such as siding and the porch columns. The windows may need to be replaced with similar windows. The old building will undergo a 100% exterior restoration. The addition at the rear of the parsonage will be low key in style so as not to overpower the simple style of the existing buildings. The 2-story roofline will visually follow the line of the existing building as a parapet to hide the mechanical systems on the roof. Ms. Lee Cho stated that Mr. Green designed the interiors for maximum space flexibility and a seating capacity of 160. Options two and three meet the church’s space requirement at 1,742 square feet of space. She said that option one does not present the needed space as the parsonage area is not flexible and may be unusable. It cannot be used for seating. The previously presented plans showed it with more square footage, but it had to be reduced to accommodate the front part of the parsonage and correct the driveway curvature. She stated that revised option one contains 1,422 square feet at a cost of $407, 221. One of the key issues, according to Ms. Lee Cho, is the financial hardship factor. Option one is more costly and does not meet the goal of providing assembly space for 160 people. Rev. Jane Wood stated that the church has consulted M&T Bank and sought a mortgage amount of $250,000, which would require payments of approximately $2,000 a month. She said that the church cannot commit to a higher monthly payment. No application has been submitted yet. As for tax credits, staff has informed the church that tax credits are not assured. If the church projects qualify, it would be reimbursed $15,000 of the cost for the elevator in the church and approximately $14,000 for the parsonage rehabilitation. These would be submitted to the MHT as two separate projects. The church also submitted a cash flow report of income and expenditures for the first quarter of 2004 (January 1-April 30) and the financial report to the Baltimore Conference for 2003 that includes assets and debts as well as total income and expenditures. It shows savings of about $180,000 in the fund for building, which includes the insurance payout already received. The church needs to reserve some funds and can put $88,000 into the building project immediately. Option one has a $40,000 gap between current anticipated funds and costs with the tax credits and a $54,000 gap without tax credits. Option two has a $30,000 gap, which Soo Lee-Cho said is not completely impossible to overcome. Model three predicts $12,000 will be left after construction expenses. Ms. Lee Cho said that model three can be done now with the funds pledged and received. In response to questions from Commissioners van Balgooy and Moloney, Planner Kebba said that the Peerless Rockville grant offer is still outstanding. It is doubtful that the Preservation MD grant offer is still viable. She said the tax credit questions can be resolved when an option is selected and submitted to the Maryland Historical Trust. Commissioner Broadhurst noted that option one which preserved part of the building was only $10,000 more than option two, which was doable. He asked why option one was not doable. Ms. Lee Cho replied that option one does not meet the space needs of the church and would not be as useful for large groups. Commissioner Broadhurst asked how the space needs were calculated and if the rest rooms could be relocated under the sanctuary or in the corridor space that connects the two buildings to provide more open space. Mr. Green responded that the space need was predicated on a combination of the area needed to seat 160 people and provide toilets and utilities. Commissioner Moloney pointed out that the square footage requirement for assembly is 15 square feet per occupant for non-pew seating. By that formula, the church will not achieve its seating goal of 160 persons in any of the options, as 1,742 square feet would accommodate about 116 people. Mr. Green said the seating was based on actual seating and not square footage. Chief of Planning, Bob Spalding, explained the change in the O-2 zone restrictions that prevent assemblage of lots for development and described the actions that would need to occur to allow assemblage of lots at this property. He stated that the zoning issue is a problem that likely can be fixed in this case. He also explained that adding parking to a non-conforming use is allowed by policy if it improves the parking situation even when it does not meet code. Architect Alston Green noted that he had corrected the actual property line on all three plans based on the detailed survey that he had received from staff. He went through the various options with revised financial costs and noted that the option one addition had been reduced to 1,422 square feet whereas the other two option additions each have 1,742 square feet. Option one is a combination of the existing parsonage, a rear addition, and 6 parking spaces with driveway access. All projects include an elevator in the original church structure. The estimated cost of Model one is $381,061. The total square footage is 1,742, including the parsonage space of 320 square feet, which he noted might not be usable space. Option two preserves only the parsonage façade and incorporates it into the new building with the same parking and elevator. The usable square feet in this model is 1,742. The estimated cost of model two is $382,640. Option three is total demolition of the former parsonage and construction of a new 1,742 square foot building. The estimated cost is $340,540. Commissioner Broadhurst commended the church for going through the exercise of exploring several options. He said that option one seems reasonable even though it takes down some of the parsonage building because the new building behind it is subordinate to it. He would like there to be a real use for the parsonage space that is retained and said that the cost gap between this option and the other two may be reduced if the square footage of the parsonage space was really put to use. Commissioner Broadhurst would also like the architect to explore moving the bathrooms to another location as had been discussed. In addition, he wanted to be sure that the amount of space proposed will be adequate to meet the church’s capacity goal of 160 people. He was not in favor of a two-story open atrium in the parsonage. He encouraged the church to make use of other funding sources that are available. Commissioner Moloney stated that he appreciated the efforts of the church in looking at additional options. He was against the idea of demolishing the second story of the parsonage and the roof and suggested retaining both floors to achieve more square footage. He also suggested reevaluating the restroom location. As an additional benefit, windows on the east side of the parsonage could be retained if the bathrooms were moved elsewhere. He asked for full elevation studies in the next submittal and that the elevations include the adjacent church to provide scale and perspective. Commissioner van Balgooy said that the new plans helped him enormously to understand this project and its purpose and number of people it was expected to serve. He, too, stated that he wanted all of the space to be used programmatically. He said he would not be in favor of keeping only the façade of the building because there would not be enough authenticity left. He said that the design and all materials should be compatible. He said that better financial information is still needed to provide proof that something will be built on the site. In summary, all three commissioners present preferred option one of the three options presented, but with the design alterations discussed incorporated. B. 307 Great Falls Road – Addition to National Register property at 307 Great Falls Road, Robert & Judith Spalding Planner Robin Ziek noted that this property is not locally designated but is on the National Register of Historic Places. The owner is not required to receive HDC approval for the proposed work, but wants to receive input and advice from the Commission and plans to file for state tax credits for work done to the 1821 structure and 19th Century additions. The placement of an addition is constricted due to a champion black walnut tree, a historic smoke house and outhouse, and an in-ground swimming pool in the rear yard. Therefore, the proposed addition is sited on the southwest side façade, but to the rear of the original brick structure. Mr. Spalding has submitted existing and proposed internal and external plans and a roof plan along with photos showing the proposed location staked out and the affected views. Robert and Judith Spalding presented concept plans for the addition in anticipation of hiring an architect. Mr. Spalding said that the project goals include a larger more usable kitchen, as the existing is a galley kitchen. The internal plan also includes converting an existing room to a dining room that can be utilized as a handicapped-accessible bedroom with access to a new first story bathroom if needed, adding a family room/potential dining room addition, and an additional second story bedroom. The present steep, narrow, staircase is not safe for older extended family members accessing the bathroom and bedrooms on the second story. The proposed plan allows use of the house for elderly relatives and visitors. The side addition plan eliminates the need for a rear variance and improves the traffic flow of the house. In addition, it offers an opportunity to correct problems in the roof and appearance of the later additions. Mr. Spalding noted adjacent neighbors had been notified about the proposed expansion plans and had received one letter of support, and none in opposition, so far. The commissioners offered several suggestions on details and code requirements, but found the proposal met the owners’ needs and found that landscaping could minimize the expanded side addition. The owners must have plans approved by the Maryland Historical Trust before commencing construction to qualify for a tax credit. IV. DISCUSSION / UPDATES A. Planning Activities and Projects:
V. COMMITTEE / ORGANIZATION REPORTS A. Comments – Historic District Commissioners Commissioner Broadhurst noted that the SHA would be making improvements to Rt. 28/Viers Mill Road and hosted an open house. Most of the SHA options called for demolishing houses in the vicinity. Commissioner Broadhurst said that he would provide a copy of the SHA report at the next meeting.
President Suzanne Fisher submitted flyers for the reenactment of General Jubal Early’s march on Washington D.C. scheduled for June 12 and 13. She noted that opportunities to participate remain and baseball players and reenactors would be welcome. Also, Peerless will participate in Hometown Holidays with tours of the courthouse, Civil War Rockville, and Wire Hardware on May 29 and 30. On June 27, Peerless will host visitors to Montgomery County Heritage Days at the Red Brick Courthouse and offer similar tours. Peerless presented seven awards on May 10 at the Mayor and Council meeting. Peerless will submit windshield survey forms for approximately 85 Rockville buildings on June 1 as part of “Rockville’s Recent Past”, which covers the period 1914 to 1984 and is funded by the Montgomery County Historic Preservation Commission. V. ADJOURN The HDC adjourned at 9:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Judy Christensen |
|
