|
Home > Government > Boards and Commissions > Historic District Commission > 2004 > Minutes > June 17 Boards and Commissions |
Submitted: July 15, 2004 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Thursday June 17, 2004 The City of Rockville Historic District Commission convened in regular session in the PRESENT Absent: Jeff Broadhurst Staff present: Judy Christensen, Cindy Kebba and Shelby Spillers, Preservation Planners. Also present: Jim Wasilak, Chief of Long-Range Planning I. MINUTES
II. APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
Planner Cindy Kebba presented the staff report and said that the shed would be located in the rear yard. The applicant chose the specific location because it is level and to avoid trees. The applicant also wanted to leave space available to build a garage in the future. The proposed shed is 48 square feet, 6 feet in width and 8 feet in length. It will have t-111 vertical siding and the hipped roof will have asphalt roof. Four-foot double-wide doors will face the front of the property (West Montgomery Avenue). There will be windows on the east and north sides, but none on the west side. Windows will be vertical sliders and will not have shutters. The shed will be partially obscured from West Montgomery Avenue by existing trees and landscaping. Planner Kebba noted that the shed could be completely hidden from the West Montgomery Avenue view if it were located immediately east of the parking area, adjacent to the alley, where the ground also appears to be fairly level and there are no trees. She said that this may interfere with the applicant’s anticipated future garage location, however, and required further discussion with the applicant about his plans. The storm windows will be installed on six wooden second-story windows that are most visible from West Montgomery Avenue (4 facing south, 1 facing west, and 1 facing east) and are similar to wooden storm windows that already exist on the first floor windows. The proposed custom-manufactured top-hung wood storm windows comply with the requirements of the HDC Technical Guides for Exterior Alterations – Storm Windows and Doors. The storm windows open, awning style, with locking elbows from the bottom for ventilation. Each unit is approximately 3’ x 5’ and has a cross rail that separates the upper and lower glazing panels. They are installed with hanger brackets attached to the top of the outside window. They will be painted to match the trim on the house. Wood framed screens can be purchased from the manufacturer that are held in place with turn clips or that hang in the same manner as the storm windows. The manufacturer is Air-Tite. The applicant, Mr. Sellman, said that he wanted the shed to store a riding lawn mower and preferred that the doors not face the parking area as cars would need to be moved every time he wanted to get the mower out. He wanted to put the shed in a location that would not have any other potential future use. He said that he would not have to take down any trees in the location identified on his site plan. Commissioner van Balgooy asked why the shed was drawn at an angle on the site plan. Mr. Sellman responded that is planned to be only a very slight angle. Commissioner van Balgooy said that he would prefer that the shed be sited so that it is parallel with the house. There was some discussion as to which way the shed doors should face, but it was determined that they would function best if they faced the front of the property as shown in the application. The door style preferred by the commissioners was identified as the “Dutch trim door” as shown in the brochure provided by the applicant. Mr. Sellman said that he planned to paint the shed a neutral brown and perhaps paint the trim a contrasting color. The roof would be brown because the roof on the house is a mottled mix of browns and grays. Commissioner Moloney said that the trim should be painted to match the siding to draw less attention to the shed. Commissioner van Balgooy asked the applicant how he chose the particular storm windows and how they operate. Mr. Sellman explained how they open and how the screens are installed. The commissioners agreed that the wooden proposed storm windows are a good choice.
Planner Kebba stated that the applicant (represented at the meeting by Mike Beckish) requests a Certificate of Approval to build a wraparound porch on the northwest corner of the building, designed to replicate a previously removed porch, and a two-story rear addition. The rear addition will be approximately 13 feet deep on the south side and 7 feet deep on the north side and will run the width of the building. The applicant also intends to remove the existing vestibule and vinyl siding and paint the original wood siding that is extant beneath, install a new front door (specifics to be presented at the meeting), and replace a formerly existing transom over the door. The new front and rear porches will feature new standing seam copper roofs, new wood floors, and new wood columns and brackets to match existing. New cedar shakes will be installed on the two-story front bay to match the existing cedar shake roof. Gutters and downspouts will be replaced with half round aluminum gutters and round downspouts. The middle chimney is to be removed as the applicant considers it to be a safety hazard. Original windows will be re-used where possible. Any new windows will replicate the originals as closely as possible. New wood shutters will replace existing metal shutters. Shutters will be installed only where they would have originally existed, will be properly sized to fit the windows, and will be installed with operable hardware. Planner Kebba noted that the HDC reviewed this request at a courtesy review on August 21, 2003 and the applicant has addressed the comments and recommendations from the HDC in the Certificate of Approval application. The applicant received a variance for the front and south side setbacks, which will allow continued encroachment into the front and side setbacks. Overall the design, scale, proportion, texture and materials proposed are compatible with the original structure and preserve the historic character and features of the building. Ms. Kebba stated that the revised drawings represent a significant improvement from those presented at the Courtesy Review, particularly with regard to the massing and roofline of the addition. Ms. Kebba went over the changes that have been made to the plans since the August 2003 Courtesy Review which include the following: 1. Rear Elevation:
2. Side Elevations:
3. Front Entry Elevation
Ms. Kebba said that staff agrees with the majority of the above described changes but some clarification and corrections to the drawings are still needed: Shutters should all be shown with center rail and all proportionately sized to window openings; center chimney should be deleted from drawings if it is to be removed and a more complete explanation of reason for removal (vs. restoration) provided; chamfered columns should not block any window openings; transom over front door should be shown if it is planned to be restored; discussion is needed regarding the front and rear door styles and material for roof over bay; and more detail is required for front and rear porch lighting. Mike Beckish represented the property owner, John Bell. He said that he also believes that there originally was a transom over the front door because there was one on their building next door at 10 South Adams Street. If there is evidence that a transom once existed, he said that they will restore it. Regarding the front door choice, Mr. Beckish said that the tenants in want it to have glass to let light into the building. Currently it is very dark in the entrance hallway. Mr. Beckish presented the door selections that he is considering and also some photographs of buildings in the area that are similar vintage and style and that have combination glass and wood doors. He said that he plans to keep the existing rear door or replace in kind, if necessary. Commissioner Moloney said that glass in the front door would be appropriate, and he would prefer a simple cross-style?. He also wants to see the transom restored. Mr. Beckish said that none of the fireplace openings are used anymore and they would prefer to take down the middle chimney because it is a safety hazard and it would be more expensive to restore it, especially when it serves no function, than to take it down. Commissioner van Balgooy said that he was opposed to removing the chimney as it is a defining characteristic of the house. Mr. Beckish replied that the characteristic of the chimney will be altered with the new roof pitch and less of it will show when the addition is put on. Mr. Beckish said that the columns will not block any windows when viewed head on. Mr. Beckish said that the shutters would have a horizontal center rail and would cover the window openings as requested, but he asked for a ruling from the HDC on which windows would be required to have shutters because they are expensive. Commissioner Moloney said that shutters are shown on all of the windows in the plans. Mr. Beckish said that the textured block foundation would mimic stone, as at 10 South Adams Street, and he would like HDC approval before it is put in. The foundation on the original structure is brick. Commissioner Moloney asked why they did not plan to continue with brick on the addition. Mr. Beckish replied that the architect picked the stone look because it is hard to match brick exactly, but they would be willing to go with a brick veneer if the HDC preferred. Commissioner Moloney responded that he thought brick would be better even if it did not match exactly. The front bay roof material was a concern at the courtesy review because the HDC thought that the proposed cedar shakes might not shed water adequately due to the sallow slope of this roof. Mr. Beckish said that they were convinced that the cedar shakes would work well and would not rot prematurely. He said that there is a tin roof over the bay currently. Commissioner Moloney said that a standing seam metal roof would be best for the rear porch. Commissioner van Balgooy asked about the roof line as rendered on Exhibits 8 and 10 because the line is not parallel with the roof line in front and the shingles are not drawn as coming down all the way. It appears to be a drawing error, but it is misleading. In addition, the drawings for the rear elevation need to re re-worked to accurately show the alignment of the columns, door and steps. The HDC requested a final submittal of plans from the applicant at the July 15 meeting that will show all of the discussed revisions, including the rear porch and roofline revisions, the final door selection, the appearance of the chimney with the new roofline, and to also provide evidence that shutters were not on all of the windows historically. III. RECOMMENDATION TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL: LINCOLN PARK SIGNIFICANCE AND PROPOSED BOUNDARIES Judy Christensen presented a staff summary of the issues and the process. She said there are four items in this section to consider in making an HDC recommending of significance and eligibility for historic district to the Mayor and Council. First is the 1991 Maryland Historical Trust Determination of Eligibility Form with National Register eligibility recommended under criteria A, “are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history,” and criteria C, “embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.” The second item is the original 1979 Maryland Historical Trust Inventory Form prepared by Sharyn Duffin and Eileen McGuckian that was the basis for the MHT National Register determination. The third item is a map showing the proposed area to recommend to the Mayor and Council for purposes of Map Amendment discussion and consideration. Finally a copy of the March, 2004 Advisory Group Working Draft of the Lincoln Park Neighborhood Plan is provided for your information. Staff is proceeding with the structural survey and has been working with Sharyn Duffin and collecting oral histories to greatly expand the 1979 MHT Form. An updated form is in progress but not ready for comment. The map shown includes all of Lincoln Park and the Lincoln High School property. This is because the land area and boundaries reviewed in the Map Amendment process can be reduced, but not enlarged without starting over. Therefore, the starting point is to recommend all of Lincoln Park as well as the existing Lincoln High School Historic District as a potential historic district. The March 2004 Working Draft has not received final approval from the Lincoln Park Neighborhood Plan Advisory Group. It needs to be introduced to the community for comment before it goes through the public review and adoption process with the Planning Commission and the Mayor and Council. It will undoubtedly undergo changes before it is adopted. The Historic Preservation Chapter recommends, on page 33 and 34, preservation through “National Register listing and a tiered system of a designated historic district that incorporates the best features of a neighborhood conservation district.” The actual boundaries of any local or national districts are as yet undetermined and will be considered and recommended through a series of meetings with staff, the community, and the Historic District Commission. It is anticipated that if all of Lincoln Park is designated as a local historic district, all the existing structures will be evaluated and categorized as landmarks, contributing, or non-contributing resources. Design guidelines for each category will be part of the preservation package and range from standard Secretary of the Interior/ Rockville Guidelines as used in other historic districts to guidelines with far less oversight for non-contributing buildings. The design document will address preservation of overall community character through features such as size of buildings, setbacks, placement on lots, lot coverage and other issues as would be appropriate through a conservation district. This historic district application is unusual in Rockville in its basis on cultural and social history illustrated through existing buildings and community layout. Most other Rockville historic districts have been delineated by the concentration of similar architectural styles and types of structures, which exemplify the historical significance of a community. The existing historic structures in Lincoln Park are significant for their illustration of the historic development of this community during segregation rather than as a concentration of historic buildings during an architectural period. Due to this unique aspect, staff expects the community to be heavily involved in determining how contributing features of the community, its essential character, so to speak, can be preserved and how. The Map Amendment for preservation will be part of the Neighborhood Plan process and move concurrently with it in intent, but is separate and will be adopted separately. The Neighborhood Plan recommends protection for the character of the community. The Map Amendment process will identify the type and level of protection and produce written guidelines. Commissioner Hartranft asked about “non-contributing” resources in a local district. Staff noted that, in the tiered system, they would be treated with leniency, according to their own character. The Chevy Chase Historic District (in Montgomery County) is a good example, with guidelines that talk about height and massing limitations. Commissioner van Balgooy asked about the schedule. Ms. Christensen said that July 12th is the presentation to Mayor and Council for “authorization to file a Map Amendment.” This starts the process. The first community meeting following this authorization is scheduled for July 20th. The process includes public hearings before the Planning Commission and the Mayor and Council in the Fall. The HDC will be part of this process, in terms of working with staff and the community to develop a specific preservation plan for Lincoln Park, including specific design guidelines, and in participating in educational programs and meetings. At prior meetings, an average of 20 people have attended (with an overall population of 900 in Lincoln Park). Commissioner Powell expressed concern about the impact of historic designation on low income or retired individuals. She said the project needed much more public education. Commissioner van Balgooy asked how the boundaries were determined. Staff stated the boundaries include all subdivisions that are considered “Lincoln Park” as well as the Dodd or Griffith property along North Horners Lane that is occupied by Lincoln Terrace, the cemetery, and Westmore. Lincoln High School is already a historic site, so is included. The property owned by the school board on Stonestreet Avenue and used for warehouses is also part of the area to be studied as it has a great potential for adverse impact and is part of Lincoln Park. Howard Avenue is not part of Lincoln Park and is not included. She noted that the Mayor and Council or the citizens can reduced the size of the district before it is adopted, but it cannot be increased without starting over. Therefore, all potential historic areas are included.. Commissioner Maloney asked how owners will know if their property is “contributing” or “non-contributing.” Staff said that is part of the current survey research, and will be part of the on-going discussions and final plan developed with the community in the summer and fall. Staff noted that a Neighborhood Conservation District would be a new category of zoning for Rockville that could be applied in any neighborhood in the City. The addition of a new zoning category will take about two years or more. Although such zoning may be contemplated for the future, it would not be in time to protect Lincoln Park, given the current threats of redevelopment and tear downs. Public Testimony: Wilma Bell (305 Frederick Avenue): Ms. Bell stated that the Civic Association has gotten involved in this to initiate a conversation. This is a time for neighbors to get together and talk about a vision for Lincoln Park- What do we want to preserve? She hopes everyone participates and gives their ideas. She has lived in Lincoln Park her whole life, and this is an emotional issue for everyone. The beauty of Lincoln Park is that it is eclectic. Let’s cast a wide net and see what we come up with. Fran Hawkins (335 Lincoln Avenue): She is a lifelong resident of Lincoln Park. They have already lost several historic homes, and a historic store. She wants to preserve the community. Beth Rodgers (117 Evans Street): Questioned why designation moving ahead without guidelines in place. She asked if Montgomery Preservation had been contacted for help with the tear downs and redevelopment. . Ms. Christensen responded that this is the start of the map amendment process, and the guidelines will be developed when the type of preservation methods are selected and the areas identified. This is the start of the preservation process. The discussions and decisions about community preservation should not be delayed because the large lots and small homes in Lincoln Park make it a target for mansionization and tear-downs that will alter the character of the community. Ms. Rodgers asked that MPI be involved to help with the education process. Bessie Corban (713 Douglas): She grew up in Lincoln Park and is concerned about gentrification. The community was all black, and now has multiple ethnic groups. She supported preservation. Rev. Davis (Lincoln High School Church at 222 Frederick Avenue): Rev. Davis grew up in Lincoln Park area and attended Lincoln High School; his father James Davis helped build Mt. Calvary Church. He pointed out that the Davis house on Westmore is for sale and is a large parcel. It hurts him to see it sold, to have the old home torn down and 3-4 new homes built. No one will remember what had been there. He supported preservation but not gentrification. Suzanne Fisher (Peerless Rockville): Peerless Rockville is a co-sponsor of this nomination. She looks forward to being an active and enthusiastic participant in community meetings. She thinks that the reviews here will require different thinking than other historic districts, down to “nail and shutter” review. Peerless concurs with the findings of MHT and recommends that the M&C begin the map amendment process. Commissioner van Balgooy: provided some comments on the working draft of the neighborhood plan to Mr. Wasilak, asking him to identify planning areas by number and adding a chart on page 34 for clarification. He suggested several possible themes for Lincoln Park: Reconstruction and Jim Crowe, suburban growth patterns, segregation and the community response. He said the staff and citizens should look at lot lines, street widths, and other physical characteristics. He stated that the HDC is the appropriate body to determine landmarks, contributing and non-contributing resources before presenting it to the Mayor and Council. He liked the fact that this is comprehensive, and that it will include review of many alternatives. Jim Wasilak reported that the new Neighborhood Plan still had to go through the formal public hearing and review process. The final review and approval by the Neighborhood Advisory Group will take place this week in the next few weeks. Commissioner Maloney moved that the HDC concur with Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) findings of significance and National Register eligibility and recommend to the Mayor and Council that they authorize the filing of a map amendment for Lincoln Park based on the boundaries described by staff, and based on the criteria identified by MHT.
IV. REVIEW OF ROCKVILLE CEMETERY DESIGN GUIDELINES Planner Shelby Spillers introduced the Rockville Cemetery Guidelines and asked the HDC for comments. Commissioner van Balgooy said that he had not had time to read them and would get comments back as soon as he could. Ms. Spillers said that she is compiling a matrix of comments from the HDC, Planning Commission, Mayor and Council, and others so the guidelines could go through the approval/adoption process without being delayed along the way. Beth Rodgers, representing the Rockville Cemetery Association (RCA) Board, stated that the Board hadn’t completed its review of the guidelines. She said her copy was missing some pages and she pointed out several typographical errors. She said that a Revolutionary War veteran is buried at the cemetery and wanted to include that fact so that it could be accurately stated that veterans from all major wars since the Revolution were represented at Rockville Cemetery. She also said that the guidelines need to include a definition of “mature shrubs” so that plot owners and the Cemetery Board would know when HDC or RCA approvals would be necessary for removing shrubs. Landscaping guidelines will be created by the RCA. V. DISCUSSION / UPDATES A. Planning Activities and Projects:
VI. COMMITTEE / ORGANIZATION REPORTS A. Comments – Historic District Commissioners Staff member Shelby Spillers is planning to attend the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions. Commissioner Moloney expressed interest in attending. C. Peerless Rockville - Peerless Rockville Staff. President Suzanne Fisher said that election of officers will be held on June 23, 2004. Peerless Rockville will participate in Montgomery County Heritage Day at the Red Brick Courthouse and offer tours on June 23. Peerless is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year. VII. ADJOURN The HDC adjourned at 9:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Judy Christensen, Cindy Kebba, Robin Ziek. |
|
