|
Home > Government > Boards and Commissions > Historic District Commission > 2004 > Minutes > August 19 Boards and Commissions |
Submitted:September 21, 2004 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Thursday August 19, 2004 The City of Rockville Historic District Commission convened in regular session in the PRESENT Absent: Anita Neal Powell, Chair Staff present: Judy Christensen and Cindy Kebba, Preservation Planners. I. COMMITTEE / ORGANIZATION REPORTS A. Peerless Rockville - Peerless Rockville Staff was not present but submitted a written report. The report, in summary, states that:
B. Lincoln Park Historical Society – no report. II. APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
This application was continued from the July meeting and was deferred to the end of the meeting as the applicant was not present. The only item left to be approved was the front door. The applicant had submitted two options, both wooden doors with top glazing. Option 2 had more glass than Option 1 and was preferred by the HDC but Commissioner Moloney suggested that two vertical panes of glass separated by a muntin would be better than the one square piece of glass. Commissioner Broadhurst agreed. MOTION: Commissioner Moloney moved, seconded by Commissioner Broadhurst, to approve door option 2, as submitted by the applicant and as amended by the HDC to feature two glass lights (panes of glass) at the top, separated by a vertical muntin.
Preservation Planner Kebba presented the staff report. She stated that the applicant requested a Certificate of Approval to build a 6’ wide by 4’ deep wooden landing and stairs leading to the entrance to the summer kitchen (annex) on the west (driveway) side. The landing and stairs will have a 36-inch wooden railing with decorative balusters. The applicant also wishes to replicate the round vented medallion that exists on the front of the house onto the front gable of the new garage instead of the double hung window that was previously approved by the HDC. In addition, upon site visit, staff noted some changes that have been made to the annex that have not received HDC approval. Ms. Kebba stated that these items, if considered to be removable alterations or not significant, may be approved by amendment to the current application. These changes include:
Planner Kebba stated that the small two-story plus cellar, two-bay by two-bay annex is historically significant as it was built contemporary to the main house. The building probably originally served as a kitchen for boarding house use. Later it was used as an artist's studio and a lawyer's office. The annex has a large corner chimney. Doors and windows are surrounded by wood trim. The roof is asphalt-shingled and has a protruding west side eave. An asymmetrical entrance with brick steps faces the rear of the house (south). A second door is centered on the west side, facing the driveway. This west-side door replaced a window sometime after 1985, as the window is shown in photographs taken for the MHT form at that time. There are currently no steps accessing the west-facing door and this is the entrance where the new landing and stairs are proposed. Recent approved work on the annex included replacing portions of the original wood siding that were deteriorated with in-kind material. The applicant’s request to replace the wood siding with Hardiplank was denied. A ca.1940s garage was recently taken down in anticipation of building a larger garage. The applicant needed a variance to allow the garage to be built because the maximum lot coverage of accessory buildings in the rear yard was exceeded due to the presence of the historic 981-square foot annex. The variance was granted in July 2003 with the HDC’s support and the HDC requested that owners of properties with historic outbuildings that contribute to the history and understanding of the site not be required to remove or substantially alter them to acquire modern amenities. As long as the proposed landing for the annex does not have a roof, it does not add further to the rear lot coverage and is allowed by the zoning. Planner Kebba said that the building code requires a landing at the top of steps leading to an entrance to a structure. The landing must be at least as wide as the door and a minimum of 36 inches deep. The proposed landing is 6 feet wide by 4 feet deep. Currently, there are no steps to the west entrance and the doorway is about two feet above ground level. The submitted drawings show that the steps leading to the landing will be as wide as the landing itself, or 6 feet wide. Ms. Kebba said that the applicant informed staff that the railing will be a true porch railing, to better stay in character with the historic structure, and will have a cap rail and a bottom rail, rather than a deck railing that is simply nailed onto the sides. She recommended that the railing be painted to coordinate with the annex siding or trim as the railing is the prominent visual element. The proposed balusters are decorative (as shown with application) but plain straight pickets may be more appropriate for this small, simple building. The deck will be tongue and groove wood flooring. Planner Kebba noted that the applicant also wishes to replicate a round vented medallion that exists on the front of the house in the front gable of the new garage instead of the previously approved six over six double hung window. Dimensions of the proposed medallion are the same as the house, or 2 feet in diameter. Staff recommended that the HDC approve HDC2004-00304 to:
The HDC was also asked to comment on the previous alterations that were made to the annex without prior HDC approval (changed windows, addition of lighting fixtures and door trim, re-installment of shutters, removal of existing annex steps). Staff said it considers most of these alterations to be reversible and not highly significant, with the exception of the replaced windows. The upstairs windows that were replaced are not believed to have been original to the annex. It is not known exactly when the west side door was added to replace the window, but this occurred prior to the current owners’ purchase of the property. The owners are aware that all future exterior changes to the property must receive HDC approval prior to the work commencing. Commissioner van Balgooy noted that it appeared that the exterior lights on the front of the main house had also been changed and Mr. Maddox, the property owner and applicant, confirmed that they had. Commissioner Hartranft said that a good lighting store could help direct property owners to appropriate style light fixtures for the era and architectural style of the building. Commissioner Broadhurst stated that he preferred the six-foot wide stairs for the annex entrance but he was concerned about the decorative balusters. He said that they would have to be modified for the stairway and only a few could fit on the four-foot wide ends. He thought it would look better if they were simpler. He asked if the stairway would be a closed stringer because it was not clear on the drawings and Mr. Maddox responded that it would be open. Commissioner Broadhurst also had a concern with the size and scale of the proposed medallion vent for the garage and he said it would be helpful to see a drawing of the garage façade with the vent in place. He thought a larger medallion would be a more appropriate scale for the steeper pitch of the gable. Commissioner Moloney agreed with Commissioner Broadhurst’s comments on the width of the annex stairs, the preference for simpler balusters, and the size of the medallion vent. Mr. Maddox said that he picked the decorative balusters because he would eventually like to put them on the house too. Commissioner Moloney said he would be concerned about the appropriateness of having such highly ornamental detail on this style of house. Commissioner Moloney said that the replacement of two windows on the south side of the annex with smaller windows of a different style has a profound effect on that façade. Mr. Maddox stated that the windows that were replaced were metal and not original to the structure. Commissioner Broadhurst also said that the new door surrounds were trying to be more decorative than this subsidiary building warranted and that it appeared from the photographs that second story window heads had been changed at some point. He added that restraint is important in renovation and that if all the details are made more decorative, the whole ends up being something different than what it was meant to be. Commissioner Moloney asked how the new door trim was affixed to the building and Mr. Maddox said it was glued. MOTION: Commissioner Broadhurst moved, seconded by Commissioner Moloney, to approve HDC2004-00304 to build a wooden landing and steps at the west entrance to the annex as submitted with the following conditions:
Discussion: Commissioner Hartranft questioned why the medallion should be larger on the garage when the garage structure will be smaller than the house. Commissioner Moloney responded that it is the vent’s proximity to the windows below it and its setting within the steeper gable that determine proper proportion. Commissioner Broadhurst added that replicating a detail of the house onto the accessory structure is a good idea, but it needs to be in proper scale within each structure. VOTE: 4-0 Regarding the alterations that were not part of this application but that were mentioned in the staff report: MOTION: Commissioner van Balgooy moved, seconded by Commissioner Broadhurst, to retroactively approve re-installation of the annex shutters and removal of the steps that formerly served the west annex entrance. This approval is based on the condition that, if a Certificate of Approval application is submitted for further exterior alterations to the property, the HDC will also review at that time: the replacement of the annex windows on the south façade, the replacement of light fixtures on the annex and the main house, and the addition of decorative trim around the west annex door. VOTE: 4-0
Planner Kebba presented the staff report and stated that the applicant requests a Certificate of Approval to 1) add a dormer on the east side of the house to accommodate a new stairway to the attic and 2) to replace attic windows with larger windows on the east and west sides. Planner Kebba stated that the cross-gable massing of this house is distinctive, with the prominent coved cornice providing the emphasis on the front gable. The roof of the main block is cross gable with an equally large front gable and a smaller rear gable. Each cross gable end has a pair of non-original attic windows (as noted in the MHT form). The gable ends are sided with butt end shingles. The gable ends are open, but sit on prominent stringers just above the second story window casings. The front gable has a broad projecting cove cornice at its base, made of smooth horizontal boards, which sits atop the three second-story windows. The pediment above is closed, covered with scalloped wood shingles and includes a single horizontal attic window. This unusual cornice gives the illusion of added height to the front elevation. There are plain brackets at the lower corners of the gable valleys. The siding on the bulk of the house is overlapping clapboards. The main roof is asphalt shingle but the roofs of the front and west rear porches are clad with red embossed tin shingles. The one-over-one double hung sash windows and their shutters appear to be original. Some of the smaller windows may not be original (including the attic windows) and do not have shutters. The attic is currently unfinished and dark, and has limited ventilation. Ms. Kebba said that the applicant would like to improve the interior space for use as a children’s playroom and possibly eventually as an extra bedroom or guest room by enlarging the attic windows in the east and west gable ends and improving access to the attic with a new staircase and a dormer to accommodate the required headroom for the stairs. The proposed replacement windows in the attic on the east and west sides of the house would be the same width as the existing attic windows (paired windows, 5 feet total width), but they would be more than twice as long (approximately 5 feet instead of 2 feet long), one over one double hung windows as exist elsewhere on the house. The applicant wishes to admit more light and improve air circulation in the attic. According to the MHT form prepared in 2001, the existing attic windows are not original. The proposed windows would match the proportions of the existing windows on the house, as well as matching trim details and dimensions. There is sufficient space in the gables for enlargement of the attic windows. Replacement of old windows is not generally encouraged and the applicant has acknowledged that he is open to alternative suggestions. The attic is expected to be used as a children’s playroom for the near future, and possibly as a bedroom in the more distant future. Egress would be a code issue only if the attic were to be used as a sleeping area. Ms. Kebba stated that the HDC could consider other options for increasing light and ventilation that would not require replacement of the windows. The proposed shed dormer is needed to provide sufficient headroom above planned new attic stairs. It would be located on the east roof panel of the rear ell and would be minimally visible from the rights-of-way (Grandin and Reading Avenues). The applicant has provided two options for the roof pitch on the proposed dormer (see floor plan with application). Example 1 moves the ridgeline back one foot and allows a 2/12 pitch. Moving the ridgeline back 2 feet, as shown in example 2, allows for a 4/12 pitch. Both provide the required headroom for the interior staircase landing. The width of the dormer will be 5 to 6 feet, or the minimum width necessary for the stairway headroom. Ms. Kebba said that, at the December 2003 courtesy review for this project, the HDC had concerns about the proposed massing and roof pitch of the dormer but the roof pitch was not identified in that hand drawing. At that courtesy review, the HDC requested a floor plan, better drawings, and an explanation of how the attic space is intended to be used, all of which the applicant provided with this application, according to staff. The roof on the proposed dormer will be asphalt shingle to match the existing roof and the siding will match the existing clapboard. According to the drawings, there will be one 4 over 1 double hung window in the dormer which will match the window immediately below it. Staff recommended that the HDC approve HDC2004-00309 to add a dormer on the rear east side of the house to accommodate a new stairway to the attic to meet code requirements and requested that the HDC determine the preferred roof pitch of the proposed dormer. The roof of the dormer must match the existing asphalt roof and the window must match existing windows on the house. If the attic window replacement is approved by the HDC, Planner Kebba said that the new windows must match the other double hung windows on the first and second stories of the house in terms of material, must be surrounded by matching trim, and meet building code. The architects for the project were present. Commissioner Broadhurst stated that it is challenging to try to add stairs in this location and he noted that neither dormer roof pitch option was the same pitch as exists on the house. He asked the architects if it would be possible to create the same pitch on the new dormer as is on the house. The architects said that they believed it would be possible. Commissioner Broadhurst said that the dormer window stacked over and made to match an existing window below was a good idea. Commissioner Broadhurst said that he was comfortable with the attic window replacement and received confirmation from the architects that the replacements would be confined to the east and west facades. He also received confirmation that the new windows would meet code requirements. Commissioner Moloney agreed that the slope of the dormer roof should match the slope of the existing roof but he added that it did not have to be in the same plane as the existing roof and did not need to match the existing ridge line. He agreed that the matching window in the dormer was appropriate. Commissioner Moloney suggested adding a 6 over 1 upper grille (true divided lights) in the replacement double hung attic windows. Commissioner van Balgooy stated that he was comfortable with the attic window replacement but he did not have a strong preference as to whether or not the attic windows have grilles. He agreed with commissioners Broadhurst and Moloney about the slope of the dormer roof. MOTION: Commissioner Moloney moved, seconded by Commissioner van Balgooy, to approve HDC2004-00309 with the conditions that the dormer roof slope match the existing roof slope, and that the double hung attic replacement windows be 6 over 1 true divided lights. VOTE: 4-0
Planner Christensen said that this application was to be reviewed at the Courtesy Review level due to its complexity. Ms. Christensen said that this house originally had a very simple mass and floor plan. She presented an impressive three-dimensional model that the applicant had created to show the alterations that were planned for the house as well as those that had been made over time. She said that eventually it will be necessary to have plans, but she did not want the applicant to invest a great deal of money until the HDC had a chance to comment on the overall concept. Staff expressed concerns with the height of the added tower and the height and mass of the main roof on the rear addition as both surmount and dominate the original roofline. Staff asked the HDC to provide suggestions and comments. Commissioner Broadhurst said he greatly appreciated the effort the applicant had put into the model and that it was very helpful to have in the absence of plans. He stated that the proposed scheme may provide all of the space that the applicant requires but that the massing has become quite complicated. He was particularly struck by the massing in the rear and the fact that it is very visible from the street. Using the applicant’s model, he suggested ideas that would reduce the bulk and ways to simplify or eliminate the tower and reduce storm water runoff issues. One approach removed the tower and lowered the rear gabled roof over the two-story deck area to be enclosed. This tied this area into the main roof plan as a gabled dormer would be tied in, and provided a method to channel rainwater to a rear roof and gutter. Some other suggestions were made on the width of the rear addition and the roof plan on this section and the covered porches on the north side. Commissioner Moloney suggested that if the applicant retained the tower, it might be taller to make it a true focal point. Commissioner Broadhurst agreed that that would work, but reminded the applicant to be aware of height limitations. Planner Christensen said that the code allowed a maximum height of 35 feet to the midline of the roof in this zone. The applicant, Barbara Craig, said she would pursue the tower roof suggestion as it solved her rainwater problem and would look at a different roof configuration for the main mass of the rear addition and return at the next meeting. The HDC thanked the applicant and encouraged her to look at the various options they had presented and said they looked forward to working with her on the project.
Commissioner Moloney recused himself from the review of this application as he is the architect for the project. Planner Kebba said that the Hurley Carter House, located at 411 Feather Rock Drive, is a c. 1870 two-story frame Italianate-style farmhouse. It is one of very few houses in this style remaining in Rockville and it is unusual in farmhouse architecture. It was constructed on the foundation of a previous farmhouse that burned. The property was a working farm until the late 1940s. The barns and other agricultural elements are now gone. It was designated as a single site historic district in 2000 and is zoned R-90-HD. She said that the applicant requests a Certificate of Approval to 1) build a small addition to expand the kitchen, 2) move a window to allow for installation of a door to provide access to the rear yard, and 3) restore the front porch to its original appearance. Planner Kebba described the house, its siting and elements. She said that the house is quite large and it is situated at approximately a 45-degree angle to Feather Rock Drive. The main (northeast) façade is five bays with a small, low-pitched center gable at the roofline. The roof is covered with stamped, patterned tin shingles. The original chimney in the west is internal, while a later stovepipe flue is attached to the exterior on the east end; both are brick. The shuttered windows are two-over-two, double hung and there is a central doorway with a transom light. Decorative trim appears in the form of paired brackets under the cornice, and there are simple scroll boards nailed over the window heads. There is a two-story ell on the rear. The rear porch was enclosed about 1945 and topped with a second story bedroom. This includes the kitchen area that is to be expanded as part of this project. The front porch was removed (to be restored as part of this project) and a brick stoop added. Currently there is no direct access from the house to the rear yard. Conversion of a window in the family room will create a direct access. The covered front porch is to be restored following an old photograph that includes the original porch. Ms. Kebba passed the photograph to the HDC to review. She said that there will be three steps in the front and two steps off the side of the porch. The four Tuscan Doric columns will be 8-inch reinforced fiberglass on stucco piers (to match house) with flagstone caps. The porch deck will be painted tongue & groove wood, or the option of Ipe, a natural material, or painted Tendura, a wood composite with the same dimensions as wood tongue and groove decking. Stair treads and risers will be painted wood. The ceiling will be 1x4 inch painted wood beadboard. Half-round gutters and round downspouts will be installed. The kitchen expansion will occur in the 1945 concrete addition and will improve both the exterior appearance of this area and the internal use. The addition will continue to be slightly inset from the original portion of the house but will square off and enlarge the area between the living room and the garage to provide a more functional kitchen. The existing door will remain and a stoop and steps will be added. A new wood double hung window will replace the existing window left of the door. The proposed family room exterior door that replaces a window is not visible from the right-of-way and will provide access to the rear yard. One existing window will be retained and moved slightly and a new matching wood window will be installed on the other side of the door. Planner Kebba recommended approval of the application and said that the owner was present and available for questions. Commissioner van Balgooy disclosed that Mrs. MacDonough allowed him into the house to view the interior and discuss the project when he went over for a site visit. Owner Richard MacDonough said that he and his wife had specifically looked for an old house but that this house needed to become more functional for his family. The kitchen was cramped and the children needed direct access to the backyard. Commissioner Broadhurst said that the proposed modifications to the kitchen were logical and would make the space more useful but he noted that the new kitchen window’s proportions relative to other windows on the house were odd. He understood that it was likely a window over the sink and its dimensions were somewhat restricted by that, but he thought that it might work better as a pair of windows instead of a single wide one. He said that they could have the same outer dimensions but dividing it into two would give it a more complementary vertical appearance. He suggested that the stairs leading from the kitchen should be more grand. He also said that he understood the need for the door in the family room leading to the back yard and was pleased that the owner intended to move, but keep, the window to make room for the door. He said matching the window on the other side of the door was worth the challenge and that detailing and giving attention to how the window and door trim meet is very important. Commissioner van Balgooy concurred with Commissioner Broadhurst’s statements. He suggested that the new kitchen window should not have shutters and that the owner should only replace shutters where evidence (hardware) shows that shutters originally existed. Commissioner Hartranft added that separating the windows more from the door in the family room would increase the amount of natural light the room receives. The applicant said that there are boxwoods, a magnolia, and a pine tree near the house that may have to be removed to allow for the front porch. Staff responded that the City Forester could take a look at them and, if she determined that they were ill-placed, staff could approve their removal. The applicant also informed the HDC that he would eventually like to remove a non-original, non-functioning internal chimney at the right side of the house and to restore a chimney at the left side, but these alterations were not part of this application. MOTION: Commissioner van Balgooy moved, seconded by Commissioner Broadhurst, to approve HDC2004-00312 for expansion of the kitchen area, installing a door from the family room to the rear yard, moving and replicating a family room window to each side of the door, and restoring the front porch. This approval is based on the conditions that:
VOTE: 3-0 III. DISCUSSION / UPDATES A. Planning Activities and Projects:
IV. MINUTES
The Commission had no changes or comments to the submitted minutes. MOTION: Commissioner Broadhurst moved, seconded by Commissioner Moloney, to approve the minutes of July 15, 2004 as submitted. V. ADJOURN The HDC adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Cindy Kebba. |
|
