|
Home > Government > Boards and Commissions > Historic District Commission > 2004 > Minutes > September 21 Boards and Commissions |
Submitted: October 21, 2004 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Tuesday, September 21, 2004 The City of Rockville Historic District Commission convened in regular session in the PRESENT Staff present: Cindy Kebba and Robin Ziek, Preservation Planners. I. COMMITTEE / ORGANIZATION REPORTS A. Peerless Rockville – Suzanne Fisher, representing Peerless Rockville, reported on upcoming events associated with Peerless Rockville Week, October 17- 24. Events include a Historic Places Tour of sites where Peerless has played a role in rescuing or restoring notable landmarks including the B&O Railroad Station, Wire Hardware, Montrose School, Baptist Cemetery and others. The Montrose School will also host an open house, student reunion, and special program on the same day. A Mix ‘N Mingle will be co-hosted by Peerless and Community Ministries on October 20. An open house and tours will be held at Lincoln High School on October 21. The F. Scott Fitzgerald Literary Conference will be held on October 23 and a bike ride through historic Rockville will begin at the Red Brick Courthouse on Sunday, October 24 to complete the week’s celebration. More information is available at www.Peerlessrockville.org. B. Lincoln Park Historical Society – no report. C. Comments – Historic District Commissioners – Commissioner van Balgooy noted that he will not be at the next HDC meeting on October 21. He stated that on September 30, he will be panel moderator on a session dealing with Sites of Segregation at the National Trust Conference in Louisville, KY. Commissioner Moloney, as a representative of the Glenview Mansion sub-committee, said that the Baltimore Road entrance to the Civic Center is now completed. He asked if any other commissioners would be interested in working on the master plan for the Civic Center. Commissioner van Balgooy said that he may be interested in attending a meeting as he lives in the vicinity. II. APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
Planner Ziek said that this property was nominated for historic designation by the owner. At the time of designation (2003), the issue of an early 20th century derelict garage was raised. The owner made it known at the time that she wished to demolish the small wood frame building because it was falling off its footers, had extensive roof, wall, and foundation damage, and had been neglected long before her purchase of the property in 1994. The garage is situated at the southwest corner of the lot. Ms. Ziek said that the garage originally faced an alley that has since been abandoned. She stated that, although the garage did have value in that it is an example of the early use of alleys in subdivisions, the garage no longer served a purpose because of the alley abandonment. Kathleen Hayes, Owner/Applicant, was present and concurred with the staff report. Commissioner van Balgooy asked what the historical significance of the property and the garage in particular was; whether or not the garage is unusual or typical; and how many of these types of buildings are left in the City. Ms. Ziek said that the house is an example of a late 19th century Victorian in the Rockville Park subdivision. She said it is small but has many high style features. The garage dates to a later period when streetcars were replaced with personal vehicles in the 1920s and 1930s. She said the garage is a typical wood frame building on piers and is probably not one of the better examples available in the City. Its framing is not unique, nor does it have a unique story to Rockville. Commissioner van Balgooy said that accessory buildings can be very important and condition is not a factor in determining significance. He would want to see this building photo documented on all four sides and a drawing of the footprint provided before demolition. MOTION: Commissioner van Balgooy moved, seconded by Commissioner Hartranft, to approve the demolition of the garage at 419 Reading Avenue with the condition that the structure be photo documented with 35 mm film and the building’s footprint and floor plan be recorded to the satisfaction of staff.
Preservation Planner Ziek presented the staff report with Powerpoint photos. She stated that the applicant requested a Certificate of Approval to add onto her house at 16 Thomas Street. She said that there are already additions and alterations to the house and that the HDC had discussed the concept with her at a Courtesy Review in August. After the Courtesy Review, the applicant has responded to the HDC comments and toned down the project quite a bit. The current proposal shows that none of the new additions will be higher than the original ridge line and the new additions are pushed toward the rear. Ms. Ziek commended the owner for responding to the Courtesy Review comments from the HDC. She passed around the 3-dimensional model that the owner had created. Commissioner van Balgooy asked if the new work met the required setbacks. The applicant said they were consistent with the existing house and should meet the setbacks. Commissioner Broadhurst said the rear massing worked well, and the flat roof would be acceptable on the back porch area. He thought the overall presentation was fine as far as it went, but they were missing details and plans. The applicant noted they would match the existing materials. She provided a sample of the original cornice trim piece, and noted that they would get German siding milled to match the dimensions of their house. The new roofing material would match the existing (asphalt shingle). Existing flat roofs have rubber roofing which appears to be working well. Proposed new windows would be Anderson aluminum clad over wood core. They are looking for 2/2. The HDC questioned where the break should be if there were a small setback between the old and new work. There was also concern mentioned that the rear roof pitch should match the front roof pitch. The applicant noted that that was an existing condition that they were working with. The HDC favored the general direction that the project was taking, but requires more detailed information such as would be provided in a permit set of drawings. Staff needs to be more rigorous about getting complete information to the HDC for their consideration. This project will be continued to the October meeting, pending submittal of detailed plans and a materials schedule as per the instructions supplied on the Certificate of Approval application. III. COURTESY REVIEW A. Jerusalem-Mt. Pleasant United Methodist Church, 11-21 Wood Lane, for an addition to the former parsonage/construction of New Life Center at 17 Wood Lane. Preservation Planner Cindy Kebba described and showed drawings of the two models submitted for this courtesy review and compared them to those submitted in May at an earlier courtesy review. She said that Model 1 shows the complete demolition of the parsonage and construction of an all new one-story frame building with a front gable that will be connected to the church by an enclosed, all-glass connecting piece. A robing room and mens’ and womens’ rest rooms are located at the rear (north end) of the new building. Storage space/closets are located in three areas along the east and south perimeter. The bulk of the space is open and, according to the applicant, will serve multiple gathering functions. The space has a total seating capacity of 175. This space may also be divided into two spaces using one wall divider or into three equal spaces using two dividers, leaving room for a corridor along the west side. There are two double-door entrances in the front, as well as side entrances. The front façade is pretty much lined up with that of the existing church. The new building is slightly wider than and approximately 11 or 12 feet longer than the church, so it has a larger footprint than the church itself. Because of the high elevation of the church, however, the new building does appear much lower. Ms. Kebba said that the new building’s exterior will be a combination of wood siding and stucco. The roof is asphalt shingle and the mechanical equipment will be on top of the flat roof at the rear. The east elevation shows a flat roof over the robing room and restrooms, an exit, followed by the double door glass connection to the church and another exit flanked by windows. There are several exits on this façade, probably to accommodate people entering from Wood Lane, those going between the two buildings, and those entering from the parking area. The west elevation (looking from Hebron house) shows a triple window looking into the assembly area of the building and another exit. Ms. Kebba said that the HDC was not in favor of this model at the last review because the entire parsonage is removed. Staff said that the HDC has purview over anything that is built on this site if the parsonage is removed as it is still in the historic district. The HDC must consider compatibility with the historic resource (the adjacent church) and the streetscape. She said that since the last courtesy review, the bathrooms have been relocated from the front triangular area to the rear of the building and a robing room added, also at the rear, but the exterior configuration has not really changed (with the exception of door and window placement). Exits that were at the rear leading to the parking lot were removed to accommodate the restrooms and robing room. There is a central assembly area, which again, can be divided into two or three smaller areas. She said that the total seating area in this model was projected at 181, which is higher than in Model 1 although the square footage (at 2,106 sf) is smaller than Model 1 (2,158 sf). One large storage room shown in the earlier plans is now divided into smaller closets along the right wall. Ms. Kebba said that one thought is to move this storage space to the second floor of the parsonage or to the robing room. The robing room was shown smaller in the original plans so there may be some excess space there that could be used for storage. One reason to do that would be to try to straighten out the east façade (as in Model 1) and possibly expose more of the original building on this side. Stairs leading to the restored second floor of the parsonage are shown but staff has not seen a floor plan for the second floor space. Staff, in earlier discussions with the applicants’ representatives, commented on making the floor of the new building even with that of the parsonage to avoid the step down and possibly make better use of the open space. It was thought that it might require a ramp or other accommodation at the connector piece to meet with the church. Ms. Kebba again stated that, since this property is located in the historic district, the HDC does have full purview over what goes in here, whether it is a partial demolition and addition or a totally new building, and must consider any proposal’s compatibility with the historic resources and streetscape. The Model 2 elevations are similar to those shown at the last courtesy review, although some windows and doors have been changed to accommodate the relocation of the restrooms. The applicant proposes to restore the wood siding on the parsonage and use stucco on the new portion. The mechanical equipment is located on the roof, hidden by parapets. Ms. Kebba summarized the comments on Model 2, stating that staff would prefer a rectangular shape to retain as much of the original east wall as possible. Re-working the interior functions of the space could possibly accomplish this. Staff would like to see a second floor plan. Other issues that have been discussed in preliminary form in DRC meetings and in meetings with the applicant and architect may still require planning review and include handicap accessibility, parking, driveway widths, dumpster location, and other zoning or code requirements. Finally, Ms. Kebba referred to her June 24 letter to Soo Lee-Cho, attorney for the project, that summarized HDC comments from the May 2004 courtesy review. In the letter, she said that the seating capacity calculation had been resolved and she stated the HDC’s preference for retaining at least a portion of the parsonage over total demolition; the desire to make the restored parsonage space serve a useful function; the desire to retain the second floor of the parsonage section instead of the open atrium that was originally proposed; the idea of moving the rest-rooms, possibly to the basement of the church (same level as new building) or to the corridor/ connecting space. In addition, she had requested a full set of elevations and materials schedule. Soo Lee-Cho, the attorney representing the applicant, said that, since the May courtesy review, most of the applicant’s and architect’s efforts had been focused on refining Model 2, in that partial retention of the parsonage had been the clear preference of the HDC. She said that they were no longer considering the model that only retained the front façade of the parsonage. Ms. Lee-Cho responding to staff’s questions and said that the architect had made a correction in the seating capacity calculations and that Model 1 has a seating capacity of 175 but Model 2 has a seating capacity of 171, rather than 181 as shown on the plans. She said that a ramp connecting the new building to the church will not be required even though they were able to get rid of the “stage” area in the parsonage section and re-claim it as a third meeting area. She showed a floor plan for the second floor and said that most of that area would be left open for assembly and that it may also be used as a gallery to showcase the history of the church. Ms. Lee-Cho distributed cost estimates for the two models. The total cost for Model 1 (complete demolition of parsonage, all new construction, site development and parking) is estimated at $351,460. The total cost for Model 2 is estimated at $427,141 (including partial parsonage demolition and renovation, new addition, site development and parking). The HDC reiterated that it preferred to retain as much of the parsonage as possible and, therefore, preferred Model 2 over Model 1. Commissioner Broadhurst asked if the setback shown for Model 1 met the development standards for the zone. Staff responded that the existing front setback could be used if the front portion of the parsonage were retained but that a new setback would be required for all new construction. This property is slated to be re-subdivided and re-zoned with the text amendment for the Town Center Master Plan and the setbacks will be dependent on that outcome. Planning staff will have further review of the setbacks and other planning issues. Ms. Lee-Cho said that the church can not go further back on the lot because it would impact the parking. Commissioner Broadhurst noted that the church owns several other contiguous lots and that access or parking from Beall Avenue would be a possibility and he asked if there was a master plan for the entire property. Reverend Wood said that they were waiting for the City to rezone the property first. Commissioner Hartranft asked if the estimated costs could be reduced by utilizing tax credits. Ms. Kebba responded that preliminary inquiries had indicated that the state tax credit may not be available for either of the proposed models because a significant amount of the parsonage would be demolished in either case. Ms. Lee-Cho said that the church is willing to apply anyway, which staff and the HDC encouraged. She stated that the church had already pursued tax credits for the existing church renovations that include adding an elevator and restrooms and that they had been turned down because the project cost did not exceed the adjusted basis of the property. Commissioner van Balgooy asked how the applicant had decided where to start the new building and how much of the old building to save. Ms. Lee-Cho responded that there is an indentation in the building that seemed to be a natural separation point. Mr. Alton Green, the architect said that this indentation is where the top of the stair landing is in the building and that it does not indicate a later addition. He agreed with staff that the entire building is original. Commissioner Broadhurst inquired about putting some of the area between the church and the new building into use. Ms. Lee Cho responded that they wanted to retain that area as an open courtyard and to have a clear view, through the connecting piece, between the two buildings. Commissioner Moloney extended his commendations to the church for finding an appropriate solution. He said that the indentation of the building was an appropriate point to separate the old building from the new and he was happy to see the second floor of the parsonage retained. He was not convinced that it was appropriate to keep the parapet walls of the parsonage to appear to be sliding into the new building. He liked the idea of incorporating both wood siding and stucco but said it was unusual to see stucco over wood and suggested other means of combining the two materials. He said that he didn’t mind the angled east wall. He asked if the applicant had any thoughts about a Master Plan for all of their property. Could they use the access from Beall Avenue, for example, for a driveway? Rev. Wood responded that they are waiting for the re-zoning of the property that will go forward in a Text Amendment as part of the Town Center approvals in early 2005. The applicant asked if they could proceed with the engineering and development plans of the project for Model 2. The HDC was generally favorable, noting that there could be creative use of materials (stucco, wood, glass); that more typically, the stucco is below the wood siding as a grounding material. Commissioner Hartranft agreed on Model 2 with commendations. She said that the applicant needs to rationalize the connections of the new work to the parsonage building, perhaps by the use of clerestory windows at the 2nd story level, which would bring more light into the 1st floor. Ms. Eileen McGuckian of Peerless Rockville spoke about the good results that occur when an applicant takes the time to review the entire project. She commended the applicant for retaining a respectful amount of the parsonage. Peerless reiterated that it is also available to help with some seed money and with fundraising. Commissioner Powell also commended the church for their efforts. IV. PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR HISTORICAL, ARCHITECTURAL OR CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE – 708 and 710 Beall Avenue. Commissioner Moloney disclosed that he has talked with the builder about this project, but he has not been hired and has no financial relationship with him. He will participate in the proceedings. Ms. Ziek presented the staff report for Judy Christensen, who is out of town but who prepared this report. Ms. Christensen included four contiguous and very similar properties (706, 708, 710 and 712) in her history although only two (708 and 710) are the subject of the immediate demolition consideration and are the only ones that will be discussed tonight (at Commissioner Hartranft’s request). The subject properties are similar 1-1/2 story side gable brick ramblers with basements. They were built between 1952 and 1954. Alterations include front porch columns (708), front door (710), windows (708, 710). They are examples of the homes built after World War II, in a previously subdivided area (West End Park) that had been sparsely developed. They reflect the solid middle class home of the 1950s. Research indicates that Mr. David L. Cahoon, an early owner of 710 Beall Avenue, was a prominent Rockville citizen. He organized Citizens for Good Government in 1954, served as City Attorney and County Attorney, was elected to the County Council, and was a Judge of the County Circuit Court. He worked actively to promote de-segregation in the City and County. Commissioner Moloney noted that 520 Anderson was built in 1939; perhaps the report (page 6) meant 522 Anderson. Commissioner Hartranft noted that the new construction on Forest Avenue has a different sense of massing than the surrounding homes. Commissioner van Balgooy mentioned that perhaps 710 Beall rises to the level of individual site significance based on the significance of Judge Cahoon. He noted that these simple homes have historic significance as typical of the period. He suggested staff and the HDC review a book titled Magnetic Los Angeles for discussion on this. He said that these homes and the streetscapes also need to be photo-documented. Chris McKee, 239 Midsummer Circle, Gaithersburg, is the purchaser of the subject properties. He noted that 710 Beall has been a long-term rental, and is in very poor condition, with roof leaks. Commissioner van Balgooy noted that existing condition of a resource is not a criteria for the HDC’s consideration of historic significance. Commissioner Hartranft clarified that the HDC makes the final determination on the recommendation for designation, not staff. The HDC went through the Historic District Designation Criteria Form for designation consideration. They found that 708 Beall did not rise to the level of an individual resource and would not be recommended for designation. MOTION: Commissioner Hartranft moved to not recommend that 708 Beall Avenue be as a single site historic district. This was seconded by Commissioner Broadhurst. The HDC agreed that 710 Beall may be of individual significance with regard to its association with Judge Cahoon. They requested further information: Were de-segregation meetings held in the house? Can Judge Cahoon give us more information? How did he get involved with de-segregation? Why did he choose to live in that neighborhood? What was his wife’s role? Commissioner Moloney asked if Judge Cahoon would want to be associated with this property. The HDC found that 710 has no architectural or design significance. In response to Mr. McKee’s comment that he was told by staff that these properties would not meet the criteria for designation, Commissioner Hartranft stated that staff can only relay probabilities and cannot speak for the Commission. MOTION: Commissioner Hartranft moved to continue the consideration of 710 Beall Avenue as a historic site to allow additional staff time for research, to answer the questions raised. This was seconded by Commissioner van Balgooy. V. DISCUSSION / UPDATES A. Planning Activities and Projects.
IV. MINUTES
MOTION: To approve the minutes of August 19, 2004 as submitted. V. ADJOURN Respectfully submitted: Cindy Kebba and Robin Ziek, Preservation Planners |
|
