Minutes Thursday, September 15, 2005
Meeting No. 9-2005
Rockville City Hall PRESENT
Max van Balgooy, Chair
Andrea Hartranft Anita Neal Powell
Craig Moloney Con Hitchcock Staff present: Judy Christensen, Cindy Kebba, and Robin Ziek, Preservation Planners. I. WORKSESSION: The pre-meeting worksession included the agenda review and update. The business meeting was convened at 7:30 P.M. Chairman van Balgooy opened the meeting and welcomed newly appointed Historic District Commissioner Cornish Hitchcock and noted that Commissioners Hartranft, Moloney and Powell had been reappointed to another term of office. II. COMMITTEE / ORGANIZATION REPORTS A. Peerless Rockville – Executive Director Eileen McGuckian presented the update of activities for September, October and November, which includes walking tours of historic Rockville during the Farmer’s Market on Wednesdays and Saturday September 24 at the Rockville Arts and Music Festival. A bicycle tour of Rockville Pike is planned for Sunday, September 25. The Celebrity Challenge will be October 18 and the F. Scott Fitzgerald Literary Conference will honor Pat Conroy and hold other activities on October 22. For more information on projects and activities see: www.peerlessrockville.org. B. Lincoln Park Historic Society – President Anita Neal Powell invited all to attend the 2005 Maryland African American Heritage Conference October 20-23 in Easton MD with activities and information on the Frederick Douglas Project and an opportunity to connect with those involved in preserving and restoring historic communities, Rosenwald Schools, Underground Railroad sites, Main Streets and scenic byways. For more information see: www.lincolnparkhistorical.org. C. Comments- Historic District Commissioners
(a) Historic District Commission: Chairman van Balgooy noted that Commissioner Hartranft and he would be attending the National Trust for Historic Preservation Annual Conference in Portland, Or as would staff members Shelby Spillers and Cindy Kebba. (b) Staff: Cindy Kebba stated that the first Rockville Historic Resource Plaque had been installed by the Mayor and two Councilmembers at 300 Reading Avenue in East Rockville on Saturday, September 10. Judy Christensen mentioned that staff had presented the Lincoln Park Neighborhood Conservation Plan to the Advisory Committee on Saturday, September 10, and attended the Happy Birthday Montgomery County event on Sunday, September 11 at the Beall-Dawson Historical Park on behalf of the City.
III. EVALUATIONS FOR HISTORICAL, ARCHITECTURAL OR CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE Chairman van Balgooy asked if the agenda items were properly advertised and received an affirmative reply from staff on all agenda items. A. 315 Baltimore Road
Planner Robin Ziek referred to the Maryland Historical Trust Historic Site Inventory Form prepared by staff and gave a short summary of the site history with a pictorial tour of the site. The frame two- story house was built in East Rockville around 1900 and shows both Victorian and Classical Revival elements. It retains significant integrity, including additions to the side and rear that are compatible. Staff recommended that it be found eligible as a single site historic district for its historical and cultural significance and for its architectural and design significance. The property was nominated by the current owners and Ms. Eig was present at the meeting to request that the HDC recommend it to the Mayor and Council for processing as a Rockville historic resource. Catherine Eig purchased the house in April 2005. She, said that she currently lives three doors away at 303 Baltimore Road in a new house, but had always admired this house and wanted to restore it and protect it and the character of the neighborhood. She knew the former owners, the Calentonio family, and believed they would welcome the honor. She provided information about the additions, the exterior color, and said that the main body of the house was in near original condition with all of the woodwork and trim as installed. She noted that they do plan to do some rehab work and hope to construct an addition at some point. Speaking for Peerless Rockville, Suzanne Fisher said the organization concurs with staff and supports 315 Baltimore Road as eligible for designation. She said the Calentonio family had contributed much to the community and had been proud of the house and willing to share it with others. She thanked the new owners for coming forth with the designation and rehab work. MOTION: Commissioner Moloney moved, seconded by Commissioner Hitchcock, to close the record on the significance of 315 Baltimore Road.
VOTE: 5-0 Commissioner Moloney thanked Ms. Eig for her nomination and efforts to preserve the house and neighborhood. Commissioner Hitchcock said the staff report and history was very thorough and well done. Both concurred with staff’s recommendation. MOTION: Commissioner Hartranft moved, and Commissioner Moloney seconded, to concur with the findings in the staff report, to recommend to the Mayor and Council that
315 Baltimore Road is eligible for designation as a single site historic district
VOTE: 5-0 B. 50 Monroe Street Owner: Lawrence Guss et al, Ronald Cohen Management Co.
Address: 50 Monroe - IBM Building, built 1958-1959 and one of 9 urban renewal conservation buildings preserved in the City Center in the 1960s.
Application: DEM2006-00064 (Application for Demolition)
Planner Christensen stated that the IBM building at 50 Monroe Street is less than 50 years old, and because of its age, would not ordinarily be eligible for designation. However, if it can be demonstrated that a site possesses exceptional importance within an appropriate context, which may include local or community history, it can be found eligible under one or more of the National Register criteria. This criteria may include Criterion A (events), B (people), or C (architecture), but it may also include lesser used Criterion D which applies to resources “that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history” under category g: a property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance. Ms. Christensen said that this evaluation was precipitated by a demolition application and that Peerless Rockville prepared the documentation for the MHT form. She said that staff was not recommending that the HDC find 50 Monroe Place eligible for designation as a single site district. Although the building is largely intact and has not had major exterior alterations, the site has been severely compromised in that the only public view left of it is the north façade that offers the least architectural interest. Its architectural significance is low. It is not a significant innovation in style or design as it is a derivative of the Bauhaus modernist movement style that Walter Gropius started with the German Bauhaus building 30 years earlier. The architect, Stanley Arthur, while respected and with many contributions to modern architecture in Rockville and the county, is not considered a master. Ms. Christensen acknowledged that the IBM building was one of only nine structures that were not demolished during Rockville’s Mid-City Urban Renewal Project in the 1960s. But she said that the building also had low historical, cultural and social significance because its site integrity is gone and the most distinctive features are no longer publicly visible. It is not the site of any significant events and it not associated with persons who influenced society. Peerless Rockville Executive Director, Eileen McGuckian, presented a slide show with interior and exterior photographs of 50 Monroe Place and helped to orient the site for viewers. She said the building is part of Peerless Rockville’s Recent Past Survey. The original front of the building now faces James Monroe Park, but it originally fronted on what was then East Montgomery Avenue. The four-story office building was the City’s most innovative of its time and was an example of Rockville as a major center of post-WWII development. Ms. McGuckian agreed with staff that the building’s environmental setting and orientation have been drastically changed. She concurred with staff’s recommendation that it is not eligible for designation as a single site. She said Peerless is working with the owners to integrate some of its more distinctive elements into the building that eventually replaces it. Commissioner Hartranft said that she was surprised at Peerless Rockville’s conclusion on this building. Ms. McGuckian responded that it came down to the test of “exceptionality” which is required by the criteria for buildings that are less than 50 years old. Commissioner van Balgooy asked what other buildings, besides the IBM Building, were saved in the 1960s in the center of the City. Ms. McGuckian named the Red Brick Courthouse, the 1931 courthouse, 30-32 Courthouse Square, the art deco Farmers Bank and Trust (now M&T Bank) and the Brown Building at the corner of Jefferson and Monroe Streets. She said three others of the nine or ten that were saved in the 1960s have since been taken down. The applicant’s attorney, Barbara Sears of Linowes and Bloch, said that owner Richard Cohen was present and endorses the staff report conclusions and recommendation. Ms. Sears stated that the owners do not believe that the building can be functionally restored and retaining it is not an economically feasible alternative. It is a small building and would require significant upgrading and a large capital investment. It has been vacant for about seven years. Ms. Sears agreed that it does not meet the exceptionality criteria and the public view of it is very compromised. Commissioner Hitchcock asked why the building’s street address is of the rear of the building. The owner, Mr. Cohen, replied that he and the other owners had fought vigorously when planners changed the front orientation of the building to the rear during urban renewal, but the City wanted to put a park there (James Monroe public park). Mr. Cohen reiterated that the building is obsolete and added that the ceiling heights are too low by current standards. MOTION: Commissioner Moloney moved, seconded by Commissioner Powell, to close the record on the significance of 50 Monroe Place.
VOTE: 5-0 Discussion: Commissioner Moloney said that he agreed with the staff report, but that it was unfortunate that reusing the building is not practical. He said that there is not a great amount of architectural significance and the site is severely compromised. He would like to see the building documented by Peerless Rockville, staff and/or the owners. Commissioner Hitchcock said that he could see arguments in favor of designating buildings similar to this one, but that 50 Monroe Place does not meet the criteria. Commissioner Hartranft disagreed and said that this building is just four years short of meeting the 50-year threshold. Its front façade faces a public park; there is nothing obstructing it. Ms. Hartranft did disclose that she owns a condominium unit in the nearby American Building, but she did not feel that that fact would have any impact on her decision-making in this case. Ms. Hartranft said that this building needs to be evaluated on a different, more local, scale. She said that we need to evaluate the recent past differently with the same criteria. Commissioner Moloney said that he saw Ms. Hartranft’s point and that is a highly unusual building. He said three sides of the building are attractive; the one that the public sees is the least appealing. He used the Jerusalem Mt. Pleasant parsonage as an example of what can be done with a building that has re-use issues. He said that he hoped that a solution would be worked out with that building, to preserve some of its architectural character while enabling it to serve a purpose with a well-designed rear addition. He thought that a creative solution might also be the answer for the IBM Building. Commissioner van Balgooy added that almost any architectural style may be considered derivative; rarely are buildings innovative in themselves. He said it was not the fault of the building that its site integrity was flawed. It was due to decisions made by the City in the 1960s to move streets around and it is difficult to fix the blunders that were made by urban renewal now. Commissioner Powell stated that she did not believe there was sufficient information for the HDC to make a recommendation on this building tonight. The other members of the HDC agreed and asked staff to do more research. Specifically, they want to know more about the architect and his body of work, what made him choose this style for this particular building, was it the first example of modern commercial architecture in the City, was it a speculative building, was anything torn down in its location to build this building, photos of the East Montgomery Avenue streetscape prior to urban renewal, and how this building fit into Rockville’s downtown of the 1960s. Eileen McGuckian went over the list of requested information and verified that the HDC was looking for more context in terms of place, style, precedent and architect. She and Terry Lachin, Peerless Rockville’s Recent Past specialist, said that they are looking at about 80 recent past properties per year and that they have surveyed about 200 to date, although not all to the MHT level. They asked the HDC to help them identify which buildings should be priorities for survey work and MHT forms. She said that all parties need to work on the definition of “exceptional” as it pertains to Rockville. MOTION: Commissioner Powell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hartranft to re-open the record on the evaluation of significance for 50 Monroe Place until October 20, 2005 to allow time to obtain more information.
VOTE: 5-0 MOTION: Commissioner Hitchcock moved, seconded by Commissioner Moloney, to continue the evaluation for significance on 50 Monroe Place to the next scheduled HDC meeting on October 20, 2005.
VOTE: 5-0 IV. APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL A. HDC2005-00338 Applicant: Katherine Michaelian
Address: 119 Forest Avenue
Request: Replace flat roof over porch; replace basement door, garage doors, garage floor; resurface driveway, garage wiring
Commissioner Moloney stated that he was not compensated by the applicant, but had given advice on appropriate replacement material for the flat roof. He would recuse himself from consideration of this application if anyone had any objections. Hearing none from the applicant, audience, or commission, he participated in the discussion and vote. Planner Cindy Kebba stated that the applicant wished to replace the existing bituminous flat roof that was originally designed to serve as a roof garden, but with sheet copper roofing. It had developed leaks, which are stopped, but the roof needs replacement. This is a change in material that requires HDC approval. She noted that the roof garden has a parapet and the roof material is not visible from the street or any other exterior area. She noted that the wooden basement door with glass lights in a deep stairwell had concerned the owners for security reasons and they had proposed to change it to a stronger door with no glass. Only a small portion of the top of the door is visible. After the application had been filed, the glass broke and rather than replace it, the owners replaced the door with the proposed steel door painted to match the house trim. Therefore, it should be treated as a retroactive request, although the original door was present when the request was made. The owner requested replacement of the existing wood and glass garage doors with similar doors that can be opened automatically. The replacements will duplicate the current design. The owners are also requesting to underground the electric line to the garage and repave the cement garage floor and asphalt parking pad and driveway. These qualify as ordinary maintenance items, which do not require HDC approval. Staff recommended approval of all of the requests, finding that they have little or no impact on the character of the house, that the roof material is not visible, the door is minimally visible, and the deteriorating garage doors will be replaced with doors as close to the same design as possible. All of the requests are in compliance with the adopted design guidelines, which encourage undergrounding of electric lines and replacement with materials of the same design. Ms. Michelian said that the old basement door was replaced after it was damaged and could not be secured. She also mentioned that she would appreciate the HDC’s support in reducing traffic on Beall Avenue as it appears that Beall is planned to become much more heavily traveled with the increased development on West Montgomery Avenue in West End Park. She noted that buses and trucks shake the historic windows on her house when they pass. The HDC asked staff if changes to streets and traffic patterns were routinely referred to the staff and HDC. Staff replied that if the streets, sidewalks or other infrastructure was in a historic district or impacted a historic district, the public works department notified and consulted with staff and the HDC. Beall has three houses in the historic district fronting upon it and Forest also has historic resources on it in this block. Staff said that any changes to Beall or Forest in this area should come to staff and the HDC if changes were proposed. No members of the audience wished to comment on this application. MOTION: Commissioner Hartranft moved, seconded by Commissioner Neal Powell, to close the record on HDC2005-00338.
VOTE: 5-0 Discussion: Commissioner Moloney said he found the proposed alterations appropriate in that an almost identical garage door design was selected, the roof material is not visible and copper is an excellent material for the use, and the basement door, although perhaps not his first choice, was approvable and, under the circumstances, reasonable. Commissioner Hitchcock asked if retroactive requests are treated differently. Ms. Kebba replied that they must meet the same standards, and if the HDC finds that the alteration would not have been approved, they can require that they be removed and replaced. In this instance, staff said that the owner’s intent was not to sidestep the process, but the door in question was damaged and needed immediate replacement. MOTION: Commissioner Moloney moved, seconded by Commissioner Powell, to concur with the findings of the staff report and approve HDC2005-00338 for garden roof, basement door and garage door replacement, undergrounding of electric wires, and ordinary maintenance to the garage floor and driveway at 119 Forest Avenue in compliance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards and in compliance with City of Rockville Technical Guides.
VOTE: 5-0 V. COURTESY REVIEW Amendment to Glenview Mansion, Civic Center Long Range Plan
Nine changes pertaining to traffic circulation and parking Civic Center Park Superintendent Lew Dronenberg presented the nine changes to existing conditions at the park that were suggested to improve ADA compliance, provide safer pedestrian access, improve traffic patterns and sight distance, and add more parking spaces to the facility. He noted that Karen Carpenter was present from Apex Engineering to answer any technical questions that might arise. He went over each proposal noting the existing conditions and potential to affect trees and views and outlined the requested improvements.. He also noted suggestions from other reviewing bodies. Altogether, the plan adds 74 parking spaces to the facility with the majority of the added spaces within proximity of the theater. Pedestrian walkways were added to access the park and theater from Edmonston Drive and internally from the theater to the mansion, and to the overflow parking area behind the mansion, and to the tennis courts from the mansion. More handicapped spaces were provided in both the front and rear of the theater near the elevator with appropriate walkways, and more handicapped spaces and unloading areas were added to the rear of the Mansion. Designated and safer drop off areas were designed for both facilities as well. As for comments from the HDC, Commissioner Moloney pointed out that newly appointed Commissioner Hitchcock may not be familiar with the Civic Center property, and that it was difficult to envision the changes and effects without photographs. The HDC concurred. After some discussion, the HDC continued the item to the next meeting and asked staff to provide aerial and grade level photographs of the affected areas. Commissioners will arrange to visit the site individually before the next HDC meeting. Mr. Dronenburg said he would be happy to explain the alterations on-site if arrangements are made in advance. The Commission was asked to email their immediate questions and comments on the project to staff for the next meeting. As the time was now close to the normal adjourning time of 10:00 p.m., the Chair asked the HDC if they wanted to continue. Commissioner Powell moved to continue the meeting to approve the minutes of the last meetings and postpone the other agenda items to the next meeting. Commissioner Moloney seconded the motion. The vote was 4-0 (Commissioner Hartranft was excused at 9:50 p.m.) VI. PLANNING PRESENTATION – Postponed to next meeting.
Proposed Lincoln Park Neighborhood Conservation District VII. DISCUSSION / UPDATES – Postponed to next meeting A. Planning Activities and Projects
B. Commission Business 1. Meeting aids and operational changes: consent agenda.
2. August Worksession - priorities
VIII. MINUTES MOTION: Commissioner Moloney moved, seconded by Chairman van Balgooy, to approve the minutes of July 21, 2005 as submitted.
VOTE: 2-0-2 (Abstained: Powell, Hitchcock) MOTION: Commissioner Neal Powell moved, seconded by Commissioner Moloney, to approve the minutes of August 18, 2005 as submitted.
VOTE: 3-0-1 (Abstained: Hitchcock) IX. ADJOURN: The HDC adjourned at 10:15 pm. Respectfully submitted, Judy Christensen and Cindy Kebba, staff. | 
