Thursday, June 15, 2006
Rockville City Hall
PRESENT |
Max van Balgooy, Chairman |
Andrea Hartranft | Con Hitchcock |
Anita Neal Powell |
Staff present: Judy Christensen and Robin Ziek, Preservation Planners
I. WORKSESSION: The worksession included an agenda review and update.
The business meeting was convened at 7:35 p.m. Chairman van Balgooy opened the meeting and introduced the Commissioners and staff.
II. COMMITTEE / ORGANIZATION REPORTS
A. Peerless Rockville (PR) – Suzanne Fisher presented the report for Peerless Rockville. She noted that the new President of the Board is Joan Zenzen. She noted the upcoming public hearing on the proposed designation of the King Farm Farmstead Park before the Mayor and Council will be on June 19. She reviewed the upcoming Heritage Days celebration also coming up on June 24. Peerless submitted a request for information to the City Attorney: “Is there anything in City law or State enabling legislation that prohibits Rockville from enacting legislation or changing its rules in order to protect buildings under 50 years of age that meet certain criteria for historic designation?”
For more information on projects and activities see: www.peerlessrockville.org.
B. Lincoln Park Historic Foundation (LPHF) – President Anita Powell had no report.
For LPHF information see: www.aapc-md.org or call 301-251-2747 or send email to Lincolnparkhist@aol.com.
C. Comments – Historic District Commissioners/ Staff Historic District Commission:
Commissioner Van Balgooy presented update on SHA focus group concerning proposed road construction at MD 28 and Veirs Mill Rd. There’s a no-build alternative, and one with an overpass that will require the demolition of several buildings over 50 years old. The at-grade alternative will require demolition of 2 buildings over 50 years old. There is an upcoming Public Hearing on June 27th at Rockville High Schoool at 7 pm. The funding is uncertain.
Preservation Planner Judy Christensen introduced Paloma Bolasny, who will be working with the HDC staff as a summer intern through June and July. She is a recent graduate of the University of Mary Washington in Historic Preservation and is already an asset to the department. She will enter the graduate program at the University of Kentucky this fall.
Staff Christensen noted that for Heritage Days on June 24 and 25, the HDC will have a table at the Red Brick Courthouse from 12 – 4, with maps, walking tours, and Staff Kebba to answer questions and provide information.
III. APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
A. HDC2006-00360
Applicant: Chestnut Lodge Properties, Inc.
Address: 7979 Old Georgetown Road, Bethesda, MD 20814
Request: Construction of new single-family houses and detached garages on
Lots 10, 11, 12 and 14 in Rose Hill Farm Historic District
Staff Ziek presented the staff report for Staff Kebba who is out of town. The proposed new construction is compatible within the existing historic district, in terms of scale, massing, materials and siting. The applicant is not replicating anything in particular, but is clearly building a new community. The major sightlines into the Rose Hill Farm Historic District are from Autumn Wind Way and are minimally affected by this proposed new construction. The applicant is asking for approval of the 3 varieties of each of the 5 models they are offering because they want their purchasers to have a choice, but know that all elevations have been previously approved by the HDC. Even the garages match the proposed models (and their varieties). The applicant noted they will make sure that no identical buildings are adjacent to each other. Question about proposed ownership for Parcel J in the Rose Hill Farm Historic District? It will be part of the HOA property.
Commissioner Van Balgooy asked if the new construction plans met the Chestnut Lodge Design Guidelines. Staff replied that it did. Commissioner Hartranft asked for more information about the proposed lighting. Scott Allen, architect, described the carriage-type lighting with etched glass.
MOTION: Commissioner Hartranft moved to approve HDC2006-00360, finding the application for new residential construction within a historic district in compliance with City of Rockville Guideline # 5: New Construction, and Secretary of Interior Standard #9, which states, “New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment” and Standard #10 which states “New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.” Commissioner Neal Powell seconded the motion.
VOTE: 4-0
IV. COURTESY REVIEWS
A. Chestnut Lodge Detailed Application, including reconstruction of Stable and Ice House, relocation of the Ice House, rehabilitation of Barn, rehabilitation and additions to Lodge and Little Lodge, and phasing of rehabilitation and construction.
Staff Ziek gave a brief staff report [for Staff Kebba] with a powerpoint presentation. She noted the Courtesy Review included the restoration of the Chestnut Lodge building, and the Little Lodge (with the proposed construction of a small one-story rear addition), and Frieda’s Cottage (prior to being donated to Peerless Rockville). Regarding the Ice House, the staff recommendation is to leave it in its original location, while acknowledging that this would place three historic structures under the ownership of one private owner (the owner of the Little Lodge), and this may be asking a lot. If it were to be moved, it shouldn’t be set adjacent to the public road in a prominent location as this is a service building and was never meant to be in a highly visible location, and it would also be more vulnerable to damage. A position just west of the main road would not be similar to its original location at the back of the Lodge. Staff has identified two other potential locations that would be preferable to the applicant’s proposed relocation site, although staff recommended keeping the ice house in its historic location. Regarding archaeology: the applicant has provided interior photos of the basement area, showing that it is a completely enclosed space. The floor is concrete and the walls are structural clay tile. There is no need for archaeology within this ice storage space as there is no trash or debris. The applicant’s proposal to fill this in is appropriate. Other buildings on the site include the proposed reconstructed stable, the demolition of the Upper Cottage (with the HDC recommendation to salvage materials), and the proposed stone entrance wall (based on historic photos).
The applicant said that a proposed phasing plan is premature, and this should be addressed at another time. The proposed opportunity to walk-through the Upper Cottage and other historic buildings for purposes of determining salvage materials will be accommodated.
Entrance feature with columns and wall: The applicant has tried to adapt the original entry design to the new circumstances, with three vehicle lanes and a separated pedestrian path at the entrance. The separation between pedestrians and vehicles was seen as a design challenge, concerning scale. They also want to provide appropriate signage at the entrance that will assist people driving along West Montgomery Avenue in finding and identifying the development. There will be landscape material in front of the wall which will reduce the visual impact of the wall. Commissioner Hartranft noted that the original entrance feature had a lovely curve to it that is lost by elongating the curve along the length. At the meeting, Ms. Scully worked out a sketch drawing to show how the entrance feature would look if the columns were higher to accentuate the curve, and have it curve into a long straight section of wall. The HDC preferred the new sketch. Commissioners Hartranft and Van Balgooy also suggested removing the additive globes on the columns, and following the historic photograph more closely, though allowing the additional length of wall to balance the scale.
Regarding the proposed stone material, Morty Levine of Chestnut Lodge Properties, LLC, noted that the Rose Hill Mansion is a stone house, and is a historic building on the Chestnut Lodge property. The applicant’s landscape architect, Sunny Scully, proposed using a locally quarried Montgomery County stone to tie entire project together, as the applicant is using stone in the front yard walls in the new residential area. She noted there is some foundation stonework in the Chestnut Lodge building. Commissioner van Balgooy suggested that the applicant provide justification for using stone to the HDC at a future meeting. The proposal for a sign to be incorporated into the wall will also be presented in the future.
The applicant’s historic architect, Mary Oehrlein, presented the proposal for the reconstruction of the Stable. They have identified three distinct periods of construction. They would take it back to the approximate design of ca. 1960. They have done considerable investigation, finding that the building structure is failing and cannot be retained. Commissioner van Balgooy asked whether it should be considered a reconstruction or a renovation. There have been considerable changes to door and window openings over time. First it was a stable, and then it was used as a dairy with a silo in the southeast corner, and finally around 1960, it was made into offices for the hospital. It has German siding. Commissioner Van Balgooy asked when the front shed was added. They think it was an open shed first, and enclosed ca. 1960. Commissioner van Balgooy suggested that this should be considered an adaptive reuse/ rehabilitation; the proposed work retains the footprint, massing, materials and general design of the stable building but it is not a reconstruction of any particular period. Commissioner Van Balgooy asked whether the shed should be sided with German siding if it never had this before. Commissioner Hartranft questioned whether this should pretend to be an old building if it is a full demolition and new construction. She added that the applicant could consider a modern interpretation of the building. Ms. Oehrlein noted that the materials would have to be replaced piece by piece anyway through any stabilization/restoration process because the structure is in such poor condition.
The proposed filling in of the Ice House pit was discussed. The owners are documenting it via measurements and photography. As for the location, the applicant defended their proposed location along the road (although they moved it approximately 35 feet from the road toward the Lodge to address staff’s concerns about potential damage to the structure immediately adjacent to the road), noting the interpretive potential, as well as the possible use as a bicycle shed. However, their architect, Ms. Oerhlein, did respond that it was not historically typical for service buildings to be located in such a prominent spot. Commissioner van Balgooy commented that he preferred not to move the Ice House from its original location. He noted that the new owner will have a new stable building, a newly renovated home with the Little Lodge, and the Ice House will be rebuilt. The “new” condition of all of the buildings will minimize their maintenance requirements.
The applicant’s lawyer, Jody Klein, discussed the proposed Phasing plan. They would to renovate Rose Hill Barn and construct the new house on that lot at the same time. They need to look at the entire Phasing plan more closely and come back to the HDC in July with more details. They have to work with their bank to keep the construction funding moving. However, the applicant noted they will work with the HDC to complete everything and do whatever it takes to complete the project. Commissioner van Balgooy commented that he would like to see the work on all the historic buildings completed prior to the City’s issuing occupancy permits.
Commissioner Hartranft made some general comments about doing point-by-point calculations to evaluate the lighting needs, with concerns for the buffer areas and pathways with regard to providing safe lighting levels in the historic areas.
Commissioner van Balgooy commented that for Lot 13 with the Barn and Milk House, the applicant should look carefully at reusing the old materials where they will be the most protected.
B. 315 Baltimore Road
Applicant: Catherine McAlpine Eig
Address: 315 Baltimore Road, Rockville, MD 20850
Request: Remove two existing additions; construct new 2-story rear and side-yard addition;
reconfigure landscape garden and patio
Staff Ziek presented the staff report. The applicant, Ms. Eig, and her architect, Seth Ballard, noted that they appreciate that this is a collaborative process. They are essentially staying with the existing footprint, but are going higher with the second floor and proposed attic rooms. They have looked to the original house for details and materials. The architect reviewed the suggested points of discussion noted in the staff report.
The HDC agreed that the proposed new height was not problematic. The addition of two dormers in the original portion of the house on the east elevation was not encouraged. The rear elevation is a concern, and the HDC suggested using a gable form instead of a shed roof. Mr. Ballard can draw up revised rear elevations for the HDC’s consideration in July. The HDC had no problem with the proposed new screened porch, or with the proposed use of matching materials, including the painted metal shingles on the steep roof portions and standing seam metal for the more shallow portions, matching German siding, and 4/1 simulated true-divided-light wood windows for the new work.
V. Discussion / Updates
A. HDC retreat: August
The Commissioner suggested that staff email dates for a Saturday agenda in August as soon as possible.
B. Commissioner Powell asked again that the staff include the Cable station times for viewing the HDC during the month on the public agenda.
VI. Minutes: Meeting No. 5-06, May 25, 2006
Commissioner Hitchcock noted some typographical errors that were given to staff. No other corrections or additions were submitted.
MOTION: Commissioner Hartranft moved to approve the minutes of May 25, 2006 as submitted. Commissioner Powell seconded the motion.
VOTE: 2-0-2 (Abstained: van Balgooy, Hitchcock)
VII. ADJOURN: The HDC adjourned at 10:46 p.m.
