The HDC members, applicant representatives, City staff and one member of the public, representing Peerless Rockville, inspected the interior and exterior of “Little Lodge” which will be rehabilitated as part of the Chestnut Lodge residential development.
The HDC held a courtesy review concerning this building at the April 19, 2007 meeting. An outstanding issue resulting from the courtesy review was the desire of the applicant to enlarge a door opening on the second story of the east façade to allow more sunlight into the master bedroom versus the HDC’s desire to minimize alterations of the historic fabric of the house. The applicant suggested that the HDC visit the site and evaluate the circumstances from the interior of the house and the HDC agreed. No Certificate of Approval application was pending.
Mr. Levine explained the proposed layout for the master bedroom suite, including bathroom and closet. One wall will be pushed back by about 4 feet to enlarge the bedroom space. The room that will be the master bedroom in the rehabilitation plans contains one window within a dormer on the north side and a single leaf multi-pane door that leads to a roof deck over the east porch. The bottom window sash has been replaced by an air conditioning unit which will be removed during the rehabilitation. The air conditioning unit reduces the sunlight that enters this opening by approximately 50%. The glazing in the door is broken and covered with plywood, reducing available sunlight almost completely. Commissioner Moloney commented that the room is much darker than it would be if these openings were not covered. Mr. Moloney also noted that the plans presented at the courtesy review showed the proposed double door within inches of encroaching on the rake of the front roof, as viewed from the exterior.
Morton Levine, owner/applicant, noted that the east façade of Little Lodge will be minimally visible from the right-of-way because of the existing mature landscaping and the extensive landscaping plan for the property. Commissioner Moloney said that using landscaping to hide a modification to a historic resource is not appropriate. The applicant responded that landscaping would not be used as a disguise.
Mr. Levine noted that moving furniture to the second level of the house would be very difficult, given the 90 degree turn in the staircase and the width of the interior doors. He said that the double exterior doors would facilitate hauling furniture from outside directly to the second story. Mr. Moloney said that the interior door width in this house is very typical and that people do manage to move furniture with them.
The applicant’s architect, Mary Oehrlein, said that this project is a rehabilitation, not a restoration, and the door enlargement and replacement is consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation as this is a secondary façade. She said that it also consistent with the Chestnut Lodge Design Guidelines because the Little Lodge is identified as a secondary historic resource on the property. She noted that pattern books from the 1920s show many examples of double French doors on similar style houses and she provided examples with pictures to all present.
Viewing the proposed door placement from the exterior roof deck, Mr. Moloney said that if a double door were to be used, its placement would work better if moved to the left on the façade so that the corner of the window header to the left of the door and the corner of the door header were approximately equal distance from the roof rake on each side. He said that would improve the symmetry that was intended on the upper level of this façade over what had been proposed at the courtesy review and it would pull the door away from the rake. He said he was not concerned that the set of second story doors would not line up vertically with the double doors that will be on the first floor leading to the porch.
Martin Howell, architect, said that they were proposing relatively small doors; each leaf would be 2 feet, 8 inches in width by 6 feet 8 inches in height. Mr. Levine stated that revised plans would be submitted reflecting the change to the door location.
No decisions or motions were made at the meeting.
