| Home > Government > Boards and Commissions > Historic District Commission > 2008 > Minutes > December 18, 2008 |  |
Historic District Commission
Minutes
Meeting No. 11-2008
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Rockville City Hall
| PRESENT | |
| Max van Balgooy (Chair) | |
| Janet Hunt McCool | Jeremy Tucker |
| Anita Neal-Powell | Craig Moloney |
Staff present: Jeffrey Winstel, Robin Ziek, Preservation Planners
I. The Agenda Review began at 7:00 pm. The HDC and staff reviewed the upcoming agenda; no decisions were made.
The formal meeting began at 7:30 p.m. Chair van Balgooy opened the general meeting and introduced the commissioners and staff.
II. Committee / Organization Reports
A. Peerless Rockville – Mary van Balgooy, Executive Director of Peerless Rockville, presented the monthly update. Ms. van Balgooy reported the restoration efforts at Frieda’s Cottage are nearing completion and they are looking for a tenant. They are also developing the landscape concept plan for future HDC review. The Annual New Year’s Day Brunch will be held at Glenview Mansion on January 1, 2009 from 11 1.m. to 2 p.m. For more information, contact Peerless Rockville at 301-762-0096 or www.peerlessrockville.org.
B. Lincoln Park Historical Foundation – Commissioner Powell noted that the Lincoln Park Historical Foundation and the Rockville/Montgomery County Chapter Southern Christian Leadership Conference will co-sponsor the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 80th birthday celebration on January 15, 7:00 p.m. - 9 :00 p.m. at the Clinton AME Zion Church, at 814 Westmore Avenue in Rockville, MD. To be added to the listserve for updates or information about the celebration, the Lincoln Park Historical Foundation or the Leroy E. Neal African American Research Center, email: Lincolnparkhist@aol.com or call 301-251-2747.
C. Public Comments/Open Forum: No comments.
D. Comments – Historic District Commissioners, Historic Preservation Staff:
Staff Ziek and Commissioner Moloney attended the yearly Joint Training with Gaithersburg and Montgomery County’s historic preservation commissioners and staff. The topic this year was “Green Building and Historic Preservation.” Commissioner Moloney noted that retention of an existing structure was inherently “green” by following the policy of recycling and reuse of already manufactured materials. The HDC was challenged to think of a demonstration project to illustrate the natural partnership with sustainability, green building, and historic preservation. The Chair noted that the demolition of the designated 1971 Rockville Regional Library building represents the equivalent cost 14 million gallons of gas being put in a landfill, in terms of energy.
The HDC asked for a short presentation at the January meeting on the new State Courthouse that will be built on the site of the 1971 Rockville Regional Library.
III. Consent Agenda: Certificates of Approval, Minutes
A. 19 Thomas Street (Frieda’s Cottage) HDC2009-00451
Applicant: Peerless Rockville (Eileen McGuckian, Agent)
Address: 19 Thomas Street/Chestnut Lodge
Request: Replace exterior light; dryer vent
B. Minutes: HDC Meeting 10-08, November 20, 2008
Chair van Balgooy opened discussion on the two Consent Agenda items. He asked whether a dryer vent really had to come to the HDC, and perhaps there should be some exterior alterations that could have staff-level approval. This will be discussed in the upcoming year. Commissioner Moloney noted he will recuse himself on Item III-A.
Chair van Balgooy asked for a motion to approve the individual items on the consent agenda as per the staff submittals: HDC2009-00451.
MOTION: Commissioner Tucker moved for approval; Commissioner McCool
seconded.
VOTE: 4 - 0 – 1 (Commissioner Moloney recused himself)
and, HDC Minutes Meeting 8-08 (September 18, 2008).
MOTION: Commissioner McCool moved for approval; Commissioner Tucker
seconded.
VOTE: 5-0
IV. Courtesy Review
A. 26 Martin’s Lane HDC2009-00448
Applicant: Carl G. Becker
Address: 26 Martin’s Lane
Request: Resubdivision for 2 lots
Staff presented a PowerPoint presentation with the staff report. Seven additional letters to the HDC from neighbors in support of the subdivision were presented by Mr.Claude Prather; staff read them into the record. Staff also noted corrections (reductions) to the square footage of the homes at 200 and 202 Martins Lane. Staff recommended denial of the subdivision for reasons stated in the staff report.
The applicant, Carl G. Becker, spoke and noted that the staff report provided good detail about the proposal. He noted that the adjacent owners support the subdivision. Staff noted that there have been no calls in opposition to the subdivision. Mr. Becker is helping to sell 200 Martins Lane, and he noted he is considering building a porch and he has consulted staff for some guidance. He thinks a new home would fit in because the topography for 26 Martins Lane is lower than that for 200 Martins Lane, and it would have a drive-in garage. He has no specific plans in mind, and would like to find a buyer to work with. He also noted that there are new homes on the street and some are quite large. He’d like the subdivision to be in position to build when the economy recovers.
The Commissioners discussed the proposal: Commissioner McCool noted a lot of uncertainty regarding the alley (width, public/private); and staff noted that the Department of Public Works would make the final decisions on that. Commissioner McCool also noted that removing all the mature trees on the site will be a big change. She doesn’t see any compelling reason to recommend this. It doesn’t meet the zoning code, is adjacent to a historic site, there are too many uncertainties about the new construction, and too many uncertainties in general.
Commissioner Moloney said that two large structures here will have a significant impact on the historic site, regardless of the alley. In addition, a later owner may request an upgrade of the alley to a public street and that would have a significant impact on the historic site. He felt that the alley width was significant, part of the alley character, and part of the environmental setting.
Commissioner Tucker noted that there are existing homes with front to back relationships and perhaps the subdivision would not be so different. However, he doesn’t see a hardship here, as many of the adjacent lots are large.
Chair van Balgooy was concerned about the size and scale of a new house on the back (2nd) lot with reference to the historic house. Commissioner Moloney noted that the new zoning ordinance standards for this property will allow a house to be built that is 35’ to the midpoint of the roof, and that will have a significant impact on the historic house.
The commissioners were also concerned with the introduction of an apparent pipestem lot, and noted that the buildings in this vicinity and around the historic site have a lot of space around each other. Even if there are buildings with side to back relationships, there’s a lot of room.
Commissioner Powell wondered if the HDC can ask for a smaller sized house? Staff noted that the HDC could ask for this at a Courtesy Review once a building permit is submitted; and the HDC will be asked to review the demolition permit as well. However, the applicant doesn’t have to follow the HDC Courtesy Review recommendations. The Planning Commission doesn’t review design, and if the subdivision is approved, future construction will not be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Becker said he doesn’t know what he will do on this property, and he would like to work with the HDC. He asked the HDC what the “right size” would be, and Chair van Balgooy noted that perhaps a house clearly only two stories or lower; and perhaps with massing broken up to reduce apparent scale would work. He felt that the new homes at 200 and 202 Martins Lane were too large. He also mentioned tax credits, should 26 Martins Lane be designated as historic, and staff has reviewed this possibility with Mr. Becker.
Mr. Prather came up to speak to the HDC: he is the prior owner of both 202 and 26 Martins Lane, and grew up at 26 Martins Lane. He noted that this is a public alley, and has always been such, providing access to the adjacent homes. He thought that the historic house is probably 35’ high, and just looks lower because of topography.
Chair van Balgooy reviewed HDC concerns:
1) Access to the street; i.e., using the alley for access; and compromising the alley character through widening and/or paving
2) Loss of all the mature trees; and
3) Size, scale and massing for new house.
Staff will draft a memo summarizing the HDC concerns prior to submitting it to the Planning Commission, and send it to the HDC through email, asking for revisions to the draft.
B. Fleet Street Senior Victory Housing HDC2009-00452
Applicant: Victory Housing Inc.
Address: 107, 105, 103, 101 Fleet Street and 150 Maryland Avenue
Request: Adjacent construction and redesign of historic district parking lot
Staff Winstel outlined the project, with a Power Point presentation highlighting the two primary
issues: (1) Compatibility of the proposed Fleet Street Senior Housing development
with the adjacent Rockville Heights Historic District, and (2) the re-working of the parking space
between 150 Maryland Avenue and 101 Fleet Street. The review of the parking space will
require a Certificate of Approval, as it is within the historic district. Staff Winstel proposed a
type of shared parking arrangement, so the historic buildings could have access to parking
needed for redevelopment.
Soo Lee Cho, attorney for the applicant provided some background to the project, noting that nothing has been filed, and their intent is to get input before filing application. Jeff Blackwell, from Victory Housing explained that the organization is a NFP arm of the Catholic Archdiocese specializing in affordable housing for seniors. The parking between the historic houses is needed for the seniors, as they don’t think street parking for seniors is appropriate – they don’t want to walk along Monroe. They feel strongly the spaces are needed for the seniors in the housing facility. Other instances in the county used less parking than required, and ended up short.
Soo Lee Cho stated that the parking in the plans does meet development standards for MXT zone as requested. Architect Logan Schutz explained that the building site was located down from the Fleet Street level and the building is 3 stories in height with a walkout terrace. The two retaining walls in back of the historic district along the drive will be terraced, planted and will not be located in the HD.
Chair van Balgooy stated he had concerns about the view of the senior housing facility from City Hall between 150 Maryland and 101 Fleet Street.
Attorney Soo Lee Cho referenced the proposed subdivision lines as consistent with the current lots, but somewhat shallower. Access to the parking lot off Maryland Avenue is to be closed as per request from the city based on safety concerns, however there may be emergency access needed. Regarding the proposal for a shared use parking arrangement, historic building use may be incompatible with seniors. The future use of the houses is market driven and is not the purview of Victory Housing.
Chair van Balgooy expressed concern about creating a situation of no reuse possibility for the historic buildings. The new trend in the City is to minimize parking and provisions in the new ordinance may help, but there are no guarantees.
Commissioner Moloney pointed out the Victory Housing’s land continues over to Maryland Avenue and asked why they couldn’t locate additional parking there? Attorney Soo Lee Cho stated that forest conservation requirements led them to gravitate toward the existing paved area so they wouldn’t lose so many trees. Commissioner Moloney pointed out that it would seem that taking up the only available space would preclude any parking for the Historic District buildings. Ms. Cho stated that potential parking could be located between 105 and 107 Fleet Street and Victory Housing needs the corner spaces.
Commissioner Moloney asked if the lot also served the historic buildings, could the lot be accessed through the Victory Housing drive. Attorney Cho speculated that it could. Jeff Blackwell from Victory Housing commented that because of the grade and the trees, locating the parking further over to the west could create new issues involving the turn around for fire trucks
Architect Login Chutes added that they received big push back from the City Forester and are now being asked to save even more trees on site. Chair van Balgooy established that the parking lot would be leased to Victory Housing by the county.
Chair van Balgooy asked if there were any other speakers. Alice Lieu – 232 Manor Drive, Courthouse Walk Townhouses, stated that she had attended the Mayor and Council meetings regarding the development and voiced concerns over the lose of green space, the open view straight through to Monroe Street, and drainage issues. She has no problem with the historic district designation, but is concerned that the parking be screened from the townhouses as well as the historic district. She stated that the senior housing facility was to be 3 ½ stories and the townhouses are 3 stories and is concerned that the townhouse residents would be looking up into the senior housing facility unless there is adequate vegetative screening.
Chair van Balgooy stated that the HDC does not have purview over these issues, but thanked Ms. Lieu for coming out and speaking about her concerns.
Judy Christensen, Preservation Consultant Victory Housing stated that the Mayor and Council recommended this development because it’s a good plan. Three previously submitted plans all missed the mark -- they got about 75% right but the other 25% they got very wrong. They had too much density, traffic impacts were bad, removal of most historic buildings, etc. Ms. Christensen stated that the lot lines are based on the original division of the property, according to research for the Maryland Historic Trust inventory form. She stated the parking lot was located there for the county’s office use of the Fleet Street/ Maryland Avenue historic buildings, adding that parking has always been a problem, but this plan has the flexibility to accommodate the use of the buildings. In terms of the forestry conservation issue, they can’t lose one more tree – the city regulations for the site require all replacement trees be on the lot.
Noreen Bryan, a South Washington Street resident addressed the commission next, asking what will happen to Mt. Vernon Place? Staff Winstel responded that it will be abandoned. Ms. Bryan asked if there was adequate parking on site for the senior housing or if they need additional parking. Sue Lee Cho stated that the one lot does meet code, but it is their experience that code underestimates the actual need for senior residents and they don’t want residents searching the neighborhood for parking.
Commissioner Moloney asked how many units there will be and Attorney Cho responded that there will 90 – adding they found space for 2 more units. The required number of parking spaces (1 per 3 units) will still be 30. Architect Login Schutz added that earlier laws to encourage senior housing focused on the assumption that they abandoned cars, but today seniors are healthier and keep cars longer.
Resident Noreen Bryan asked if the facility was to be independent living or assisted? She also would like to know what the actual height of the building will be compared to the historic buildings and the townhouses, adding that she hasn’t yet heard an answer, and stating her concern that the mass of the building will loom over neighbors. She stated support for the fact that we are doing something for seniors and is very concerned about the historic buildings being viable stand alone properties and questions how can they go on the market without parking? Summarizing she stated her concerns are the height, adequate parking, and potential lose of character of historic district. She stated one alternative is to consider fewer senior units.
Chair van Balgooy thanked her for her statements and asked for the applicant’s response.
Architect Login Schutz responded that the height from the street front setback is 35’ (from Monroe Street) above grade and the grade drops an additional 4’ so it’s actually 39’ from ground level. From Fleet Street the grade drops 8’ to the building line, so the building may be a couple of feet above the houses on Fleet Street, but it will not loom over the buildings and will be imperceptible to the naked eye.
Commissioner Hunt-McCool stated that she thinks it is important to find out exactly what the heights will be compared to the surrounding buildings. Architect Schutz states they will have engineers shoot the sight lines to determine this.
Jeff Blackwell from Victory Housing said they had meet with the residents of Courthouse Walk and showed animated views from the Townhouses, adding that there was more foliage at that time and stating they intend to have another meeting. He said they understand the sightline issue and the drainage issue and can address both with a reasonable solution.
Chair van Balgooy asked if anyone else wished to speak. Peerless Rockville Executive Director Mary van Balgooy stated that Peerless has concerns about the parking lot creating an asphalt sea around the historic housing, which would eliminate the context. They agree that there needs to be screening for any lot, and requests that Montgomery County dedicate the lot to the historic houses.
Chair van Balgooy stated that it is now over 10:00 pm and as Chair, he extended the meeting and asked if there are any more questions from the Commission? Commissioner Moloney asked the architect to provide for more definition of the corner of the building that will face the parking lot at the corner of Maryland and Fleet.
Chair van Balgooy asked if Commission Moloney was asking for a rendering of another view. Commissioner Moloney said yes and requested the facing material be identified as well. Architect Chutes said the facing would be a manufactured stone below and “Hardiplank” above and shingles in the upper gable areas. The Roof will be architectural grade shingles that will have a shadow line and there will be metal roofs over the porch and towers. Commissioner Moloney stated that is acceptable and Chair van Balgooy affirmed the colors would be the same as those in the rendering.
Commissioner Tucker expressed concern about a simple shared parking arrangement stating that he has handled numerous easements related to these and doubts if such an agreement in this circumstance would be successful in meeting both party’s needs. Chair van Balgooy asked if such a shared arrangement could work if the historic buildings were developed as a type of office condo. Commissioner Tucker stated that a land condominium use pad lot with dedicated parking might work, if the lots are converted for condominiums, but if not this shared parking scheme would be problematic.
Commissioner Hunt-McCool stated she was deeply concerned about loss of parking in the Historic District. In terms of the design, she finds the scale and massing of the building huge and is concerned about how the height reads from the street. Although the images help provide a better understanding, she still thinks the scale is not appropriate.
Chair van Balgooy stated that he thinks the design for the complex is better than expected, adding that it is large but with the topography it is okay. He expressed concern about the view from City Hall and concern about the parking lot on Maryland Avenue. The applicant or county needs to show a way that some use of the historic buildings can be accomplished with parking under the code. The ownership is what can make a condominium regime happen, which could then accommodate the needed parking.
He expressed his great concern about the parking lot exclusively prohibiting other uses in the Rockville Heights Historic District, stating that Montgomery County needs to provide some solution and make the HDC feel confident that something is possible. In terms of screening the HDC needs to see the other view from city hall, and the corner of the senior housing building. Perhaps include green space on top of structured parking.
Staff will draft a memo summarizing the HDC concerns and send it to the HDC through email, asking for revisions to the draft prior to passing them along to the applicant and attaching them to the project file.
V. Discussion
A. Draft agenda for meeting with the Planning Commission.
Staff Winstel noted that the Planning Commission will have a retreat in January, and will be able to take up this meeting in their agenda. The HDC received a copy of a draft agenda that the Chair had outlined. There was no discussion on this proposed agenda. Chair van Balgooy noted that he would also like to meet with the Environmental Commissioner, once the HDC has met with the Planning Commission.
VI. Adjourn
The HDC adjourned at 10:20 PM, having been extended by the Chair to complete the last items of business.