| Home > Government > Boards and Commissions > Historic District Commission > 2010 > Minutes > April 15, 2010 |  |
Historic District Commission
Minutes
Meeting No. 08-2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
| PRESENT | |
| Janet Hunt McCool, Chair | |
| Craig Moloney | Anita Neal Powell |
| Joe Hansen | |
Staff present: Robin Ziek, Historic Preservation Planner; Rosemary Faya Prola, Architectural Historian; Jim Wasilak, Chief of Planning
The Agenda Review Worksession began at 7:00 pm. No decisions were made.
The Chair opened the meeting at 7:33 pm, and introduced other HDC members and staff.
Peerless Rockville Executive Director Mary van Balgooy provided an update: May is Historic Preservation Month. The Mayor and Council issued a proclamation on May 10th honoring this year’s theme “Old is the New Green.” In late May, Peerless will relocate its offices across the hall for structural repairs to the Red Brick Courthouse. Please call to schedule appointments to use their research files and collections. Preservation Awards will be held October 14th; please call to make a nomination or recommendation. On June 15th Peerless will hold its annual meeting at St. Mary’s School, followed by a tour of the historic St. Mary’s Chapel and graveyard. Peerless will lead a free Heritage Day walking tour on June 27th, at 2 pm entitled “Women Who Dared.” Meet at the front of the Red Brick Courthouse. For more information, call 301-762-0096 or see www.peerlessrockville.org.
There were no Public Comments at Open Forum. There were no comments from HDC or staff.
The Chair introduced the Consent Agenda.
MOTION: Commissioner Moloney moved to approve Tax Credit Applications A & C on the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Hansen seconded.
VOTE: Expansion of the Consent Agenda approved 3-0.
MOTION: Commissioner Moloney moved to approve the Consent Agenda, with the April 15, 2010 Minutes, and Tax Credit applications HDC2010-00487, and HDC2010-00498. Commissioner Hansen seconded.
VOTE: Consent Agenda approved 3-0.
The Chair introduced the Certificates of Approval:
A. HDC2010-00496A
Applicant: Victory Housing
Address: 209 Monroe Street
Request: Site Plan elements (Certificate of Approval)
Preliminary Plan of Subdivision (Recommendation to Planning Commission)
Staff Ziek presented a brief PowerPoint presentation, and summarized the different requests coming to the HDC. The Certificate of Approval is required for proposed Site Plan elements within the Historic District: stormwater management “planters” at the downspouts for the historic houses, encroachment of a shared-use path; landscape plantings within the historic district as part of the larger Victory Court project; and construction of emergency vehicle access between 150 Maryland Avenue (Lot 1) and 101 Fleet Street (Lot 3).
The Courtesy Review is required to provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission on the Preliminary Plan of Subdivision, which will establish individual lots for each of the houses within the Historic District in accordance with the Mayor and Council’s delineation of the environmental setting for this example of early 20th century suburban development.
The applicant provided an illustration of a driveway turnaround for Lot 1 and Lot 7, where the existing parking areas will be removed. There are no proposed changes at driveways on Lots 3 through 5. Staff recommends the turnaround on Lot 1 because of heavy traffic on Maryland Avenue and proximity to the corner, but not on Lot 7, as this will be a similar condition to the other three houses.
Staff recommends the 8-foot shared-use path, with its encroachment at Lots 6 and 7, noting that DPW affirmed that DPW will make the final decisions about the materials and design of the shared-use path.
Commissioner Moloney asked DPW staff directly whether or not they agreed that the HDC had approval authority over encroachments into the historic district? Staff Torma said yes. Commissioner Moloney further asked if DPW staff understood that the HDC should provide a Courtesy Review of the shared use path? Staff Torma said yes, as this had been followed at Chestnut Lodge. Commissioner Moloney asked about the Road Standard that identifies brick paving for sidewalks in the historic districts? Staff Torma responded that there is a Road Standard for this, but they are not using it. Staff Wessel commented that perhaps this was meant only for residential neighborhoods? He noted this road is classified as “Business District” and they intend to follow that Road Standard. He also noted that the sidewalk currently doesn’t meet ADA standards, and that the Bikeway Master Plan recommends the shared-use path at this location.
Chair Hunt-McCool noted that the HDC were told that the houses will be sold as single-family homes, and that decisions about parking had been made based on this assertion.
Chief of Planning Wasilak noted that these were historically single-family homes, but have been used for offices in the recent past. The current zoning is for Mixed Use Transition.
Commissioner Moloney asked why the five street trees were being removed, as this affects the residential character of the historic district. DPW staff noted that the City Forester has recommended that they be removed, and that there isn’t sufficient room to plant replacement trees.
The applicant’s attorney, Soo Lee-Cho, asked for a change in language in terms of the recommendation to the Planning Commission concerning Outlots A and B, that they currently are working on an agreement that will assure that Victory Court is responsible for the maintenance of these outlots. However, she noted that the ownership could change in the future, and the HDC shouldn’t stipulate who owns the property.
The applicant noted that the proposed paving at Outlot B is “grasscrete” or cellular concrete paving for the emergency driveway, with the concrete sidewalk down the middle.
Commissioner Moloney discussed the redesign of the Victory Court building, noting that the Maryland Avenue façade doesn’t have the same level of articulation as the Monroe Street facade.
Public Comments:
Councilperson Newton noted that the design is somewhat institutional looking. She has concerns about Fleet Street and the need to protect the historic district houses. She doesn’t see this as a connection to the bike path on Wooton Parkway, and would like less paving and street trees.
Noreen Bryan, from 207 S. Washington Street, is concerned about the shared-use path. She is a biker, but thinks the 8’ width will detract from the historic houses and their property values. She briefly surveyed the neighborhood for sidewalk widths, and there is a range, but nothing this wide (5’-4” by the County Council building, or 4’ 8” by City Hall). For such a short distance, this looks like the bike path to nowhere! She says this should go forward as a sidewalk concept, which will enhance the community.
Christine Ginsberg, from 1204 Simmons Drive, commented that it’s been difficult to track state information on the properties in the historic district because of changes in lot numbers/assignments. She expressed confusion about the zoning and what standards should apply here.
Mary van Balgooy from Peerless Rockville echoed Noreen Bryan’s comments, and wondered about the DPW report that asserted singular authority over the shared-use path.
Staff Ziek commented that the staff report did not include any comments on trees #3 (Lot 3) and #16 (Lot 4). Both of these trees are too close to the historic buildings, and should be removed. The applicant’s attorney noted that the county had no plans to do anything with the trees.
The Commission talked further about the shared-use path, and asked about removing the existing street trees. The Assistant City Forester, Elise Cary, testified that all the trees are in decline. She noted that they can’t propose new trees here because the width of the public right-of-way will not allow an adequate tree panel. She noted that in Town Center, the builder devised a special continuous tree panel under the paving.
Commissioner Moloney noted that the street trees are an asset. He also supports the turnaround for the new driveway on Lot 1, but nowhere else.
The Commission discussed and proposed several Motions, but the Chief of Planning asked for clarification to assure that the HDC addressed its purview in terms of the Courtesy Review with a recommendation from the HDC, and the Certificate of Approval with HDC review/approval authority.
MOTION: Commissioner Moloney made a motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plan of Subdivision as proposed. Commissioner Hansen seconded.
VOTE: The motion passed 3-0.
MOTION: Commissioner Moloney made a motion to approve the Landscape Plan, with the stormwater planters in concept, with the driveway turnaround on Lot 1 only, with no encroachment within the Historic District by the shared-use path, and that the actual design of the stormwater planters will be reviewed/approved by the HDC when finalized. Commissioner Hansen seconded.
VOTE: The motion passed 3-0.
MOTION: Commissioner Moloney made a motion to recommend that the Landscape Plan should include street trees in tree panels along Fleet Street, that there should not be a shared-use path along Fleet Street but a sidewalk that meets ADA standards and is no wider than 48” and is paved in brick. Commissioner Hansen seconded.
VOTE: The motion passed 3-0.
The Chair noted that item V-B, Tax Credit application HDC2010-00493 is postponed until June for HDC review. [N.B.: The Chair is the applicant and she will recuse herself, and therefore there is no quorem for this meeting.]
The Chair asked for a presentation on HDC2010-00506, Evaluation of Significance for 9200 Darnestown Road.
Applicant: (Remanded by BOA)
Address: 9200 Darnestown Road
Request: Revisit Evaluation of Significance
This project was remanded back to the HDC by the Board of Appeals (BOA). Staff Rosemary Prola presented a summary of the staff report, noting additional research on the property and owners. While it is a good example of a Colonial Revival style house, it doesn’t meet the City’s criteria for historic designation.
Commissioner Moloney asked why it was coming back to the HDC, since they had reviewed it in 2007. Chief of Planning Wasilak responded that the Evaluation process has changed with the new Zoning Ordinance, and the BOA wanted assurance on the Evaluation of Significance, as they are considering the Special Exception for this property.
The attorney for the applicant for the Special Exception, David Watkins, spoke that they are in agreement with the staff recommendation. He also submitted, for the record, a report by Historical Architect Richard Bierce, who came to the same conclusions that the property did not meet the City’s criteria for designation.
Commissioner Moloney asked if they could salvage elements of the house for recycling? The applicant from Shelter Design, Mr. David Carliner, agreed that they would do this if feasible.
MOTION: Commissioner Hansen made a motion that the property did not meet the city’s criteria for historic designation. Commissioner Moloney seconded.
VOTE: The motion passed 3-0.
The Chair asked for a staff report for the second Evaluation of Significance, HDC2010-00507, at 610 Lofstrand Lane.
Applicant: 614-626 Lofstrand Lane, LLC
(Steven Karr Architects, Agent)
Address: 610 Lofstrand Lane
Request: Evaluation of Significance
Staff Prola provided a summary of the staff report. She noted that the warehouse was built in 1969 and did not meet the criteria for historic designation.
MOTION: Commissioner Moloney made a motion that the property did not meet the city’s criteria for historic designation. Commissioner Hansen seconded.
VOTE: The motion passed 3-0.
The Chair asked for a staff report on the Courtesy Review, HDC2010-00508, for revisions to the approved new construction at Chestnut Lodge Development,.
Applicant: Streetscape Partners, LLC (Harris Schwalb)
Address: Chestnut Lodge Development - 500 W. Montgomery Avenue
Request: Recommendation to Planning Commission on redesign of new single-family homes
Chief of Planning Wasilak reviewed the prior development approvals, noting that the Planning Commission will have to approve the proposed revisions to the designs of the new construction.
Staff Ziek provided a brief summary of the staff report and recommendations.
The applicant’s attorney, Soo Lee-Cho, noted that there are no proposed changes to the Site Plan, in terms of site layout, lot size, landscape buffers, amenities, paving, sidewalks, lighting, etc. She noted that this area is not in the historic district, and shouldn’t be held to the same standards.
Harris Schwalb, for Streetscape Partners, and representing Michael Harris Homes, reviewed the new proposed use of breezeways to attach the garages to the houses. They are not intent on increasing the size of the houses, but feel that new owners want to have this connection between the garage/house. He reviewed that they will build on 22 single-family lots, while Chase Communities (Morty Levine) will develop 9 lots. He introduced his architect from the Lessard Group, Jack McLaurin. Mr. McLaurin presented the redesign. They will use the same materials as previously approved, smaller footprints for houses, larger yards, and 4-sided design of buildings.
Speakers:
Mary van Balgooy of Peerless Rockville, thanked them for consulting with Peerless, especially because of the proximity of Frieda’s Cottage. She supports this change, and complements them on the detailing on all four sides of the houses.
Paul Newman spoke for himself (he is President of the Thirty Oaks HOA) and submitted written testimony via email to staff (5/20/10 at 5:03 pm). He supports the decreased building size, and also the use of breezeways because they will require that the garages move closer to the houses and provide more open space between houses. He also wants to see something happen here.
Patricia Woodward spoke in support for the smaller homes. She noted that Rose Hill Mansion also has a breezeway.
Commissioner Moloney noted there is no new site map for their review, as the applicant provided a copy of the previously approved site layout. He provided architectural comments on several elements: prefers symmetrical design for garages; encourages additional windows in garages; asks that the plans and elevations correspond; noted possibility of additional windows in various house units; encourages transparency of the breezeways, with mostly glazing; liked proposed brick foundations, asked for consistency for the window fenestration per unit on all four sides.
Chair Hunt-McCool felt that the use of the breezeways set this off from a modern attached garage. She felt she could support this as the garages are set well back from the street and with architectural detailing.
Commissioner Hansen also supported the use of the breezeway.
MOTION: Commissioner Moloney made a motion to support the project as proposed. Commissioner Hansen seconded.
VOTE: The motion passed 3-0.
The Chair led the discussion of final agenda items.
A. There is one opening on the HDC. Please volunteer, and contact Planning at 240-314-8230 for more information.
B. Chief of Planning Wasilak noted that the City Budget was on track for approval.
C. The Chair postponed the discussion on Glenview Mansion interpretive materials until next month.
D. Chief of Planning Wasilak noted that, in July, the HDC will start to use the Video-on-Demand system (Granicus).
The meeting adjourned at 10:15 pm.