Howard County Historic Preservation Commission met Sept. 12.
Here is the agenda provided by the Commission:
This Agenda identifies the work proposed and includes comments and recommendations from DPZ Staff. The recommendations included here do not constitute a decision of the Commission.
OTHER BUSINESS
1. Ellicott City Design Guidelines Update
PLANS FOR APPROVAL & ADVISORY COMMENTS
Consent Agenda
1. HPC-17-29c – 4730 Sheppard Lane, Ellicott City, HO-907
Regular Agenda
2. HPC-18-41 – 6195 Lawyers Hill Road, Elkridge, HO-749
3. HPC-18-42 – 8086 Main Street, Ellicott City
4. HPC-18-43 – 15081 Roxbury Road, Glenelg, HO-123
5. HPC-18-44 – Parking Lot D, Ellicott City
6. HPC-18-45 – Multiple Properties in the Ellicott City Historic District, Ellicott City
7. HPC-18-46 – Multiple Properties in the Ellicott City Historic District, Ellicott City
8. HPC-18-47 – 8390 Main Street and Ellicott Mills Drive right of way, Ellicott City
OTHER BUSINESS
Ellicott City Design Guidelines Update
• At the September 6, 2018 HPC meeting, we will be seeking public comment on Chapter 11 from the existing Design Guidelines.
• To help guide you in reviewing these chapters, please consider if there are items that need clarification, better definitions or if there are missing subject matters.
CONSENT AGENDA
HPC-17-29c – 4730 Sheppard Lane, Ellicott City, HO-907
Final tax credit approval. Applicant: Daniel J. Standish
Background & Scope of Work: This property is listed on the Historic Sites Inventory as HO-907. The Applicant was pre-approved for tax credits on May 4, 2017 for the installation of a high velocity, non- intrusive air conditioning system for the house. The Applicant has submitted documentation that $61,927.00 was spent on eligible, pre-approved work. The Applicant seeks $15,481.75 in final tax credits.
Staff Comments: The work complies with that pre-approved and the invoice and checks add up to the requested amount.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval as submitted for $15,481.75 in final tax credits.
REGULAR AGENDA
HPC-18-41 – 6195 Lawyers Hill Road, Elkridge, HO-749
Tax credit pre-approval for exterior repairs. Applicant: David Errera
Background & Scope of Work: This property is located in the Lawyers Hill Historic District and is listed on the Historic Sites Inventory as HO-749. According to the Historic Sites Inventory form, the building dates to approximately 1927. A tree fell onto the house a few weeks ago and the Applicant proposes to make the following repairs and seeks tax credit pre-approval for the work:
1) Repair structural damage to the roof, including rafters, trusses, decking and other structural components that were damaged.
2) Install new plywood over entire roof. Replace entire roof covering, including felt underlayment and all shingles. Roof shingles to be replaced in-kind using, Owens Corning Berkshire shingles in Manchester Gray.
3) Replace damaged roof vent pipes.
4) Replace damaged cedar siding (shingles) with new cedar shingles painted white to match the existing.
5) Replace gable vent.
6) Repaint exterior left side of house.
7) Replace all existing k-style gutters and downspouts in the same white color and style to match the existing.
8) Replace damaged aluminum storm window with a new window to match the existing. Repair window molding.
9) Remove damaged awning. Replace all awnings in the same color back and same size as the existing.
10) Repair structural damage to wall in basement. The exact method of repair has not yet been determined.
The following items describe the damage to the interior of the home:
1) Remove and replace water damaged plaster walls and ceiling in the 2nd floor bathroom, 2nd floor
hallway, master bedroom and middle bedroom and living room.
2) Repaint living room, master bedroom, middle bedroom, 2nd floor hallway and bathroom.
3) Replace ceramic tile floor in bathroom.
4) Reglaze 2nd floor bathtub.
5) Water damaged attic insulation has been removed. Remove remaining attic insulation that was not water damaged. Replace all attic insulation.
6) Inspect and repair and water damage to electrical components in the attic.
Staff Comments: The repairs to the house will be in-kind, restoring the house to its condition prior to the tree falling and are considered Routine Maintenance, “repair of replacement of roofs, gutters, siding, external doors and windows, trim, lights and other appurtenant fixtures using the same materials and design” and “painting previously painted surfaces using the same color.” These repairs comply with Section 20.112 of the County Code and are eligible for tax credits. If the Applicant wanted to change the gutter style to half round, which is more historically appropriate, that would be eligible for tax credits. However, as the K-style was existing, there are no issues with replacing in-kind.
The Applicant also provided a description of the interior repairs needed and Staff finds Items #1 and #6 would also qualify for tax credit under the Section 20.112 criteria, “Work that is necessary to maintain the physical integrity of the structure with regard to safety, durability, or weatherproofing”
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends tax credit pre-approval for exterior items #1-8, and #10 (excluding the awning, #9, which is not a historic building feature) and interior items #1 and #6.
HPC-18-42 – 8086 Main Street, Ellicott City
Certificate of Approval for sign. Applicant: John Eckenrode
Background & Scope of Work: This property is located in the Ellicott City Historic District. According to SDAT the building dates to 1890. The Applicant seeks approval to install one projecting sign on the exterior of the building, most likely using the existing black metal bracket on the building. If re-use of the existing bracket is not possible, the Applicant will use the scroll bracket shown on the sign picture included in the application packet.
The proposed sign will be 24 inches high by 24 inches wide for a total of 4 square feet. The sign will be constructed out of 1⁄2 inch thick MDO wood with a double sided digital print overlay. The sign will have a white background with black text and a yellow smiley face graphic and a dark pink graphic of feet. The sign will read on three lines: Happy Feet Asian Foot Therapy 443.251.9622
Staff Comments: The application generally complies with Chapter 11 recommendations for signs, such as, “use simple, legible words and graphics, keep letters to a minimum and the message brief and to the point. In many cases, symbols or illustrations that communicate the nature of the business can be used, and use a minimum number of colors, generally no more than three. Coordinate sign colors with the building façade.” The sign bracket and sign material comply with Chapter 11 recommendations, “use historically appropriate materials such as wood or iron for signs and supporting hardware.”
The hierarchy of the sign is a bit unclear and a slight reorienting of the text and graphic could result in a more effective sign. The phone number is shown in a larger font size than “Asian Foot Therapy” and should be reduced in size as to not compete with the name of the business. The location of the graphic above the text also makes the business name a secondary feature of the sign, rather than a primary. Using basic clip art to replicate the sign, Staff proposes two alternate scenarios for consideration by the Applicant, as shown below (consideration for placement of words and graphics, Staff is not proposing the Applicant use the actual font or graphics below in place of their own):
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval as submitted. If the Applicant is willing to reorganize the sign as suggested, above, Staff recommends approval of those scenarios as well.
HPC-18-43 – 15081 Roxbury Road, Glenelg, HO-123
Advisory Comments for demolition and new construction. Applicant: Dean Dubbe
Background & Scope of Work: This property is not located in a historic district, but is listed on the Historic Sites Inventory as HO-123, the Clark Family Farm. According to the Historic Sites Inventory form, the house was most likely built circa 1860. The Inventory form for this property was updated in 2008 and the form states that the then current owner was considering demolishing the brick house.
In this current application, the Applicant (and new owner) proposes to demolish the existing brick house. The application states, “the house has been abandoned for years and is uninhabitable in its current state. The report that was done on the house in 2008 indicated the house showed signs of extensive termite damage and was uninhabitable. Over the past 10 years, the house has been abandoned and has deteriorated. Once removed, a new house will be constructed on Lot 4 in the area of the removed structures.”
The Applicant proposes to retain two structures which are shown below: a rear stone addition that was used as a summer kitchen and a board and batten outbuilding with a metal roof.
Staff Comments: While the current conditions of the interior of the structure are unknown, the photographs taken in 2008 do not appear to show a structure beyond repair.
Depending upon the scope of repairs needed to make the house habitable, there are two county tax credit programs that could be used concurrently for the rehabilitation of the house. The first tax credit provides a deduction of 25% of pre-approved repair expenses from a property tax bill for up to 5 years for exterior repairs and qualifying interior structural repairs. The second tax credit provides a credit for up to 10 years based on the increase of the assessment for a historic property that has undergone significant improvement, restoration or rehabilitation due to the repairs that are made and includes interior expenses needed to improve, restore or rehabilitate the property.
If the rehabilitation of the property is not desired, Staff recommends alternatively saving the brick façade, or entire brick shell, rather than demolishing the entire structure.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the applicant consider retaining the main historic house utilizing tax credits for the rehabilitation. Alternatively, Staff recommends the Applicant consider saving the brick façade or entire brick shell.
HPC-18-44 – Parking Lot D, Ellicott City
Certificate of Approval for exterior alterations.
Applicant: Sharon Walsh, Howard County Department of Public Works
Background & Scope of Work: This property is located in the Ellicott City Historic District in Parking Lot D. The Applicant proposes to install bollards between the parking lot and both sides of the stream channel. The goal is to prohibit large items from entering the stream channel if there is another flood that will cause heavy objects such as cars and dumpsters to float. The bollards are considered temporary barriers.
The application presents two options for the bollards. The first option is for wood timber bollards. These bollards will be square posts, 10 inches by 10 inches, and spaced out every 6 feet on center. There should be no more than 60 bollards total. They will be anchored 4 feet into the ground and will be 4 feet tall above the ground. DPW is receptive to painting or staining the timbers black to mimic a metal bollard if desired. The second option is for a square steel bollard to be painted black and filled with concrete. These bollards would be 8 inches by 8 inches in size. The height and spacing would remain the same as the wooden bollards. DPW’s first option is to use the wood bollard since this is intended to be a temporary safety measure.
The old parking meters will be removed to allow room for the new bollards. The dumpsters that previously lined the channel have been relocated to higher ground; the possible final placement of the dumpsters is shown on the submitted plan, but DPW is waiting to hear the preferred locations from the waste removal contractor.
Staff Comments: The application complies with Chapter 10.C recommendations for Street Furniture, “use street furniture that is simple in design and constructed of traditional materials such as wood and dark metal.” The first option for the bollards is wood and the second option is metal. The wood bollard will blend nicely with the existing split rail fence (if the split rail is to remain along the stream channel). The location will be along the stream channel in Parking Lot D and will not obstruct pedestrian traffic. This complies with Chapter 10.C, “carefully evaluate the need before placing additional street furniture on narrow historic district streets and sidewalks” and “particularly along the commercial section of Main Street, place street furniture in areas where the sidewalk is wider or where adjacent public open space provides a more spacious environment.” The need for the bollards to keep large items, such as cars, out of the stream channel during a flood event has been proven as a known safety issue. The removal of the old parking meter posts also complies with the Guidelines, which recommend against “items of street furniture that are not necessary.”
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval as submitted.
HPC-18-45 – Multiple Properties in the Ellicott City Historic District, Ellicott City
Advisory Comments for murals. Applicant: The Fund for Art in Ellicott City
Background & Scope of Work: This application is for Advisory Comments for the creation of murals in the Ellicott City Historic District.
Staff Comments: The application does not contain any concept or proposed renderings for these buildings, so the Staff comments will be limited as the full scope is unknown. Wall murals are discussed in Chapter 11.D of the Guidelines. The Guidelines state:
“Painting a sign directly on a wall or other structural part of a building is not permitted by the county Sign Code. However, the Board of Appeals may grant a variance for such signs if they are found to contribute significantly to the historical, architectural or aesthetic character of the area. A wall mural that does not advertise a business or identify an area is not a sign and is not regulated by the Sign Code.
Well executed artwork such as wall murals can make a positive contribution to the historic district. Any wall mural, whether or not it is a sign, requires approval by the Historic Preservation Commission.”
The Applicant has identified 12 potential locations for murals. Identifying all potential mural locations allows the Commission to review the request comprehensively and not as isolated additions to the district. Of these 12 locations, six are historic, contributing buildings that have not been significantly altered and one is an important natural landscape feature, which also contributes to Ellicott City’s historic significance. These seven locations include: 8129 Main Street, 8197 Main Street, 8249 Main Street, 8307 Main Street, 8390 Main Street, 3733 Old Columbia Pike and the rock outcrop. These locations are not preferable for a wall mural, which would alter the primary and/or highly visible secondary facades, some of which are masonry and not easily reversible. Mounted art may be considered since it would not be a permanent alteration to the original walls. However, care would need to be taken to ensure that important architectural features are not altered, covered or detracted from. he building at 8407 Main Street is a newer constructed building and does not contribute to the district’s significance. The building at 3709 Old Columbia Pike is older, but also does not contribute to the district’s significance as it has been significantly altered from its original life as a service/gas station.
The following buildings are appropriate for potential mural locations:
• 8156 Main Street (former Howard County Times
Building) – while this is a historic, contributing building, the front façade has been altered from its original design. The side of the building presents a smooth stucco surface that could be suitable for a mural as it would not highly impact the front façade of the building and could easily be painted over if the mural was no longer desired.
• 8221 Main Street (the Ellicott) – this building is a
historic building, that contributes to Ellicott City’s later significance. The side of this building currently has an older mural on it. The rear of this building presents a large blank face to Old Columbia Pike and a mural could provide more character. This building is brick, so any mural would not be easily reversible, as is evident by the deteriorating mural on the side of the building.
• 8229 Main Street (former Reedy Electric, current Sweet Elizabeth Jane) – this building is a historic, contributing structure that was recently restored, although the original design was unknown. The demolition of the infill cedar shake windows and doors revealed some original architectural elements that had been covered. This is a brick structure, but the side of the building has an area of rough brick (see red circle below in Figure 18), where a former building was once attached, prior to the demolition and construction of the Post Office building. This location could be suitable for a mural but may not present the best surface for painting due to the deterioration of the brick and mortar.
The current Guidelines do not provide adequate advice on murals, other than to describe requirements of the Hearing Examiner. However, other sections of the Guidelines provide relevant advice. For example, Chapter 6.C recommends against, “replacing or covering original masonry construction” and against “painting historic stone or historic brick that has never been painted.” The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation provide additional guidance. Standard #9 states, “New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationship that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the historic materials, feature, size scale and proportion and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.” Standard #10 states, “New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall 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.”
HPC-18-46 – Multiple Properties in the Ellicott City Historic District, Ellicott City
Advisory Comments for Alterations in the Ellicott City Historic District. Applicant: Phil Nichols, Howard County Government
Background & Scope of Work: This application is for Advisory Comments/Pre-Application Advice for alterations in the Ellicott City Historic District. The application explains, “the purpose of this application is to update the Commission on the proposed alterations to the Ellicott City Historic District due to the recent flooding on May 27, 2018. This flood event has shifted the conversation and we must focus on life-safety issues, while preserving the town. Changes will have to be made to adapt to a new future with a threat of continued, high-intensity, short-duration storms.”
Please note this application is NOT for a Certificate of Approval for any alterations at this time and is strictly for Advisory Comments/Pre-Application Advice to update the Commission on the Plan and obtain advice.
The buildings subject to primary discussion include the row of buildings constructed over the stream on the south side of the street, from 8125 Main (Caplans) east down to 8049 Main Street (the Phoenix). Photos of each building after the 2018 flood are shown below:
On August 23, 2018, the County released The Ellicott City Flood Mitigation Plan. The Plan provides background information on the 2016 and 2018 flooding in Ellicott City and the engineering analysis that has been done to date, including a study known as the Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis (H&H). The Plan explains the various models that were examined in the H&H Analysis. The Plan states that modeling shows the plan will result in “a significant reduction in the floodwaters compared to existing conditions, and demonstrates the most improvements in water depth, water velocity and the risk to life safety.” The Plan states, “as the models demonstrate, the acquisition and relocation/demolition of 10 buildings that currently constrict the stream channel will provide the most immediate and impactful benefit in reducing the life safety risk on Lower Main Street.The County will make every effort to preserve the key historical elements of these structures so that they may be re-used in the Historic District to safeguard their legacy for the years to come.”
Page 12 of the Plan outlines some of the next steps that will need occur as related to historic preservation. The Plan states:
“In addition to community input, the Master Plan itself and specifically any proposed removal of structures within the Historic District require the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) to review. A Certificate of Approval will need to be obtained by the HPC before the County can proceed with these plans. Projects that have any federal/state permitting or funding must include a Section 106 Review where the County will identify and determine the impact and any adverse effects of the historic resources within the identified area. The County will work with state agencies, such as Maryland Historical Trust in this review process.”
Staff Comments: The ten buildings on lower Main Street include structures that extend over the Tiber Branch stream. This is the only stream channel exiting from the drainage area of the Historic District to the Patapsco River, after collecting three stream branches into one. The past two storms, in 2016 and 2018, have had water depths in the Tiber Branch that have exceeded the capacity of the stream channels and stormwater has broken through the first floor walls and flooring of these structures, causing structural instability. Entire floors of buildings have washed out, as shown with the photo above of 8055 Main Street (Discoveries) and 8125 Main Street (Caplans).
The oldest of these buildings is 8081 Main (Tea on the Tiber), which is a granite building that dates to 1834 and is a contributing structure to the Historic District. The newest structure, which is not a contributing building, is 8095 Main (Shoemaker Country). It was constructed in 2000, when the previously existing historic building was destroyed by fire. The neighboring building at 8085 Main (Portalli’s) was damaged in the same fire and required substantial interior reconstruction.
The buildings in this row vary in age as they do not date to one particular time frame. They also vary in historic significance as some buildings have had their interiors extensively modified (either due to modernization, flood repairs or fire repair) and no longer contain any historically significant interior features. Storefronts on some of the buildings have been altered through the years, and no longer retain their original appearance. However, there are buildings that have significant historic features that should be retained to use on other buildings or in appropriate locations as determined by the Master Plan.
There has been a repetitive loss for these structures and they are the most vulnerable to collapse in a future catastrophic flood, which could endanger lives and nearby buildings. Prior to an application for Certificate of Approval to remove or deconstruct any buildings, Staff recommends a comprehensive review of each building take place that evaluates the remaining historic architectural features and creates a plan to deconstruct, salvage or relocate as much significant historic material as possible. While the buildings were documented by the County Architectural Historian and the Maryland Historical Trust following the 2016 and 2018 flood, Staff recommends additional documentation for any historic buildings being removed or deconstructed.
The Plan correctly explains the next steps that will need to take place as related to historic preservation. A Certificate of Approval is required for the demolition or relocation of structures in a historic district. Section 300 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure guide the Commission in review of proposals to demolish or relocate a structure within a historic district. As explained in Section 300, the Certificate of Approval for the demolition or relocation of any structure must “include a plan for treatment of the site after the structure is removed. The Certificate of Approval must also include the new location for a relocated building if the location is within an historic district in Howard County.” The Rules of Procedure also indicate that before the Commission acts on an application for demolition or relocation, they shall determine whether the building is a Structure of Unusual Importance. There are certain procedures established in the Rules depending upon whether the structure is determined to be of Unusual Importance or not.
The Plan also correctly explains the next steps that will need to take place pursuant to Section 106 Review. The HPC process is separate from Section 106 Review, and the Section 106 reviewing agencies will make their own separate determinations as related to that review process. The County has met with the Maryland Historical Trust to initiate discussions about the Section 106 Review process.
HPC-18-47 – 8390 Main Street and Ellicott Mills Drive right of way, Ellicott City
Certificate of Approval for exterior alterations.
Applicant: John Seefried, Howard County Department of Public Works
Background & Scope of Work: This property is located in the Ellicott City Historic District. The Applicant seeks retroactive approval for the removal of six trees greater than 12 inches diameter in breast height between 8444 Main Street and 8390 Main Street. The trees included three spruce and three hardwood trees. The application explains that the pipe under Ellicott Mills Drive failed during the May 27, 2018 flood. The three spruce and two hardwood trees were removed from the Wine Bin property because they contributed to the failure via piping and excess and dynamic load. One hardwood tree near the former Court House was removed because of its contribution to failure via piping and hydraulic overtopping. The application further explains, “there were multiple safety hazards to life and property involved with trees in proximity of a drainage culvert. The roots weaken the bearing capacity of the soil around the pipe and when they eventually decompose, contribute to piping failure. In the event of flooding, large debris (cars and trees) becomes entangled. This blocks water, raises the floodplain water level and compounds the flood damage. Time was of the essence in removing the trees because the remaining pipe culvert is significantly damaged (and needs to be removed) and stabilization of the floodway is required to prevent further erosion of Main Street.”
Staff Comments: Chapter 9.B of the Guidelines states that work requiring a Certificate of Approval includes, “removing live trees with a diameter of 12 inches or greater 4.5 feet above ground level” and “installing or removing landscaped areas in plazas, parking lots, public parks or public rights-of-way. Major changes to the plantings in such landscaped areas, including planting or removing trees or large shrubs.”
Chapter 9.B recommends, “plant new trees and shrubs far enough from buildings to avoid moisture problems and damage to the buildings from falling limbs and roots as the plants grow.” The current guidelines do not adequately address the effect of the tree roots along the stone stream walls, and in this case, along underground utilities. If the application had come in for approval prior to the work being done, Staff would have recommended Approval as submitted because of the required engineering necessary for the repair of the Ellicott Mills Drive culvert and the widening of the stream channel in this area.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval as submitted.https://www.howardcountymd.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=yX_Y2xtp9Q4%3d&portalid=0
Alerts Sign-up