Howard County Historic Preservation Commission will meet on Thursday, Dec. 6.
Here is the agenda provided by the commission:
PLANS FOR APPROVAL
Regular Agenda
1. HPC-18-60 – 6480 Anderson Avenue, Hanover, HO-786
2. HPC-18-61 – 3538 Church Road, Ellicott City
3. HPC-18-62 – 3531 Sylvan Lane, Ellicott City
4. HPC-18-63 – 5819 Lawyers Hill Road (6219 Lawyers Hill Road per design guidelines map)
HPC-18-60 – 6480 Anderson Avenue, Hanover, HO-786
Advisory Comments for site development plan with demolition. Applicant: Joseph Snodgrass
Background & Scope of Work: This property is listed on the Historic Sites Inventory as HO-786, the Anderson Post Office and Dwelling. According to the Inventory form, the building was probably constructed circa 1873. The Inventory form, which dates to 2003, states:
This building is significant under criteria A and C in the areas of architecture and commerce. The building is one of a quickly dwindling small number of buildings remaining from the original settlement of Anderson. The building is an important example of a gable-front Greek Revival/Italianate transitional structure with many original elements intact. Additionally, its physical connection with the Anderson Post Office and its use as a store during the late 19th century associates it with the development of one of the many small communities that dotted the Howard County landscape during the late 19th century and have now all but disappeared. The town of Anderson, or Hanover as it came to be known, was laid out along five streets and platted in 1893.Today there is not much of a town to speak of.
The Applicant seeks Advisory Comments on the proposed demolition of this building and the reorientation of three existing buildings lots so that the lots are oriented toward Anderson Avenue instead of Railroad Avenue. The application states:
The lots where originally created by a plat recorded in 1893 titled Village of Anderson. Each lot is currently oriented to Railroad Avenue, which is a paper street and does not contains a public roadway. Anderson Avenue is a public road which provides access to the existing house, but the house is to be demolished if all 3 lots are to be reoriented. The reconfiguration of the lots provides public road frontage and public water and sewer service to the subject lots.
Staff Comments: As explained above, this is one of the last remaining resources for the original Village of Anderson, and was a civic building. Section 16.118 of the subdivision and land development regulations provides guidelines to improve project design, but do not prohibit demolition of historic structures. Guideline 1 states, “Historic buildings, structures and landscape features which are integral to the historic setting should be located on a single lot of suitable size to ensure protection of the historic structure and setting. If demolition is proposed, information explaining this decision shall be provided (structural conditions, cost to retain, etc.).” The application explains the reason for demolition being the reorientation of the lots for access to a public road and public sewer. However, the application does not explain why Railroad Avenue could not be treated as a pipestem lot, which is commonly seen in Howard County, so the lots could remain in their existing location and the historic house retained.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends additional information regarding the feasibility of pipestem access from Railroad Ave so that the house can be retained.
HPC-18-61 – 3538 Church Road, Ellicott City
Certificate of Approval to renew expired approval/exterior alterations/demolition. Applicant: Stephanie Tuite
Current Background & Scope of Work: This property is located in the Ellicott City Historic District. According to SDAT the building dates to 1937. The Applicant currently seeks approval to renew previous approvals that have since expired for cases HPC-15-78 (demolition of the house); HPC-16-06(a) (construction of retaining walls) and HPC-16-06(b) (removal of trees).
Current Staff Comments: Based on the information provided, it appears the Applicant is requesting approval of the expired D&Os from cases 15-78, 16-06(a) and 16-06(b). The Applicant stated via email, that they are “just trying to extend what was previously approved.” However, the application indicated proposed tree removal along Church Road and replacement and landscape buffer enhancement. Since this item was not previously approved, the Applicant has since indicated that this language was accidental and only one small tree, located by the proposed entrance, is proposed for removal.
The application appears to reinstate the approval for all work previously approved. Staff recommends that any approval issued at the December 6 meeting only focus on the work previously approved, per the Staff reports incorporated and attached as reference from cases HPC-15-78, HPC-16-06(a) and HPC-16-06(b) and the Decision and Orders issued for those respective cases. Any new requests outside of these approvals should be submitted separately and clearly as to not be confused with the previous cases.
Current Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends:
1) Approval of the demolition of the house and outbuildings, as they were originally approved, per the Decision and Order issued for case HPC-15-78.
2) Approval of the construction of the retaining walls as it was originally approved, per the Decision and Order issued for case HPC-16-06(a).
3) Approval of the tree removal as it was originally approved, per the Decision and Order issued for case 16-06(b).
HPC-18-62 – 3531 Sylvan Lane, Ellicott City
Certificate of Approval for new addition/exterior alterations. Applicant: Brandon Morris Background & Scope of Work: This property is located in the Ellicott City Historic District. According to SDAT the building dates to 1930. In February 2014 (case HPC-14-03) the Commission reviewed and approved an application for repairs and alterations to this structure as a result of a fire. The staff report from 2014 references an earlier application from 1990 where the Commission approve the replacement of wood windows on the house with vinyl windows, finding that the house was not architecturally significant. The 2014 application included replacing the siding (a combination of wood shake and vinyl lap) with HardiePlank lap siding, replacing vinyl windows in-kind with new vinyl, replacing a steel door in-kind with a new steel door, and using a fiber cement product for the soffits and fascia. The Commission approved the application as submitted in 2014, but found that the house was architecturally significant to the Ellicott City Historic District, which contains very few bungalow styles of housing. The Commission did not approve tax credits for the repairs as they found the proposed materials did not qualify.
The house has been converted to a duplex and the Applicant proposes to restore the building to a single family structure, by blending a Craftsman style home with rustic farmhouse wrap around porch and deck. The Applicant seeks approval to make the following alterations:
1) Roof – Replace the existing multi-colored green composite roof with a new black or gray composite shingle roof.
2) Windows – Remove the existing 6:6 white vinyl windows and replace them with Integrity 1:1 black fiberglass windows. Trim all windows with white PVC in a bungalow style trim design.
3) Siding – Maintain the existing HardiePlank lap siding and color, Mountain Sage.
4) Doors – Create a new front entry facing the street (north side of house) as the current entry is located on the west side of the building. The existing door is a white steel half-light door (9 lights over 2 panels). The Applicant proposes to install a fiberglass Craftsman style door with 3 vertical simulated divided light above 2 vertical panels.
5) Electrical panels – Relocate electrical panels from the north side of the building where the new front door is proposed and moved to the new wall between the garage wall and the new front porch.
6) Front Porch – Remove existing ADA ramp and construct a new wrap around front porch in order to create a true front entrance. The porch will consist of Trex Transcend composite decking in the color Island Mist, Trex Transcend railings in the color classic white and PermaSnap cPVC column wraps in the color white.
7) Garage – Construct a new front loading garage, as the property does not allow for a side, rear or detached garage. There are historic trees and landscape hindrances that would not support a garage on the side or rear of the home. The garage will be 23’5” long by 21’4” wide and sided in HardiePlank lap siding to match the existing in design and color.
8) Construct a 27’5” feet wide by 12’3” long rear addition on the south side of the house facing the railroad tracks/Patapsco River.
9) Demolition – The Applicant proposes to demolish the existing front porch (which is located on the west side of the house, the ramp connecting to the porch, and the small deck on the north side of the house facing the street).
Staff Comments:
Roof
The roof is currently a multi-colored green composite roof. The proposal to replace it with a new black or gray composite shingle roof generally complies with Chapter 6.E recommendations, “use asphalt shingles that are flat, uniform in color and texture and of a neutral color.” The proposed colors, black or gray, are both neutral, but gray would be a softer, more neutral color. The Commission has approved architectural shingle roofs in the recent past, finding the Guideline for a flat asphalt shingle to be outdated. The exact roof shingle product has not been identified, but should be specified so that is known whether the Applicant intends to use a flat shingle or architectural shingle.
Windows
The windows on the house are currently 6:6 white vinyl and the Applicant proposes to replace them with 1:1 black fiberglass, trimmed with white PVC. Chapter 6.H recommends against “using metal or vinyl windows on historic buildings or in highly visible locations.” Typically vinyl or fiberglass windows would not be approved for a historic building, but the vinyl windows previously existed when replaced in 2014, (an in-kind replacement since vinyl was originally installed in 1990 as explained above.) Since the current request proposes a material and design change, the Commission may want to consider whether some Craftsman features could be reintroduced. The use of 3:1 windows (an example shown in Figure 11 and page 39 of the Design Guidelines), would be more appropriate and comply with the Guideline recommendations, as they are common to bungalow/Craftsman style homes. In 1990 wood windows (6:6 arrangement) were replaced with vinyl windows, although it is unknown if they were original. Chapter 6.H recommends, “replace inappropriate modern windows with windows of appropriate style. If documentary evidence of the of the original windows is available, choose new windows similar to the original. Otherwise, select windows appropriate to the period and style of the building.” Chapter 6.H of the Guidelines explains, “windows in the historic district should generally have true divided lights, rather than sandwiched or interior snap-in muntins.Windows with permanent exterior grilles are an alternative that can be similar in appearance and reflective qualities to true divided lights.” The Guidelines state that “wood windows clad with a permanent finish are a good, low maintenance alternative” to modern materials.
Siding
The house previously had a combination of wood shake and vinyl lap siding, which was replaced with HardiePlank lap siding after a 2014 fire. The Applicant will maintain the use of HardiePlank on the house and use new HardiePlank, with the same details and color, on the new rear addition and garage addition. The continued use of HardiePlank complies with Chapter 7.A recommendations, “on any building, use exterior materials and colors (including roof, walls and foundations) similar to or compatible with the texture and color of those on the existing building.”
Doors, Electrical Panels, Front Porch and Garage
The application explains that the Applicant proposes to construct a new front entry and porch on the north side of the housing facing the street, as the current entry is located on the west side of the house due to ADA access for the previous owner. However, after visiting the site, Staff finds the west side of the house is the original front of the house and was most likely designed that way to take advantage of views of the Patapsco River. The details on the porch, such as the wide columns (including base and capital) and brick piers, appear to be original components of the house. The location of the center dormer above the porch are also indicative of the front of a Craftsman/bungalow style house.
The Commission should determine which side they find to be the actual front of the home, as all elements and alterations from this point out are determined by which side is considered the front.
The Applicant proposes to install a black fiberglass Craftsman style door with 3 vertical simulated divided light above 2 vertical panels on the north side of the house to create a front door facing the street and replace the existing front door on the west side of the house with either two full light French doors or a pair of sliding glass doors (there are no specs provided for this item, which will be needed). The style of the door complies with Chapter 6.G of the Guidelines, which recommends, “replace inappropriate modern doors with doors of an appropriate style.” However, the fiberglass material does not completely comply as the Guidelines state, “simple paneled doors of wood or wood and glass are usually best, but metal doors with an appropriate style and finish can convey a similar appearance.” While the Guidelines give some flexibility with this item, a wood door would qualify for tax credits, whereas a fiberglass door would not.
As part of the new front entry, the Applicant proposes to remove the existing front porch and ADA walkway and construct a wrap-around porch that would wrap around the north side, west side and south side of the house. The removal of the existing front porch, which is located on the west side of the property, does not comply with Chapter 6.F recommendations, which recommend against, “removing a porch or balcony that is original or that reflects the building’s historic development.” The porch and the columns, which appear original, are character defining features of this Craftsman/bungalow style home. The existing front porch has been altered over the years for ADA accommodation as seen by the ramps. The flooring is clearly not historic decking. However, the removal of the existing porch and subsequent replacement with the wrap- around porch would impact the integrity of the house. The Applicant proposes to construct the wrap around porch with Trex Transcend composite decking in the color Island Mist, Trex Transcend railings in the color classic white and PermaSnap cPVC column wraps in the color white. The removal of wood columns and railings does not comply with the Guidelines, which recommend, “if the porch is integral to the design of the building, replace it with a new porch similar in style, scale and detail.” The proposed Trex decking would be more appropriate for a rear deck, but are not appropriate for a proposed wrap around porch, or as a replacement decking for the historic porch (if retained). This house, similar to others in Ellicott City, most likely had a painted tongue and groove wood porch. Chapter 6.F explains that “materials generally not appropriate for historic porch replacements include unpainted pressure-treated wood, poured concrete and metal.” The Guidelines pre-date the use of Trex and other composite deck materials, but in general, Trex would not be seen as a replacement that, per Chapter 6.F of the Guidelines, is “similar in style, scale and detail.”
The proposed columns for the new wrap around porch will be pressure treated wood wrapped in the PermaSnap column wrap. The size of the columns was not specified, but from the renderings it does not appear they will match the size and design of the existing columns, shown in Figure 15. Overall, the removal of the existing historic front porch and construction of the new
porch does not comply with the Guidelines. However, adding a porch to the south side of the house (which is the side but appears to be the rear) facing the railroad tracks and river would comply with the Guidelines as it will not be visible from the public right of way. Chapter 7.B states, “porches or decks added to historic buildings should be simple in design and not alter or hide the basic form of the building.” The porch as proposed would alter the form of the building, but if only added to the south side of the building facing the river, would not alter it.
The electrical panels are currently located where the new door is proposed to be installed and they will be moved to the new wall end wall that will be created between the house and proposed garage (they will then be perpendicular to the street and not as highly visible). The relocation of this item complies with Chapter 6.L recommendations, “whenever possible, install equipment out of sign of public ways or other properties.”
The proposed garage will be constructed on the north side of the house facing the street. Although this side faces the street, it is actually the side of the house. The garage design incorporates a Craftsman/bungalow style panel and window arrangement, which matches the design of the proposed door. It appears there will need to be some grading in order to construct a driveway to the garage without an extreme slope and more information is needed on how much grading/excavation will be needed and whether or not retaining walls will be needed. The material of the driveway is unknown.
Rear addition (south side of house)
The proposed rear addition will be located on the south side of the house, facing the railroad tracks/Patapsco River. While referred to as the “rear”, this is actually the side of the house. The wrap around porch will continue on this elevation along the existing structure, but will not continue around the addition. The addition will be two stories in height with several new windows, as shown in the drawings. The addition will be 27’5” feet wide by 12’3” long. The addition will use the HardiePlank siding to match the house and the proposed Integrity black fiberglass 1:1 windows. The proposed rear addition complies with Chapter 7 recommendations, “attach additions to the side or rear of a historic building to avoid altering the primary façade.” The roofline will change substantially as this is proposed to be a two-story addition and will change the look of the front of the house as a result (front being the side view from the west). However, given the constraints of the lot and the siting of the house, the addition will not be highly visible and the south side of the house cannot be seen when looking at the house from the public right of way.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends this application be amended to Advisory Comments, with the following recommendations for the Commission to consider:
1) Approval of the roof, subject to submittal of an appropriate spec sheet, of a gray roof.
2) Alternate windows, such as a clad wood in a 3:1 or 6:6 pattern be used.
3) Approval of the use of HardiePlank siding, on the garage and addition be used.
4) Denial of new “front” door on the north side of the house.
5) Denial of new “front” porch on the north side of the house.
6) Approval of the proposed Craftsman style fiberglass door for use on the actual front/west side of the house, but tax credit pre-approval if a wood door of the same style is used.
7) Approval of the construction of the garage on the north side of the house.
8) Approval of relocation of the electrical panels.
9) Approval of the demolition of the deck on the north side of the house facing the street.
10) Approval of the demolition of the ADA walkway and ramp on the north/west side of the house.
11) Denial of the proposed demolition of the historic front porch on the west side of the house.
12) Approval of the proposed rear addition.
HPC-18-63 – 5819 Lawyers Hill Road (6219 Lawyers Hill Road per design guidelines map), Elkridge
Advisory Comments for Site Development Plan Applicant: Donald R. Reuwer Jr.
Background & Scope of Work: The 8.76-acre property, containing an abandoned wood, shingle-sided, outbuilding and debris, is zoned R-ED (Residential: Environmental Development). It does not have a principal structure.
The site is in the Lawyers Hill Historic District, which is a local and a National Register Historic District that spans I-95. The District is significant for its contributions to architecture, as well as community planning and development. The National Register nomination states, “The Lawyers Hill Historic District is significant for its diverse collection of Victorian-era architecture and for its role as a 19th century summer community and early commuter suburb for prominent Baltimoreans.The Hill’s unique character is based on its concentration of 19th century domestic dwellings located in the center of the community along Lawyers Hill and Old Lawyers Hill roads. The structures represent a range of 19th century architectural styles. While the buildings vary in style, they are closely related in setting, scale and materials. Lawyers Hill is also significant for its landscape architecture and community planning. Houses were built to fit the contours of the hillside and blend with the natural landscape. Most of the buildings are set back at least one hundred yards from the narrow and winding roads, evoking the spirt of the pre-auto era. The natural and man-made landscape has been allowed to mature, shrouding the houses in foliage and creating thick canopies over the roads.”
On April 5, 2018, the Applicant presented three development scenarios to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) for advisory comments and is now asking the same for a new plan. The application includes a color and black and white copy of the plan, and photos of the site, existing houses in the Lawyers Hill Historic District and those of the proposed homes. The Applicant has requested HPC comments on the “typical Beazer home” and any necessary modifications to the architecture or exterior materials.
The Applicant proposes 17 single family lots and will be submitting a preliminary equivalent sketch plan (SP) to the Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ), which will be reviewed by the Planning Board. The lots range from approximately 6,200 to 8,600 square feet, with most around 6,200 square feet. The illustrative plan shows street trees along a new public road. While the black and white plan does not include the entire site, it appears that open space lot 18 is proposed along Lawyers Hill Road. Open space is also proposed between Lot 5 and 6 to buffer the historic Gables House (HO-389). The plan further shows that nine trees will be retained after development.
Photos of existing homes in the Lawyers Hill Historic District show a variety of architectural styles; mostly historic, but some modern. The proposed homes are suburban in character with brick facades and siding on the sides and rear, front loaded garages, gabled roofs, and front porticos or porches. Some porches are supported by square columns, while others by flared Craftsman style columns. Some homes combine materials on the front façade, such as brick and siding, or a stone veneer and siding.
Staff Comments: Landscaping is an important feature in the Lawyers Hill Historic District:
The nomination form explains, “historically, there has been a great emphasis on landscaping in Lawyers Hill.A wide diversity of forest trees continue to flourish on the hill, among them ash, beech, chestnut, sugar maple, oak, hickory, cedar, blue spruce, pine, lindens, dogwoods and hollies. Numerous ornamental trees and shrubs also survive on Lawyers Hill, some over one hundred years old, including boxwoods, paulownia, wisteria, rhododendron and roses. Mature fruit trees planted in the yards of many houses include apples, pears, peaches and cherry. The landscape is a carefully guarded legacy.”
This goal has been supported through voluntary land easements that many property owners have added over the years. The easements in Lawyers Hill include Rockburn Land Trust easements, Conservation easements, Maryland Environmental Trust easements and Maryland Historical Trust easements (easements are shown in Figure 17 in green and blue, and the subject property is shown with a red star).
Many architectural styles are found in Lawyers Hill. Chapter 3 of the Design Guidelines states that these include a variety of late 18th and 19th century styles such as: Dutch Colonial, Gothic Revival Cottage, Italianate, Stick Style, Queen Anne, and Shingle Style, as well as 20th century styles such as, Dutch Colonial Revival, Shingle Style Revival, and Craftsman. In addition, there are several modern houses, but they are on wooded lots and not highly visible. Chapter 8.C explains that “historic homes range from one and one-half to three stories in height, with several one-story homes among the more recently constructed houses. Wood frame construction is dominant.”
The photos of the proposed homes show a mix of brick or stone veneer facades with siding on the sides and rear. They include multiple siding materials and features such as multiple gable pitches within a single roofline. While these design features may not be compatible with historic homes in Lawyers Hill, the Guidelines explain that “new homes need not attempt to replicate historic styles. However, to preserve the historic character and value of the district, new buildings visible from the District’s public roads should be compatible with the form and scale of the historic homes.” While the proposed homes are not consistent with this recommendation, their individual elements may be. The HPC should, therefore, provide advice on elements that could be considered consistent.
Section 16.607 of the County Code states that the Commission “shall be lenient in its judgment of plans for structures of little historic value or plans for new construction, except where such plans would seriously impair the historic or architectural value of surrounding structures or the surrounding area.” The HPC should consider this statement when deciding on the architectural character of the proposed homes.
Chapter 7 of the Lawyers Hill Design Guidelines further addresses new construction: additions, porches, garages and outbuildings. Chapter 7.B states, “although garages and carports are not a common feature in Lawyers Hill, the garages and carports that do exist provide examples of appropriate design for new structures.” Chapter 7.B recommends to, “design new garages and carports to be compatible with the materials, colors and scale of the existing house” and “place new detached garages or carports to the rear of the house, separated from the house by a substantial setback” and “on early 20th century houses, use attached carports placed on the side or rear of a house, in a location where the construction does not damage or obscure important architectural features.” The proposed homes show two-car, front-loading garages, which is inconsistent with the Guidelines. Chapter 7.B also recommends against, “placing a new garage or carport where it blocks or obscures views of a historic house, is highly visible from a public road, or is in a front yard.”
Chapter 8 of the Guidelines provides recommendations for new homes and principal structures. Chapter 8.A explains, “because Lawyers Hill grew incrementally, there are a variety of lot sizes and shapes, and homes vary in their distances or setbacks from the roads. Most homes are set back substantially from public roads and screened by trees and shrubs. New development should continue this pattern, which is part of the historic environmental setting of the District, by providing substantial landscaping and locating new structures with large setbacks from Lawyers Hill Road and Old Lawyers Hill Road. New subdivision lots should be designed to allow new homes to have setbacks from these roads similar to those of older houses on neighboring lots.”
The proposed development will be set back significantly from Lawyers Hill Road. The illustrative plan proposes an expansive lawn between Lawyers Hill Road and the new homes. Chapter 8.A.1 recommends, “provide large setbacks between new houses and Lawyers Hill Road or Old Lawyers Hill Road. Retain existing vegetation and plant new vegetation to screen new homes from these roads.” While the site plan does not indicate how many trees will be removed in this area, it appears that many will be. As many trees as possible should be retained to best comply with the Guidelines.
The open space between Lots 5 and 6, provides a buffer to the Gables House, consistent with Chapter 8.A.2, which recommends against, “locating new homes so that they block existing views of historic homes from public roads.”
Chapter 8.B discusses site design and that home sites in Lawyers Hill were originally designed to blend with the rolling hillsides and that trees were retained by limiting clearing and grading. Chapter 8.B explains, “properties were informally landscaped with an assortment of ornamental trees, shrubs and flowers. Mature trees and shrubs and open, naturalized landscape patterns contribute greatly to the Historic District’s environmental setting. It is important that new construction retain these landscape characteristics.”
Staff Recommendation: The HPC should consider requesting additional details regarding which home model or elements of each model are proposed; the number and location of trees proposed for removal; and the proposed layout and siting of the individual houses.
*Chapter and page references are from the Ellicott City or Lawyers Hill Historic District Design Guidelines.
https://www.howardcountymd.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=RDCRuNAsTuw%3d&portalid=0
Alerts Sign-up