Open Letter to Historic District Commission: The Planned 206 Cannon Street Project Not Appropriate

 

I find the application for 206 Cannon Street to be inappropriate with the immediate neighborhood and believe the proposed development will degrade the Historic District at this end of town. It is completely incongruent with the intimate and historic character of the residential neighborhood. The proposed 8,000 square foot house qualifies as an estate house insensitively imposed on a humble, yet highly historically significant, neighborhood where houses average about 1,800 square feet. The site layout with various features further distances the development from the prevailing residential context and in tandem with the house design, would establish a harmful precedent if the application is approved. The following details are presented to support these opinions.

Rhythm and Scale

The town is differentiated by groupings of residences which are readily identified by their bulk, height, window details and roof patterns. Exterior materials further define the groupings. For example, the houses on Water Street are primarily large, stately with complex roof patterns, large windows and many are brick. While the houses on Cannon and Queen are small, modest with simple roofs, smaller windows, and exteriors of clapboard siding. This I call rhythm and scale. The proposed house design violates the rhythm and scale of the immediate neighborhood which was established decades ago. I note that even the newly built residences on South Queen Street respect the existing rhythm and scale. The distinguishing architectural vernacular of the neighborhood is dismissed and disrespected in the proposed house design. I further add that the proposed complex roof pattern, window themes and use of brick for veneering is not congruent with houses in the immediate neighborhood. These proposed elements are out of context.

Bulk Size – Square Footage

At the last meeting, resident Nancy McGuire asked the architect for the square footage of the proposed house and after much goading, she was told that it was approximately 6,200 square feet with 4,415 square feet on the main floor. She countered that Widehall is 7,440 square feet for comparison and is located on Water Street with its larger homes. However, I did an area takeoff of the filed design plans[1] and calculated an area of approximately 7,870 square feet! If you include the area of covered porches, the number swells to over 8,000 square feet. In comparison, the average dwelling size on South Queen and Cannon Streets is substantially much less – based on evaluation of 16 South Queen Street houses, the average is 1,747 square feet. Therefore, the bulk of the house is grossly oversized in the neighborhood by a factor of 4.5 to 1, not including the porch square footage. There is NO proximate precedent to support the house design. If built, it would visually destabilize the established ambience of the Historic District at this end of town and would obliterate the intimate historic sense of place. Comments were made by the HDC to this effect at either the August or September HDC meeting which were obviously disregarded by the applicant. The applicant is entitled to design to the limit of the zone, however, that should not allow the destabilization of the Historic District in doing so. It is a matter of applying sensitive contextual design themes in the design process. It is in your purview to require an applicant to accommodate the Historic District rather than sacrificing the District to accommodate the applicant.

Length of Front Façade

The overall length of the proposed front façade[2] is 100 feet. For comparison, Widehall’s front facade is approximately 72 feet, the Hynson Ringgold house is 50 feet, and the Wickes house is 78 feet. These buildings visually set the upward limit of the statelier houses of the southerly Historic District. For further comparison, the width of houses on Cannon and Queen Streets range from 17 feet to 32 feet, with an average being about 24 feet. Based on this analysis, it is obvious that the proposed house length is grossly out of place and egregiously overwhelms the houses within the historic neighborhood by a factor of 3 – 6 to 1! The proportionality of the proposed house seriously fails to address the well-established historic context.

Length of Side Façade

It is common for houses in town, dictated by narrow lots, to have deep side facades due to rear yard additions. However, they are rarely noticeable due to the proximity of adjacent houses that effectively block the view. This is not the case with the proposed house design. The impact of the 77-foot-long side façade[3] is not mitigated by adjacent houses and is therefore wide open to prominent views. In combination with the 100-foot-long front facade, the visual bulk of the house from a street perspective is enormous compared to the much smaller adjacent houses.

Roof Height and Pattern

The proposed roof height per the façade drawings is 34 feet. For comparison, the roof height at 203 South Queen, a 2-story residence, is about 30 feet, possibly the highest on the block. However, the front façade is only 22 feet wide, thus creating a pleasing intimate Victorian proportion. Due to its wide walls, the gabled facades of the proposed house tend to be squat and not as pleasing. I add that most roofs in the neighborhood are double pitched with ridges running front to back, effectively lessening the visual roof impact from the street. This is not the case with the proposed house with the roof design running parallel to both Cross and Cannon Streets. Roof heights and orientation matter, particularly when combined with the impact of overall building bulk. Due to its design and square footage, the house has an immense 70-foot-long main roof ridge[4] at a pitch of 12:14 which would be very visually impactful and completely out of place when viewed from Cannon. Put in context, the fronts of 3 to 4 houses on South Queen could fit within the proposed roof ridge length! The prominent shed dormer roofs facing Cannon do not exist in the neighborhood. The expansive front and rear porch roofs further serve to exacerbate the visual impact. Without doubt, the proposed roof pattern is very much out of character with the adjacent roof patterns and will overwhelm the neighborhood, thus creating a disturbing scale discrepancy.

Window Fenestrations

The scale, window to wall relationship, style and size discrepancies of the proposed fenestrations violate the predominate theme of the neighborhood. The window compositions are much more akin to a commercial building or a country estate house. The Design Standards are commendable relating to windows in the Historic District and I request application of the recommendations. The large 2-story corner window at the southwest corner of the front façade is the most egregious affectation, prompting comments at the last HDC meeting.

Outbuildings

The drawings[5] include 2 outbuildings for a studio and storage shed, both at 16 feet by 17 feet 8 inches. These buildings have a single pitch shed roof with a contemporary design influence. To my knowledge, the HDC has not provided review comments for these structures. Outbuildings in old towns contribute to the fabric, scale, and interest. They contribute significantly to the Chestertown Historic District and the proposed outbuildings should be no exception. I request review for suitability as they do not conform with the district outbuilding themes.

Site Plan Layout

The site development plan[6] includes a circular drive off Cross Street, the 2 outbuildings, a 40 foot by 68-foot parking court for a 2-car garage which is accessed by 2 drives (at Cross and Cannon Streets), 3 curb cuts and a 16 by 32-foot swimming pool. The overall scale and composition mimic that typically found on a large land parcel in the county, not in town. It is out of character with the intimate ambience of the neighborhood and this section of the Historic District. The visual image is that of a plantation house overwhelming more modest buildings, which in this case are the houses on Queen and Cannon Streets. The envisioned infill housing drawing[7] presented at the last HDC meeting only furthers to worsen this image with the increased imbalance it would create. I add that the property is divided into two zones, commercial and residential, and for some reason, the applicant has chosen to relate the house design to the commercial scale. Since this is a single-family residence, not a business, I find it totally inappropriate. The immediate residences should be reflected, and property owners respected, not the adjacent commercial structures. I add that the proposed house design could be easily mistaken for a commercial use building because it is that out of balance with the residential rhythm and scale. Even if a commercial building were proposed, I would design it to be properly proportioned and scaled relating to the immediate neighborhood – it is that important in my view.

Circular Driveway

At the previous meeting when questioning the circular drive on Cross Street, Nancy McGuire was told by the architect that the highway department had already approved the curb cuts for the drive, as if this was the final say in the matter. I note that the highway department was not responsible for the layout of Chestertown and that there is NO historic precedent for a circular driveway in the Historic District. An exception may be Widehall where a roundabout drive is in the rear yard behind a high brick privacy fence. I view the prominent circular drive as another affectation which is more appropriate in the county on a large land parcel. That is where it belongs, not here in town. In deference to the architect’s view, the final say belongs to the Commission and not the highway department.

In closing, as someone who deeply cares about the town and its future, I respectfully request consideration of these observations. I further ask that the applicant’s design before the Commission be returned for a redesign that is harmonious and respectful of the historic context. There is ample property for a reconfigured design and the town deserves all efforts to establish the correct precedent. Requiring a redesign is within your purview per the provisions of the Historic Area Zoning Ordinance, Paragraph 93-12, due to serious impairment of the surrounding area by the proposed development. I further add that the Historic District cannot fend for itself. It solely relies on your due diligence and thoughtful application of the regulations that guide you.

 

 

Thomas Kocubinski, RA, AIA
Chestertown