Commission on the Environment

 Meeting Minutes
November 14, 2006

1.	Welcome, News and Agenda Review
	The meeting was called to order at 7:38pm in the Blue Crab Room at Rockville City Hall.
2.	Review and Approval of Meeting Minutes
	Motion to approve October 10, 2006 meeeting minutes passes by unanimous vote.
3.	Environmental Components of the Twinbrook Neighborhood Plan
	Ann Wallas, from the City’s Long Range Planning Division, described the status of the Twinbrook Neighborhood Plan (TNP).  AW mentioned that the Twinbrook area south of Viers Mill had a neighborhood plan prepared in 1982, but the area north of Viers Mill has never had a neighborhood plan.  This plan will consolidate the northern and southern portions into a single plan.  The TNP is organized around five drivers or catalysts.  One of these drivers is maintaining residential use – currently 98% of the area covered by the plan is zoned for residential use.  Residents are concerned about maintaining the residential character of their community, mansionization, and land rights.  Another catalyst is the environment; the distribution of open space is of particular interest.  For example, there is no open space within a 15-minute walk of the Twinbrook Metro station.  However, there are a lot of small chunks of unused space – these chunks should all be identified and mapped, and look at the connectivity of these areas with paths.  Since these areas are currently unmaintained, the City would incur maintenance costs of these parcels were upgraded. Another environmental concern involve stormwater management (SWM) and flooding – this region was developed before SWM was required, and therefore has very little infrastructure to control runoff and prevent water quality degradation.  Other concerns include tree maintenance, the creation of zoning-level protection for open space (parks, etc. are currently zoned residential), and promoting a recycling policy for commercial and industrial areas (like Montgomery County does). FK asked whether noise was raised as an environmental concern.  AW replied that it was, certainly with the CSX line.  AW explained that the at-grade crossing of the CSX line over Randolph Road posed a problem for the community as southward-bound trains are then required to blow their horns within the Twinbrook area; however the intersection that causes them to do this is not only outside of Twinbrook, but outside of the City.  The City could apply for restrictions to be placed on train horns within Rockville if certain conditions are met, but that process would likely take longer than Montgomery County’s planned Montrose Parkway project, which will eliminate the at-grade crossing (and thus the train horn). FK asked if there were any HOAs or civic associations in the area.  AW stated that in older developments like Twinbrook, there typically aren’t many.  AW knows of a couple of condo associations (they were built more recently), but the balance comes under the Twinbrook Civic Association (TCA).  The Burgundy Civic Association is also active. GS inquired as to which citizens were guiding the TNP process.  AW answered that they are a group of volunteer residents who applied and were appointed by the Mayor & Council. SY asked for a brief summary of how neighborhood planning was performed.  AW mentioned that the City has a Master Plan which is updated every 6-8 years.  Neighborhood Plans are usually created to address a major issue(s) facing that community.  In this case, the arrival of Twinbrook Commons necessitated the TNP.  Twinbrook Commons will be 1½ times larger than Town Square.  The City is also actively moving forwards with a Rockville Pike Plan.  FK asked if these plans would be done by the City in collaboration with local firms; FK described some difficulties she experienced serving as a part of the Town Center advisory group working with a firm from New York that did not relate well to the attitudes and expectations of Rockville, MD.  AW was aware of those issues, and that would factor in to the selection of consultants for other neighborhood plans.
4.	Walking Paths in Neighborhoods
	MD presented a plan she had developed for an organized system of walking paths within Rockville.  These paths would connect one neighborhood to another, and the neighborhoods to Town Center.  Both the Parks Advisory Board and the Rockville Bike Advisory Committee are in favor of the plan. The goal of the project would be an series of interconnected paths with interesting elements to “pull you along” (planters, colored pavers, etc.) and to visually inform you that you are on the Rockville walking path, and not just a regular sidewalk.  This project would not necessarily involve the creation of new sidewalks and traisl – mostly upgrades and enhanced maintenance of existing sidewalks.  It was thought that this approach could be done on a demonstration basis in East Rockville, adding additional neighborhoods as demand and funding for the program increased. JL mentioned that Boston has a great walking path (the Freedom Trail) that takes you on a tour of the historic portions of the city; Rockville should call attention to its own Civil War history by incorporating similar elements into this walking path. FK asked how far along MD was in the process – what were the next “steps”?  MD mentioned that there were still several barriers to the project including the need for increased funding for maintenance, and the impression by some that it could negatively increase traffic of strangers through neighborhoods near to their home.  JL mentioned that they could take the approach of if you build it they will come – map out the paths and put up wayfinding signs, then wait for user demand to create the funding for the enhanced elements and maintenance. NW to check status of this program in the City’s Capital Improvements Program (CIP) with Burt Hall, Director of Recreation & Parks. SY thinks this is a great idea.  Very similar to many European cities with more foot traffic.  Would be nice if pervious pavers could be considered as a defining characteristic of the walking path.  FK mentioned that the maintenance issue would be key here.  If that can be overcome, would be a great draw to Town Center and historic aspects of the City. MD mentioned that she is trying to get this concept in the City’s Master Plan and Neighborhood Plans – that way as new development occurs, can possibly extract funding for a new portion of the path inline with those plans. FK said that the Commission would consider her presentation and vote to endorse the concept at their next meeting.
5.	Introduction of Potential Commissioner(s)
	FK stated that the Commission currently has two vacancies – one regular Commissioner and one student member.  The Commission is inviting applicants to attend the November and December meetings so that hopefully decisions for recommendations to the Mayor & Council on these positions can be made in January.  FK mentioned that the Commission is specifically looking for someone interested in leading the Community Outreach working group of the Commission. MC is in attendance tonight.  She has worked as a marketing manager at Aspen Systems, with the Department of Energy and other agencies, and has been actively involved in outreach and web-based forms of communication.  She has been a King Farm resident for the past 5-6 years, and is very interested in the local environment, particularly because it is the one she raises her child in.  MC has worked on the Rebuild America website and program outreach, and is also a graphic designer. FK mentioned that some of the Community Outreach initiatives could include expanding the Commission’s web presence and educational materials, setting up an “Energy Fair” and possibly other similar events, and planning for another Environmental Summit.  May also consider using Rockville’s cable channel as an outreach tool.
6.	Thomas Farm Community Center at the Planning Commission
	FK attended the November 1st Planning Commission (PC) hearing on the Thomas Farm Community Center.  The EC’s original letter to Burt Hall regarding the “green building” components of this project was included in the City staff report to the PC on this project, along with the LEED checklist.  The Planning Commission clearly read through this very carefully, and there was a lot of good questions from the PC before FK ever raised any issues.  In particular, the PC raised questions about the possibility of pervious pavement for the parking lot, and the energy performance of the facility and how it would be measured.  The community center will supposedly perform 30% above ASHRAE standards, but FK mentioned that these standards were somewhat old and perhaps 30% wasn’t a very impressive feat given the state of modern construction.  FK mentioned that this project could be an opportunity to showcase different technologies the City would like to see employed to a greater extent in other development projects within the city.  The use of geothermal power for Thomas Farm was great, but the overall energy score for the facility on the LEED checklist was still low.  This is an area where improvements yield long-term savings for the City.  FK mentioned to the PC that the siting of the building could also be important, especially from a climate responsive design perspective. The Planning Commission generally supported the EC’s position that a new City facility should be a showcase for what the City would like to see in new buildings; the City should lead by example.  They questioned the value of the anticipated $60k price tag for a true LEED certification, but wondered if there were any grants or partnerships that could offset the costs.  The Planning Commission considered not approving the use permit, but Burt Hall (Director of Recreation & Parks) mentioned that costs could go up 6.5% if the project was delayed, which would negate any cost benefits.  The PC decided to put a condition of approval on the use permit stating that Rec & Parks should confer with the Environment Commission and come up with a position of whether pervious pavement could be used at the site.  It was mentioned that Arlington may have recently built a Rec Center using pervious pavement. FK said that this was a perfect topic for the Watersheds & SWM working group to tackle.  SY thinks they may have already pulled together all of the necessary information about pervious pavements.  They will discuss at next working group meeting.  NW to check on status of Arlington Rec Center.
7.	Working Group Goals & Activities
	Agenda item tabled until next month.  Working groups are to have a list of goals and activities for discussion.
8.	Staff Updates
	NW mentioned that the RORZOR (as well as the TNP) has expressed interest some sort of Open Space zone to apply additional protection on these spaces (parks and open spaces are generally zoned residential right now).  The current name in the zoning revision is a “Public parks and Recreation” zone.  NW mentioned that this indicated a more active use of the space, and that it didn’t sound appropriate for more natural areas such as stream valleys and forest preserves.  Perhaps “Parks, Preserves and Recreation” zone. The Department of Public Works has scheduled interviews for the Chief of Environmental Management position.  NW is on the interview committee, and looks forward to interviewing several qualified applicants with a goal of filling the position by the new year. At last night’s (November 13th) Mayor & Council meeting, a moratorium was put into place affecting most new requests for development within the City until December 15, 2007 (certain exceptions, such as residential permits, etc. apply).  The goal is to have the new zoning ordinance in place before the City starts processing any new development requests. The City Manager has asked for a memo describing “green construction” technologies, and the application to Rockville’s construction equipment.  Commissioners are to provide any input they may have to NW.
9.	Wrap-Up and Adjourn
	Meeting adjourned at 9:20 pm.