Minutes Thursday, July 21, 2005
Meeting No. 7-2005
At Rockville City Hall PRESENT
Andrea Hartranft, Chair Pro Tem
Max van Balgooy
Craig Moloney Absent: Anita Neal Powell, Chair Staff present: Jim Wasilak, Chief of Planning; Judy Christensen, Cindy Kebba, Robin Ziek and Shelby Spillers, Preservation Planners; Sondra Block, Assistant City Attorney. I. WORKSESSION: The worksession involved television-training matters, an update on the agenda and discussion of having a workshop on meeting procedures in August as the Mayor and Council Chambers and other venues will not be available for a formal meeting. The business meeting was convened at 7:02 P.M. Chair Pro Tem Hartranft opened the meeting and stated that a quorum was present. The commission and staff introduced themselves. She noted that the qualifications of the members of the Historic District Commission and staff are available for inspection at City Hall during normal business hours and are hereby made a part of each and every agenda item heard tonight. II. COMMITTEE / ORGANIZATION REPORTS A. Peerless Rockville – Executive Director Eileen McGuckian presented the update of activities for July, August and September. Phase III of the Recent Past survey will be completed by January 2006 with 83 properties surveyed in 2004 and 95 in 2005. They will be entered into a GIS database that will include photos, relevant news articles and interviews. Intern Samantha Stoney has been working on the project. A disaster plan for Peerless’ collection is nearly finished and will be available as a model for other local sites. Summer and fall walking tours will be held Wednesday and Saturday during the farmers market and during the September 24 Arts and Music Festival. A tour of Rockville Underground Railroad sites will have a trial run on September 10 for the formal tour on November 6. Ms. McGuckian asked about the status of the King Farm nomination of fall 2004. For more information on projects and activities see: www.peerlessrockville.org. B. Lincoln Park Historic Society – No report. See web site: www.lincolnparkhistorical.org. C. Comments- Historic District Commissioners – (a) Commissioner Moloney noted he had attended the Glenview Mansion Subcommittee representing the HDC and that changes to the adopted long range plan for Glenview were ready to be presented on the September agenda for HDC approval and recommendation. (b) Commissioner van Balgooy stated that the National Trust Conference would be held in Portland, Oregon in the fall and he would be presenting a session on historic site interpretation. He asked if the City typically sent attendees. Staff said that one staff and one Commissioner typically attended out of town Trust Conferences. Commissioner Hartranft indicated that she was interested in attending in 2005.
III. EVALUATIONS FOR HISTORICAL, ARCHITECTURAL OR CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE A. 339 Lincoln Ave., owned by Ludbin Alba and family (continued from June 16, 2005)
Chairman Pro Tem Hartranft asked if the item was properly advertised and received an affirmative reply. She asked that since this was a continuation to receive specific additional information, that only new information and testimony be offered. Planner Robin Ziek stated that the Commission had asked for more information on the periods of significance of the house and any additional information on the renters. She stated that three periods of significance had been identified by the Lincoln Park Preservation study. The first period is the platting and first buildings from 1891 to 1926. The 1903 and 1923 USGS Quadrant maps for the area both show a structure on this corner. The drawing is not explicit about size, etc. Staff investigation found remnants of the plan of a narrow two-room one-story structure integrated into the present house and not legible from the exterior; in terms of significance, it lacks architectural integrity. The second period of development and significance from 1926 to 1949 covers the period when Lincoln Park was part of Montgomery County and had a separate community identity. The Sanborn Map of 1949 indicates a one-story house footprint. This was altered into a two-story residence after 1949, and a side and rear additions were built. The house, therefore, lacks integrity for this period as well. The major themes for the third period of significance include the arrival of new families to Lincoln Park. This property, however, continued to be a rental property under the same ownership; it therefore does not relate to the third period of significance. As for the renters, Mrs. Luckett is listed by the City of Rockville utility records as paying utilities into the 1990s. All reports are that she was well known and respected in the community, but did not play a leadership or prominent role. After her tenancy, Gladys Christian rented and paid utility bills for a short time. Nothing is known of Ms. Christian. Ms. Ziek said that although the house has a long and interesting history and there is perhaps more to learn, it cannot be considered qualified as a single site historic district architecturally as it does not possess integrity from any period. It is also not significant through association with the owner or the tenants. Therefore her initial recommendation that the house does not meet the criteria for a single site landmark, although it would qualify in multi-site historic district, stands. Mr. Ludbin Alba, owner, stated that he bought the house to expand as a home for his family. Mrs. Maria Alba spoke about the condition of the house and their plans for demolition so they can live in an adequate house. The Commission had previously gone through the criteria for designation as a single site landmark historic district and determined that the house has been “substantially altered” under the integrity criteria. The only criterion that was found applicable was that it was a familiar neighborhood feature. The Commission concluded that no additional information was presented to render the building eligible for historic designation and that it should not be recommended for a Map Amendment to the Mayor and Council. MOTION: Commissioner Moloney moved, seconded by Commissioner van Balgooy to find that 339 Lincoln Avenue does not meet the single site criteria of eligibility for City of Rockville Historic District Designation.
VOTE: 3-0 A. Robertson-Warfield Historic District – 209, 211, 213 and 215 Monroe Street (continued from June 16, 2005)
Chairman Pro Tem Hartranft asked if the item was properly advertised and received an affirmative reply. She again asked that since this was a continuation to receive specific additional information, that only new information and testimony be offered. Planner Spillers stated that the Commission had previously determined that the houses at 101,103,105, and 107 Fleet Street and 150 Maryland Avenue met the criteria for historic designation as a district and were recommended for a map amendment to the Mayor and Council. The Commission was not sure if the houses at 209, 211, 213, and 215 Monroe Street should be considered for a separate district or for a larger one with the houses across Monroe Street. Ms. Spillers stated that the houses were not connected to the houses across Monroe Street. The houses across Monroe were developed as part of Casey’s and Blandford’s Subdivisions in the 1940s to 1950s. They are post-WWII houses whereas the Rockville Heights houses are pre-WWII. The Monroe Street lots in Rockville Heights were developed by Malcolm Stuart McConihe and were built in the late 1920s. The house at 209 Monroe Street was built in the early 1950s, and thus should be considered a non-contributing structure to the Rockville Heights houses. Planner Spillers did not recommend the three houses eligible as a district, nor were they connected by age or development to the Casey and Blandford houses. She reported that a letter concurring with staff’s recommendation had been submitted by Lisa Rother, representing the Executive Branch of the County Government, and copies were given to the HDC and entered into the record. The Commissioners concluded with the proposed district consisting only of the Fleet Street and Maryland Avenue properties. The Monroe Street properties were not recommended to the Mayor and Council as eligible. Ms. Spillers asked the Commission for its recommendation for a name for the district. She had used Warfield-Robertson for the families involved. The Commission preferred to stick with regional names and, after consulting with staff on potential for confusion, recommended the name be Rockville Heights Historic District. MOTION: Commissioner Balgooy moved, seconded by Commissioner Moloney to find that 211, 213, 215 and 209 Monroe Street do not meet the criteria of eligibility for City of Rockville Historic District Designation.
VOTE: 3-0 IV. APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL A. HDC2005-00337 Applicant: Stephen Reilly
Address: 117 West Montgomery Avenue
Request: Replace walkways, build patio, remove mature trees.
Chair Pro Tem Hartranft read the following statement. “In accordance with our legal responsibilities, I hereby enter into the record the following items: notice of public hearing, adopted design guidelines and amendments, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines, resumes of commissioners/ commission staff/consultants used by the commission, the staff report including application and attachments, record of any previous related hearings, and any letters sent to the Commission on the case.” Planner Robin Ziek stated that the applicant wished to replace the existing brick walkways and construct a rear patio and walkway to the parking area using Belgard concrete pavers in a cobble pattern in “Range Fossil Beige” color. Mr. Reilly is also requesting removal of the arborvitae screen in front of the house and several dying or failing trees. Staff presented photos of the house, walkways and trees as well as concrete pavers installed at Friends Park. She noted that the guidelines call for retention of original materials where possible and that her survey of the surrounding houses of this period in the historic district found that all used actual fired clay bricks in traditional terra cotta red for sidewalks. She also examined the Reilly sidewalks and found them mostly intact, with some variety in red color, but consisting of a durable hard fired old brick with a few broken bricks as reported by the owner. She believed that enough old bricks could be found to relay at least the front and side walkways to the porch. More breakage can be avoided by having them relaid on a firm base. Commissioner Maloney noted that old brick is more durable than concrete, with a handmade character of its own and appropriate for the age of this house. Staff recommended that the streetscape sidewalks utilize the existing bricks relaid on a proper base with side curbs and with adequate care taken to protect the roots of a mature walnut and poplar tree. Ms. Ziek stated that concrete pavers are appropriate to distinguish the patio and new walkway as a modern addition, and suggested that there might be flexibility with the color for the new patio and rear walkway, but that there could be flexibility in terms of color although a red tone would be more compatible with the overall site and district. As for the trees, they are not historic and were not present in photos taken in the 1980s. Approval was recommended for all the tree removals with the City Forester’s concurrence. Staff thanked Mr. Reilly for proposing to restore the view of this wonderfully detailed house to the public. In response to a question from Commissioner van Balgooy, staff stated that the age of the sidewalk could not be determined, but it was at least 50 years old. Steven Reilly, owner of 117 W. Montgomery, stated that he agreed with the majority of the staff report but prefers to use concrete pavers as they would be more uniform in color and size. He presented samples of Belgard brick pavers in terra cotta colors as an alternative. Commissioner van Balgooy said he had also walked the neighborhood and noted that all of the historic structures have clay red bricks. He believed it would be appropriate to relay the existing bricks for the front and side walkway. He also felt that red concrete pavers for the patio would blend in better with the historic district. Commissioner Moloney concurred. He encouraged the applicant to use gravel and sand for the base and not stone dust, which does not drain as well. He also cited the staff recommendation. Motion: Commissioner van Balgooy moved to close the record on HDC2005-00336. Commissioner Moloney seconded the motion.
Vote: 3-0 MOTION: Commissioner van Balgooy presented the following motion: Finding HDC2005-00337 for tree removal, replacement walkways, and construction of a new patio at 117 West Montgomery Avenue in compliance with the Secretary of Interior's Standard # 9 and in compliance with City of Rockville Technical Guide # 7, I move approval of the application with the following conditions: Both the front walk and the west sidewalk will be reinstalled in the same general location in a professional workman-like manner, utilizing the existing red bricks, and with the same design using side curbs.
The walkway and patio paving at the rear of the house may be laid with concrete pavers in a red brick color.
The applicant shall consult with an arborist for the protection of the root systems for the mature walnut at the rear and the mature poplar at the front.
Commissioner Moloney seconded the motion. VOTE: 3-0 B. HDC2005-00336 Applicant: Chestnut Lodge Properties, Inc.
Address: 500 West Montgomery Avenue
Request: Demolish two buildings and relocate a third within W. Montgomery Avenue Historic District.
Chair Pro Tem Hartranft read the following statement. “In accordance with our legal responsibilities, I hereby enter into the record the following items: notice of public hearing, adopted design guidelines and amendments, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines, resumes of commissioners/commission staff/consultants used by the commission, the staff report including application and attachments, record of any previous related hearings, and any letters sent to the Commission on the case.” Planner Cindy Kebba noted that a letter of support from Bridget Newton, President of the West End Citizens’ Association had been received in favor of approval of the exploratory plan, the rehabilitation of the Lodge, and retention of vistas and private open space. Copies of the letter were distributed to the HDC and it was entered into the record. Ms. Kebba also noted for the record that the applicants had withdrawn the request for demolition of the stable and now planned to reconstruct it. Therefore, this application will cover only the demolition of the Upper Cottage and the reconstruction and relocation of the icehouse. The items will be considered separately. Planner Kebba presented a quick overview of the 20.4-acre site and the PRU development proposal, with its 44-dwelling unit maximum. Most will be created as 36 new houses with detached garages on the rear portion of the property. There are six historic resources on the front 8-acre Chestnut Lodge parcel within the West Montgomery Avenue Historic District and one at the rear end of the property in the Rose Hill Farm Historic District. Using a graphic presentation, she identified the resources affected by the application tonight. She stated that the new construction proposed within the West Montgomery Avenue Historic District is an access road to the rear property and an addition and underground parking garage to the Lodge building. The Lodge will be rehabilitated and unsympathetic modifications and additions removed and it will be restored to its original appearance as much as possible. The Bullard House, or Little Lodge, will be rehabilitated into a single-family residence for market rate sale. The Stable is now to be reconstructed and utilized as an accessory building to the Little Lodge. At issue tonight is the Upper Cottage and the relocation of the Icehouse. In a separate request, the HDC is asked to provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission and Mayor and Council for the exploratory development plan and to comment, as a courtesy review, on the proposed renovations to the Lodge building. For the proposed demolition of the Upper Cottage, Planner Kebba said that staff recommended demolition unless the exploratory plan is substantially changed in terms of road alignment. Staff found the demolition met State Code, Article 66B, Section 8.10, item one, in that restoration of the Lodge building and the Little Lodge, the preservation of Frieda’s Cottage, the preservation of open space, trees, and the traditional views and vistas of the property and the reconstruction of the Icehouse and Stable constitute a project which is of substantial benefit to the community. She also stated that the project could not occur if the rear portion is not developed and that the proposed road alignment, which is forcing the demolition request, is the best road alignment in staff’s opinion. Ms. Kebba mentioned that staff had pursued all plausible alternatives and had not found one that provided as little adverse impact on the site and satisfied the majority of the Chestnut Lodge Guidelines while allowing reasonable development and use. She noted that the Upper Cottage would require significant structural modification and its siting and relationship to the Lodge and Little Lodge is not optimal. Representing the applicant, Jody Kline of Miller, Miller and Canby, stated they want to show progress over the last 18 months. He distributed resumes of the key personnel in the project and introduced Kate Kuranda of R. Goodwin & Associates, Inc. and Mary Oehrlein of Oehrlein & Associates, who presented the proposals with a PowerPoint presentation. Ms. Kuranda and Ms. Oehrlein presented the challenges and decisions in producing an exploratory plan that satisfied the Chestnut Lodge Design Guidelines, is in compliance with City Code, and meets the goals of the owners in developing the site. They took the audience and HDC through the decisions and results. The following speakers testified in favor of the application: Eileen McGuckian, Executive Director of Peerless Rockville, stated that the site is the western anchor to the Town Center and a familiar landmark. It was identified in the 2002 Master Plan as Critical Area #1. Peerless Rockville supported the exploratory plan in that it preserved and provided reuse for the majority of the historic structures and reflects the concerns of the City and its neighbors. She was pleased to have the Stable remain and stated that the Upper Cottage would not pass the state test of unusual importance. She mentioned that Peerless does intend to accept Frieda’s Cottage but Peerless has elected to pursue restoration of it as a single family residence as conversion of the house to a museum, as was initially proposed, and compliance with building code for the public use would necessitate great damage to the integrity of the interior and require parking spaces. Patricia Woodward, a resident of the West End in Rockville, stated that she wanted to reiterate the West End Citizens’ Association’s strong support. Also, as a private individual, and former employee of Chestnut Lodge, she and other former employees have a vested interest in meaningful and appropriate use of the property. On Frieda’s Cottage, she said that after Dr. Frieda Fromm-Reichmann’s death, it served as a guesthouse for families of persons undergoing treatment to ease them back into family life. She said that if Dr. Bullard were here tonight, he would be saying, “I’m liking this path and please proceed,” and if Glenview was the crown jewel of East Rockville, Chestnut Lodge will be the crown jewel of West End. In response to Commissioner Moloney’s question on Ms. Woodward’s opinion of the demolition of the Upper Cottage, Ms. Woodward said she had no special fondness for the building and felt that it would be difficult for anyone to live there. Commissioner van Balgooy said he did not like to see any contributing structures demolished but sees no alternative for the Upper Cottage. He noted that he had been inside the building and it would be difficult to reconstruct or modify into a single family home. He concurred with the staff recommendation for demolition. He suggested adding a condition that any reusable architectural elements be salvaged and donated to a non-profit. Commissioner Moloney also concurred with staff’s recommendation. He said he had been in the house and found it difficult to modify or reconstruct into a home. He agreed with the additional condition for salvage and said he was pleased that the building would be documented. Chair Pro Tem Hartranft also concurred with the staff recommendation. She proposed that some way be found to commemorate the building that formerly occupied the space through an outline and landscaping or other means. The other HDC members agreed that the applicant should be asked to return with ideas. Motion: Commissioner Moloney moved to close the record on HDC2005-00336 for the demolition of the Upper Cottage. Commissioner van Balgooy seconded the motion.
Vote: 3-0 Commissioner Moloney made the following motion: Motion: Finding HDC2005-00336 in compliance with City of Rockville Technical Guide for Exterior Alterations: Relocation or Demolition Guideline # 11 in reference to demolition of the Upper Cottage in that retention of the Upper Cottage presents significant physical and economic feasibility difficulties as described in the staff report and sufficiently meets the conditions of Section 8.10 of Article 66B of the State Code to be considered for demolition as a last resort, I move approval of the application to demolish the Upper Cottage with the following conditions: A demolition permit may not be issued before and unless the Mayor and Council approve the Exploratory Application as submitted with regard to new road alignment, and the Planning Commission approves the PRU Detailed Application. The Upper Cottage must be fully documented before demolition occurs. A photographic record that includes scale must be made as part of the site inventory work. Documentation must be approved and received by the HDC and staff prior to issuance of a demolition permit. All trees in the vicinity must be fully protected throughout the demolition phase as specified by the City Forester. The applicant is to return to the HDC with a plan for commemorating the building. Reusable architectural features shall be salvaged for donation to a non-profit.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner van Balgooy. Discussion: Commissioner van Balgooy asked if the approvals required by staff would ensure that the building would not be demolished before completion of the project was assured. Chief of Planning Wasilak stated that approval of the detailed plan should ensure that the road would be built as shown on the plan. The Chair asked the applicant how best to ensure that the building would not be demolished and plans altered leaving a vacant parcel. Rob Baker, Engineer for the applicants, suggested tying the demolition to the site and grading permit. Assistant City Attorney Sondra Block suggested that the demolition be part of and consistent with a construction phasing plan approved by staff. This suggestion was accepted as an amendment by Commissioner Moloney and seconded by Commissioner van Balgooy. The HDC voted unanimously to make it a part of condition 1. The vote on the motion followed.
Vote: 3-0. Ms. Kebba stated that staff recommended reconstruction of the Ice House but that it not be moved to the Frieda’s Cottage lot. The applicants concurred with staff that the new location on the Frieda’s Cottage lot was not the best location. They will return and propose a specific location closer to the Lodge at a later time. Commissioner van Balgooy stated that he concurred with the staff recommendation but asked why the building must be moved. Ms. Kebba replied that if left on the lot, it becomes a maintenance responsibility for a private owner and would not be publicly accessible. The applicant’s attorney, Soo Lee Cho, said the applicants are exploring utilization of the structure for a bicycle locker and would move it about 80 feet to be closer to the Lodge where it can be maintained by the HOA. Chair Pro Tem Hartranft suggested that the applicant withdraw the application and return when the Historic Area Work Approval application is filed. This review can be considered a courtesy review. Ms. Lee Cho formally withdrew the application. At that point, Morton H. Levine, President of the Associated Properties, asked for reassurance that the building could be reconstructed. He preferred that the reconstruction be approved for the benefit of hearings in the near future and the location be settled later. Ms. Lee Cho rescinded the withdrawal for the reconstruction only and the HDC proceeded with the approval for reconstruction. Motion: Commissioner van Balgooy moved to close the record on HDC2005-00336 for the reconstruction of the icehouse. Commissioner Moloney seconded the motion.
Vote: 3-0 Motion: Commissioner van Balgooy moved, and Commissioner Moloney seconded the motion: Finding HDC2005-00336 for reconstruction of the Ice House in compliance with City of Rockville Technical Guide for Exterior Alterations, I move approval of the request to reconstruct the icehouse with the following conditions: The applicant must retain the current siting or select a more appropriate site for the re-constucted icehouse on the Lodge Parcel #1 or between the Lodge and the Little Lodge, to be approved by the HDC. A Certificate of Approval application, including all required documentation, must be submitted for approval by the HDC before the icehouse is dismantled. The icehouse may not be dismantled before the Planning Commission final approval of the detailed application of the PRU and must be consistent with a construction phasing plan approved by planning staff. The applicant must perform archaeology of the ice pit to the satisfaction of the HDC.
Vote: 3-0 Chair Pro Tem Hartranft announced that it was nearing the normal adjournment time of 10:00 p.m. and, according to the HDC rules of procedure, she was extending the meeting time to finish the agenda. Jody Kline submitted a list of items the applicants wanted the HDC to recommend to the Mayor and Council with the exploratory plan. Staff asked the Chair to take a short recess to allow staff a few moments to review the request. The Chair recessed the Commission at 9:53 pm. and reconvened at 10 p.m. V. COURTESY REVIEW – Chestnut Lodge Properties, Inc. A. Recommendation to the Mayor and Council on the Exploratory Application for Planned Residential Unit (PRU) development of the Chestnut Lodge property. Planner Kebba said that staff found the exploratory plan in compliance with the Chestnut Lodge Design Guidelines and had provided a sample motion to that effect. The HDC examines the plan within the historic district for compliance or preferences and new adjacent development for potential adverse impact. The HDC went through the items and Commissioner Moloney made the following motion of approval: MOTION: Commissioner Moloney moved, seconded by Commissioner van Balgooy, to recommend approval of the Chestnut Lodge Exploratory Application PRU2005-00022, with comments as noted below, to the Mayor and Council as the Exploratory Application follows the majority of the Chestnut Lodge Design Guidelines. The Application preserves open areas, but adds a new road and brick pedestrian walkways to the east of the Lodge. The HDC prefers a modified curb design that is more sensitive to the historic setting. Although a landscape buffer is recommended along the east, south and west property boundaries in the Citywide Master Plan, flexibility is encouraged to maintain traditional public views from West Montgomery Avenue and Thomas Street. Substantial landscaping screening along the new road is not recommended if it would further block views of the Lodge and Frieda's Cottage from West Montgomery Avenue and Thomas Street. The HDC will review and provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission on the detailed architectural plans and materials for the new residential development at the time of the PRU Detailed Application. Exterior alterations of all buildings that are retained in the historic districts will require HDC review and Certificate of Approval. The HDC requests assurance that all historic buildings that remain on the site are adequately maintained and that any deferred maintenance is corrected as soon as possible. Approval of road alignment within the Historic District area, as proposed by Applicant. Preference for passive use of the open space area of Chestnut Lodge using natural trees and vegetation. Agreement that multi-family use of the Lodge Building is a reasonable adaptive reuse. The Applicant must submit a separate Certificate of Approval application for proposed exterior alterations/addition to the building for final approval by the HDC. Approval of transfer of Frieda's Cottage to non-profit for rehabilitation and reuse and support for a front setback waiver, as proposed by Applicant. Although the HDC does not regulate use, it did agreed with Peerless Rockville that the best use for this building would be continued single-family residential use. Approval of transfer of Rose Hill Barn to property owners of Rose Hill Mansion for rehabilitation and support for a front setback waiver, as proposed by Applicant. Approval of reconstruction of the Icehouse, details of which must be submitted with a Certificate of Approval application. Approval of a single brick sidewalk within the Historic District, rather than sidewalks on both sides of the road to limit the amount of paving, as proposed by Applicant. Limiting paving on Thomas Street that would negatively impact the existing historic setting and the trees along the eastern boundary of the Chestnut Lodge property. A sidewalk is recommended in front of the new houses that will connect to the Chestnut Lodge building but should not extend to West Montgomery Avenue. Preference for a brick-style sidewalk, to be differentiated from the brick pattern used in the historic district, within the new residential community, as proposed by Applicant, to achieve compatibility with the surrounding historic district areas. Review of proposed exterior alterations/addition to the Lodge building, prior to submittal of application for Certificate of Approval at some future date.
The Applicant’s representatives and consultants presented the plans for restoration of the Lodge and the design for a new addition on the south and west facades. The HDC fully supported the concept-level plans. V. DISCUSSION / UPDATES A. Planning Activities and Projects: Lincoln Park Preservation report – Judy Christensen said the Chairperson of the Lincoln Park Community Preservation Committee would report to the Mayor and Council on the methods chosen by the Committee to apply to Lincoln Park on July 25. The Committee asked for copies of the report.
B. Commission Business Annual recommendation of candidate for HDC Chair
Staff reported that Commissioner Max van Balgooy was nominated and approved via email correspondence by the HDC, accepted the nomination, and was selected by the HDC to be recommended as chair for FY06. The appointment will go to the Mayor and Council on August 1, 2005. Meeting helps and operational changes: consent agenda: A worksession on meeting procedures and forms will be held in August in place of the business meeting. The evening date will be decided via e-mail
VI. MINUTES MOTION: Commissioner van Balgooy moved, seconded by Commissioner Moloney, to approve the minutes of May 19, 2005 as submitted.
VOTE: 3-0 MOTION: Commissioner van Balgooy moved, seconded by Commissioner Moloney, to approve the minutes of June 16, 2005 as submitted with corrections by Robin Ziek. VOTE: 3-0 VII. ADJOURN: The HDC adjourned at 11:00 pm. Respectfully submitted, Judy Christensen and Cindy Kebba, staff. | 
