Historic District Commission
Minutes
Meeting No. 8-2006

Thursday, August 15, 2006
Glenview Mansion Dining Room

Staff present:  Art Chambers, Director, Community Planning and Development Services; Jim Wasilak, Chief of Planning; Judy Christensen, Cindy Kebba and Robin Ziek, Preservation Planners

I. HDC Worksession: The meeting commenced at 6:40 pm.

A. Process and Public Perception.  The HDC and staff viewed segments from recently televised HDC meetings to critique and discuss ways to improve the public hearing process and communication with applicants.  The following items were observed.

• Sound level differences and speaker voice levels make discussion difficult to follow. 
• Incomplete or altered plans presented at the meeting produce confusion and requires time and much discussion to straighten out and ensure that all understand. 
• Staff reports do not include needed information, causing the item to be postponed and inconveniencing the applicant. 
• When applicant comes to dais to explain plans, the audience, staff, and some commissioners cannot see or hear the discussion.
• Applicants often appear to be uncomfortable and stressed when working with the HDC.
• Applicants sometimes do not understand what changes are requested. 
• Courtesy reviews take too much time and should not rely on the HDC to design the project.  
• Non-preservation issues are given to justify project need.
• Staff is not prepared when asked for precedents and options without warning during televised meetings.
   

B.  Design Review Process.  The following suggestions were made:

 Meeting Procedures:

• Incomplete or altered plans after brief book issued –no changes should be allowed after the staff report is issued and posted on the website.  Applicants should be required to postpone if they wish to make changes to applications after this point or at the meeting.
   
• Applicants have the option of extending the mandatory review time of 45 days when application is incomplete or changed, or face possible denial for lack of timely written information and lack of staff review.
   
• Architectural drawings and other exhibits should be presented digitally or mounted on display boards so that the audience, television viewers, commissioners and staff can view them simultaneously on the screen and follow the discussion. Time limits for speakers should be enforced.
   
• Applicants are typically the only individuals standing at the podium where everyone else is seated, may be unfamiliar with the process and the industry jargon, and may be intimidated by speaking publicly on television.  We should strive to make this easier for them by making expectations clear.
   
• A Glossary of commonly used terms would help viewers and applicants to understand discussion. i.e.:  A Guide to Watching the HDC.
   
• Courtesy reviews may be held in a more informal and friendlier basis around a table.
   
• Courtesy reviews are often unfocused – applicant should have sketch plans of the proposed project and a list of questions for HDC.  HDC should not design project but offer suggestions to applicant and/or architect. 
   
• The meeting procedures should be adjusted to allow the HDC to ask questions and seek information of the applicant after the staff report, but allow for discussion of the applicability of the guidelines only after the Chair has called the question and a motion and second is on the table.  This may help to focus the discussion.
   
• Laser pointers are needed for meetings- for applicants, staff and the HDC.

 Staff Procedures and Role:

• Staff reports should clearly highlight any issues that are not covered by the guidelines.
   
• The Application for an HDC Certificate of Approval should be modified: 
  
  1. Submittal Procedures:  new number two (2) should be “Project must comply with the adopted Technical Guides for Exterior Alterations, available via the Internet at  www.rockvillemd.gov/historic/tech-guides  or  in printed form at  the Department of Community Planning and Development Services.”
  
  2. Under information required as part of this application… 2. Architectural Drawings, add “roof plan” to plans required. 
  
  3. On same page, move “For additional guidance…” at bottom of page to submittal procedures with links to documents on the Internet.  

The U.S. National Park Service offers standards, support and technical information for owners of old structures on the Internet:  www.cr.nps.gov/toolsfor.htm#bui

The City of Rockville’s Adopted Architectural Design Guidelines – available at the Department of Community Planning and Development Services.

• Staff-approved tree removal process should be re-evaluated. Proposed:  If the staff site visit finds the tree dead or mostly dead, staff may sign off on the permit using the site visit photograph for documentation.
   
• Staff should work with the graphics department to develop a printed version of the adopted Technical Guides for Exterior Alterations with a glossary of common architectural terms to be sent to all historic district property owners. 
   
• Staff should double check information in staff reports for accuracy. Commissioners should notify staff in advance of meeting if discrepancies are found or information is omitted for staff correction before meeting.  If unable to correct before meeting, postpone item to next meeting. 
   
• Staff should ensure that all materials and details are on submitted plans.
   
• Precedence or lack of precedence for proposed alteration should be noted in staff report.
   
• Staff may act as an intermediary when non-preservation issues are brought forward:  i.e.- insecure doors, etc. and work with applicant. 
   
• Revised order of procedure should be supplied to applicant and explained.