Thursday, November 20, 2007
Rockville City Hall PRESENT | Con Hitchcock, Chairman | Janet Hunt-McCool
Anita Neal Powell | Craig Moloney
Max van Balgooy |
Staff present: Cindy Kebba, Jeffrey Winstel, Robin D. Ziek, Preservation Planners I. WORKSESSION (7 – 7:30 p.m.): Agenda review and update. Chairman Hitchcock opened the general meeting at 7:33 p.m. and introduced the commissioners and staff. II. COMMITTEE / ORGANIZATION REPORTS A. Lincoln Park Historical Foundation – Commissioner Anita Neal Powell presented the report. The LPHF co-sponsored, with the Maryland Commission on African American History and Culture, the 2007 Maryland African American Heritage Preservation Award Ceremony and Networking Reception Soiree in Annapolis on October 4, 2007; and is planning the 2008 Maryland African American Heritage Preservation Conference in Baltimore, to be held in October of 2008: “Knowing Your History Helps to Preserve Your Future: The Impact of the Civil Rights Movement in Maryland.” LPHF will be conducting five tours throughout Maryland, beginning in February. The theme for the road trip is the “African American Passport to Track the Footprints of the Movement in Maryland.” The first education mobile workshop will start in Rockville and travel throughout Montgomery County. Also in February is the “Gospel Train Ride to Freedom” annual concert. The announcement of the 2008 Maryland African American Heritage Preservation Award will be announced in December 2007 for presentation at the 2008 preservation conference. For information see: www.aapc-md.org, send email to Lincolnparkhist@aol.com or call 301-251-2747. B. Peerless Rockville – Eileen McGuckian presented the report. Peerless Rockville is working to move the Library nomination forward from the HDC positive recommendation; participated in Community Day with clean-up activities at Frieda’s Cottage on October 27, 2007; is sponsoring a raffle for a weekend in Williamsburg, to be selected at their annual New Year’s Brunch; is accepting nominations for their annual awards to recognize excellence in work with historic buildings, quality new design, and contributions to historic preservation; is currently seeking to fill the position of Executive Director. The HDC is asked to consider helping to reverse an approval for the removal of a large Osage Orange tree adjacent to Frieda’s Cottage. For more information on projects and activities call Peerless Rockville @ 301-762-0096 or see: www.peerlessrockville.org. C. Comments – Historic District Commissioners, Historic Preservation Staff. [No comments.] III. Discussion / Updates A. RORZOR Draft zoning ordinance: CPDS staff Deane Millender and Katie Mencarini presented a brief review of the reasons for the revision to the existing 30-year old Zoning Ordinance, and a note that the citizen task force, RORZOR, has been meeting for the past 1-1/2 years. Staff reviewed what’s new in each Article, with particular emphasis on HP related matters. Article 3 includes Courtesy Review, Certificate of Approval, Demolition, Demolition by Neglect, Environmental Setting, and Interim Historic review. Article 4 discusses the HDC and the function of the Chief of Planning as Clerk for the HDC. The HDC will now select its own Chair, consistent with other Boards and Commissions. Article 7 spells out the role of the HDC and Historic Preservation staff in the new Site Plan Approval process. Historic review will occur at the 1st step of all four levels of the Approval process. Article 8 notes that the HP zone is an exception to the non-conformity rule, and a historic building may be rebuilt in its historic location if 50% or more is destroyed and it doesn’t meet current zoning setbacks. Article 9 notes that historic outbuildings will not count towards the calculation of rear yard coverage to promote their preservation. Article 10 includes a revised height calculation to reduce impacts to older communities with new construction. Article 14 talks about HD zoning, and the Interim Historic Review when properties are being considered for the HD zone. A Neighborhood Conservation District zone is also introduced. Upcoming Public Forum: December 5, 2007 at the F. Scott Fitzgerald Social Hall.
Planning Commission Public Hearing: January 23, 2008 at City Hall.
For more information, see http://www.rockvillemd.gov/zoning. Written comments are requested and email is encouraged. See the link on this web site. HDC Comments: Article 1: Add note that, as City is built-out, the Purpose of the Code needs to reference history resources as well as natural resources, and protection of historic resources. This also reflects the idea that Rockville is distinctive, and different from other cities. How is this? One way is through its history, as illustrated with its historic resources. [Com. van Balgooy] Add in goal of Sustainable Development; and review draft zoning ordinance to assure that it does not hinder sustainability. In the same way that lighting standards is addressed very specifically, perhaps other items should also be included, such as energy standards, siting for solar gain, green building standards. This should be a broad policy statement, may go into the building code, but it all starts at the Site Plan level, and so should go into the Zoning Ordinance. [Com. Moloney] Article 3: As the definition for Demolition by Neglect is different from the State definition in 66B, which governs? We should be consistent with our terminology. [Com. van Balgooy] Staff noted that the City may be more stringent than the State. This provides for general protection of a building’s integrity and character; the HDC could be involved in the “cure” if the owner wanted to make changes to address the deterioration of features brought on through demolition by neglect. Article 4: The description of the duties for the HDC seems passive, and could be more active. [Com. van Balgooy] Staff asked if this might better go into the Rules of Procedure for the HDC instead of the Zoning Ordinance? Or perhaps in Policies and Goals of the Comprehensive Master Plan? Staff to check 66B and propose broader/active language for the HDC to review.
Include the review of properties 50 years or older or possessing historic significance in the Zoning Ordinance? When does the HDC look at proposed demolitions? [Com. Moloney]
Also, language about HDC approvals (Art 4, Page 10) is stilted and needs to be revised. [Com. van Balgooy] Article 7: New ordinance proposes bringing in HDC/historic review at the 1st steps. But, this needs to be explicit in the code, to avoid confusion or last minute HDC reviews. Also, HDC is underutilized and could be involved in all complex projects. [Com. van Balgooy] The HDC should participate in the site plan process, especially if they are more complex, just as it is proposed for the Planning Commission and Mayor and Council. Could add such a requirement under (f)(1)(a)? [Com. Moloney] What documents will be referred to? PC is gathering them. [PC Com. Tyner] Staff noted that a point system is used in the County, but this draft incorporates changes. What about adding demolition and sustainability issues into the point system? To discourage demolition and raise the bar and encourage sustainability. This recognizes that the land isn’t empty, but probably has buildings and significant trees, etc. because of the City’s built-out condition [Com. van Balgooy] Questions about exemptions for HD properties: all new items are geared to saving historic structures; but, doesn’t change HDC review process or setbacks. Concern about jurisdiction for resources visible from the right of way. [Com. Van Balgooy] Staff noted this is clarified in Article 66b. Article 10: Mansionization article was a balancing act for RORZOR. The FAR was added to address current neighborhood concerns about size/scale/massing and imperviousness. This seems practical and appropriate. [Com. Moloney] Article 13: What is the effect of these Mixed Use areas for HD properties, such as Church St. and the B&O RR? Staff should look into potential impacts for these properties. Should there be a compatibility test? Discussion of lay-back slope, where it affected the design to the point of being actually restrictive/repetitive. [Com. van Balgooy] Article 14: Purpose section should be broadened to entire City, to reflect the broad beneficial effects of historic preservation beyond the specific sites. Also, add sustainability as a purpose, to encourage reuse of properties. Also add to Chapter 1: purpose/goals, how HP helps with all the goals. Regarding Article 14/page 2: remove the 50 years parameter (HDC will review all demolition permits in an appropriate manner to be determined). Also, pay attention to archaeology and think about the scope/effect/intention. Staff noted that Article 66b and City practice reflects concern for archaeological resources on City-owned/ controlled property, but not private property. Regarding #3 on Art 14/page 2, there should be no exception. Further, language describing M&C’s role in Map Amendment process: why is this so difficult? It should be simplified to reflect that nominated properties should have a public hearing and review. Question of whether or not the public hearing could be held prior to the actual Map Amendment filing? [Com. van Balgooy] Staff commented that this is the standard Map Amendment process to change the zoning. If there were a distinct HP ordinance, perhaps the process would be simplified. Finally, should we add something about “Period of Significance?” Also, recommend section regarding the Chief of Planning making decisions concerning eligibility be struck 25.14.01 Historic District Zones [Com. van Balgooy] Commissioner Moloney will email ideas about accessory structures & uses. Staff mentioned new public park zone, including school properties with recreation areas. There are several parks with HD properties. [Com. van Balgooy] Staff notes update of Park & Recreation Open Space Plan, where HP needs to be involved. Planning Commissioner John Tyner: any guidance for owners of historic properties? HDC noted that “Period of Significance” identification helps, as does the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and the City’s Technical Guides; these are on our web site. B. Twinbrook Plan – update presented by CPDS staff Ann Wallas. This area represents 1/5 of the City’s population: Planning Areas 7 (North of Veirs Mill Rd) and 8 (South of Veirs Mill). Process begun in 2004. HP materials are in the Appendices with the Resource chapters. The public record is still open, at the Planning Commission’s request. The City’s web site has all the materials for public review. PC worksessions on 11/28 and 12/12/07. Staff Cindy Kebba is working on the HP chapter for this. The current draft is being expanded to include information on historic resources in Twinbrook. General community support is against historic designation, but would encourage individual owners to bring their own properties forward for designation if they like. Staff will present a list of buildings of potential historic merit, which will help the City understand their historic significance. Eileen McGuckian commented that this Neighborhood Plan (and all future NPs) should have a section on historic resources in the planning area. C. Rockville tax credit workshop, January 12, 2008 being held at City Hall providing assistance to owners of historic properties to file for eligible tax credits (City and State). D. Note joint HDC annual training meeting, February 20, 2008 (hosted by Montgomery County Historic Preservation Commission; speaker on Substitute Materials). Details to follow. E. Rockville Historic Building Catalog: Needs revision to reflect the past 18 years of research. Project will involve survey and HDC input. Preserve America grant being prepared for project and a CLG grant will be submitted for funding as well. IV. Minutes: Meeting No. 11-07, October 18, 2007 approved as written. Motion: Commissioner Moloney Seconded: Commissioner van Balgooy
VOTE: 4-0 –1 (Commissioner Neal Powell abstained) Commissioner Hunt-McCool made a motion to ask the HDC to support the retention of the Osage Orange Tree at Frieda’s Cottage. Commissioner van Balgooy seconded the motion. Due to the late time, the motion was tabled for discussion at the next meeting. V. The meeting adjourned at 10.05 PM. | 
