Map Amendment MAP2006-00097, Mayor and Council of Rockville – for rezoning from R-60 to R-60 (HD) to allow historic designation of 702 Maple Avenue, in the East Rockville Neighborhood. 

Ms. Ziek presented the staff report.  Ms. Ziek stated that the public hearing for this application is scheduled for January 8, 2007 and what is needed for part of the record is the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Mayor and Council. 

Ms. Ziek stated that the project involves 702 Maple Avenue; it is a proposed historic designation of the property that the Historic District Commission (HDC) unanimously recommended for designation because it met several criteria for historic designation. 

Ms. Ziek explained that the application came to the City through the process setup with the City’s Environmental Guidelines in that, if properties 50 years or older in the City are proposed for demolition, they will be evaluated for historic significance by the HDC.  This was done and the HDC unanimously recommended the property for historic designation.  The staff report reviews the compatibility of this proposed historic designation with the Mayor and Council’s vision for the City and also with the applicable master plans and recommends that this historic designation would be consistent with the proposed historic district rezoning.  The historic district rezoning is a zoning process, but it does not change the underlying zoning in this case the property is R-60 and with the historic district rezoning it would R-60HD.  This zoning would not change the use of the house.  The house is a single-family residence within a single-family neighborhood consistent with the City’s comprehensive Master Plan in terms of identifying and preserving the visual and physical reminders of the themes and periods in the City’s development. 

Ms. Ziek stated that this property is consistent with the East Rockville Neighborhood Plan in terms of preserving neighborhood character. 

Mr. Wasilak stated that the East Rockville Neighborhood Plan was adopted in 2004 after a process with the Advisory Group and Planning Commission review and Mayor and Council adoption of the Plan.  There was a great deal of discussion about the character of the neighborhood and it was felt, unanimously, that there were many good things the neighbors would like to preserve, but they did not feel that preservations or designations should be something that should be required.  However, it was felt that each individual property owner certainly had the ability to bring his or her property forward for historic designation.  Mr. Wasilak noted that a couple of those occurred since this Plan was adopted.  The Plan identifies those elements of East Rockville Neighborhood Plan that were deemed to be desirable for historic designation.  It is really up to individual homeowners to pursue historic designation if they choose. 

Ms. Ziek stated that the Neighborhood Plan talked about existing housing stock as models for new construction and one of the things that are inherent in this demolition application is that the owner will be opposing historic designation and that is why this application is being presented to the Planning Commission for its review. 

Ms. Ziek stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward their recommendation to the Mayor and Council that the designation of the property complies with the applicable City’s Master Plans and applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 

Ms. Ziek explained that the existing house does not meet the current zoning standards, especially in its siting on the corner location.  It does not meet the 25-foot front yard setbacks along Reading and Maples Avenues.  As with other existing older homes, the house is permitted to remain in its existing location and can take advantage of the large rear yard to accommodate additions and/or new outbuildings.  Ms. Ziek stated that rehabilitation of the house could be done by using the State’s Smart Codes, which are designed to promote the rehabilitation of existing older homes, while retaining original features and design.       

Ms. Ziek presented a power point illustrating the significance of the house and property, its characteristics, location, grounds, architectural and design significance of the property, interior renovations of the house done by the present owner, structural damage in the basement, which did not come to the owner’s attention until he was in the process of rehabilitating the property. 

Ms. Ziek stated that Peerless Rockville will not be present this evening, but they wanted the Planning Commission to know that they have testified already and their Board has voted to support historic designation of this property.  Ms. Ziek noted that Richard Smith and Jane McFarland from 550 Reading Avenue, which is a designated site, have brought their house forward for historic designation.  They had testified in the past in support of historic designation and Eileen McGuckian, Executive Director of Peerless Rockville was asked to convey this to the Planning Commission. 

The Planning Commission discussed their role in the Map Amendment process, noting that the HDC was the expert body to review historic significance and they did not want to second-guess their review.  The Commission noted that they were expert in planning matters and should focus on whether or not this Map Amendment met the guidance in the applicable Master Plans. 

In response to the Commission, Ms. Ziek explained that the HDC found that the property met the criteria for designation for its association with the suburban expansion of Rockville east of the B&O Railroad tracks with the Rockville Park subdivision, and as an example of the middle class homes built as Rockville developed into a Washington DC suburban community; and for its association with Dr. George L. Edmonds and family.  One of the primary reasons for designation is that it is a late Victorian house, with many Queen Anne elements, and one of the earliest that was built within the Rockville Park subdivision; the first subdivision in East Rockville; the first subdivision east of the Railroad tracks and all related to the development of Rockville as a railroad suburb of Washington.  The second reason is that, between the wars, there are many Colonial revival style buildings going up as the suburban development expands.  An expansion of Rockville as a residential suburb is seen through the second building period of this house.  That is an interesting way of architecture as it relates to history.  In addition, the Edmond’s family made contributions over 50 years and were residents of this property from 1903 into the 60s.  Dr. Edmonds served as a public official on a variety of levels from 1908 through 1938, including the Rockville City Council and the Maryland State House of Delegates.  His daughter was the first female graduate with a four-year degree from the University of Maryland in 1921 and his son was one of the three men from Rockville to die as a result of their involvement in WWI from the flue epidemic, which hit in the camps, the hardest and the earliest, for soldiers.  In that way, this house is a marker of how Rockville fits into the broader picture. 

Commissioner Hill referred to the East Rockville Neighborhood Plan, having read it comprehensively, he noted some statements in the Plan that are not in agreement with this application.  He pointed out the paragraph on the top of page three of the staff report, which staff writes that the Neighborhood Plan does not recommend designation of a historic district, but does encourage individual property owners to pursue historic designation, if they choose.  Commissioner Hill noted that it seems to him that that does not agree with this application because the applicant does not choose.  Commissioner Hill pointed out the next paragraph down states “Rather than achieve these ends through regulatory measures, this chapter focuses on educating residents about choices available for sustaining features that contribute to neighborhood identity.”  In addition, Commissioner Hill pointed out that the first recommendation in the Chapter on Neighborhood Land use of the Neighborhood Plan, states that the residents want to no overlay zones in the Planning Area.  Commissioner Hill said that he appreciates that the mention of the R-60 and R-75 density that they may have had in mind, but they did not want to see higher density residential overlays in place.  But, nonetheless, the Historic District is an overlay zone and taken literally, this means the community does not want to see that happen.  Commissioner Hill stated that there were four work groups involved in the Neighborhood Plan and only one of the groups mentioned historic preservation.  Commissioner Hill stated that while there are a number of things that can be inferred, that the Neighborhood is interested in retaining its character, the community made a collective choice that they were not going to impose historic designations within their area. 

The Planning Commission discussed the application of the HD overlay zone, noting that overlay zones were strongly discouraged in the East Rockville Neighborhood Plan.  Ms. Ziek provided background information and indicated that the Plan was so written to reflect discussion about overlay zones such as RTH or PRU that permitted lot consolidation and building types other than the existing single-family homes that are typical in the neighborhood.  The historic district overlay zone does not permit lot consolidation or building types other than what is permitted in the R-60 zone, and therefore was not really part of the discussion.  The Commission’s discussion on this point included comments that the Plan should be better written to say what it means; and also comments that legislative history is typically called upon at all government levels to help clarify legislative intent.  

In response to the Commission, Ms. Ziek explained that this house is not a primary residence for the owner, but an investment property.  Ms. Ziek discussed the owner’s issues with structural damage to the house during renovation efforts.  She noted that two structural engineers surveyed the damage to the house and they had two different opinions.  This could be an economic hardship argument, and the City would be very involved and there are requirements about consideration in this case. 
Ms. Soo Lee-Cho, Attorney, and Mr. Davor Kapelina, owner of the property located at 702 Maple Avenue, argued that the Planning Commission should not ignore the information they provided to show that rehabilitation of this structure would not be economically feasible and therefore, would constitute an economic hardship to the owner.  The Planning Commission discussed their role in the Map Amendment process and determined that this was not the appropriate body to review the financial data.  The HDC has a defined process and is mandated to consider economic hardship in the case of an application for the demolition of a designated property.  The Mayor and Council, of course, may also consider this.  Ms. Lee-Cho noted that they would prefer to have economic hardship considered prior to historic designation, as there is a presumption that historic properties should be preserved and therefore, the economic hardship lea might be more difficult before the Historic District Commission.

The Planning Commission considered the Mayor and Council’s Vision of Rockville in 2020; the City of Rockville Comprehensive Maser Plan (2002); the Environmental Guidelines (1999); and the East Rockville Neighborhood Plan (2004).  There was general agreement that both the Vision and the Comprehensive Master Plan are supportive of the proposed rezoning. 

The following citizens testified:

1.  Linda Ekizian, President of the East Rockville HOA and member of the Neighborhood Plan Advisory Group testified that the Plan provides accommodation to residents’ desire for individual property designation rather than for a larger historic district. 

Ms. Ekizian stated that there are people in the neighborhood who are interested in possibly purchasing this house.  However, without seeing a “Sales Sign” in the yard, it is difficult for them to know that it is a “real” opportunity.  They have heard tonight that it is, but it would be good to know, for sure, that it is for sale. 

Commissioner Hill questioned specific language in the Plan that suggested the strategy was that it was going to be left up to individual property owners to designate and the Neighborhood Plan did not support the overlay of zones.  He asked if that language is wrong. Ms. Ekizian replied that she was there and she remembered that they were talking about townhouse developments and commercial developments being plotted into their neighborhood.  Their neighborhood is right next to commercial zones and they felt vulnerable that way.  It was a distinct discussion not related to the historic homes and she does not believe it was the intention to combine those two thoughts. There were separate discussions about each of the aspects – about residential homes and zones and what could come into the neighborhood.  She noted that Stonestreet Avenue was one of the main reasons why it was even raised because of the transition between the Railroad tracks and the homes.  There are other commercial developments within the neighborhood that have caused concern. 

2.  Patricia DuBroof, 408 Reading Avenue testified that she lived close to 702 Maple Avenue and she Co-chaired the East Rockville Neighborhood Plan.  She said her daughter was five or six years old when the neighborhood began working on their Plan, and her daughter now remembers discussions about different things such as, they were protecting old houses so that when she grows up, there would be some history left in their neighborhood, and, indeed, that is why the neighborhood has been designated historic.   Ms. DuBroof noted that they are applying to be placed on the Historic National Register because they have an evolving suburb.  It struck her as being very surprising that the purchaser of this house was seeking a demolition permit; she knew the previous owner and he gardened and loved his house and property.  The next thing she knew there was a young man now living in the house and he informed her that he was planning on renovating the house for his employer and he would have his family move in the house.  She asked him how long he was planning on staying and he responded by saying that he may fix it up and sell it.  Ms. DuBroof noted that there were personal issues with the family and they moved out.  The next thing she noticed was that there was a man with a nice SUV parked in front of the house and he was opening up house plans and showing her a picture of the new house that was going to be built on the property.  Ms. DuBroof described the house as a two-story Colonial with a two-car garage, without any reference to the corner of the lot.  Ms. DuBroof explained that she called Ms. Ziek and told her about the old house and the demolition permit.  She noted that there were numerous discussions with members of their community and she presented to the Commission a petition opposing the demolition of the house.  Ms. DuBroof stressed that this property should be identified as historic; it would be a pity to loose it. 

3.  Wayne Goldstein, President of Montgomery Preservation, Inc. and  President of Montgomery Civic Federation and a member of the Planning and Land Use Committee, testified that he finds that staff has indicated beyond any doubt that this property meets criteria for historic designation.  He noted that master plans are recommendations, and what he sees in Montgomery County is many different arguments over what is the correct interpretation, and he sees that kind of healthy debate going on this evening.  Mr. Goldstein stated that, as this has been pointed out, since 1999, there has been a requirement that any building more than 50 years old being evaluated for demolition would be evaluated for possible designation.  Mr. Goldstein noted that because this requirement exists, a property owner who decides he/she wants to demolish their house might find that it could be designated against their will without their approval.  That is the whole nature of the process. 

Mr. Goldstein provided the Commission of the owner of the subject property with background information of his business background, which explains the owner’s familiarity with historic properties and possible risks involved when purchasing historic properties.  Mr. Goldstein stated that the owner is a very sophisticated investor who did not do due diligence in buying this property. 

Commissioner Medearis questioned why the Mayor and Council were the applicants in this case.  Ms. Block replied that they are the applicants because they are filing the map amendment.  Ms. Block explained the process.   

The Commission discussed concerns regarding the map amendment process, imposing historic designation on private property owners, consistency or inconsistency of master planning and the local neighborhood plans, and the Environmental Guidelines requirements would be a safety net should demolition permits be filed. 

Commissioner Holtz moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to recommend approval to the Mayor and Council of the proposed Map Amendment MAP2006-00097, Mayor and Council of Rockville for rezoning from R-60 to R-60HD for historic designation of 702 Maple Avenue in the East Rockville neighborhood.  Commissioner Hill stated that he does not believe the Commission is fulfilling its procedural obligation with this motion because Commissioner Holtz is making a recommendation on historic designation not whether this was consistent with the Master Plan, or not.  Commissioner Holtz replied that he finds that it is consistent with the Master Plan, and frankly, he finds it consistent with the East Rockville Neighborhood Plan because, although, there is a suggestion that the Commission should not regulate a property owner; there is a fall back position, which clearly was looked at very carefully by the committee that put together the Neighborhood Plan, that the Commission does not want to force somebody to do it if the Commission does not have to, but they know they have a safety net, if it comes to that.  Commissioner Holtz stated that he sees statutes all of the time looking at legislative histories and the Commission has the legislative history right here and as far as he is concerned, the Commission has met its obligation.  He believes it fits with the Master Plan and the East Rockville Neighborhood Plan.   The motion passed on a vote of 5-1 with Commissioner Hill voting against the motion on the basis that he does not believe a preponderance of the direct language, having read the whole document, actually supports the position, directly, that is expressed in the Neighborhood Plan and he believes the Commission should hold its plans to a higher standard, to say what it is it means.  Commissioner Britton was not present.    

COMMISSION ITEMS

Old Business

Use Permit USE2004–00681, Woottons Crossing – for review of proposed elevation changes for CVS Pharmacy at 799 Rockville Pike.

Mr. Wasilak explained that this is related to a use permit that was previously approved by the Commission for construction of two structures known as Woottons Crossing at the corner of MD355 at Wootton Parkway was for the construction of pharmacy drug store and the second structure was a bank.  The applicant has informed staff that they would like to change elevations of the drug store, which was previously going to be an Eckerd and now it will be a CVS.  They wanted to bring it forward to the Commission for review.

After review and discussion, the Commission accepted the elevation changes.    
 
New Business

Commissioner Hill stated that now with the monopole applications behind them now, it strikes him that the City has a good policy regarding telecommunications and monopoles, but it really lacks a description on how that policy is implemented.  He said he feels that that is one of the frustrations the City has dealt with in trying to make decisions based on criteria that are required of them.  Commissioner Hill suggested that the Planning Commission take a new initiative that is oriented to making a plan.  He pointed out that the start of the initiative is that a map of where the facilities are located in the City be created by using GIS facilities, etc.  Commissioner Hill said he has spoken to the Director of Planning, Community Services, and Director of Communications and they feel that this is a feasible activity to undertake and there a couple of concerns regarding whether the budget could accomplish this.  He asked for a consensus of the Commission as to whether this would be a worthwhile activity to endorse in the City and, if so, he would volunteer to take it further among the staff involved in this. 

In response to Commissioner Ostell, Ms. Block recommended having a worksession with the Mayor and Council to discuss this subject.  The Commission concurred that a worksession would be helpful to them, but under whose authority would this be initiated. 

Commissioner Hill agreed and said he would put a proposal in writing for the Commission’s review and comments. 

In response to Commissioner Medearis regarding the WINX property, Mr. Wasilak explained that the applicant formerly withdrew the petition for annexation into the City two weeks ago. 

Commissioner Medearis mentioned information that was included in the brief books regarding Maryland Department of Planning indicating sessions regarding new annexations and new zoning legislation at the State level.  She said there is a session in Ellicott City, next Wednesday from 1 to 3pm, and suggested having someone attend that session and report back to the Commission.  Mr. Wasilak replied that a number of staff members who are registered for that session. 

Commissioner Holtz stated that Commissioner Johnson will not be attending the last meeting of the year and he would like him to be present when the Commission elects the new Chair. 

Commissioner Holtz moved, seconded by Commissioner Wiener to nominate Commissioner Johnson as the Chairman of the Planning Commission for the year 2007, beginning January 1, 2007.  The motion passed on a vote of 5-0.  Commissioner Johnson accepted the nomination.  Commissioner Britton was absent.

Chief of Planning Report

Mr. Wasilak reported that the Commission does have a worksession with the Mayor and Council, Wednesday, December 13, 2006 to discuss issues in the Twinbrook area.  There will be discussion on the draft Twinbrook Neighborhood Plan, the Twinbrook District Performance Guidelines, the proposed development for the Maryland Motors site by Gables Residential, and, also Park and Planning’s draft of the Twinbrook Sector Plan. 

Mr. Wasilak reported that the Commission’s next meeting is December 20, 2006. 

In response to the Commission, Mr. Wasilak stated that the Board of Appeals did vote to approve the special exception for the monopole at Julius West Middle School and directed staff to draft an Opinion based on findings that the Board of Appeals are required to make for the special exception. 

In response to the Commission, Mr. Wasilak stated that the monopole goes before the Superintendent of Montgomery County School and there would be a public meeting.  If citizens would like to attend that meeting, they could contact the Neighborhood Resources staff at the City. 

Commissioner Ostell reported that there would be an open house for the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee tomorrow in the Mayor and Council Chamber at 7:00pm. 

Minutes

Commissioner Holtz moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve the minutes of Meeting No. 19-06 as amended.  The motion passed on a vote of 6-0.  Commissioner Britton was absent. 

Commissioner Hill moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve the minutes of Meeting No. 21-06 as amended.  The motion passed on a vote of 6-0.  Commissioner Britton was absent.   

ADJOURN