2026-09-17 - Historic District Commission

00:00.83] Good evening, everyone. Thank you for joining us this evening for the Historic District Commission meeting. This is Thursday, September 17, 2026. This is meeting number 92026. [00:13.09] I'm joined this evening by fellow Commissioner [name], [name], [name], and [name]. We're also joined tonight by particular staff members. [00:24.91] I'm going to skip the first one because I have something to say after that, but we're joined by [name], Principal Planner and [name], Comprehensive Planning Manager. [00:34.20] The comment I wanted to make is that our [name], who's one of the city attorneys and has been the attorney for the HTC for quite some time, has reassigned to a few other duties. [00:48.34] Apparently, she's kind of very important. And we are, we have a new city attorney, [name], who we appreciate his efforts, but I just wanted to thank [name] for all of the work and the support that she's given to the HTC. [01:02.93] And I know that we will certainly lean on her for any issues in the future, and I really want to welcome [name] to the HTC. So thank you for that. [01:12.62] Our meetings this evening can be viewed on Rockville Channel 11, which is on County Cable, and they're live streamed at www.rockvillemd.gov/rockville11. [01:24.71] You can also view the meetings afterwards at www.rockvillemd.gov/video-on-demand. Move on to the agenda. First are committee and organizational reports. [name], [name]. [01:45.15] Hi, everyone. I have a very short report tonight. I just really wanted to remind everyone that our exhibit in the Robert Courthouse Rockville 250, our American story, has not closed. [01:57.59] It's still open. It will be open to the public until about the 20th of November. [02:02.15] So it'll close right before Thanksgiving. Our hours have changed a little bit, so we're now open Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday to align with our regular open hours. [02:13.07] But also, anytime there's a sign out front in front of the courthouse, stop in. We've had a lot of people stopping by, just coming in, and a lot of people coming from around the county as well. [02:23.99] I hope to see all of you there sometime. I know [name]. Ms. [name] has stopped in, and I hope that the rest of you do also. So thank you. [02:35.65] Thank you, Ms. [name]. The next is Lincoln Park Historical Foundation. Commissioner [name]. [02:41.83] Good evening. The [name] divided you to join us for the 250th anniversary in celebration of America and Montgomery County. [02:57.27] We will be hosting an event on Saturday, September 19th, from 930 to 2 o'clock PM at the Red Brick Courthouse at 29 Courthouse Square in Rockville. [03:10.39] We begin the morning at 930 with a tour of African-American sites. 1045, we will be showing a movie called Finding Fellowship, focusing on the Quench Orchard Historic Black Community. [03:24.86] From 12 to 2, we will have a panel discussion on moving forward through relationship and social change. So we would like for you to come, and if you want more information, you can contact me on [number]. Thank you. [03:42.39] Thank you, Commissioner [name], and that is on my calendar. [03:46.68] Next on the agenda, any public comments open for him? If anyone is here this evening in the audience or online with us, if you have something to share that is not on the agenda, please come forward. [03:59.71] [name], I don't see anyone on the line, do you? No, just another second. Okay. Next on the agenda are HDC commissioners and staff comments. [04:15.17] I just have one quick thing. I want to thank the mayor and council for supporting the decision that the historic district commission made in reference to 24 Martins Lane that was approved on Monday night to be designated historic. [04:29.37] I know there are a few people that weren't supporting that, but I think it was the right decision. [04:34.26] And I'm looking forward as a commissioner in the HCC to work with my other commissioners and city staff in the community and making sure that whatever is put on that property is commemorative of the history of that property and it's well deserved. [04:48.10] So, I appreciate the council's actions on that. Any other commissioners have any comments? [04:56.75] I would also like to thank acting city attorney, [name] for the work that she has done with, well, with the HDC for so many years, maybe 15 or more. [05:08.71] So you want to just let her know that we are sending her thanks and congratulations to her on her move to her new job. [05:15.41] Hopefully so. So thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or commissioners, staff? Good evening commissioners. We have a few staff updates for you. [05:26.98] The first is a reminder that the mayor and council will be hearing a special presentation of the HDC annual report on Monday, October 5th. [05:35.30] I think you all have that on your calendar. If not, make sure you do add that on your calendar. [05:40.10] Traditionally, the chair will give the remarks. Mr. Chair, we can work with you offline. We have a PowerPoint deck prepared and you can write everything for me. [05:49.46] We will write everything for you. You just got to stand up there and be charismatic. [05:53.22] And so that is on October 5th and we invite all of our commissioners to certainly attend and then any members of the public who are interested in hearing that report to either attend that meeting or to tune in online. [06:04.63] A couple other updates for you. We tentatively have a new preservation planner and we are waiting for the background check to finalize. [06:13.37] But we believe everything should be good to go there and we will have a new preservation planner, hopefully starting at the end of September. [06:20.41] I don't want to jinx us until all the I's are dotted and T's are crossed. [06:25.37] But at our October meeting, we will plan to bring that new planner to introduce to you all as we work to get them up to speed on everything about Rockville and the historic district commission. [06:35.53] That's good news. Great news. We are we had a great, great crop of applicants. [06:43.00] We were really blessed with many very well qualified individuals. [06:47.72] I think you all will be pleased when you get to meet her, both for her experience, her education, as well as she's got a great personality. [06:55.56] I think she's going to be a joy for us all to work with the last update that I want to say, commissioners, you're aware of this. [07:01.85] But for members of the listening public at our July meeting, I believe it was we talked about changes to historic preservation practices as a result of the new zoning ordinance that went into effect on August 1st. [07:15.57] This is the first kind of regular meeting of this body since that August 1st effective date. [07:21.93] And one of the changes that the new ordinance provides is that when the HTC takes action on a certificate of approval application in addition to a motion saying whether or not you approve or deny the application and the reasons why. [07:34.97] We also need this body to start adopting a resolution that is basically reiterating and memorializing those reasons why the body is taking the action that they are. [07:43.89] So moving forward, you should expect to see copies of those resolutions in your brief books, along with the staff report, the application and all of the agenda materials for each case. [07:53.45] We did not get those in the brief book for this September meeting. [07:56.69] So commissioners, you all have been provided with copies of those are printed copies at your seats as well as digital copies provided via email. [08:03.33] But moving forward, those will be in your brief books. [08:06.21] So if you would like to review those in advance, you should have plenty of opportunity to do so. [08:11.79] And that concludes staff's comments. [08:14.56] Thank you very much. [08:16.51] Next on the agenda are consent items. [08:18.51] We have approval of the minutes from July 16th. [08:23.04] May I have a motion? [08:25.18] >> I move to approve the minutes for July 16th, 2026. [08:28.80] >> Second? [08:31.30] >> I second. [08:32.20] >> Thank you both. [08:32.96] Any further discussion? [08:35.19] I see no hands. [08:36.03] All in favor? [08:38.14] >> No. [08:39.34] >> Aye. >> And I believe I was not at that meeting. [08:44.29] >> At July, you were not. [08:45.91] >> Okay, thank you, so I will not be voting. [08:49.53] Yes, next are minutes for August 20th, 2026 meeting. [08:55.27] >> I have a motion, please. [08:58.97] >> I move that we approve the minutes for the August 2026, August 20th, 2026 HDC meeting. [09:06.13] >> The second. [09:07.68] Thank you both. [09:08.60] Any further discussion? [09:10.57] All in favor? [09:13.01] >> Aye. [09:13.73] >> Thank you, commissioners. [09:15.76] Next on the agenda are tax credits. [09:19.98] The only one we have this evening is 2026-332, and this is for [address] West Montgomery Avenue. [09:28.79] The amount requested is $15,593.40, and the amount recommended is $0, and staff are going to turn to you if you could just explain. [09:41.97] >> Sure, so that tax credit application, there were two pieces of work that were submitted in that application. [09:47.37] Unfortunately, both of those pieces of work were on the interior of the home and thereby are not eligible per Montgomery County's guidelines. [09:54.61] The staff's recommendation is tax credit of $0, given that they are not eligible expenses. [10:03.00] >> Well, I appreciate any of the historic district owners of whether it's a home or [10:08.76] a building of putting any kind of investment in the property. [10:12.36] So I'm sorry that they cannot get the credits, but I do appreciate the work that they've put into the structure. [10:18.68] Commissioners, have any comments? [10:22.16] >> I have no. [10:23.02] >> Okay, may I have a motion? [10:29.07] >> I move to approve. [10:30.69] >> May I have a second? [10:33.50] >> Second. [10:34.86] >> Thank you. >> Can I interject here? [10:36.22] >> The motion would be to deny the tax credit application, not to approve. [10:41.22] >> I'm sorry, I said approve. [10:42.02] >> That's kind of habits. [10:43.72] >> I move to deny the tax credit application for 2026-332-tax. [10:50.79] >> May I have a second? [10:52.81] Thank you both. [10:54.31] Any further discussion? [10:56.25] All in favor? [10:57.90] >> Aye. [11:00.40] >> Thank you. [11:01.41] Next are certificates of approval. [11:04.33] The first is 2027, 390, and this is for Courthouse Square. [11:10.88] This is a certificate of approval for the installation of two signs on the building. [11:14.44] And I understand staff, we have two speakers, or at least one speaker this evening, but I know you have a presentation. [11:21.66] >> Yes, that is correct. [11:24.32] So we are here to talk about case 2027, 390-CoA for four Courthouse Square. [11:31.70] This building should be familiar to most of you. [11:34.58] This is a building that's commonly known as the Farmers Banking and Trust Building. [11:37.78] It's located just a couple blocks from here in the town center neighborhood of the city. [11:42.90] This is within the Courthouse Square Historic District. [11:45.30] This is our, well, I guess before Monday this was our newest historically designated property in the city. [11:51.54] This structure was added into the Courthouse Square Historic District in 2024. [11:59.38] The application before us is for the installation of two signs on the exterior of the building. [12:04.34] One thing before we get into the specifics of the application that I want to make sure this body is aware of is signs are one of the many items of work that staff have the ability to administratively approve. [12:15.22] So when staff are looking to do an administrative approval, we need to make sure that the application is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's standards, [12:22.74] as well as any relevant technical guides for exterior alterations. [12:26.93] The way that our code is written is staff can administratively approve applications in certain instances. [12:33.75] Staff do not have the ability to deny the applications. [12:37.30] So if staff finds an instance where the application is not consistent with either the Secretary's standards or the technical guide, [12:43.86] the resulting action is that we escalate it to the HDC and the HDC becomes the decision maker. [12:49.42] So that's why you're seeing this and you don't traditionally see signs because most of the time we are able to just sign off on them at the staff level without escalating them to you all. [12:58.72] So that said, we have an application here for two different signs. [13:01.92] Can you go back one side? [13:05.29] The first sign we're going to refer to as the illuminated cabinet sign. [13:08.45] You can see a rendering with some dimensions of that sign here on your screen. [13:12.61] This would be wall mounted on the southern corner of the western elevation of the building. [13:18.05] So this would be facing North Washington Street. [13:21.29] It is currently proposed to be an internally illuminated sign and proposed as 19 feet tall and approximately three feet in width. [13:34.07] On this slide, you can see where the sign is proposed to be located as well as you can get a sense of the scale of the sign relative to the building itself, [13:42.75] as well as the shadow you can see in the bottom corner replicating or illustrating the average height of a human on the slide. [13:54.17] We have a couple of images showing the existing condition on that corner of the building as well as what it would look like with this sign installed. [14:05.25] And then this is an image I believe we pulled from the Paris Rockville site of this building in 1974, [14:12.01] where you can see that there is a vertical sign on that corner slightly different in design, [14:16.45] slightly different in location, but generally there is a precedent for having such a sign in this area. [14:25.54] So this portion of the application for this illuminated cabinet sign is the reason that we needed to escalate this case to you all as a body. [14:33.72] The technical guide number nine, which is our technical guide for signs, specifically says that signs should not be self illuminated, [14:41.41] meaning they cannot light up on their own. [14:43.93] That is what is being proposed here today. [14:46.13] So that's why this has been escalated to you. [14:49.41] Despite that, staff believe that the sign as proposed is compatible with the existing structure that we have here consistent with the period of significance. [14:58.17] We believe that it fits appropriately on the building as proposed by the applicant. [15:02.57] So staff are recommending approval of this sign installation. [15:10.48] The second sign that's included within this application is pretty straightforward. [15:14.00] It is for a bronze donor plaque. [15:16.20] You can see an image on the slide here of what that is proposed to look like. [15:20.56] This would be on the southern elevation of the building, so it would be fronting courthouse square. [15:25.97] The sign proposed is two and a half feet in width, one and a half feet in height. [15:30.05] It's a metal plaque with a raised border and pebble finish in black and bronze, polished bronze colorway. [15:36.73] This is remarkably similar to other plaques that you see on historic buildings all throughout the city and really the country. [15:45.28] This is a photo of the elevation of the building. [15:49.72] You can see in red, it's a little tiny here on the screen, but that's where the donor plaque is proposed to be located. [15:56.52] So it's right next to the main entry door on that frontage of the building. [16:05.83] So finding that the installation of this donor plaque meets Secretary for the Interior Standard number nine, staff do recommend approval. [16:14.62] And then we will leave you with two potential motions for this body to consider on this application. [16:19.34] Thank you. [16:21.10] >> Thank you, [name]. [16:22.26] I have a question, should the commission wish not to support one of the two signs? [16:33.37] Would we make two separate motions, or how would that work? [16:37.01] >> We could probably craft a motion that implies one would be, but not the other. [16:42.24] >> Okay, and I'm not inferring anything, I just want to know for process. [16:46.11] Thank you. [16:49.08] >> Missioners? [16:50.02] Yes, any comments? [16:51.30] >> So do we have anyone who want to speak to this application? [16:53.82] >> That's right, speakers, I'm sorry. [16:56.25] >> Okay, so we have two individuals that are signed up from the public to speak to this. [17:00.21] Actually beforehand, we do have the applicant also here. [17:03.95] So we have the applicant and then the owner of the building are both. [17:07.11] >> Commissioner [name] has a comment. [17:08.59] >> Sure. [17:09.19] >> Not a comment, a question, [name]. [17:10.47] >> Yes. [17:12.69] >> Given that you've just made your report, do we know if that sign in the 1974 image was illuminated or not? [17:19.11] >> I do not believe it was internally illuminated. [17:21.35] >> Okay. [17:22.95] >> I would have to look into it in more detail. [17:25.27] >> Can you put that in the room? [17:34.50] >> It does not obviously look like it is. [17:36.50] >> No, I know it doesn't, but I'm curious more than anything else. [17:40.12] >> It was, yes. [17:43.29] >> It was. [17:46.44] >> According to a member of the audience, yes, it was illuminated. [17:49.82] >> Thank you. [17:50.58] >> Okay. [17:55.07] >> So if the applicant's here and would like to come forward, please. [18:02.57] >> Good evening. [18:03.41] I'm [name], I'm the Executive Director of [name], and I appreciate the opportunity to talk about not just the signage, [18:11.25] but the project of the [name] in general. [18:18.13] We purchased the building a couple of years ago, and now we're in the point where we're very close to finishing the renovation. [18:25.88] That work should be substantially completed by mid-November, and we look to move in probably in early 2027. [18:36.86] This space, when it's completed, will provide room for exhibits about the county's history. [18:43.00] We'll have a permanent timeline around the exterior of the exhibition hall. [18:48.66] It'll have room for traveling exhibits, rotating exhibits, lectures, receptions. [18:56.62] There's going to be an oral history recording studio that we're dedicating to [name], [19:02.06] who was a local girl back in the day. [19:07.72] She went to Montgomery Blair High School, so we dedicated one of the four vaults to creating a recording studio for her. [19:16.73] We'll have our administrative offices, and then, of course, the [name] Research Library will be on the top floor. [19:23.69] We have gone to great lengths to work with our architect, [19:28.37] as well as our general contractor to ensure that the historic fabric has been protected to the greatest extent possible. [19:37.67] It's obviously core to our mission as the county's historical society, and I think it's reflected in the product that you'll see. [19:47.15] And I know Commissioner [name] has already seen this space, but I encourage all of you to come over, and I can give you a tour. [19:55.57] We can do it before and after. [19:57.53] We're getting to the point where we're starting to do the finishes, some paint on the wall, things like that. [20:03.88] But it's still very much a work in progress, so in any event, we're excited about the potential of the project to stimulate activity on the streets in Rockville and Town Center. [20:17.46] And the sign is an important component of that, to let people know that you are in the historic center of the town, and we believe it is very much in keeping with the character of the building. [20:30.15] So, and I'm happy to answer any other questions you may have about it. Thank you. [20:35.41] Thank you, [name]. Commissioners, have any questions? [20:39.34] I have one question. So you said the sign was eliminated from the early time, from 1974? [20:49.36] Was it '74 or something? It was early '70s. [20:53.09] So you said it was? [20:54.89] The sign that was in the presentation before, from the early '70s, yeah. [20:59.17] We'd considered doing a blade sign, you know, which comes right off the corner. [21:04.90] But because of the street tree blocks, half of it, we thought putting it on the western elevation would sort of maximize visibility, as well as just fit with the street trees and the character of the space, so. [21:25.59] Okay, thank you. [21:26.55] Okay, thanks. [21:33.50] Anyone else, part of the application, like to speak before I ask for speakers from the audience? [21:41.45] If anyone is here this evening, I'm sorry, [name]? [21:51.49] Yeah, so we do have patients from [name], who is the applicant in this case, patients, if you want to speak. [21:57.61] I am here. [21:58.25] There you go. You're welcome to speak if you'd like to. [22:00.37] Sorry about that. Thank you. [22:02.67] You're good. My name is [name]. I am with [name], we are the manufacturers and installers for this sign. [22:09.43] So obviously, we're in agreement with all of staff's comments and staff's report, and I'm just here if there are any other technical questions or sign questions that I may help with. [22:22.69] Thank you. Commissioners, how many comments or questions? [22:28.89] Commissioner [name]. [22:30.87] Yeah, just a comment. [22:36.08] I think that was probably a difficult building to put a sign on, but I think the solution you've come up with respects the integrity of the building. [22:51.35] And it almost has a little bit of an art deco flair to it, the perimeter of the sign, which, of course, echoes the art deco style of the building. [23:03.20] So I'm I'm in favor of it. [23:05.31] I think it will bring some life to the city, to that very important corner. [23:10.64] And so that was my feeling. [23:15.15] So thank you for coming in. [23:17.76] Thank you, Commissioner. Anyone here this evening, either in the audience or online? [23:22.60] Sorry, no question. Oh, sorry. Sorry. [23:25.18] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [23:28.77] I'm not sure if this is best addressed to [name] or [name], but I'm curious whether because it seems to me that the issue at stake [23:37.77] and why we have to consider this rather than this being approved by staff is that it's internally illuminated, right? [23:42.69] I'm curious whether there's a possibility of the sign or whether it was ever considered that the sign be illuminated externally, [23:51.16] like with a spot or something that that would so that we could. [23:54.91] So you could have an illuminated sign without it being without it being a problem from the point of view of the technical guidelines. [24:03.93] I can't say it was considered at one point, and the belief was that the nature of those signs was internal illumination. [24:15.68] And just to make it, you know, as as Commissioner [name] mentioned, sort of in keeping with the deco theme and so forth, [24:25.24] we felt that that was the best way to achieve that. [24:29.50] Thank you. Any other comments from the commissioners? Questions? [24:37.14] Mr. [name], of course. Thank you. Good evening again, Chair [name] and commissioners. [24:46.91] I'm [name] [name] speaking tonight on behalf of [name]. [24:51.10] I thank you for the opportunity to provide comment tonight speaking for [name], but also for myself. [24:58.81] I want to say we're very pleased to see [name] here this evening as it marks another important step in their progress to reimagine and reopen this iconic Rockville Landmark. [25:09.89] We commend them for taking on this ambitious project and look forward to it opening up in the coming months, as I'm sure you all do as well. [25:19.28] Secondly, we thank the staff for the detailed report on this matter and for including the renderings and images, [25:25.36] which I believe made it very easy to imagine the proposed signage and the potential changes to the facade. [25:32.08] After reviewing the report, [name] strongly agrees with the staff findings and has no objections to the proposed signage. [25:39.51] The signage to include the illuminated cabinet sign appears carefully planned and highly compatible with the style and period of the bank building. [25:48.51] Yes, it is even differentiated from the old and it therefore marks a new use and a new era for this much love structure. [25:59.41] It is compatible with the scale of the building. It minimizes damage to historic materials. [26:04.86] It is removable for the future. And I also love that it does not obscure other original building elements which were previously obscured by the bank signage that had been there. [26:18.74] The donor plaque is consistent with Secretary of Interior standards for scale material and placement and does not negatively impact any historic features of the building. [26:28.06] It's also very like other dedication plaques which are placed on historic buildings throughout Rockville. [26:34.21] Although the illuminated cabinet sign is not consistent with the technical guide for exterior alterations number 9 and it is not part of the original 1930s design of the building. [26:45.32] It is similar to the illuminated sign which we do believe was an illuminated sign which appeared in that earlier photo. [26:53.18] And we agree with the staff finding that the sign as proposed is compatible with the existing structure [26:59.59] and also with the types of self-illuminated signage that was very popular during the period of significance of the building. [27:06.40] [name] thanks the commission again for your work in protecting the building so that it remains a prominent part of Rockville's streetscape. Thank you very much. [27:15.29] Thank you, Ms. [name]. Anyone else here this evening either in the audience or online joining us that we'd like to make a comment? [27:25.37] See no one online. No, okay. Okay. Commissioners, comments, questions? [27:35.97] I have one reservation here. I think the sign I agree with everything that's been said about the fact that the sign is in keeping with the history and the current look of the building and I also commend [name] for the excellent work they've done. [28:01.74] I feel this, you know, the work that the HTC did and the mayor and council did and everyone did to designate this building and it being purchased by the, by [name] is what was, you know, clearly one of the best possible outcome for this building when we considered it two years ago and I'm really excited to see what [name] is doing with it. [28:29.32] My reservation about this is something maybe the city lawyer, Mr. [name] could speak to. [28:36.92] Are we creating a problematic precedent here? You know, if this, if, if we say yes to this, you know, and then, you know, sometime down the down the in the future, a some entity that doesn't necessarily have the kind of respect for Rockville's history and heritage and Rockville's built environment comes along and wants to do this. [29:00.16] Do something similar are, are we making things difficult for the city if if we approve this and, you know, in theory, we don't approve or this body doesn't approve one, a similar kind of project down the line and then the city ends up in court over it. [29:21.60] You know, that couldn't that that worries me. So that's, that's something I'd like to hear spoken to you before we vote on it. Thank you for the question commissioner. And I really do always appreciate questions about precedent concerns, because it is something that we think about, but I will be candid with you in this instance and particularly given the very site specific review. [29:47.79] That's conducted for certificates of approval. I do not have any personal legal concerns with a precedent being set in this case, because I think it would be fairly easy for the, the staff to distinguish a different case where, for example, the sign might obscure historic features. [30:05.37] Where it might be located in an area of the building where it's not appropriate or where it otherwise might not be in keeping with the character of the structure. So I think, you know, this is 1 of those unique cases where the body has a lot of discretion to look at the individual case before it. [30:22.71] So, you know, I'm just giving you my opinion, but I am not concerned about a precedent in this case, a negative precedent in any case. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. [30:34.03] [name] any other comments from the commissioners questions, staff, any further comments, then we have motions in front of us may have a motion, I move the commission approved certificate of approval application 2027 dash 390 dash COA at 4 courthouse square and adopt the associated resolution. [31:01.90] The work meets the secretary of the standards of the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation. Number 9, we have a second second. Thank you both. I have a motion or excuse me all in favor. [31:15.82] Hi, thank you very much. Next in the agenda is 2027 393. This is another certificate of approval. I am going to recuse myself from this application and I'm going to let our coach or excuse me, our vice chair commissioner [name]. [31:37.98] I'm going to run the show for a moment. So I'm going to step down all right. We'll go ahead and begin with staff's presentation here. This is for case 2027 dash 393 dash COA certificate of approval application for [address] West Montgomery Avenue. [32:05.62] You can see here the overview of the property on the screen. This site is located within the West Montgomery Avenue historic district. The one thing that I will note is the home itself was actually constructed in 1997. [32:18.58] So while it is in a historic district, the home itself is not quite as old as many of its surrounding homes are. In this case, we are looking at a retroactive certificate of approval. This body has seen these before, but I think it's been a bit of time. [32:35.67] So in this instance, the alteration has already been made and the homeowner is seeking to bring the property into compliance by getting a retroactive approval from this body for this alteration. [32:46.49] The alteration in question is the installation of a 12 foot wide by 20 foot long shed in the rear yard. You could see images of the shed on your screen here. [32:57.43] This shed replaced a shed that was previously in the same location. In a moment, I'll show you a map of where this is on the property. [33:06.01] The shed itself has a metal roof similar to the metal roof that's present on the porch of the home. The walls are constructed out of smart side engineered wood siding and the paint colors match that of the home itself. [33:20.59] On this image here, you can see the property and you can see in, I guess it's the upper right corner, the new shed replacement label. That's where the shed is located. So it's in the rear of the yard just off of the alley, off of Laird Street and the parking area for the home back there. [33:41.52] The applicant has attested that no other alterations were made to the property when putting in this shed. There were no changes to landscape or other features to the property that would need to be considered by this body. [33:54.05] Staff have found that the proposal is consistent with Secretary of the Interior standards number 9 and number 10. Additionally, it is consistent with technical guide number 16 for accessory structures. [34:08.59] Because the shed has already been constructed on site, we've been able to confirm that it is consistent with all development standards and regulations within the zoning ordinance relative to setbacks, sizes, things of that nature. [34:22.06] And as a result, staff recommends approval of this application. We will leave you with some motions for consideration. Thank you. [34:30.76] Thank you, [name]. Do we have anybody representing the property owner who would like to speak? You don't need, you don't need to. OK, you know, the opportunity is there if you'd like to. [34:55.13] OK, right. Sorry. Thank you. Any questions on the staff report from the commissioners? Thank you. [35:25.79] Any comments by commissioners? Take a vote. Oh, I did. I did it already. Any. Yeah. Thank you. [35:42.46] Any members of the public present or online who wish to speak about this? No. OK. All right. So now we go to a vote. Would any. [35:58.56] Can we have a motion? I move the commission approve approval application to 27. That's three nine three zero eight at [address]. [36:13.48] What must we have any and adopt as a state resolution to work with the secretary of the interior as well as rehabilitation number nine and 10 and technical guide number 16. [36:26.27] We have a second. I'll second. Thank you. So the motion passes. We need to call a vote. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, of course. [36:38.58] And we need to vote on that. All in favor, please signify by raising your hand. Hi. Any opposed? The motion passes. Thank you, Commissioner [name]. [37:11.66] OK, next on the agenda and last of certificate of approval is twenty twenty seven four seven. This is for [address] Forest Avenue. It's a certificate of approval data handrail to the front steps. [37:24.89] Staff report, please. Yes. Thank you. We are here for case twenty twenty seven four seven COA at [address] Forest Avenue. [37:33.95] You can see a property overview here on this first slide. This is the [name]. [37:38.30] This was designated as a single site historic district by this body in two thousand twenty one. [37:44.66] And it is located in the West End neighborhood. But as I mentioned, it's a single site historic district. [37:49.14] So it is not a part of the broader West Montgomery Avenue historic district. [37:55.43] The applicant is proposing to install one single wrought iron handrail along the left side of the front steps. [38:03.12] If you're looking at that image there on the left side, you can see the column there. [38:07.36] You can also see a precedent image of what the proposed handrail would look like. [38:13.02] There are some anchors present on that column right now, which leads the property owner to believe that historically there may have been a handrail in that location. [38:22.02] Although I'll note that neither the applicant nor staff have been able to find photos to verify that. [38:27.10] But it seems likely given the remnants of hardware that are visible on these front step columns. [38:34.24] The material that is proposed by the applicant is consistent with other wrought iron hardware on the home as well as readily present throughout the neighborhood. [38:45.16] One thing that makes this case a little bit unique over other cases that this body frequently sees is that the property owner is applying for some historic property tax credits through the Maryland Historical Trust for this work as well as a much larger kind of repair maintenance program that they're working through. [39:02.39] And one of the conditions of a state tax credit is that the project has to be approved by the Maryland Historical Trust before it is started to make sure that that work is eligible. [39:13.03] And this work did get approved by the Maryland Historical Trust earlier this year. [39:17.99] That all said, staff find that the proposal to install the handrail is consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards Number 9 and Number 10 and is appropriate for the period of significance of the home and therefore recommends approval. [39:42.88] We'll leave you with some motions to consider. [39:45.56] I will note that there was one piece of testimony received on this case via email. [39:50.44] I believe you all should have received it earlier this morning. [39:52.92] It was in favor of this approval. [39:55.89] Thank you. [39:56.74] Thank you very much, [name]. [39:59.33] Before I ask for, before I ask for speakers, commissioners, do you have any comments or questions with staff? [40:06.83] Just a teeny minor question. So the property owner is planning to do additional exterior work and I just want to make sure I understand it correctly, but this was broken out because it's an addition rather than a replacement of existing. [40:25.90] That's correct. [40:26.88] So most of the work that the property owner is doing is considered maintenance. [40:31.32] It's repairs. [40:32.08] So that doesn't have to come before this body. [40:34.64] There was some work additionally that the applicant was eligible for administrative approval by staff on. [40:40.88] So that has been broken out of this larger project. [40:43.04] The handrail was the only thing that we could not administratively approve and was not considered maintenance. [40:48.56] So it did require the certificate of approval. [40:50.96] Makes sense. [40:51.48] Thank you. [40:54.86] If the applicant is here this evening, oh, I'm sorry. [40:58.08] I keep, sorry. [40:58.96] You keep ignoring me, Pete. [41:00.08] I know. I'm sorry. [41:02.18] This is, this is a minor thing. [41:03.59] I'm just curious in, I have a memory that this house was designated because of the property owner like requested to be designated. [41:10.18] Is that correct? [41:10.98] I believe so. [41:11.74] Yeah, that's what I thought. [41:12.78] Okay, that's all and that's the same property owner. [41:16.80] That's correct. [41:18.77] Anything else commissioner? [41:20.91] Okay, just to make sure I don't miss you again. [41:23.31] That's 3 times. I think if the applicants here this evening, it has any comments if you could come to the podium, please. [41:32.64] Thank you, [name]. [41:37.36] Thank you. [41:38.51] Good evening. I'm [name] property owner just to make a few comments since we got this property and moved in 3 years ago. [41:51.13] We find that our friends and neighbors who visit keep getting older and older and while we have escorted them around to the back so that we can get them up the back steps, which have a railing. [42:02.88] There are certain culture and cultural issues involved with bringing people to the back door to get in and we would like to perhaps straighten that out when we try to bring them in the front. [42:14.68] The questions of liability and accident prevention are become very quickly on your mind. [42:22.38] So, I think we have proposed a single rod on one side, which would give everybody the access to come in the picture that you've seen in some of the other work. [42:32.44] We've already replaced the steps, which I deteriorated and so this would be on the new steps, which are just replacing the existing steps and we very much appreciate the staff work on this. [42:45.43] We think that was excellent and we commend them to you and ask your support for this railing. Thank you. Thank you. [name] commissioners have any comments or questions for the applicant. [42:57.55] No, and I agree the staff always does excellent work. Thank you for that comment of praise. Just another quick. Yes, I just wanted to say, I think, I can't see any reason why we wouldn't why I wouldn't vote for this. I think it's. [43:10.54] You know, I'm just want to commend the owner for the excellent work they've done to preserve an important property in this in the city and and I think it's good that you're looking to upgrade it in ways that are are respect the historic nature of the property. [43:25.88] Um, and make it useful to you and your friends and family. It's good. Commissioner [name]. What he said. Okay. Any other comments questions? Okay. Anyone here this evening in the audience or joining us online that has a comment or a question. [43:48.50] Let's see anyone. Okay. Thank you very much commissioners. May have a motion. Okay. I move the commission approved certificate of approval application 2027 dash 407 at [address] Forest Avenue and adopt the associated resolution. [44:15.05] The work meets the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation number 9 and number 10. [44:23.13] May have a 2nd, thank you both all in favor. Please. Hi, thank you very much. Okay. Next on our agenda or evaluations of significance. The 1st application is 2026 363. [44:42.35] Uh, this is for 1600 research Boulevard staff. Quick question. Are we going overall these at the same time since they're connected? Or should we do on individual each individually? Sorry. They are 3 separate cases. [44:56.03] So we have them split out into the separate cases. We can do, I think we'll go through each presentation. Okay. Each recommendation and do 3 separate motions and votes just because they are administratively separate cases. So act as if they're separate. Okay. Yes. Thank you for that guidance. [45:13.47] So the 1600 research Boulevard staff your report please. Yes. So this is case 2026 363 for an evaluation of significance at 1600 research Boulevard. And again, there are 3 parcels here. So 1600 research is in the center there. It's the biggest building of the 3. [45:35.99] And these parcels make up the former West that office campus West that is a research company that was founded in 1961 and they moved to rockville in 1981. And the owner is seeking to demolish all 3 of these structures on these parcels shown here to build a residential development. [45:56.08] So, this building at 1600 research again is the biggest building of the 3. It was originally built in 1980 as a commercial office building and has served as such ever since here. We have the front or Eastern elevation of the building. As you can see here, it's a concrete office building with 4 floors and a series of 5 sets of ribbon windows running horizontal across the facade. [46:25.05] The elevations geometric and repetitive in nature. You can see a series of recessed alcoves along this building frontage and the building also has a flat roof. It's access at the ground level by a small glass festival moving on to the North elevation. [46:43.77] The North elevation continues the pattern of concrete and ribbon windows also visible from this elevation is a 2 story concrete parking garage access on the lower level via drive aisle in that service parking lot. [46:56.32] There's also pedestrian access to the upper level of the garage, which is accessed by a concrete stairway here. [47:10.65] We have the South elevation of the building and there are several components here. First, the again, horizontal ribbons of windows separated by the concrete rows as seen on the rest of the building. [47:25.92] And then the center of the rear building features an arch detail, which protrudes slightly from the face of the building and then the ground floor of the rear building is open and provides a drive aisle to the other side. [47:38.67] And then there's also a jewel box enclosure and cantilevered awning at the entry or access point as for the rear or Western elevation, the upper floors continue that ribbon ribbon window pattern. [47:54.81] And then due to a change in grade, this elevation also has a lower basement level, which is kind of also seen as the ground floor and there's an internal loading bay access from the side of the building. [48:05.83] And we can also see the 2 story parking garage on the far left of the 2nd photo here. And then again, more photos of the rear or Western elevation again, that 2nd parking garage, which is 4 stories and features decorative rectangular motifs on the side there. [48:24.72] There's also a glass and concrete skywalk connecting this building, which is 1600 research to the adjacent building, which is 1441 West Montgomery and then on the top of the parking garage is an additional 3 story building featuring the same. [48:39.19] Architectural design as the main building, so finding that the building proposed for demolition at 1600 research Boulevard does not meet any of the adopted criteria for historic significance or architectural design and landscape significance staff recommends against historic designation. [49:01.24] And here are your motions. Thank you very much commissioners. Any comments or questions of staff? Is the applicant here this evening? We do have 2 representatives from the applicant team who have joined us online. [49:16.55] If either of you would like to speak, feel free to unmute yourself. Hi, good evening. It's [name] with [name] on behalf of the applicant staff did such a tremendous job and if presenting preparing a thorough report. [49:32.34] So, unless there's any questions for us, we support the staff's recommendation. Thank you. [name]. Anyone else online from the application from the applicant wishing to speak? We have our engineer here, but I think he's here just for supportive need. [49:50.54] Okay, or questions. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. This is a [name] from [name], but no further comments or questions from me. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. [name]. Anyone here this evening in the audience or online with us that would like to make a comment or have questions? Don't see anyone? Okay, commissioners. Okay, great. Can I get a microphone? Yes, I heard somebody. Oh, I'm sorry. Microphone. No, no one made a motion. They were. Yes, sorry. [50:28.68] May I have a motion then? May I have a second that the building proposed for designation at 1600 research Boulevard does not meet enough history district commissions adopted criteria for history significance architecture design and landscape significance among the HDC we commend against history designation a second any further comments all in favor. [51:01.16] Thank you. Next on the on the agenda is 2027 399 the property addresses 1700 research Boulevard. It's the same applicant staff. Yep. So this is again at the former West at campus. And this is the parcel scene at the top of your screen here. So this is 1700 research Boulevard and this building was built in 1982 again initially as a commercial office building. [51:32.46] And has served commercial use ever since. So here we have the front or Eastern elevation. This is a four story brick and glass office building lines with three bands of ribbon windows on the top three floors. [51:48.44] The ground floor has floor to ceiling windows with the recess area in the center. And then there's a small landscaped area in the front of the building. And this is where the primary access or entrance is located. [52:09.34] So, this is the North elevation of the building. And this is the most simple facade of all four again. We're showing those repeating bands of ribbon windows and brick for the entire four floors. And then we have some trees flanking each side of the building. [52:27.38] So, this is the Southern elevation. And again, we see those same bands of ribbon windows. The focal point of this Southern elevation is the double bay loading dock and then we also have a large area of recess windows on the second floor in a smaller set of recess windows on the third floor. [52:46.30] And finally, we have the rear or Western elevation of the building. Again, those continued pattern of ribbon windows along the top three floors with curved ends on the second and third floors. And then we can see the support beams on this facade as well. [53:01.54] So, finding that the building proposed for demolition at 1700 Research Boulevard does not meet any of the HDC's adopted criteria for historic significance or architectural design and landscape significance staff recommends against historic designation. Here are your motions. [53:17.39] Thank you very much commissioners. Any comments, questions of staff? The applicant have any further comments or questions? [53:27.77] No, thank you. [53:30.36] Thank you. Thank you both. May I have a motion? [53:39.71] Finding that the building proposed for designation at 1700 Research Boulevard does not meet any of the historic district commissions adopted criteria for historic significance or architectural design and landscape significance. I move that the HDC recommend against historic designation. [53:58.87] May I have a second? [54:03.27] Thank you both. All in favor? [54:08.00] Last of the three is 1441 West Montgomery Avenue. [54:17.60] Okay, so this is 2027 400 for an evaluation of significance at 1441 West Montgomery. And this is the final of the three parcels that make up the former West side office campus. This is the parcel on the bottom of your screen here. [54:31.11] So, it also has frontage in addition to research Boulevard on West Montgomery. And this building was built in 1990 again as a commercial office building and has also been in commercial use ever since construction. [54:50.20] So, starting off with the front or Eastern elevation. This is a four story building, primarily composed brick. The ground floor has repetitive arches, which are used to access a podium parking area located underneath the building. [55:04.85] The entryway is at the center of the building with a gable and arch. The second floor features series of single light windows with arched brick details above and the top two floors feature smaller rectangular single light windows in the center of the facade and along two ends. [55:19.72] We also see a continuous decorative ribbon of lighter colored brick separating the third and fourth floors. [55:28.22] And this building has a simple flat roof here. We have the Southern elevation and you can again see that parking podium below the structure with a drive aisle in the center to access the parking area. [55:44.18] And then above we have a curtain wall windows spanning the second and third floors caps by Masonry arch detail. And then again, those third and fourth floors have a single light rectangular windows. [55:56.75] So, here is the rear or Western elevation. This is on the left, the view from West Montgomery Avenue. This is an additional entrance to the West at campus. [56:07.58] The main entrance is on research, but this is a secondary entrance specifically to 1441 West Montgomery and due to the forested area, I think it's part of Falls Grom Stream Valley Park. [56:19.66] You can't really see the rear side of the building. So, the photo on the right is a satellite imagery where you can kind of see that Western facade, but it largely mimics the Eastern elevation. [56:31.96] It's pretty symmetrical. So, there's nothing special here and here's the Northern elevation of the building again, similar to other facades with repetitive series of arches and single light windows. Again, we see that double arch providing vehicle access to the parking podium underneath the building. [56:53.19] The upper stories contain the same style and pattern of windows as the other facades. The only differentiating feature on this Northern elevation is this concrete and glass skywalk. [57:03.98] You can see it in both of these photos here and this again connects the fourth floor of 1441 West Montgomery to 1600 research, which is the adjacent building the first building that we reviewed tonight. [57:17.71] So, finding that the building proposed for demolition at 1441 West Montgomery Avenue does not meet any of the HCC's adopted criteria for historic significance or architectural design and landscape significance staff recommends against historic designation. [57:32.60] Here are your last motions for this group of properties. Thank you, [name]. One more time. The applicant have any comments or questions? No, thank you. Thank you. [57:45.67] The only thing I wanted to say is I want to thank staff for their very thorough report and they've been great to work with on this. So, thank you. Appreciate the accolades commissioners. Any comments, questions? Yes. [57:59.62] I have a question. So, [name], can we please go back to slide 7? Slide 7? Okay. So, I'm looking at this brown building and I'm wondering which architecture us tell this is, I don't think it's historic or something. [58:21.09] The brown buildings, the design looks some kind of historic design. Yeah. I don't know the staff or the specific architectural style, but it was constructed in 1990. Is that correct? Clearly meant to look like an older structure than it actually is. [58:41.40] Okay, but like, okay, this not considered historic. I mean, that's what you all are here to decide. Right? If it would be considered historic or not, we don't find that it meets any of our criteria, but that's ultimately this body's decision. [58:59.89] To clarify the year bill, the other 2 buildings were built and I think 81 and 82 respectively. And this building was built in 1990. So this is the newest actually of the 3 buildings. Any other comments, questions from the commissioners? [59:24.05] Are there any comments this evening from anyone joining us online or in the audience? I see anyone. I have a motion. Commission. [59:44.51] Finding that the building proposed for designation at 1441 West Montgomery Avenue does not meet any of the historic district commissions adopted criteria for historic significance or architectural design and landscape significance. [60:00.26] May I have a second? One second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you very much. The last of our evaluations of significance is 2026, 330. [60:22.43] The property address is 200 Maro Street. Just to remind the commission, this is the application that we reviewed in July and then we blessed, for lack of better words, a reconsideration at our very quick August meeting. [60:38.67] And so they are in front of this evening to continue the discussion on whether we should designate the property historic or not. Staff? Okay, so this is case 2026, 330 for an evaluation of significance at 200 A and 200 B Monroe Street. [60:57.02] Thank you for that clarification. Just to reiterate, we initially heard the case in July. You all voted to reconsider in August, which voids the initial July decision. [61:07.47] So, this is the formal reconsideration of this case. So I'm going to start off with just giving a little bit of historical context here for the property. It is a original or the original structure built was a colonial revival home. It was built in 1906 by [name], who was a prominent builder here in Rockville. [61:32.11] The property was conveyed to [name] and is therefore referred to as the house. And this image here is the 1916 Maddox Atlas. You can see the property outlined in yellow. It's also seen on the 1946 same born map. [61:48.14] And a little bit about [name], he spent his career working for the railroad. He also served as a rockville council member from 1896, 1898. [61:57.80] And then following his death in 1929, his daughter [name] continued living in this home at 200 Monroe additional owners after the [name] were the [name] where they operated a shop and the [name] who I believe redevelops the property into commercial use. [62:13.61] So, this property consists of both 200 a and 200 b Monroe street. We'll go through each 1 at a time, but this property is located at the Northeast corner of Monroe street and fleet streets. So it does have frontage on both streets. But the main frontage is Monroe. [62:34.04] So, we're going to start with 200 a Monroe street. This is a 3 story office building that was built in 1980 it's always been in commercial use since construction. [62:49.48] It's a brick cloud building with a series of aluminum horizontal ribbon windows on each facade. The main entrance is via 2 story portico in the Western corner of the building. There are surface parking lots on both the Southern and Eastern sides of the building and 2 additional stores located on the East side of the building under a small overhang. [63:07.56] So, here we have the Southern elevation again, showing that surface parking lot. And then this is the rear Eastern elevation again showing parking. And this is the Northern elevation from East Jefferson street. Okay. So that is 200 a Monroe. We are going to move on to 200 b Monroe, which contains the original historic structure that was built in 1906. So in this site form, we're going to start with the [63:47.16] original historic structure that was built in 1906. So in this site photo, I'll use my mouse to show. I think we have. Okay, we do. So this red outlined in red here is the original structure that was built in 1906 originally as a home. [64:05.69] And then we have in green, the addition that was added in 1983 to the rear of the property. And then we have in yellow the parking garage that was added also in the 80s. So most of this property is newer. The only historic part is that front part there. And these are not exact lines. This is just estimates of parts of the structure. [64:33.57] Okay, so starting with the front or Western elevation on the left, we have the home shown in 1906 the year it was built. And on the right is the home as you can see today in 2026. So you can see that it's changed quite a bit since it was first built. [64:54.91] It was remodeled into commercial offices in 1952 and then later on in the 50s, a fire destroyed much of the original features of the home. It later underwent major commercial development in 1983 with those additions I mentioned before. So the addition to the rear plus that 2 story parking garage in the rear as well. [65:14.23] And then there have been several other alterations over the years, including deciding being replaced the front entry way replaced and describing the initial or the house as we can see it today. We have that central front porch access by a staircase flanked by 2 columns, which are really all the remains of the original porch. [65:35.69] We have the bay window above a set of center double hung windows with additional windows on the 2nd story all with wood shutters moving on to the Southern elevation from fleet street on the left. Again, you can see the home in 1906 and on the right in 2026 again much of the original structure here is gone. [65:58.51] This facade shows 3 stories with vinyl siding with sets of sacked windows and then this Southern facade also connects to the 2 story parking garage, which again both were built in the 1980s moving on to the rear or Eastern elevation again on the left in 1906 and on the right in 2026. [66:22.90] Again, we can see sets of sack double hung windows ground floor clad and brick and vinyl siding and this entire facade in 2026 is composed of the new addition from the 1980s. So none of the original facade from 1906 remains here. [66:41.74] And then we have the Northern elevation again in 1906 and in 2026 seeing those same double hung windows with the shutters. [66:49.43] Majority of the facade is vinyl siding and you can see the original stone foundation here, but again, that is mostly all that remains from the original structure. [67:04.30] So this is the 2 story parking garage in the rear of the property. This is the view from fleet street and again this was built in 1983 when it was redeveloped into commercial use. [67:16.36] So the parking garage is access via curb cut on fleet street along the Southern edge of the property here is the Eastern elevation from the parking lot looking West and our recommendation is finding that the property at 200 a and 200 B Monroe Street does not meet one or more designation criteria and display integrity staff recommend against historic designation. [67:50.81] And I think a key difference to note here is with the new zone and code and the new regulations, the integrity component is part of the designation criteria. [68:01.36] So it has to meet the significance criteria and display integrity and staff feels that it does not display integrity because much of the original structure is no longer existent. [68:13.68] So, we recommend against historic designation for the property and here are possible motions and we can craft more depending on what you all think. Thank you. Thank you commissioners. Any comments or questions? Yes. [68:37.31] Thanks for that presentation. So, um, so I have this question to staff. So, okay, like this particular building was built in 1906. So, by 2006, that's gone through a lot of changes. So, um, is there any. [68:52.67] Some kind of guidelines that the city puts to make sure that buildings don't go through so much changes like history buildings because this building went through a lot. So, do you have some kind of guidelines where you tell someone that where these buildings should not go through several changes? [69:12.09] Is there anything I think at the time in the 50s that it was redeveloped into commercial use? I'm not sure if we had the same type of preservation regulations in place. And I think also the fire that destroyed much of the original structure is obviously out of anyone's control. [69:27.94] And just to add to that, ultimately, until a structure is designated historic, there are no regulations that say you cannot alter original materials or anything like that. Okay. So, by 1906, it was not designated. [69:41.36] Correct, it has never been a designated historic site. Missioners, any other comments or questions? Thank you. Is the applicant here this evening wish to make any comments or have any questions? [69:59.17] I think we do have a presentation from the applicant's representative. Give me a sec to pull it up. Hi, good evening. Sorry, hang on. No, you're so good. While we're pulling this up, you can go ahead and introduce yourself for the record. [70:32.22] Good evening. My name is [name], and I'm principal with [name]. And for those of you who aren't familiar, we are historic preservation consulting firm located in Washington, DC, and we work on a variety of historic preservation related projects, including research and documentation projects that require us to evaluate the significance of building structures and sites. [70:56.57] All right, well, we're continuing. Give us just one moment here. Perfect. So, at the HCC meeting held in July, my colleague, [name], testified against the historic designation of 200 Bemon Road Street on the basis of lack of integrity. [71:28.11] At that point, as [name] said, the new zoning regulations have not come into effect. So, integrity was not necessarily a basis on which the HCC had to take into account. [71:41.66] Understanding that the purpose of tonight is to present new information. I will not repeat the presentation that we made at the last meeting. But that said, Traceries supports the staff report as issued on September 10th, and continues to believe that the building addressed as 200 Bemon Road Street is not eligible for designation as an early 20th century residence based on its loss of integrity. [72:06.85] And probably if you wanted to zoom out, sorry, give us just one second. It has moved off of our screen on to an imaginary screen in the side. So we are guessing where our personal technology. Right. Sorry about that. Hold on one second. All right. Full screen. [72:49.15] All right, in an effort to kind of keep this moving along, in July, after the deliberation, the members of the HCC that were present voted to adopt the staff's recommendation that the original structure 200 Bemon Road Street was eligible for historic district zoning in Rockville based on meeting the two of the adopted HCC criteria for historic designation. [73:31.21] Specifically, under the areas of historic significance and architectural design and landscape significance. So that's criteria A and criteria E. [73:42.69] The designation centered on the building's significance as an early 20th century residence, rather than its commercial uses. [73:49.52] The staff report presented at the last meeting specifically states that the commercial uses do not meet any of the adopted HCC criteria for historic designation. [73:58.13] As such, the motion was passed only a motion was passed that designated only the original portion of the building and excluded the remainder of the property. [74:09.42] While the specific boundary was not established, it can be assumed that the HCC anticipated that a very narrow boundary that included only the original residents was to be put forth. All right, perfect. Next slide. Excellent. [74:29.07] As explained in the staff report on August 1st, 2026, the city's new zoning ordinance went into effect. The ordinance states that the site may be appropriate for inclusion in the historic district overlay zone. [74:40.92] If the site or structure on the site meets one or more of the criteria for historic and architectural significance and displays integrity. [74:49.43] In other words, a property must possess integrity in addition to one or more of the historic designation criteria in order to be designated as a landmark or district. [74:59.62] Next slide please. So, per section 25.11.1.2(a)(3) of the newly adopted Rockville zoning ordinance, a site or structure has integrity if [75:12.65] the location, design, setting, workmanship, materials, or historic association of the site or structure displays integrity as described by the standards and guidelines of the U.S. Department of the Interior. [75:23.95] And if the historic resource is a structure, it must maintain the majority of structural systems and materials of the structures and the structures character defining features must remain intact. Next slide. [75:42.11] So, as [name] just said, since its construction, this building has undergone significant changes, both in terms of use and in design. In 1947, it was sold and served as dual use partially as an "antique" and "junk shop" and partially as a residence. [76:03.23] And then in 1953, [name] opened in the building, marking its full conversion from residential to commercial use. At some point before 1957, a small surface parking lot was laid to the north and to the east of the building to service its new use. Next slide. [76:21.28] In 1958, a major fire destroyed the second floor, inclusive of the structure and the roof. So, as you can see in the picture on the left, we're on the first floor and we are looking up at the sky where there's no longer any second floor structure or roof structure. [76:39.14] As part of the rebuilding effort, all of the porches off of the main block of the building were removed, the dormers on the roof were removed, and a new roof with a different pitch was constructed. [76:51.05] Additionally, a new smaller front porch was added, the basement was fully excavated at the north and east elevations, and a new door was added into the north wall leading directly to the parking lot that was laid in the early 1950s. [77:07.01] Several openings on the first and second story were also boarded up, presumably as part of the building receiving new wood siding. In 1983, a large three-story rear addition and a two-story parking garage were constructed. [77:24.54] It appears that the original rear L was also partially demolished in order to accommodate this work. And then in 2011, the front porch was partially enclosed. Next slide please. [77:38.31] So, the following slides provide a comparison of the original house and the building that remains extant today. In comparing the historic with the current images, it is clear that the building has been altered and suffers from a lack of integrity. [77:55.18] So, here you can see the west elevation. Next slide please. The north elevation. Next slide please. The south elevation. Next slide please. Another view of the south elevation. Next slide please. And the east elevation. Next slide. [78:18.10] So, to better illustrate the changes that have occurred over time, on your screen you can see three different depictions of the house. So, the left shows the loss of significant character-defining features, which is defined by the National Park Service as visual aspects and physical features that comprise the appearance of every historic building. [78:40.41] So, character-defining elements include overall shape and character of the building, and that includes openings and roof forms, its materials, craftsmanship, decorative details, interior spaces and features, as well as various aspects of the site and environment. [78:57.76] Significant character-defining features that have been removed from 200 B [name] Street include the roof, dormers and the wraparound porches. The middle image shows the extent of new material that was introduced likely after the fire. So, that is the new wood siding. [79:15.72] And the right shows entirely new features, which is the roof, the 1983 rear addition and the front porch. Each image also has a dashed blue line between the first and the second stories. [79:31.06] Unfortunately, floor plans from after the 1958 fire and the 1980s alteration were not uncovered as part of our research effort. So, it's difficult to say with 100% certainty what work was done as part of each of these rebuilding efforts. [79:48.16] But we obviously know from the image that the fire necessitated the rebuilding of the entire 2nd floor and the reform and structure. So, we believe that the only original structure that remains, and again, we didn't undertake any sort of exploratory demolition to confirm this, but just based on the research that we've been able to undertake remains below that blue line. [80:11.87] So, the first story and then the basement level. Next slide please. And so, this is also the south elevation so you can kind of start to see again, this comparison of what has been lost and what is new. [80:28.34] Next slide please. So, taken together, what remains is really a shell of itself. The windows within the original portion of the house look to be original, and the original Fieldstone Foundation remains partially visible on the northwest and south elevations. [80:47.83] The 1958 fire subsequent rebuilding and removal of character, significant character defining features. So, the porches, the dormers, the roof, and the construction of the rear addition 1983 have diminished the buildings original design materials and workmanship. [81:06.49] Next slide. And then again, you can see on this south elevation. Next slide. So, while the building's location remains the same, the setting has also been compromised. [81:25.44] When originally constructed the dwelling was sited atop a grassy knoll. The construction of parking lots to the north and east to the building to service its commercial use resulted in the immediate loss of the more pastoral setting. [81:38.14] Further, the building was historically located mid block. And this changed in the mid 1980s following the extension of Maryland Avenue, which was later Fleet Street, along the southern edge of the property. [81:51.41] Fleet Street result results in the removal of significant vegetation that line the southern edge of the property and results in the demolition of adjacent buildings. [82:04.89] The new thoroughfare along with the increased commercial development in the area immediately to around the site resulted in the site's transformation from suburban to a more urban feel. [82:16.78] Finally, the transition of this property from residential to commercial use that it has maintained for most of its history, but combined with the loss of architectural character defining features and dramatic changes to its setting result in the loss of historic association of this building as a residence. [82:34.81] Next slide. So, in conclusion, the loss of integrity results resulting from the changes in setting and demolition of significant character defining features disqualifies the building from designation as outlined in the staff report issued last Thursday. [82:55.45] So, to conclude, we agree with staff survives recommendations against designation based on this lack of integrity. So, thank you very much. Thank you for your presentation commissioners have any comments or questions. [83:10.72] Thank you very much. Excellent presentation. This was a tough decision for me. Yeah, I hate to see anything that's potentially historic lost, but I'm coming around to seeing that what's what sits there now is no longer really historic. [83:43.66] And that's a shame. Even though, at the July meeting, I think, I made a point that that its conversion to a commercial use occurred, I believe it was the 1950s or 60s, which also saw the demolition of most of rock those retail commercial core devastated by by urban renewal. [84:15.56] And so, this building took on the role to house some of the commercial establishments that were displaced. And so that has some historic significance but as a historic structure, I'm tending to think it's, it no longer really complies and as a body I think our duty should be to go along with recommendations. [84:45.28] But thank you again for the excellent presentation. [84:48.60] Yeah, of course, and thank you for your consideration. I know this is a hard one, because it has, you know, it's been around for a long time and it's hard to lose resources we certainly don't love seeing historic resources get demolished either. [85:03.01] But unfortunately, in this case, what you would be saving is not, it's not, it's not the same it's not the original building. [85:13.53] Any other comments commissioners. Okay, so those windows are not original windows. They, they look to be, they could be, they look like they could be of the 1906 vintage. [85:27.32] So really, as you're kind of looking at the structure and if you kind of go back to slides like 13 or 14 where you're starting to see what is. [85:36.67] Yeah, perfect. So those windows in the window openings there appear to be original but everything surrounding the windows has been replaced. [85:48.51] Thank you. Commissioner [name]. [85:57.73] I just have one comment on the presentation that bother that's bugging me a little bit. [86:06.60] The last part where you talked about the change in setting, you seem to be arguing that because the, the surrounding area has become more urban over the over the course of 100 years that that diminishes the historic value of the property itself [86:25.61] and I'd like to suggest that maybe the opposite is the case because when you have a property that preserves some of the original features of, of a district of an area that was, you know, really at the time maybe much more residential. [86:44.55] And that if that property itself is worth preserving which I think is the question we're, we're considering but a larger issue is that that preserving that property might be more important because of the fact that the surrounding area has changed [86:58.77] because there's so little of what they were of the historic fabric of that part of Rockville. So, just, just a comment on that particular aspect of the report, not about the question about integrity of the property itself. [87:21.90] Thank you, Commissioner. [87:23.93] Yes. [87:24.90] I was actually asking this but what happens to those historic windows, what happens to the windows. Can you elaborate on your question. Okay, so those windows there, they might be historic right so it's going to be demolished what happens to those windows. [87:41.81] We do not have any regulations that garner what happens to it. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. [87:53.63] Does anyone here this evening online or in the audience wishing to make any comments. We have Miss [name] from [name] who has signed up in advance. Great answer please come forward. [88:05.53] Good evening again commissioners, on behalf of [name] I'm here to speak to you regarding this very complex application before you for 200 A and B Monroe Street for [name], I want to thank you all, the HTC very much for allowing the reconsideration that happened. [88:30.60] As reconsideration I feel is a very important option in the review process and in our experience, it has really never been allowed to happen so I think that it was really worthwhile to allow for that additional information and relook at this property. [88:46.69] Additionally, I think the applicants owners and their consultants for working with the city and with [name] in a very open and congenial manner. It was very refreshing and it's been very refreshing to do that. [88:59.76] I want to start by acknowledging the additional information that was brought to light by the applicants. I think that helped all of us better understand the building, its history and its development. [89:09.85] However, I think it's also important to note that while we are in agreement, we were in agreement with the staff recommendations in the previous review. [89:20.57] This staff report is almost completely different in the recommendations. It removed so much and those changes really were not addressed at all in the report and I think that that's something that should maybe be spoken to. [89:36.28] I think the integrity issue is central to that but I'd like to hear that discussed. Basically what I wanted to say is, [name] is not strongly speaking for or against designation of this total site, but I didn't want to share some additional information and bring some points for your consideration. [89:59.39] Specifically, while [name] concurs that neither the 1983 modern rear addition to the original structure, the attached parking garage and parking lots, nor the modern structure at 200A meet the city's adopted criteria for historic designation, [90:17.48] we still do believe that there's great value in the core residential building at 200B Monroe and specifically believe that it does meet criteria E for architecture design and landscape significance as a highly visible and notable historic structure at the entrance to Rockville's commercial core. [90:37.26] This is important and this is something I really want you to think about. Not only has that been there for 120 years, it's been there in its current shape and form pretty much since around 1959 or whenever the rebuilding happened after the fire. [90:54.96] This building, despite the loss of original features and materials and subsequent alterations and additions, still very much tells a part of Rockville's story and anchors its corners to Rockville's past. [91:09.84] The original core of the building has lost much integrity, but not all. It's in the location, it is in the size, it is in the shape, it has original fenestration patterns, and according to the applicants, potentially original fenestration, the chimney is in the same place, the steps are in the same place. [91:32.15] It has lost its roof, it has lost its porches, it has lost significant things to be read as a residential structure from 1906, but there is no argument that this building should be designated for being a residential structure tied to [name] or tied to a certain style. [91:53.39] The proposed value is beyond that. So when we look at this building, we have to remember that buildings evolve and that buildings have different periods of significance, so that's something that I don't really feel has been addressed. [92:08.84] Also, when speaking of integrity, it is a new criteria and I think it would be nice that we were all talking about all aspects of criteria and how they're applied. [92:19.84] So while the structure may not be found significant by the body tonight, it is our hope that it is, or that the owners and prospective buyers will consider an adaptive use for the core 1906 building to retain this important part of Rockville's history and keep the structure alive with a modern use. [92:40.06] Allowing development of the larger site while protecting a historic resource would meet the spirit of Rockville's historic preservation ordinance while allowing for additional housing and additional growth. [92:51.18] Thank you for listening this evening. [92:53.34] Thank you, Ms. [name]. Anyone else here this evening or online with us wishing to make a comment about the application in front of us? Commissioner [name]? [93:05.96] Commissioners, any further comments, questions? [93:18.92] I have a comment, which is rare. I'm going to vote against this, and my hope is that it was designated historic. I understand why, and I think I'm in the minority here, but it's not an ask. [93:40.93] It's just a suggestion to the applicant that when the time comes to design whatever is going to be built on the property, if they would strongly consider incorporating a part of the existing structure, be it the stone foundation or the windows or even just the front door knob or something of significance, [94:01.32] incorporated into the new design of the product and the structure will be there. So, and I do understand and appreciate all of the arguments that were given tonight. So thank you. Commissioner [name]. [94:16.44] Thank you, Commissioner [name]. [94:21.35] I'm still torn, but I want to build on what Commissioner [name] just stated, and looking at the building and I didn't see it this time but I seem to recall several months ago when we discussed this that the owner is looking to build residential units on the site. [94:52.02] I would just throw out a suggestion suggestion maybe thought that saving the original footprint of the old house and turning it into residential units, let's say, either a single family or multiple families might be incorporated into the plan if if indeed you're going to [95:25.66] make that whole site residential. It could be a focal point. I mean there's you know just a lot of creativity might be involved, but it would strengthen Rockville's historic properties by keeping this there and maybe it would help or help to define or be in some element in a future development. [95:56.62] Anyway, that's my thought right now. Thank you. [96:00.13] Thank you, Commissioner. Any other comments or questions from commissioners. Yes, I too agree that although much has been lost, it's still house summit, its original features represent a particular error. [96:16.09] The other comments. [96:25.28] That's me again. [96:27.73] The other thing that this may be not germane to what we're talking about now but regardless of what's done in the future. If you drive around Rockville you see a lot of these historic signs and freestanding signs on properties, and I'm not sure if I guess the city puts those up. [96:57.12] Those things, it depends on the sign, the city has some, there are various state agencies that have some nonprofit organizations that have some as well. [97:06.47] But, you know, regardless of what happens to this building. [97:12.49] It might be appropriate to put a freestanding sign that shows the original photographs of the original building just to, to let people know what had been here and possibly recognize if it is demolished what's been lost, or if it is saved to kind of picture how it evolved over the, over the last century plus. [97:41.97] I don't know where to see that and I don't know where to address that too but I'm throwing this out to staff to maybe consider. Thank you Commissioner. Yes, Commissioner [name]. [97:55.57] All right, so what I want to say is that although this building has lost a lot of his original elements, it still has some elements that we can see and then the building is also a very great part of Rockville's historic story. [98:12.09] You know, so, yeah, thank you, Commissioner for no other firmware, excuse me if there are no further comments may have a motion. [98:40.37] Finding that the building proposal demolition designation at 200 miles to miss the history of district commissions adopted critical issue this significance and criteria. [98:58.08] So if the commission was interested in doing that second motion that was here, you all would have to determine which of the criteria you would like to include in that motion. [99:12.82] I believe the staff report references some of those criteria but ultimately it's this body's determination as to if you wanted to. Let me, how you fill that in. If you wanted to make that motion we would need that to be filled in, but you as a body would determine what criteria. [99:36.35] Yes, I want to ask staff is there a list of the criteria that we can review in order to make a decision. Yes, so it's on. It's in your staff report on, gosh, packet page two. [99:56.20] It starts on packet page 281, which is also page 16 of the staff report itself. Would it be helpful if staff pull that up for you. Okay, give us just one moment. [100:10.92] Yes, could you please. Yes, and give me one second. I will. I'm just going to share it from here again. Okay, so what you're seeing is a screen share. Oh gosh, that there's a lot of them here so we're going to have to have a little bit of scroll happening here. [100:43.19] But this is staffs analysis of 200 a.m. So you have for the historic significance there are four criteria, a being represents the development heritage or cultural characteristics of the city be being a site of important event in Rockville's history. [101:02.39] C, identified with a person or group of persons who influence the city's history. D, exemplified the cultural, economic, industrial, social, political, archaeological or historical heritage of the city and actually I'm going to pause here for a moment because [101:17.93] I just realized we have an attachment at the back of the staff report that there we go. Now it's all on one page for you all. Thank you. [101:32.38] Just to help us figure this out I'm remembering that in the initial the original report, the parts of the part of the portion of the parcel and I can't remember whether that is that be the original houses be. [101:46.68] Yes, there was something that was one of these questions was answered with a yes. [101:53.57] It was the first one but I'm, yes, so it's included in the staff report as well for 200 be historical significance represents the historical significance a represents the development heritage cultural characteristics of the city. [102:08.76] And then under architectural design and landscape significance. It is criteria, he represents an established visual feature of the neighborhood or city because of its physical characteristics. [102:19.72] Yeah, so it seems to me that that I'm not and I'm not necessarily arguing for that, but if we're looking for something that wouldn't that's the one that makes the most sense staff have a question. [102:31.68] I asked this before of another property. If this is designated historic say it's a new mayor and council move forward as well. What zoning wise or regulation wise this might be a question from Mr. [102:51.51] May to what can and cannot happen on that property. In other words, if the builder, excuse me, the owner is interested in developing the property in the residential because it's designated historic what changes with what the builder can do. [103:08.31] So the historic regulations govern the exterior appearance of a site they have no governance over the use of a site. So whatever is allowable under the zoning ordinance for that specific zone, the owner would be able to continue. [103:23.23] That's what I wanted to clarify. Thank you. Mission need a few minutes question. [103:38.37] We have three categories, right? So should we select or do we have to select one from each one of the categories or so the way that the new code is written is it must meet one or more designation criteria. [103:58.46] So those are those 1st, 2 categories historic significance and then architectural design and landscape significance and also display integrity. So 1 from those top 2, and then it must meet both of the bottom integrity layer. Okay. Thank you. [104:15.17] And Mr. Chair, just to, if you don't mind me jumping in very quickly, just to reiterate that the change in the law really does effectively equally rate equally weight. Excuse me, the historic significance and architectural design and landscape significance criteria and integrity. [104:33.48] So, given that it's a new requirement, I would definitely urge the HDC to consider what integrity means it is it is laid out in a fair amount of detail and just to note that both elements of integrity, including that a majority of the structural system and materials [104:51.64] and and the structures character defining features remain intact. I did also want to note that Miss [name] is correct it just because it doesn't necessarily mean that the the original structure as originally constructed must remain intact necessarily. [105:10.47] The commission should be considering what it is about the structure that gives it historical character and then consider whether that element is a majority of that element remains intact. I hope I wasn't too confusing, but I just want to make sure that the commission is considering the integrity criteria fully. [105:28.41] No, thank you. [name]. I appreciate that you actually just shed some light on something. So, thank you. Just give it just a minute staff are just reading over. Thank you. Mission or passage of a comment. [105:55.04] So, the site is on a main street, correct? The house is on a main street in Monroe. Yeah, it depends on how you define main street, but yes. Yes. [106:07.30] So, I was looking at the location in terms of Monroe Street. So, in the motion, can you go back to that for a second, please? But I want to come back to this as well. [106:38.98] So, no, no. Okay, can you go back to I think I'm looking at because I was trying to find a way, not a way, but how we would incorporate the, you know, the criteria into the motion. So, you know, the a and e. Well, historic significance a then architectural. [107:42.31] Um, so it would be in the motion. There are some blanks there that are designed for where you would plug in the appropriate criteria. Okay. And then the second part of that would then fall under the integrity. [107:57.02] Because you have 2 lines correct, correct. And it is to meet both correct. Okay, this is going to be a new day. Well, I think the, the, the pause here shows that the commission is taking this seriously. [108:19.12] We don't, this is an important property, but we also respect the fact that the owner has plans and that there are different criteria, especially the integrity that Mr. has pointed out to us, which shed some light for me. [108:35.23] And Mr. Chair, I apologize again. One last issue. The reconsideration was in part based on the concerns about the, the amount of the property or what portion of the property should be listed. [108:48.45] And I wanted to make a couple of things clear to the commission. The 1st is that the motion as staff has worded it for listing the property as as it currently is would would be a recommendation to designate the entirety of the property. [109:03.92] If the commission were interested in listing only a portion of the property, they would need to change the motion, but I did want to provide my advice on this. And, and, you know, again, for your background, I have been a land use lawyer for about 16 years and. [109:22.33] Split zoning properties, which is what would be accomplished if only a portion of the property were designated is possible, but it results in challenging development scenarios. [109:34.99] Particularly when, as would have been the case in the commission's original decision, you're essentially zoning a property based on a partial footprint of a structure. [109:49.65] It's difficult to map that properly. It can be difficult to determine in a development scenario, what is within and what is outside of the historic district. [109:59.96] And so absent kind of clear internal ownership lot lines or other characteristics, split zoning a property really is not a great option. [110:10.30] And I would, you know, you're legally perfectly able to do it, but I would recommend against it. [110:17.25] And I think in this case, given given the way that the structure is, it has been modified, you're really looking ideally at either listing the entire property or listing none of the property. [110:31.84] But again, I'm happy to answer any questions and I just wanted to be clear so that the motion maker would know if the motion was made as it is written, it would it would recommend the designation of the entire property. [110:42.00] Thank you, [name]. I have a question for you. If there is no change in what the applicant could develop on the property, then why is it considered split zoning? [110:57.92] So, I was like two things about that. And this highlights why our historic district zoning, which in many cases is a wonderful tool for preservation, is not an ideal tool for preserving portions of structures on sites that are otherwise not historic. [111:21.25] The reason is because again, we are, we are laying down a particular geographical zone on a property. And so in almost, I'd say 99% of the cases, maybe even more than that. [111:33.57] When we zone a property, we are relying on the lot lines that are recorded in the land records as the defining boundaries of that zone for that property. [111:44.16] In this case, what we would be doing would be we would be overlaying a little postage stamp of the historic district zone on top of a portion of the property. [111:54.66] And so by definition, that would be split zoning the property. The benefit and the reason I think staff initially proposed it is that that would technically mean that if other buildings on 200 Monroe were sought, you know, were developed or demolished or whatever, [112:12.92] a certificate of approval wouldn't be required because only at that little portion of the property footprint of the original building would be listed. [112:21.70] And so the requirement that any exterior changes to the property would necessitate a certificate of approval would only apply to that one little portion of the property. [112:33.34] But, you know, again, for the reasons I mentioned before, there are reasons why that would be a problem. And so that's, that's, in my mind, that's the big, the big challenge that listing the property would put on future development is if you listed the entire property. [112:46.48] That means that not that they couldn't develop or couldn't demolish the non historic structures, but that every time an exterior change was was proposed, they would have to come in for a certificate of approval and make their case to the historic district commission. [113:00.85] Even if the change only involves some of the non historic structures on the property. Thank you for that clarification. [113:17.51] I'll ask again, I have a motion. Mr. [name] of the HTC is not going to make a motion, which has not happened under since I've been chair and before being on the commission. [113:46.12] What is the outcome of that? So, while I would certainly urge the HTC to make an affirmative decision, I think that in this case, if no decision was made, it would effectively be a determination that the. [114:05.57] Uh, 200 Monroe street does not meet designation criteria and and that, and that it would not, we would not be moving forward with, um, with a sectional map amendment. So, in other words, the affirmative decision you would have to take would be to continue this property along in the historic district process. [114:23.89] A historic district listing process. Thank you commission have any further discussion. Mr. [name], I guess I just have a process questions to again, you know, just to clarify how this works. If some, if one of us were to move the. [114:59.32] That we recommend against historic designation and then the committee voted against that motion, what happens then? So that's a great question. [115:13.50] Um, and I believe if the so that would mean number one, of course, that would mean the motion failed if the motion that failed was a motion to list the structure or recommend historic designation and that motion failed. [115:32.85] I believe that that would effectively mean that the commission's decision was to not recommend designation. However, if the motion was to not to recommend against historic designation and that motion failed, there would still be an opportunity for a member of the commission [115:51.96] to then make a second motion to to list it. So, again, it's, it's kind of, it's, it's because the, the recommendation to, to recommend designation is the affirmative decision in this case makes sense. Okay. [116:05.31] I think [name] knew this is going to happen tonight. That's why she moved on and left it left that to poor [name]. I have one more question. [name], I promise if maybe HTC put conditions on a motion. [116:29.04] So the short answer is yes, always in this case, though, it would be difficult to see what the condition would be, you know, so, for example, if you're issuing a certificate of approval, you can say, you know, certificate of approval is conditioned on these certain things [116:46.22] that that would allow us to consider this modification to be consistent with historic property with an evaluation of significance. You know, you're either saying the property is eligible for listing or it's not eligible for listing. [117:01.42] So I'll ask you, is, was the idea possibly recommending against designation but but placing a condition that certain historic elements be preserved as part of any possible demolition something like that, you got it. [117:20.27] I mean, what I will say is, that is possible, but the conditions in that instance would not be binding. So you would effectively be, you know, saying, it doesn't quite meet the criteria, but through the motion we are we as a body are requesting that [117:40.63] the applicant do these things we wouldn't be able to enforce it but you could certainly do that. Okay. Thank you. [117:47.87] Yeah, I have a thought. And I was trying to put so if, if, if I repeat something that [name] just said please stop me but in the case where, let's say, the commission tonight decides against designation of the property doesn't the owner isn't the [118:16.26] owner still required to come before the commission for approval for demolition, and in that case, could we specify, you know, you can demolish this, but not that. [118:32.08] So what the applicant has presented to that's being considered is that approval to demolish, so it would not come back again. [118:40.04] For our new ordinance, any determination and evaluation of significance is valid for a period of five years. So this ruling would stay for the next five years. If in theory, nothing happened to the structure and six years from now something was proposed, it would come back but if it's within [118:56.58] five years whatever decision this body makes is still valid. [119:03.54] It doesn't help. Um, can I ask Commissioner [name] if she still wants to make the motion that she originally started to make when we before we started to try to figure out what would fit in those blanks. [119:17.95] That's a no staff is the chair allowed to make a motion. I'll look to you Mr. [name] for that. I believe the chair can. Yes, Mr. Chair, I apologize because I don't know your rules of procedure quite as well as I do some of the other bodies. [119:45.12] Typically the answer is yes that you can let me if you can give me one one second I'll verify that I happen to know that your rules of procedure are in the staff report for the brief book for this meeting so give us one moment. [119:57.21] Thank you both. [120:01.95] I did read through them, didn't see anything that either allowed it or prohibited it, so I would assume it's okay as a commissioner. I should know that as chair, but I'm ignorant of that. [120:15.03] So if it's just one moment here, of course. Yes, I've just finished reviewing it. I don't see anything prohibiting the chair from making a motion. I have a question. Of course. Thank you for that. Commissioner. [120:49.52] Oh, how many motions can we have on one item? I'm not sure that I understand the question. Go ahead. No, no, no, it's actually it's a good question because, you know, ultimately, you know, you don't want this going on indefinitely and I'll go back to what I had said before. [121:09.41] So there can be multiple motions, but in this case, if there is a motion, you know, just in the abstract, there can be there can be more than one motion, but in this case, if there is a motion to recommend historic designation. [121:25.36] And that motion fails, that is effectively a denial of moving forward with historic designation. So that that if that motion, you know, were to fail commissioner, you know, original motion, for example, if she had, if she had made it fully, if that motion had failed, that would end this item. [121:46.62] So, you know, effectively, in a case like this one, I think there's really only a maximum of 2 motions and it could be as simple as just 1 if there's a motion to recommend listing and that motion fails. [121:59.53] Thank you. The commission is another comments. I'm going to make a motion staff. No more. You're good. Okay. [122:11.52] Then I'm going to make a motion finding that the property at 200 Monroe street does not meet 1 or more of the designation criteria and display integrity. I move that the HEC recommend against historic designation. [122:25.54] However, it is strongly recommended that the applicant and the owner of the property incorporate some aspect of the original structure on the property to the new structure that is built on that property. [122:42.62] And that's my motion may have a 2nd second. Thank you. Any further discussion. I'll call for a vote. All in favor. [123:05.98] Motion fails in favor. Okay, so let's do a revote on that for the record. My motion was finding that the proposed excuse me, the property 200 Monroe street does not meet 1 or more of the designation criteria and display integrity. [123:38.24] I move that the HCC recommend against historic nation designation. However, with the criteria that significant part of the original design and the historic home or the home that we would like to designate, but are not going to do that is incorporated into the new design. [123:56.17] And I believe Commissioner [name], you still seconding out second again for the second time. Okay, then I'm going to call for a vote. All in favor. [124:06.02] Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? 1 opposition. Okay. Thank you very much. I very much appreciate the thought that the commissioners put into this as well as the staff and I also appreciate the arguments that peerless on the applicant process tonight. [124:27.48] So, thank you and Mr. Thank you. So, next on the agenda are review and action items. It's the HCC rules and procedure update. [124:39.85] Staff yes, so you all should have in your brief book, a copy of the proposed updates to your rules of procedure. Really the impetus behind this update is that when the new zoning ordinance was adopted, there were some changes to articles numbering and references to the code. [124:59.87] There were also some slight changes to definitions and other kind of minor tweaks to language in the code. So, the proposed revision to your rules of procedure is exclusively looking at aligning the rules of procedure with the current new zoning ordinance. [125:15.32] We are not proposing any other revisions to process or kind of rule of order, how we do things for just making sure that when code sections are cited in the rules of procedure that it is now reflecting the updated appropriate code reference. [125:28.51] So, if this body, you should have a copy both in red line and a clean version. I know folks have different preferences on how they want to review it, but if the body was willing to update the rules of procedure we would be looking for a motion a section, a second and then action from this body. [125:53.19] I read through and I found a couple of clerical, I guess, errors and I guess that's they're not admissible at this time. I think they can be. However, in that instance, because I don't have a copy of it, we would be kind of, we would be saying approve as presented with the following changes and we would be listening in the same way. [126:25.37] We do sometimes for correct minutes. Correct. Yeah, that seems reasonable. Commissioner. Yes, Commissioner. So, as you know, this this last case was quite tough. [126:41.22] And so I'm just wondering how we can prevent this from happening like in the near future. Maybe like, is there a way that city can sort of if the other rules like put some rules on making so much changes on historic buildings and so that something. [127:03.33] I mean, I suppose in theory, many things are possible. The one differentiation I'd like to make about what you stated is, you know, changes to historic buildings until this body determines that something is historic and it has been locally designated. [127:20.43] We do not consider it to be historic. So, as you all know, we have plenty of regulations that apply to designated historic sites, but just because something is old does not automatically make it historic. So we don't have regulations that, you know, identify if building is over X years old X, Y, and Z can't happen. [127:40.95] Those regulations really come in after the property has been locally designated by this body. Thank you for that commissioners. [127:54.70] Any other comments about our rules of procedure and updating. [128:00.80] Yeah, do you want, do you want me to just send you these things that I found? Do you want me to go through them? They only have 4 things, but it's so I think it if you would like them to be incorporated into the revised update. [128:14.61] We need to talk about them now so we can have them on the record. If it's tiny things that maybe we don't need to adopt right now, but the next time we do an update, you want to be incorporated. You can send them to me. So that's kind of up to you to the side. [128:32.46] Well, you want me to just go through and there's only 4 short ones. You want me to go through them? That's fine. Yeah. [128:42.42] I found and I actually only read the red line copy, but item 1.4 D is an item, but it has no text. [129:07.66] Okay, I see it in the red line. Give me a moment just to see how it came across in the clean version. Sometimes things look weird in red line that is revised in the accepted version. [129:20.36] So, in the clean version, D does have text there. Okay. In 1.4 F, you mentioned city code adopted February 1990. Have there not been revisions? [129:35.73] I believe that is still the original reference to the original city code. Yeah, we have adopted chapters to it. So chapter 25 is the zoning warnings have been updated, but the code is itself is still original from 1990. [129:51.92] So you don't have to know revision dates and things. Okay. And just a conflict. I saw in 1.1 notes, quote, you know, the historic district commission and in quotes commission. [130:08.72] And then you read on later 1.4 S notes in quotes, the commission, and that just seems to be inconsistent. So either include the article or delete the article. [130:20.86] Sure. Just a conflict. Oh, I was wondering 2.1. I talked about a commissioner who's also an applicant. [130:35.77] There's such an applicant vote or that considered a conflict of interest. Give me 1 moment to pull it up here. 2.1. It's not defined. Give me just 1 moment to read this section here. [130:58.17] Commissioner, well, this purpose is reviewing that it would under under the separate ethics chapter of the city code. It would be a violation of the ethics code for a commissioner to vote on an application involving their own property. [131:16.64] I don't know whether it's necessary to include in your rules of procedure that requirement. It is, it is sort of laid out in a separate version of the city code. [131:26.30] Okay. Well, yeah, thank you. I just wondered if we ought to state that in the rules of procedure or not. [131:40.78] Can you say that again? I'm sorry. I know. I just [name] just clarified that. But do we should we go ahead and state that in the rules of procedure or reference back to I don't know. [131:57.24] It just seemed like it was a conflict of interest and maybe we need to address it in the rules of procedure or is it as [name] said covered elsewhere. [132:07.26] I suspect it being covered elsewhere is probably sufficient as you all have seen there are many references within this document to other documents that have like more detail and more of the regulations, but ultimately it's this body's decision there. [132:21.26] Okay. And the last one I noticed 2.1. I there are 2 of this notation. There are 2 eyes. I just saw that as well when I was trying to find your 2.1. I guess so we will adjust that. Okay. [132:34.35] That's it. Otherwise, excellent details important. Thank you for that. Commissioner have any other company get lawyers involved. Any other comments on our rules of procedure and staff just clarify you do need a motion. Okay. [132:57.21] I'm going to just comment that I'm going to abstain from voting because as much as I think I read every single thing that you all send and when we meet, I absorb everything that you tell me. [133:10.68] I somehow failed to read this part of it. So I don't think it's fair that I vote. So I'll be abstaining, but it was such a light brief book. What do you mean? [133:22.60] So I'm going to call for a motion. [133:26.95] I'm going to move that the HTC approved the revisions to the what is it called the rules of procedure procedure as as shown in the in the brief book and as along with the corrections just discussed. [133:48.07] I have a second. Thank you both all in favor. Okay. That's 4 and I'm abstaining for the record. Thank you. Next on the agenda is discussion. It's all business or sectional map amendment for 24 Martins Lane. [134:08.80] There's not much more to discuss on this case than Commissioner [name] already noted earlier into in the night. But on Monday evening, the mayor and council did vote to locally designate 24 Martins Lane. So staff will be working through kind of all of the administrative components that are associated with that over the coming days and weeks. [134:30.08] Was there much discussion? I wanted to come but I couldn't. Yeah, there was quite a bit of discussion. I would say maybe an hour in total. [134:40.30] Between the public hearing and like the action item probably 2030 minutes worth of discussion there, right? I'm going to go back and watch that. Thank you. [134:57.58] Is that it on that topic? That's it. Thank you. And then our second old business item is our historic preservation event. [135:08.25] Both of us will give a report but HTC is sponsoring a fall historic preservation conference on November 14, 2026 from 10 to 12. The conference will be held at the Rebrick courthouse 29 courthouse square in Rockfield with a panel discussion on various topics. [135:34.07] Commissioner [name], you want to add anything? And the panel discussion will be basically deal with preserving and protecting historic properties. So you have anything you want to add? Not really. [135:52.20] You know, it's still developing. So I don't have really anything at this point. Well, I think, [name], you said you were going to staff was going to take care of getting a some announcement into the Rockfield reports, hopefully for October and November. [136:17.36] Yeah, so it's been submitted for the October Rockfield reports. I've not yet seen what has actually come out of that, but it was submitted by the deadline. It is also available on the city's website. [136:27.36] So on the new city website, when you go to the calendar, there's a meetings like tab and then an events tab. So it's on the events tab as well. So anyone who's pursuing the city calendar will find our event on there. Thank you. [136:41.81] [name], do you have anything that you want to add from on this topic? I don't think so. I mean, staff have been working closely with Commissioner [name], Commissioner [name] kind of behind the scenes on this. [136:58.31] I think we're pulling together a really nice program. My understanding is I think nearly all of our commissioners will have some role in the event. [137:05.31] We've also reached out to some of our partners in the Maryland Historical Trust. I think we're still waiting for confirmation from them to see if they can participate in a portion of it. [137:14.31] But it seems like it's shaping up to be a really lovely event. I'm hoping that we'll have some good attendance. And I think it'll be a great resource for Rockfield's historic property owners. [137:24.31] Thank you. Just thank you, Commissioner [name] and Commissioner [name] for working on this. I very much appreciate the effort. [137:33.44] One more question to [name] or [name]. I said I would, you know, I've been doing those short. Is it too early to send you the files on those? [137:53.02] No. I was going to do that next week. We may or may not do anything with it right when we receive them, but please never too early to send them along. [137:59.18] Okay. Anything else on historic preservation event? Any new business? Okay. May I have a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. [138:17.63] May I have a second? I'll second. Thank you both. All in favor? [138:26.11] Aye. Thank you, staff. Thank you, channel 11.