Recommendation
Discuss options for historic district designation and its boundary, and provide instructions to staff on preparation of the ordinance for Map Amendment MAP2008-00104.

Discussion
The Historic District Commission recommended a historic district boundary that is consistent with the deeded lot lines of the five properties associated with the five houses and three detached garages recommended for designation (see AttachA). The property owner, Montgomery County, is partnering with Victory Housing to develop a low/moderate-income senior housing facility on the block. A concept plan has been presented informally to planning and historic preservation staff, adjoining neighbors, the Planning Commission and at the Mayor and Council Public Hearing on July 28, 2008. The concept plan shows the proposed senior housing facility sited in the middle of the block with the five houses that are the subject of this map amendment remaining along the north and northwest perimeter. The developer anticipates filing a development application after the new zoning ordinance is adopted and the development moratorium is lifted.

The property owner and the developer have stated a preference for no historic district designation, but they have proposed a reduced boundary if the Mayor and Council want to pursue historic designation. Prior to the July 2, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, they proposed an alternate environmental setting with a change to the historic district boundary from what was recommended by the HDC. This would remove much of the rear lots, including all three garages, and five significant trees, shown on the draft Natural Resources Inventory/Forest Stand Delineation (NRI/FSD) and identified as significant by the City Forester, from the proposed historic district. A third option for the historic district boundary was recommended by the Planning Commission. This boundary follows the line recommended by the property owner and developer, but additionally excludes 150 Maryland Avenue (see AttachE). Since the Planning Commission meeting, the property owner and developer have indicated that they prefer this further-reduced boundary over their original proposal as they believe it may provide them with more options for site development.

Mayor and Council History
The Mayor and Council authorized the filing of this application at the October 17, 2005 meeting. The Mayor and Council inquired about the properties' potential to be restored to their original appearance. The City hired architect Miche Booz in 2006 to provide renderings of what the houses could look like if unsympathetic exterior alterations were reversed. These drawings are provided in Mr. Booz's report as AttachD.

The designation process was anticipated to occur in conjunction with a development proposal in the form of an RTH initial application. This application could not be processed because it was predicated on a text amendment for modifications to the RTH procedure, which was not approved. The designation process was restarted when the new senior housing development was proposed.

The public hearing was held on July 28, 2008 and the record was left open until 5:00 p.m. on August 11, 2008. At the public hearing, representatives for the property owner and Victory Housing, Inc. spoke in favor of a reduced historic district boundary or no designation. Six other individuals, speaking for themselves or for organizations they represent, also testified. Three supported the HDC-recommended boundary and two supported the Victory Housing development and a reduced historic district. One resident expressed concerns about the proposed development's impact on the adjacent Courthouse Walk residential community. A summary of all written and oral testimony and copies of all written testimony is provided in AttachJ.

Options Considered
The outstanding issue is where the historic district boundary should be located if historic district zoning is approved.

Option 1 is the HDC-recommended boundary that follows the deeded lot lines and encompasses all of the structures and the existing environmental setting, including five significant trees with their critical root zones. Lot lines are typically used to define historic district boundaries. Under this option, exterior alterations and construction within the historic district boundary would be reviewed by the HDC with the goal of achieving developer/property owner objectives while minimizing negative impacts on the historic district. Physical and economic feasibility circumstances and condition of structures are considered by the HDC in approving demolitions. The HDC review process provides some assurance that the houses will have re-use potential and will be considered an integral part of the overall development plan. Alterations adjacent to the historic district would be subject to a non-binding courtesy review by the HDC.

Option 2 is the reduced boundary that was recommended by the property owner and developer (prior to the Planning Commission meeting) that keeps the Victory Housing development out of the historic district. Under this option, all five houses would be in the historic district and exterior alterations to them would be reviewed by the HDC. However, the environmental setting would be truncated. Most of the rear yards, the three garages, and significant trees would be located outside the historic district boundary and could be removed or altered without HDC regulatory review.

The Victory Housing development is in a concept stage and has not yet been submitted for City reviews because of the development moratorium. The historic designation process is expected to be completed prior to the Victory Housing development review process. Therefore, the reduced historic district boundary described in either Options 2 or 3 could be in place even if the Victory Housing development is never built or the approved building footprint and road are not built as currently depicted in concept drawings. It is unusual for a historic district boundary to be determined based on a hypothetical development proposal that has not been approved or even submitted for review. The Mayor and Council might choose a different historic district boundary given an alternative development proposal.

Future uses of the houses have not been determined by the property owner. The draft zoning map places them and the entire property in the MXT zone which provides a transition between moderate/high density development and single-unit detached housing and allows for certain residential and commercial uses. In weighing a truncated historic district boundary option, consideration should be given to factors that will affect future use potential, including how adequate on-site parking for the houses would be provided.

Option 3, recommended by the Planning Commission, follows the property owner/developer boundary but further reduces the historic district by removing 150 Maryland Avenue altogether. The property owner/developer now prefers Option 3 over their original Option 2 proposal because they feel it provides them with more development options that would not be subject to HDC regulatory review. However, the property owner/developer have already shown confidence via their concept plan that the Victory Housing development can be built with all five houses remaining. Staff research found, and the HDC concurred, that 150 Maryland Avenue shares a history and is architecturally associated with the Fleet Street houses.

The above three options are shown on AttachE, with the Victory Housing concept plan.

The Mayor and Council could also choose Option 4, and not approve any historic district or to define a historic district boundary not yet considered.

Public Notification and Engagement

The July 28, 2008 Mayor and Council public hearing was advertised in The Gazette on July 9 and July 16, 2008. The public record closed at 5:00 p.m. on August 11, 2008. Eight people testified at the public hearing and 16 letters or emails were received prior to the closing of the public record. Written testimony and a summary of all testimony received is in AttachJ.

Boards and Commissions Review
On June 16, 2005, the Historic District Commission unanimously recommended historic designation of the district comprising 101, 103, 105, 107 Fleet Street and 150 Maryland Avenue. The boundary recommended by the HDC follows the deeded lot lines and includes the five houses, three extant garages and rear yards. The HDC found that the proposed district meets the criteria for historic designation based on architectural, historic and social/cultural significance. The five houses and three garages are all products of the first half of the 20th century and share similar construction and materials. They represent an intact, cohesive streetscape, have similar front setbacks and site layout, and represent architectural styles that illustrate residential development of Rockville Heights along the original alignment for Maryland Avenue during this time period. Four of the houses were built as investment properties by Robert C. Warfield who lived on the north side of Fleet Street. Dr. Warfield was the first to build a residence in the Rockville Heights subdivision. The fifth house, 107 Fleet Street, was built by local master builder T.C. Groomes for the Robertson family who occupied it for 65 years. (See AttachC and AttachH.)

At the July 2, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, preservation staff supported the historic district and boundary as recommended by the HDC. Staff found that the proposed district is consistent with the Comprehensive Master Plan and the Town Center Master Plan. Staff supported the HDC recommended boundary as it retains the environmental setting that includes accessory structures, rear yards and mature trees that help to identify the early 20th century timeframe during which these residential properties were developed. Staff noted that alterations, even demolition and relocation of historic structures, may occur within historic district boundaries if approved by the HDC. Representatives of the property owner and Victory Housing testified that optimal siting of the senior facility necessitates a reduction of the historic district environmental setting and removal or relocation of the garages to allow for the main drive aisle into the new development. Planning Commissioner Hill questioned why 150 Maryland Avenue was not identified as a historic resource in the Town Center Master Plan, the source of which was the 1989 Historic Buildings Catalog. Staff replied that it was likely an erroneous omission because 150 Maryland Avenue is directly connected to the four Fleet Street properties in terms of family ownership, architectural style and details, siting, and date of construction. The Planning Commission agreed that the proposed historic district is generally consistent with relevant master plans but voted to exclude 150 Maryland Avenue from the proposed district and to otherwise recommend the boundary proposed by the property owner which omits the garages and much of the rear yards. The Planning Commission found that removing 150 Maryland Avenue from the proposed district may provide more options to the developer for siting the senior facility and may encourage the County to correct deferred maintenance on the four Fleet Street houses.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item.

Next Steps
If the Mayor and Council decide to approve the application, the next step will be Introduction of an ordinance to include a boundary determination. This will be followed at a later date with Adoption of the ordinance to enact the zoning change.

Attachments

Department Head:



Susan Swift, Director of Community Planning and Development Services
Approved on: 08/28/2008

City Manager:

Scott Ullery, City Manager
Approved on: 09/02/2008