Committees approve stricter green-roof and rooftop-use standards in Annapolis comp-plan ordinance

Madam Chair of the joint Rules and Environmental Matters committees announced on Oct. 3 that both committees had recommended Amendment 5 to O-1425, the ordinance implementing the Annapolis Ahead Comprehensive Plan 2040, after detailed debate on green-roof and rooftop-use standards.

The amendment, sponsored by Alderman Savage, adds a definition and performance standards for green roofs in the Historic District — including requirements for stormwater retention and attenuation, thermal performance, structural waterproofing, reversibility so roofs can be removed without damaging historic fabric, visibility limits so plantings do not project above rooflines visible from public rights-of-way, irrigation/drainage standards and maintenance obligations for property owners. "This section of the amendment is very well put together and I think would be very workable for us," said Chris Kubiak, senior planning staff, who described the approach as "technically sound and spot on." Eric Leschinski, Chief of Comprehensive Planning, concurred.

The committees also adopted new Rooftop Accessory Structure Design Guidelines to require that rooftop enclosures, guardrails and screens "match or complement" adjacent roof materials, minimize perceived bulk, and avoid features that would create habitable rooms. The sponsor and staff clarified that the intent is to allow outdoor dining while preventing rooftop hotel rooms or fully habitable enclosed spaces. After staff recommended narrowing the prohibition from "covered" to "enclosed," Alderman Arnett moved to change the term; the committees approved the change. As Alderman Arnett put it during the discussion, the amendment "prohibits habitable rooms;" staff noted covered shade structures such as pergolas or umbrellas would still be permissible when appropriately designed and setback.

A technical correction to rooftop-dining guardrail language also passed after members agreed the text should read that guardrails and parapets "may not exceed 42 inches above the roof surface," rather than potentially implying they could exceed it. Planning staff and the sponsor also debated a separate provision limiting accessory-structure heights. The sponsor's draft lowered a baseline maximum to 7 feet for accessory structures but allowed up to 10 feet (and an additional 5 feet with an elevator override) if the applicant demonstrated (1) extra height was necessary and minimal, (2) visual impacts were reduced through setbacks or screening, and (3) all overlay standards including green-roof requirements were satisfied. Staff recommended keeping a 10-foot maximum with a possible five-foot elevator override while using project-level review to deny unnecessary height; committee members expressed concern that a strict 7-foot baseline might be infeasible for some equipment or elevators.

To reconcile that debate, the committees inserted explicit applicant-demonstration criteria into the ordinance text — requiring justification for extra height, showing mitigation of visual impacts, and confirming compliance with overlay standards — before voting to recommend Amendment 5 as amended. "I like that they're in," Kubiak said of the three demonstration criteria, adding that the requirement "puts the onus on the applicant" to justify additional height.

The Planning Department told the committees that the green-roof and rooftop standards would be workable for staff to apply. The amendment also directs relevant proposals to Historic Preservation Commission review where compatibility is in question.

The committees voted by voice to approve Amendment 5 as amended. The recommendation moves this package of rooftop and green-roof rules to the full City Council as part of O-1425. The committees did not record roll-call tallies in the transcript; members reported ayes and nays by voice during the meeting.