City of Rockville Board of Appeals
Minutes

 Mayor and Council Chambers
Meeting No. 10-03
Saturday, December 13, 2003, 9:30 a.m.

The City of Rockville Board of Appeals convened in regular session in the Council Room, Rockville City Hall at 9:30 a.m., Saturday, December 13, 2003.
 

OLD BUSINESS

Request for a Time Extension to Special Exception Application SPX2003-00329 & Zoning Variance Application APP2003-00795, SHW Inc. for Montgomery County Public Schools

The applicant is requesting special exception approval to construct a new Richard Montgomery High School, raze the old school upon completion of the new school, construct new athletic facilities, install new site entrances, and other associated site improvements at 250 Richard Montgomery Drive.

David Cross, Project Manager of Richard Montgomery High School replacement, presented the applicant’s request for a time extension to previously approved Special Exception SPX2003-00329.  He stated that the funding for the high school has been delayed a year or so.  They are expecting approval of funding for the school in the upcoming MCPS budget.  He said that they are expecting to submit building permits to the City on January 9, 2004.   

In response to Mr. Deitchman, Mr. Cross explained that the new facility would be constructed near Park Street, closer to the Park Street School and Fleet Street.  Once that construction is completed, they will then demolish the existing buildings.  He stated that the phasing plan would not be changed. 

Mr. Hill moved, seconded by Mr. Deitchman to approve a six-month time extension for the previously approved special exception.  The motion passed unanimously.
                           
PUBLIC HEARING

Variance Application APP2003-00815, Kathleen D. Hussmann

The applicant is seeking a four-foot variance from the front setback requirement for a two-story front porch at 722 Wilson Avenue.  An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1.

Kathleen Hussmann and Tom Griffith presented their request.  Mr. Griffith explained that the house is currently undergoing renovations and improvements.  He stated that the design for the proposed two-story porch is driven by the style that the house is taking on with the improvements.  He also explained that a smaller porch would look out of proportion with the house and would not offer adequate protection from the elements.  Mr. Griffith noted that the house faces north, and would be limited to a four-foot deep by ten-foot wide porch without a variance.  The proposed plans for the porch would update the appearance of the house.  Mr. Griffith noted that they are proposing to construct a thirty-two foot wide by nine-foot deep two-story front porch onto the existing house.  

Mr. Griffith stated that they do feel the proposed porch would not be contrary to the public interest, although the proposed porch would be larger than most in the neighborhood, the limited encroachment of four feet seems to be only slightly more than many porches in the neighborhood.  There are also no sight line difficulties associated with the porch because there would still be twenty-six feet between the porch and the front property line.  In addition, the lot is oddly shaped, but there are three almost identical lots in the immediate vicinity.  What makes this property different is that it has significant grade drops from the main living level, both in the front and the back of the house towards the property lines.  He said that the odd shape also places most of the lot within the front yard setbacks, which limits development options on the property.  Mr. Griffith stated the he believes the odd shape results in conditions peculiar to the property and not the result of any action taken by them. 

In response to Mr. Sternstein, Mr. Griffith stated that their neighbors have expressed no objection to their proposal.

Mr. Griffith stated that he feels the front porch fits the style of the house. 

In response to Mr. Sternstein, Mr. Griffith stated that he agrees with the conditions in the staff report.   

In response to Mr. Deitchman, Mr. Griffith stated that the proposed front porch would remain an open porch. 

In response to the Board, Ms. Hall explained the encroachment of four feet into the front property line.

Mr. Hill stated that there are two statements in the application that need clarification: 1) protecting the face of the house?  Mr. Griffith explained that there is a northern exposure to the house, which results in inadequate protection from the elements and a porch would provide additional protection from the weather and other elements.   2) Need for the second story of the porch.  Mr. Griffith explained that the second story would not take up any more space than there would be with one story.  The second story would allow him to provide egress for the upper bedrooms, which would meet the code. 

Ms. Hall stated that she had taken pictures of the house across the street, which has a front porch and it appears to her that the porch encroaches.  The house next door also has a front porch and she is not sure that encroaches.  She noted that front porches are very common in the neighborhood.  She said that one could call the second story of the porch as decking.  One can have a deck that encroaches nine feet for the full width of the house into the front yard. 

The Board discussed issues with the mass of the structure and requiring the applicants not to enclose the porch in the future.

The following citizen testified:

John Hartranft , 113 South Adams Street, testified in support of the application.  He said he went through this process a few years ago for a front porch.  He said he and his family’s experience with their front porch have improved their quality of life.  Their porch gets them out of the house to enjoy the outdoors and their neighbors as well as aesthetically improving the front of their house.  He thanked the Board for approving his application two years ago.

There being no one else to speak for or against the variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. 

Special Exception Application SPX2003-00335, Realty Capital Partners, LLC

The applicant is requesting to allow for relocation of the existing bank and drive-thru facility at 611 Rockville Pike. 

Mr. Hill asked for two clarifications to the application.  He said there seems to be confusion as to whether the applicant is asking for an extension or a reapplication of the special exception.  Mr. Chasten explained that this is a new application because the proposal has been modified and, since the City does not have a modification process to approved special exceptions, the applicant is required to come back with a new special exception. 

Jeff Fuller, DNC Architects, presented the applicant’s request.  He said he is representing Sandy Spring Bank and Realty Capital Partners.  He stated that they are in support of staff’s recommendation.  He noted that there is not the ability to modify an approved special exception in the City of Rockville.  Therefore, they are before the Board to seek a new special exception.  Mr. Fuller explained that there has been a special exception on the subject property for over ten years.  Sandy Spring has been operating a branch bank and a drive-thru facility at this location for approximately ten years.  They actually purchased the property with an existing drive-thru facility.  He said that they were before the Planning Commission for special exception for a larger 158,000 single building complex two and a half years ago and just recently extended that use permit to be able to initiate construction in about two weeks.  The special exception is a two-phase special exception:  the first phase of which is identical to the previously approved special exception and they hope to begin construction under that special exception and that is to build a branch bank in a trailer with a drive-in facility at the northwest corner of the property. 

Mr. Fuller presented a site analysis that shows the size of the subject property and surrounding properties.  The existing building is a two-story building with approximately 30,000 square feet and is in very bad condition where things are literally falling apart.  Therefore, they want to demolish the building as soon as possible.  Under the first phase, the applicant will vacate, discontinue use, and raze the existing office building that now houses the Sandy Spring National Bank.  The bank and its customer drive-thru operation would be temporarily relocated to a modular building located in the northern area of the site.  A new vehicular entrance on Fleet Street would access the temporary facility.  Once the branch bank’s operation has been moved temporarily, the southeastern and eastern areas of the site would be ready for construction of the new office buildings’ service parking facilities.  The new building has been downsized based on the economic climate.  The developer did not want to build a building and have empty space sitting there.  Therefore, approximately two thirds of the building would be occupied by Sandy Spring; the rest of the building would be available for leasing to outside services.  The drive-in facility is located in the southwest corner of the property and is identical in configuration to the previously approved special exception use for the drive-in facility.  The only difference is that it is literally ten feet lower in space because, previously, it was up on a structured deck, now it is sitting on the ground. 

In response to the Board, Mr. Fuller explained the access in and out of the site, circulation on the site, drive-in lanes, stacking, grading changes, and loading on the site. 

The Board discussed issues regarding safety in and out of the site, traffic circulation, pedestrian access, when construction would begin on the site, parking, and design of the first phase building.    

Mr. Fuller noted that the second phase of the redevelopment proposes a four story 126,500 square foot office building (with retail) would be constructed in the center area of the site, along with a five level parking garage that would be located in the northern end of the site. 

The Board further asked questions about student parking, visibility of retail on the site, pedestrian access and traffic circulation after second phase has been constructed.  Mr. Fuller explained that they are working with staff to make sure that the orientation of all retail functions would be only visible to 355 and not to the residential area. 

Mr. Hill asked whether the applicant was in agreement with Condition 5 with regard to a two-year time limit on the construction of the building.  Mr. Fuller replied that the applicant agrees with Condition 5.  He said that they are hopeful to start construction on the temporary branch bank site just before or just after the New Year.  They anticipate having the new building up in operation by January 2004. 

Mr. Hill pointed out that Condition 12 with regard to the middle of the second line of the condition should be corrected from “driving along” to “driving alone”.  Mr. Chasten agreed.   Mr. Chasten stated that the Planning Commission and staff also raise the point that Conditions 8 thru 21 be eliminated with the exception that Condition 17 would be retained along with Conditions 1 thru 7.  He noted that Conditions 8 thru 21 only refer to the use permit stage. 

Mr. Hill noted that the Board would discuss the conditions in their worksession.  He said there seems to be redundancy in some of the conditions. 

Mr. Fuller stated that they would prefer not to make the conditions in the staff report that refer to the use permit stage be contingent on them to come back before the Board for revised approval if the conditions were to be modified by the Planning Commission at the use permit stage.  He said he does not anticipate that as a result of discussions with Traffic, Planning and Public Works. 

The Board and staff further discussed the conditions with regard to traffic circulation, queuing into the site, Fleet Street and Richard Montgomery Drive, banking hours. 

Murray Deneuth, Vice President of Property Management for Sandy Spring Bank, discussed the drive-thru hours for the subject location.  He stated that, during the heavier commuter hours in the morning are where one experiences the largest volume of drive-thru business banking.  He answered questions regarding traffic during school hours and whether there would be a safety hazard with students arriving at the high school.  He clarified to the Board that one of the drive-thru lanes would be ATM only and the other two lanes would have the pneumatic tubes.  They are trying to increase the service level to their customers by having remote ATM at that location, which they do not have at this time. 

Discussion continued regarding other locations with drive-thru banks, stacking, and storm water management facilities for the site.

In response to Mr. Sternstein, Mr. Fuller stated that Condition 11 and 5 are of concern to the applicant. 

Mr. Hill proposed to eliminate Condition 1 and replace it with Condition 3.  He would also suggest eliminating Condition 6, which is almost verbatim with most of Condition 4.  He would take Condition 7 and include the word “also” in front of it and insert it as the second sentence of Condition 2. 

There being no one else to speak for or against the special exception application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. 

DECISIONS

Variance Application APP2003-00815, Kathleen D. Hussmann

Mr. Schwartzman moved, seconded by Mr. Hill to approve Variance Application APP2003-00815 per staff’s recommendations and subject to the condition that the applicants must not enclose or screen either level of the front porch.  The motion passed unanimously. 

Mr. Hill commented for the record that he voted aye in this circumstance and it was a very close margin and his concerns are that there is a valid demonstrated practical need for the second story of the structure; he does accept that there is a need for the first story as an extension of that story.  He will vote in favor of the second story; the issue for him is the question on massing of this structure in a front setback.  In addition, his decision is that this is a fairly small encroachment in terms of the actual area that needs a special exception and he thinks that, in the public interest, it is probably better to accept the whole design rather than try to trim or cut the design to fit the small area.   

Special Exception Application SPX2003-00335, Realty Capital Partners, LLC

Mr. Hill moved, seconded by Mr. Schwartzman to approve Special Exception Application SPX2003-00335, Realty Capital Partners, LLC per staff recommendations with modifications to the conditions.  He feels staff has done a very adequate and able job in explaining the reasons for approving this application.  He said he would like to enter this as the Board’s rationale on all the reasons for the findings.  Regarding conditions, he proposes the following changes.  The first change is to take Condition 3 and make it Condition 1 and eliminate the current Condition 1.  He feels that those conditions are redundant and the wording as expressed in the current Condition 1 is not necessary but the Board believes that should be the first subject addressed in the conditions.  Another modification is to take the condition currently numbered 6 and eliminate it entirely since that wording is expressed in current Condition 4.  Condition 5, in the second paragraph, strike everything that is there and he will provide the working, which is “The northern area of the site vacated by the temporary banking operation must be appropriately treated and landscaped.  This must be done immediately after the temporary facility is removed.”  Condition 7, add the word “also” in front of the wording that exists in Condition 7 and then add that as the second sentence of Condition 2, double ??? the references to landscaping in one condition and take current Condition 16 and append that to current Condition 2.  Strike Conditions currently numbered 8 thru 12 and will refer those to the use permit stage and not add those to the special exception conditions.  However, the Board will keep Conditions 13, 14, 15, and 17 should be renumbered appropriately.  The Board will also drop Condition 18.    The motion passed unanimously.

OLD BUSINESS (Continued)

Mr. Chasten reported that the Board must adopt the Board’s Calendar Schedule for 2004 and also elect a new Chairman for 2004. 

Mr. Hill moved, seconded by Mr. Schwartzman to approve the Calendar Schedule for 2004.  The motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Hill submitted a nomination of Mr. Deitchman as the new Chairman for 2004.  The Board unanimously elected Mr. Deitchman as the new Chairman for 2004. 

MINUTES

Mr. Hill moved, seconded by Mr. Deitchman to approve the minutes of Meeting No. 8-03 as amended.  The motion passed on a vote of 3-0.  Mr. Schwartzman was not on the Board on this date.

The minutes of Meeting No. 9-03 were passed forward for corrections. 

ADJOURN

There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 12:00 noon. 

NOTE: Should further details of this hearing be required, a tape recording of the meeting is available.  The Planning Division maintains a tape of the meeting for a period not less than one year from the date of each meeting.