PUBLIC HEARING Variance Application APP2004-00828, Michael Lowe, Montgomery County Department of Public Works and Transportation The applicant proposes multiple improvements to this site including a new salt dome and maintenance depot facility building, but it is only the construction of the vehicle storage facility that require approval through the variance process. The property is located at 1283 Seven Locks Road. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. Michael Lowe, presented the applicant’s request. Mr. Lowe described the request for a side yard setback variance of 10 feet (65 feet from the 75 feet required in the I-3 Zone). Mr. Lowe noted that the variance is needed so that the County can construct vehicle storage buildings along the site’s southern side yard property line. Mr. Lowe stated that the County’s Department of Public Works and Transportation is proposing to make several improvements to the site and they want to be a good neighbor to the surrounding property owners. The improvements would include razing two existing road-salt storage domes and the existing truck depot; construct a new covered truck depot, which would contain office space, vehicle repair facilities, locker rooms, restroom and shower facilities; construct a new road-salt storage barn building structure, designed to allow trucks to be loaded within the new building structure; and, construct vehicle storage building facilities to store the center’s truck fleet. Mr. Lowe stated that the County plans to begin construction next spring, 2005. The Board discussed concerns regarding pedestrian safety, and the placement of facilities on the site without a variance. Greg Lukmire of Lukmire Partnership Architects, described the site plan. He said that the trucks are currently parked on the property line and the County intends to replace two existing salt domes as well as a truck depot. The Board discussed concerns regarding the site lighting so it would not create spillage or glare onto surrounding properties. At its June 23, 2004 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed this application, recommended approval to the Board of Appeals. The Planning Commission raised a number of questions including the retention of as many trees as possible; that the County facility continue to operate to minimize adverse impacts on neighboring land uses; and, existing and new site lighting not create spillage or glare onto surrounding land uses. Mr. Sternstein asked Mr. Lukmire if the applicant would be acceptable to the Board including a condition regarding directional lighting. Mr. Lukmire replied that he would be acceptable to the condition. The Board continued to discuss stormwater management, landscaping the site to lessen the impact on neighboring properties, type of outdoor lighting, and proposed side and rear walls, which would partially enclose the truck storage area. Mr. Lukmire explained that the walls are needed for security, ventilation, and natural light, which would assist in reducing some of the truck noise. There being no one else to speak for or against the Variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. Variance Application APP2004-00825, Reginald Miller This application was deferred at the Board of Appeals’ June 5, 2004 meeting in order for the applicant to submit accurate elevations for the proposed sunroom at 1107 Halesworth Drive. Mr. Miller presented revised plans. Mr. Miller presented a summary of the three findings as rationale for the Board to approve his application as stated in the staff report. Mr. Miller said that he and his wife hired a professional architect who followed examples of elevation drawings provided by the City of Rockville’s Planning Division. Therefore, the purpose today is to obtain a variance for the construction of a permanently elevated addition for a sunroom. This will be an extension to the family room and the kitchen on the back of the existing house. A new drawing featured an adjusted roofline of the proposed sunroom to minimize the roof height of the structure. Mr. Miller stated that the architect has included an enclosed area under the sunroom to produce a more aesthetically compatible addition that does not look like it is suspended in the air. Mr. Miller discussed the present proposal. He noted that this new design is the least aggressive in volume and in height. The variance request is only for a triangular portion beyond the building restriction line. Mr. Miller noted that even if the addition is designed and constructed within the building restriction line, the volume and the impact of the addition would almost be the same as what he is proposing. The exterior materials of the proposed addition would match the existing siding and the roof. The space on the lower level below the addition would be partially used as a multipurpose room and the remainder as a porch. It would have a separate entrance on the adjacent porch and would be accessible from the basement. The roof design is also very sensitive to the existing two windows of the master bedroom and the bathroom on the second floor. Skylights are also proposed for the addition. Mr. Miller stated that they are trying to maintain consistency and balance to the appearance of the neighborhood. That is why they want to build an L-shaped ninety-degree addition in lieu of the existing deck without changing the look and flow of the house. Mr. Miller explained that, on the suggestion of the Board, they contacted the Raffels two times by email offering to share their plans and inviting them to their house to see their plans. Unfortunately, on both occasions, the Raffels declined the invitation stating that the design is not their business. Mr. Miller stated that their intent is to be reasonable and responsible. Mr. Miller stated that he is willing to plant fast-growing evergreens along the back property line to minimize the impact on the Raffel’s property. Mr. Miller concluded by stating the variance requested is very small and he hopes that they have demonstrated their commitment in resolving the Board’s concerns, and the Raffels’ concerns. The Board discussed concerns regarding the revised plan, the roofline and the visual impact on the neighbors. The Board also reviewed building the addition in other locations on the lot. Also, discussed was an additional condition stating that no additional structures could protrude off of this residence without review. The following citizen testified in opposition: Marc Raffel, 1133 Halesworth Drive, testified that the Millers have been very open to and have offered them the opportunity to come over and view their architect’s plans. This was very gracious of them. Mr. Raffel stated that he and his wife’s position is that they do not want to be put in a position to impose upon the Millers any of their personal designs. Whatever Mr. Miller and his wife would like to build, they certainly have the right to do the design. Mr. Raffel stated that it is not the “what”, it is the “where”. He said that from his perspective the addition creates a very looming adjacent building to them. Right now, the deck is open and it does not give them as much of a looming impact. Mr. Sternstein stated that the Millers could building something as large to what they are proposing now within the building restriction line with a fairly significant visual impact that may even look more out of place than what they are asking for now. He asked Mr. Raffel if he and his wife would like the Board to deny the variance and, perhaps, wind up with something with more impact. Mr. Raffel replied that one of the reasons why they chose Orchard Ridge is because it is not a community with a covenant in that a property owner is allowed to do whatever he/she wants to do with his/her property. Therefore, they think they have that right and the Millers have that right, as long as a structure meets the rules and regulations and is within the law, he believes it is perfectly acceptable and they would have to live with it. Mr. Deitchman asked Mr. Raffel for any suggestions on improving the Miller’s design. Mr. Raffel replied that he and his wife believe that the addition should not go beyond the building restriction line; it is there for a reason. He noted that there are so many other ways to design an extremely functional area. Doris Raffel, 1133 Halesworth Drive, testified that they feel like they live in a fish bowl because of the huge slope in their backyard and it is important that the Board consider their perspective on this issue. She asked that the Board consider the photographs that they took of the Miller’s house. Ms. Raffel stated that when they have guests for a cookout on their deck, the first comment is the Miller’s house. The house is very intrusive. They can build an addition within the building restriction line. These are not large lots and to try to screen the property with trees, it would take another forty years for them to be tall enough to provide an effective screen and that does not add anything to the mix. Ms. Raffel said that a five and a half foot variance is a significant intrusion. Ms. Raffel stated that the Millers could build a lovely addition to their home within the building restriction line. In response to Mr. Sternstein, Ms. Raffel stated that the new design is something that she does not feel that she could appreciate as the outcome of the project. In response to Mr. Deitchman regarding reducing the sunroom, Mr. Miller said he could talk to his architect about it. He said he is happy to work with the Raffels, but he feels like he is being held hostage just because his neighbors bought a property that is lower in elevation, twenty years ago. The Board further discussed ways to scale down the design of the sunroom that would be functional and appealing to the applicant. The Board also informed the applicant about the Zoning Code and his rights to build a structure within the building restriction line. Mr. Miller stated that he prefers to go with what he has proposed. He talked about planting evergreen trees to screen the addition from the neighbors. There being no one else to speak for or against the Variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. OLD BUSINESS The Board discussed the Archstone at Rockville Town Center regarding the trash compactor and enclosure and revised signage. Mr. Chasten stated that this was brought to the Board as a courtesy to make certain that the Board is comfortable with the Chief of Planning taking this action to approve this project. The Board agreed with the Chief Planning’s action. Mr. Sternstein reported that he would be recusing himself from considerations of this matter because his colleague, Mr. Freishtat, Attorney, is representing the applicant. MINUTES Mr. Hill moved, seconded by Mr. Sternstein to approve the minutes of Meeting No. 6-04 as amended. The motion passed unanimously.
Special Exception Applications SPX2004-00341 & SPX2004-00342, Lewis Warsaw/Rockville Blades LLC The applicant is requesting approval for two special exceptions to sell beer and wine by the proposed restaurant located in the ice rink on the second level of the mezzanine lounge area of the facility. A second request is to establish and operate the food concession area; a full service restaurant located on the first floor of the ice rink and to modify a portion of the upstairs mezzanine area for added restaurant/sports bar use. The property is located at 50 Southlawn Court. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. Mr. David Freishtat, Attorney presented the applicant’s request for SPX2004-00341 to sell beer and wine by the proposed restaurant located in the ice rink on the second level of the mezzanine lounge area of the facility. Mr. Freishtat stated that, in light of the staff report and the Planning Commission memorandum as well as Sondra Block’s memo to the Board of Appeals, the applicant would withdraw this special exception request at this time. In response to Mr. Hill, Mr. Freishtat replied that, based on the wording of the Ordinance now and the various reports from staff, the applicant felt that this is not the right time and place to be arguing the question of alcohol beverages and sales in the I-1 Zone. Mr. Freishtat presented the applicant’s request for Special Exception Application SPX2004-00342. He said that the basic reason why they are here is that the restaurant snack bar will remain the same, but the new operator of the restaurant would like to open the restaurant as a full service restaurant because there are very few places to eat in the area. He said the applicant wants to market it to more to businesses in the area. Mr. Freishtat noted that the previous owner went into bankruptcy and it was bought by the new owner. The new restaurant operator has had interest from the community to change the use to a full service restaurant. Mr. Freishtat stated that the new restaurant needs to become a principal use. The new owner would like to provide food service in an area in front of the mezzanine level that looks over both ice rinks. He would like to provide food service to both parents, children, and to the businesses in the area. Mr. Freishtat stated that a provision of computer links and TV sets will be offered as well. Lewis Warsaw, applicant, presented a full restaurant menu to the Board as Exhibit 2. The restaurant will be named “Village Grill”. Mr. Warsaw discussed the operation of the restaurant, the layout design of the restaurant, number of employees, and the hours of operation. In response to Mr. Deitchman, Mr. Freishtat explained that the restaurant has been on that location for many years and it is currently in operation. The restaurant is an accessory use; the new owner cannot market to the outside community at this point. He noted that there are no other restaurants in the area. What prompted this application was the desire to expand on the mezzanine level. At that point, staff felt that the restaurant was becoming a much larger use and probably needed to become a principal use rather than an accessory use. In response to Mr. Freishtat, Mr. Warsaw explained that if the special exception is granted, the restaurant would be marketing in the industrial/commercial area that directly surrounds the restaurant. There will probably be an Internet site, coupons, etc. In response to Mr. Deitchman, Mr. Freishtat stated that there are no plans to dedicate parking spaces for the restaurant. There is more than enough parking for all of the activities in that area. Mr. Hill addressed his concern about the parking situation on the site, which would also be provided for other uses on the site. The Board addressed concerns regarding truck deliveries to the restaurant, and management of other uses on the site. Stuart Schooler, a principal of Rockville Blades LLC, described the operation of the ice rink. He stated that the other uses in the facility are Montgomery Youth Hockey Association, Rockville Blades Adult League, summer camps, etc., and the pro shop (leased under a separate tenant). Mr. Schooler explained that the Village Grill is currently a tenant of Rockville Blades Montgomery Youth Hockey Association. Robert Roseman, Board member and Attorney for the Montgomery Youth Hockey Association, described the Montgomery Youth Hockey’s role on this site. They will become the master tenant and all other existing tenants will be their sub-tenants. In response to Mr. Freishtat, Mr. Roseman explained the importance of the restaurant and the significant economic consequence to Montgomery Youth Hockey becoming the master tenant to the entire facility. They pay a certain amount of money over the years for their licensing, and it is critical to attract additional tenants to the facility. The Board discussed concerns regarding the existing uses in the facility and additional uses that may require special exceptions, adequate parking for the uses on the site, and the possibility of expanding the ice rink. The Board discussed the operation of the ice rink. The following citizen testified in favor of the application: Dr. Steven Blanken testified that his sons belong to Montgomery Youth Hockey Association and he is there to support the restaurant because a restaurant would be nice so that he and his wife could have a nice dinner while waiting for their children. The TV sets would be wonderful, especially on the weekends when their sons are play hockey and they could watch football. Dr. Blanken noted that there is plenty of parking on the site. Dr. Blanken commented that regarding the first special exception, while he does not drink beer or wine, he supports this application, since he is a doctor, who treats people with vascular disease. One glass of wine a night is actually recommended by the Surgeon General; it is good for the heart. He noted that people have to be responsible when drinking alcohol. He said, since he travels to different ice rinks, every rink he has been to serves beer and wine. There have been no complaints. There being no one else to speak for or against the Special Exception applications, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. DECISIONS Variance Application APP2004-00828, Michael Lowe, Montgomery County Department of Public Works and Transportation Mr. Sternstein moved, seconded by Mr. Hill to approve Variance Application APP2004-00828, Michael Lowe, Montgomery County Department of Public Works and Transportation per staff recommendations with the following change to the forth condition plus an additional condition. The fourth condition would state, “The new building shall be screened from I-270, Wootton Parkway, Seven Locks Road, and the adjacent properties by landscaping and a use permit must be approved. The manner of landscape screening of the new building from I-270 and the adjacent properties would be addressed at the time of use permit approval. An additional condition states, “All lighting on site shall be designed to minimize light spillage onto and visibility of lighting facilities from sites and properties in the vicinity of the subject site. The manner of accomplishing this result shall be determined at the use permit stage. The motion passed unanimously. Variance Application APP2004-00825, Reginald Miller Mr. Hill moved, seconded by Mr. Sternstein to approve APP2004-00825 per staff recommendations with the addition of two further conditions. (1) Condition 3 that would read, “That no further structural extension of this building is allowed without further variance review and recommend to the City staff to look at the possible administrative facilitation of recording that with the property title. (2) Condition 4 that would read, “To require site screening for the structure to be reviewed at the building permit stage and in consultation with the City forester. The applicant represented the planting of evergreen trees and the replacement of a number of those trees could be taken up as a staff matter. Ms. Hall questioned Mr. Hill about his motion regarding Condition 3. She suggested amending Condition 3 to read, “Any further development on the southern exposure be brought back to the Board of Appeals for review. Mr. Hill agreed to the amendment. Mr. Hill reworded the Condition 3 to read, “No further structural extension on the southern exposure of this building is allowed without further variance review.” Mr. Hill explained the rational for approving this application with regard to the three findings. 1. The variance as requested would not be contrary to the public interest in a sense balancing what could be done by right that would be substantially more onerous to the problems of the imposing structure and for the public interest in this area. This is a very small footprint; it is a triangular space and aesthetic alternatives may not be in the public interest on regarding how the structure may be built by right. 2. This variance is due to conditions peculiar to the property because the placement of the house is somewhat peculiar; the elevation of the structure is also peculiar on causing an impact on the public interest. In addition, the lot shape has a lack of square structure, which causes the need to have the small triangular space. 3. A literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in practical difficulty. The intention of the property owner would not be met by moving the structure to a different part of the house. It would also be substantially more costly to look at some other alternatives and aesthetics come into play in that this is an architectural harmonious design that has been put in front of the Board. The alternative would present less of a balancing, that is, the Board can limit the extent of the encroachment by attaching conditions to this to prevent any further extensions. Specifically, the deck could by right intrude into the setback. The Board can also require screening to be placed in this, since the central problem between the two property owners the Board has heard from is one of site intrusion, which is compounded by the difference in elevation. The motion passed on a vote of 2-1, with Mr. Sternstein voting nay. Special Exception Applications SPX2004-00341 & SPX2004-00342, Lewis Warsaw/Rockville Blades LLC Special Exception Application SPX2004-00341 withdrawn by the applicant. Mr. Schwartzman moved, seconded by Mr. Hill to approve Special Exception Application SPX2004-00342, Lewis Warsaw/Rockville Blades LLC per staff recommendations subject to deleting Condition #2, which is inappropriate for this application. The motion passed on a vote of 3-0. Mr. Schwartzman provided three findings: 1) The proposed use does not violate or adversely affect the Master Plan, the Zoning Ordinance or any other applicable law; 2) The proposed use at the location will not adversely affect the health and safety of residents in the area; overburden existing public services, including water, sanitary sewer, public road, storm drainage and other public improvements or, be detrimental to the use or development of adjacent properties or the neighborhood, or change the character of the neighborhood in which the use is proposed, considering services currently required, population density, character, and number of similar uses. OLD BUSINESS In response to Mr. Hill, Mr. Chasten explained why Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) are coming back to the Board with additional modular classrooms. The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, July 15, 2004. Mr. Chasten explained that the Board raised many questions about the rationale for why the temporary structures were requested when they appeared before the Board sometime ago. Mr. Chasten stated that, at that time, they could not provide the information. Therefore, the Board imposed a condition requiring the MCPS to come back before the Board to give them the requested information. Mr. Deitchman asked staff to check the minutes of last year and check the approvals for portables at the schools before Thursday. Mr. Chasten discussed an upcoming special exception, Shannon Allcock, applicant, regarding a Chevron gas station on the corner of Southlawn and Gude Drive. He noted that this application would be coming back to the Board. The applicant was late for the Board’s October meeting. Mr. Chasten informed Mr. Allcock that he would have to ask the Board’s Chair if October was acceptable. The Board agreed that October was fine. Mr. Chasten informed that the Board that there was a special exception that was granted by the Board in 1993 or 1994 for an accessory apartment. The City’s Code Enforcement found that the owners were in violation of the accessory apartment. They are operating the accessory apartment as a boarding house. Staff was asked to bring the violation to the Board’s attention to notify the owners to bring them back to the Board to reconsider the application. Mr. Chasten stated that Inspection Services feels that, since the owners are in violation of the special exception, the Board could revoke it. Mr. Chasten noted other applications received that would be coming before the Board. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 1:00 p.m. 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. | 
