PUBLIC HEARING Variance Application APP2005-00846, Anne M. Cobb The applicant seeks a 10-foot variance from the side yard setback requirements to construct an addition to the rear of the house to expand a master bedroom and bathroom at 503 New Mark Esplanade. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. Ms. Cobb presented her request. She explained that she was aware of staff’s recommendation of denial of her addition. Ms. Cobb explained that when New Mark Commons was created in 1964, the builder obtained a variance to place the houses on the lots in order to preserve the existing trees. As a result, both the front and back yards of her property are unbuildable. Ms. Cobb stated that she would like to enlarge the existing bedroom and bath because both rooms are very small. She said she is planning the addition to connect to the rear of her house. Ms. Cobb said that her lot is odd-shaped and because of that, New Mark Commons Architectural Control Committee has approved her request to build the addition on the rear of her home. She also noted that her neighbors do not have any objections, especially the neighbor who would be most impacted by the addition. Ms. Cobb explained that it would be impractical for her to build the addition further down on the house because it would then line up with the kitchen. She would like to continue to use the current plumbing and sewage. She said she has an exceptional drainage system on the house and she will continue to build on the current system to prevent any drainage issues. In response to Mr. Hill, Ms. Cobb explained that she has thought of other alternatives, but the problem was that it made very odd-shaped interior units. The master bedroom would be cut in half, she has two small children who already occupy two of the bedrooms, and she would not like to build into their space to expand the master bedroom and bath. In response to Mr. Deitchman, Ms. Cobb explained that the variance is just for a corner of the proposed addition not for the entire addition. The Board discussed whether the property met the fire code requirements, and whether the property, which has dual access with frontage on public right-of-way in the front and rear of the house would prevent any access issues, intrusion into the side setback, and whether the edge of the house included the roof overhang. In response to Mr. Sternstein regarding the distance between the proposed addition and the adjacent property, Mr. Hurlbutt replied that the distance is approximately 20 feet from where the proposed addition is planned. Ms. Cobb inquired about installing a fence in the side yard. Jim Denning, a neighbor and the Administrator for the New Mark Commons HOA, stated that the covenant permits split rail fences in the single-family home area, not to exceed 48 inches in height. The Board further discussed concerns regarding the mature trees obstructing the addition, and maintaining the current side yard setback of 11 feet, setting a precedent regarding the setback so close to the property line, and other alternative locations to build the addition. The following citizen testified in favor of the application: David Young, contractor working with Ms. Cobb stated that they had three goals for the project. The primary goal was to have an addition that would be very much in keeping with the architectural vernacular of the community. Mr. Young stated that no trees would be removed. Mr. Young noted that there have not been a lot of major alterations in that neighborhood and he does not know whether it is because of restrictions on setbacks or whether people have just been happy with the space they have. He said that he feels there is going to be pressure as values of homes go up to have this kind of activity in that community. Keeping that in mind, he wanted to produce an addition that would fit into that community. Mr. Deitchman asked Mr. Young if he saw any difficulty if the Board requires that the wall had to be parallel to the property line. Mr. Young replied that the angled wall would change the way interior space would be used and utilized. Mr. Denning commented that there has been a similar addition a number of years ago in the community. The Architectural Review Committee is not concerned with variances or how things are constructed. It is just a concept of how the addition would look. In speaking to the angled wall, he would be concerned with what that would do to the roofline.
There being no one else to speak for or against the variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. Special Exception Application SPX2005-00354, Strayer University The applicant seeks special exception approval to establish “a private business, trade, and job training school”, a Strayer University campus at the subject location, which is located in the I-3 (Industrial Park) Zone. The applicant plans to relocate its Germantown campus to the City of Rockville, 4 Research Place. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted as Exhibit 1. Stuart Barr, Attorney with the law firm Lerch, Early & Brewer, presented the applicant’s request. In response to Mr. Hill regarding the monetary fee contribution to the City, Mr. Chasten explained that the contribution fee of $82,896 that is mentioned in the staff’s recommendation was modified based on the trip generation and further analysis. Therefore, what is reflected in the Planning Commission’s recommendation of $61,230 is staff’s recommendation. The applicant is aware of the modified fee. Geoffrey Roth, Director of Real Estate for Strayer University stated that Strayer University is Baltimore/D.C. base that started 110 years ago. It is a publicly traded for profit organization. Currently, there are 36 campuses from Philadelphia to Memphis. Class structure is in the evenings and on weekends. Class hours are Monday-Friday from 6:00 pm to 10:00 pm and Saturday 9:00 am to 4:00 pm. Sunday classes may be possible at some point in the future, but are not proposed at this time. Strayer operates on a quarter system with each quarter lasting approximately 10 weeks during the Fall, Spring, and Summer. Mr. Roth mentioned that 60% of Strayer’s growth is online students. The average student is 34 years old and they are professional working adults. Mr. Roth stated that one of the things he has learned from Strayer is that 70% of the adult population in the United States does not have an advanced degree beyond high school and the income disparity between degree and non-degree has doubled in the last twenty years and is projected to continue. Mr. Roth stated that Strayer proposes to relocate its existing operations from Germantown to approximately 16,000 square feet of space on the first floor of the existing 3-story building located on the subject property. The Germantown lease has expired. He noted that this space would primarily be used for a combination of classrooms and administrative staff office space. Strayer anticipates that the total building space will accommodate approximately 13 classrooms with an average classroom size of 15 students. It is anticipated that approximately 60% of the floor space will be utilized for the creation of 13 classrooms and a Learning Resource Center. The remaining 40% of the floor space occupied by the school will be office space used by administrative and academic support staff. Mr. Roth stated that this is a better location; they really like the facility and they hope things will work out quickly. They are hoping to move into the facility by December 1. The Board questioned and discussed concerns about the use of the facility as a business school, the number of students onsite at one time, and adequate parking onsite. Mike Plitt, Civil Engineer with Macris Hendricks and Glascock discussed the civil engineering and site plan issues related to the special exception. He said the site is traditional. Mr. Plitt discussed stormwater management and trip generation for the site. He said they did a site analysis with regard to parking, office spaces to remain in the building, whether the change in use would disturb the stormwater management system, pedestrian crossing, handicapped spaces, adequate sidewalks, bus shelter and public transportation. The Board discussed concerns regarding pedestrian crossing, students using public transportation, and lighting on the site. Ed Papazian, Traffic Consultant with Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. discussed the traffic impact from the proposed school and how approval of the special exception will not have an adverse impact upon the local street network. In response to the Board, Mr. Papazian explained his traffic analysis and the roads and intersections that were studied. Mr. Papazian also noted that it is projected that the bulk of site generated traffic will occur during the weekday p.m. peak travel time frame. Mr. Papazian stated that they estimate that 50% of the students would be coming from the Route 28 or I-270. The other distributions from the east and the west on Shady Grove Road and from the east on Gude Drive. The Board further discussed carpooling and a safe and convenient location reserved for car/vanpool vehicles. Mr. Papazian stated that, after performing the analysis, they have found that there was a very minimal affect. They have determined that there is one intersection that may require some modification and that is Research and Gude Drive intersection, where there is a blocked out left turn lane as one comes southbound on Research Boulevard. He further discussed appropriate payment that takes care of transportation affects of Strayer University. The bottom line in terms of the transportation analysis is that the area roadway system will accommodate the traffic. The school will not have an adverse affect on the area intersection; the infrastructure is in place to accommodate the traffic generated by Strayer University students. Mr. Barr and the applicant’s representatives discussed the Planning Commission’s recommendations and questioned the recommendation regarding the transportation improvement contribution. They questioned why the applicant would be required to pay a monetary contribution for the implementation of a bus shelter on Research Boulevard. He said they do feel that the school would be minimally impacting the situation. The Board and staff discussed the issue. There being no one else to speak for or against the special exception application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. DECISIONS Variance Application APP2005-00846, Anne M. Cobb Mr. Schwartzman moved, seconded by Mr. Deitchman to approve Variance Application APP2005-00846. Mr. Schwartzman stated that the Board acknowledges staff’s recommendation of denial of this application. Upon reviewing the application, there are three findings that must be met to approve the application as follows: 1. The variance is not contrary to the public interest. Mr. Schwartzman stated that the number of points that are specific to this site including the fact that the property has dual access to the rear of the property to a public way. The Homeowners Association has approved the addition as proposed with the knowledge of the variance required. There has been a lack of any neighbor opposition expressed to the Board. The adjacent property has a greater than minimum setback on the side where the addition is proposed. Therefore, the distance between the houses would be within the setback requirements. The exception was basically a corner of the proposed addition, not the entire addition. In addition, the shape of the proposed addition is in keeping within the local vernacular. 2. The variance requested is owing to conditions peculiar to the property and not the result of any action taken by the applicant. This property is nonconforming and is quite unusual to the standard property shape and location. 3. A literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in practical difficulty if the variance were denied and would provide an addition that would not be functional for the applicant. Mr. Hill offered an amendment to the motion that states that the Board supports the representation of the staff report regarding the condition peculiar to the property. Mr. Deitchman also offered to add an amendment to the motion stating that since the Board does not have final and accurate drawings to the exact distances, that all efforts be made in going forward with the project to keep the 10-foot variance as represented. The Board discussed the motion. Mr. Sternstein explained that if it turns out that the property line is closer than anticipated, the applicant would have to reduce the dimensions of the addition. Mr. Sternstein noted to staff to make sure that the proposed addition will comply with the City’s fire code. Mr. Deitchman noted to staff to minimize the intrusion into the setback. In response to Mr. Hill, Mr. Chasten explained that the conditions should state that the variance is approved in accordance with the plans as submitted. Mr. Schwartzman stated that he does not find the final plans of the proposed addition anywhere in the application. He said that the Board must be sure that the plans shown must have all of the proper dimensions. Mr. Sternstein stated that if it does come out that the property line is further away than anticipated, the addition still has to stay, dimension-wise, to what is stated in the application. Mr. Schwartzman clarified that if the wall of the building is greater than three feet from the property line, which was represented to the Board, versus the statement in the staff report of one to two feet from the eave. Mr. Hurlbutt clarified that it should be one to two feet from the foundation. Mr. Schwartzman stated that the request of the variance allows up to three feet in relationship to the property line. The motion passed on a vote of 2-1 with Mr. Hill voting nay because he found that literal enforcement would not result in practical difficulty. He said he believed there were other alternatives that do not require this level of variance.
Special Exception Application SPX2005-00354, Strayer University Mr. Deitchman moved, seconded by Mr. Schwartzman to approve Special Exception Application SPX2005-00354, Strayer University per staff recommendations with two modifications. 1) Eliminate Condition 3; 2) modifying (now Condition 3) to read, “The applicant shall contribute $65,000 towards roadway and multimodal improvements in the Research Boulevard planning area including installation of a bus shelter on Research Boulevard”; and a new condition (Condition 6) that reads “The applicant in consultation with and at the approval of the propery owner shall install striping for pedestrian walkway and rear entrance to the building”. While not a formal condition of approval, the Board of Appeals asks that the applicant work with City Staff to determine whether there are ample streetlights on Research Place, ensuring safe passage and site access to persons arriving/departing the school via mass transit. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Chasten explained that in 1995, the Board approved a special exception to construct a new hotel and modify an existing hotel (Quality Suites). After many discussions with staff, it was found that Quality Suites is proposing to create 26 additional rooms. Currently, they have 124 rooms. Originally, they were approved for 105 rooms. Mr. Chasten stated that they are not creating more space, but converting two room suites back to one suite. After reviewing the proposal, staff feels they should come back before the Board. The Board agreed. Mr. Chasten informed the Board that there are six applications from Montgomery County Public Schools regarding portables. The Board discussed having the MCPS applications televised in December 2005. MINUTES Mr. Deitchman moved, seconded by Mr. Schwartzman to approve the minutes of Meeting No. 7-05 as amended. The motion passed unanimously. 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. | 
