| Home > Government > Boards and Commissions > Board of Appeals > 2009 > Minutes > December 5, 2009 Minutes |  |
City of Rockville Board of Appeals Mayor and Council Chambers 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 5, 2009. | ||||||
| ||||||
| PUBLIC HEARING Continuation of Special Exception SPX2009-00378, Victory Housing, Inc. – A request to construct and operate an 86-unit senior adult housing facility in the MXT Zone on property bounded by Maryland Avenue, Fleet Street and Monroe Street. The continuation was to respond to a Board request to show alternative roofs. Mr. Jody Kline, Attorney with Miller, Miller and Canby used a slide presentation to show elevation renderings of the proposed project. The presentation included the original proposal and two other options reducing the roofline with a flat roof. Scheme 1 was the original proposal; Scheme 2 was presented with the roofline reduced by 8 feet and the east elevation was reduced by 5 feet. Mr. Kline explained the design of Scheme 2 and the cost to reduce the roofline. Scheme 3 reduces the roofline by 10 feet with a flat roof. The height of the building would be 39 feet and would still require a height waiver because it is over 35 feet high. Mr. Kline described the design of the building as being no longer a Craftsman design. Scheme 4 was articulated with more townhouse roof features and the overall design would appear similar to a townhouse project. Mr. Kline stated that Scheme 4 would be the favorite aside from the original project, but not from a design perspective. This scheme would require the project to have more refinements before it could be an acceptable residential building, but it certainly an improvement over Scheme 3 in their judgment. Mr. Kline discussed the cost of redesigning the roofline as well as the concern about the maintenance of a flat roof. Logan Schutz, Architect with Grimm and Parker Architects provided pricing of the two designs. He also discussed the maintenance problems regarding flat roofs. In response to the Board, Mr. Schutz stated that the total cost of the building would be approximately $10-11M. He also described the building materials on Scheme 4. Mr. Kline compared the Schemes and stated that the applicant prefers the original design, they would not consider Scheme 3, but Scheme 4 is acceptable. Scheme 2 with the 2-foot roofline reduction would be more acceptable. They are very proud of the original proposal for it is a proper design and context for which it sits in Rockville. The Board questioned the height of the roofline in the original design versus Schemes 2-4; would the parapet be included in the height; the design of the building and how critical the design is for attracting new tenants. The following individuals asked questions of Mr. Kline and Mr. Schutz: 1. Mr. Norman Knopf, Attorney representing the residents of Courthouse Walk community, presented questions to Mr. Schutz regarding the added cost of Scheme 4; square footage of the building; characteristics of the original project; a portion of the elevations were cast in shadow or were they shown with different colored brick; and providing a more aesthetic design for the building. Mr. Knopf informed the Board that he had three witnesses present to address the roofline. Mr. Kline indicated that he received a disc of images that will be presented to the Board and would not contribute to the roofline discussion. Mr. Kline stated that he was given an updated version of the presentation this morning. He said he would object to the presentation due to timing and because they are images that the Board has seen on the site or heard about and he feels that the presentation has little to do with the building itself. Mr. Knopf explained that the presentation includes photographs of various roof designs in the surrounding neighborhood. After further discussion, the Board allowed the video segment presentation from the witnesses. 1. Alice Liu, 232 Courthouse Walk, presented a video presentation of roofline design displayed in the surrounding neighborhood and photographs of the existing trees in back of a few townhouses located behind Victory Court. Ms. Liu stated that the neighborhood’s concern remains whether Victory Housing can have a viable project, but, so far, the Board is entertaining other designs that clearly will not mitigate the impact on the community and that the community finds averse and incompatible. The 2 foot or 5 foot reduction is very negligible and inconsequential. She stated that the community is furious by how this application has proceeded. In response to the Board, Ms. Liu stated that Scheme 4 is still too massive a project for the neighborhood. Scheme 4 does go much further in the right direction than all of the other Schemes, thus far. The applicant has said that there is still much work to be done on the design, but the 2-foot or 5 foot reduction is not at all acceptable. Mr. Sternstein asked Ms. Liu what she sees as inadequate with what is being proposed in Scheme 4, not in terms of the facades or style. Mr. Sternstein noted that the Board cannot design the building for the applicant. He said he believes the Board has determined that the applicant has satisfied all of the other things that they need to satisfy the requirements for the special exception, such as the roofline and what the building would look like from the residential neighborhoods surrounding the development. He asked Ms. Liu what problem she has with Scheme 4. Ms. Liu replied that it is still a massive building. Mr. Sternstein stated that they are entitled to build something on the site. Ms. Liu replied that they know that, but it does not have to be a massive building. Mr. Sternstein asked exactly what problem Ms. Liu had with Scheme 4. Ms. Liu said that the roofline was much closer to what they would be happier with, but it is still the massing problem. Ms. Liu suggested designed the project as a townhouse type of design by units instead of one massive building. In addition, they would like to have the building farther away from Courthouse Walk. In response to Mr. Deitchman, Ms. Liu explained that since April 2009, the residents have been making major concessions all along such as giving up green space, dealing with more traffic, views will be blocked by the project, and reduce their property values, which the City and developer do not seem to recognize. Now, they are finally seeing some reduction in height. Mr. Sternstein stated that the applicant has the right to do certain things with their property. So, it may not be a concession on Courthouse Walk’s part. The Board is trying to deal with matters that are within its judgment to determine, for example, the additional height that the applicant wanted and what is recommended in the zone. Ms. Liu replied that they are property owners as well and they are trying to preserve the quality of their neighborhood. She said everyone would have the same concerns if it were happening in their neighborhoods. Mr. Sternstein agreed and the incentive that brought them to the balloon test to determine the height of the project’s roofline was required by the Board out of concern for compatibility and the interests of the surrounding private residential areas. Mr. Deitchman commented that the Board will make the best decision based on the zoning requirements and try to accommodate other concerns, if possible. Ms. Liu said she appreciates what the Board is doing and wished the residents were heard seven months ago. Ms. Liu concluded her presentation by stating that the MXT Zone requires a 35-foot height limit and, again, the issue is compatibility. 2. Noreen Bryant, 207 South Washington Street, testified that all of their neighbors are outraged and truly frustrated because of the length of this process and failure of response from the applicant. There has been a great deal of argument presented by the applicant that is all based on aesthetics as though they are the one who have the right to determine the aesthetics for the neighborhood and at no point in these hearings has the applicant demonstrated a severe economic hardship. Ms. Bryant continued to discuss that approximately 40 percent of the project is free to them and that is a significant issue. Mr. Sternstein noted that the applicant is trying to provide affordable housing. Ms. Bryant agreed but stated that they have a sliding scale, which the County is willing to give them, at the time of occupancy, so they can decide what percentage would be fair market and what percentage would be affordable. Ms. Bryant stated that they are pleased to see the alternatives presented today and she does believe that the flat roof Scheme 4 goes a long way towards producing an alternative that actually fits within the neighborhood. The intent of the MXT Zone specifically states that this zone allows for the development of low density multi unit attached and townhouse residential development. Scheme 4 provides an alternative that offers a design that’s height approaches townhouse design and is also could be shaped to be commensurate with a townhouse appearance. They feel that a tremendous amount of work has been done in two and a half weeks and they hope that this kind of effort can be going forward to make this design more compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Deitchman asked that when Courthouse Walk was built, did it present a massing issue. He asked whether there was opposition when it was proposed. Ms. Bryant replied that there was opposition, but there was also a great deal of work with the developer and one thing that happened because of that was that the developer did not want to preserve the trees that faced Maryland Avenue and South Washington Street. They wanted the townhouses to be built with yellow vinyl backing and, as a result of working with the developer, the townhouse have mostly brick material and very well landscaped and the woods provide screening from Maryland Avenue and South Washington Street. That is where the frustration comes from because they are looking for the same type of cooperation here. Ms. Liu’s video presentation was submitted into the record as Exhibit 27. In addition, Ms. Bryant’s presentation was submitted into the record as Exhibit 28 (River Road and 42nd Street). Ms. Bryant stated that the purpose of Exhibit 28 is to illustrate that one can design very attractive flat roof complexes. She described the Exhibit as a set of townhouses that are located at River Road and 42nd Street. 3. Mr. Laurent Myers, 14 West Argyle Street, testified that he was speaking on behalf of the neighborhood to speak about the roofline and design impacts of the proposed project. Mr. Myers stated that he has spent twenty years in architectural business and now he considers himself as a recovering architect in commercial real estate for fifteen years. Mr. Myers distributed handouts to the Board and staff of examples of how the design could work better. Mr. Myers submitted into the record examples of other illustrative designs by Mr. Myers as Exhibit 29. Mr. Kline said he just received this Exhibit and objected to someone else designing the building. Mr. Myers continued his presentation regarding examples of other designs for the proposed project. He noted that this proposal is similar to a McMansion and is a very handsome design, but it is on three acres, not 30 acres. He would like this building, but it is too massive for the neighborhood. Mr. Kline commented that he is disappointed that the neighborhood feels that they have not been more forthcoming, but in terms of the quality of the building or the compatibility of the building, the staff report says it is a compatible building, Scheme 1 and the Planning Commission believes it is a compatible building. The Historic District Commission would be surprised how much the backdrop building changed relative to the historic structures. The Board has a record stating this building is compatible even if the neighbors do not believe it is compatible. Mr. Kline stated that he is concerned that the City is going to end up with a building that is going to place Victory Court out of context with the surrounding neighborhood and away from the image the applicant was trying to create and not consistent with what is the best interest to the City of Rockville. The Board and Mr. Kline discussed Scheme 4 and how the roofline and building be refined to be compatible and acceptable to the City and the neighborhood, while not constraining the architect from designing the building. Mr. Kline submitted each of the various Schemes compared to the original proposal into the record as Exhibit 30; and, the top elevations illustrating the parapet, pages 4 through 6 as Exhibit 31. Mr. Sternstein proposed that the height of the parapet be as specified in Exhibit 31and that the height of any protrusion above the parapet not be any higher than the protrusions that are shown in east elevation for Scheme 4 above the 452 parapet line. There are not any elevations specifically shown for those protrusions, but they probably could be scaled down. This is one thought as to how to constrain the roofline of the project. Mr. Kline referred to the bottom page of Scheme 4 showing the pediment over the main entrance appears to be the tallest bump above the parapet, which is approximately in the 5 to 8 foot range. He suggested that the primary parapet to be 8 feet and others not to exceed the 4 or 5 foot range. The Board was agreeable. Mr. Knopf pointed out that any footage over 35 feet in height must be compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Knopf stated that he does believe that they have a win-win situation and he thanked Victory Housing for coming up with some Schemes that seem to be going in the right direction and can achieve a goal of where the community feels that it would go a long way toward mitigating what is viewed as adverse impact on their community. Mr. Knopf continued to discuss a lower building and the design of the project of which Victory Housing, the neighborhood and the City could be proud. In response to Mr. Deitchman, Mr. Knopf suggested keeping the record open, not for additional hearings, but for the architect and Mr. Kline to discuss the parameters that the Board wanted to have to impose. The Board should know what they are approving in this case. Mr. Deitchman stated that the Board would like to set the envelope and not engage in the design issue. There being no further questions, and no one else wishing to speak for or against Special Exception Application SPX2010-00378, the Chair declared the hearing closed. Special Exception SPX2010-380 and Variance VAR2010-00006, C.C.B. School of Rockville – for an after-school tutoring service in an existing church in the PD-RS Zone at 800 Hurley Avenue. Variance is from the requirement for minimum lot area based on maximum student attendance. Soo Lee-Cho, attorney with Miller, Miller & Canby submitted an Affidavit of Posting into the record as Exhibit 1; expert witness, Daniel Lovas, Traffic Consultant’s resume, and a power point presentation as Exhibit 3. Ms. Lee-Cho presented the applicant’s request. Ms. Lee-Cho described the site and the building, exterior and interior. She pointed out that since 1998; the Korean Presbyterian Church of Rockville has been the owner of the property. The C.C.B. School is leasing space from the church. The Church has authorized the filing of the special exception and the variance. She pointed out that there are 33 parking spaces on the site. Ms. Lee-Cho stated that the site has a long history of institutional uses, not just the church, but previous special exceptions for synagogues and a nursery school. The previous use was a Montessori Day School with 60 students. Ms. Lee-Cho provided information as to why a variance is requested in this case. She explained that the Zoning Ordinance requires up to 60 students on the site at any one time. She stated that the site would not be altering or expanding the church in order to establish the planned private school. As opposed to a traditional school of morning arrivals and afternoon departures, this private school is open eleven months of the year (September 1 thru July 31). Ms. Lee-Cho stated that the variance application is requesting to justify 90 students on the property. Daniel Lovas, Senior Transportation Engineer presented his transportation report regarding the impact and findings. Mr. Lovas went over the hours of operation of the proposed school. The school’s hours of operation are: Monday-Thursday: 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Friday: Closed. Saturday: 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Summer vacation schedule (June & July): Monday-Friday: 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Saturday: Closed. Mr. Lovas stated that the Church hours would not overlap the school hours and the traffic impact would not overlap. Class schedule is staggered. Mr. Lovas stated that there would be 16 employees: three administrative staff members; twelve teachers and one full time traffic and parking attendant. He pointed out that Wootton and Robert Frost schools are located approximately a mile from the proposed school. Mr. Lovas stated that the transportation analysis accounts for the full impact of the 90 students. From an impact perspective, they are not taking credit for the previously approved school use, only the impact for the 90 students of the proposed school. The analysis is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers that provided data for schools of this type. He explained how the data was analyzed. Mr. Lovas stated that Hurley Avenue currently carries less than half of its standard design volume as part of the neighborhood traffic guidelines from the City. This roadway currently has additional capacity available because it is currently operating well below its threshold. He spoke about the peak hour trips on Hurley Avenue, which allows for significant vehicle gaps to make turning movements efficiently into the school and shopping center and without creating congestion or queuing on Hurley Avenue. Discussion ensued regarding peak hour trips on Hurley Avenue. Mr. Lovas noted that City staff conducted a supplemental offsite intersection analysis of two signalized intersections and three unsignalized intersections in proximity to the site to determine what those offsite impacts were and, in fact, their evaluation determined that the offsite intersections all currently operated with acceptable levels of service, and with the inclusion of the full 90 student school trip impact would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service at all locations in proximity to the site. Ms. Lee-Cho submitted the analysis prepared by staff prior to the Planning Commission meeting as Exhibit 4. Mr. Lovas stated that the traffic evaluation is not reliant upon the use of the parking spaces on the Giant Shopping Center site. The traffic evaluation demonstrates that the property and the facility that the school proposes to occupy are adequate to accommodate the current projected trip demand for that use. In response to Mr. Sternstein, Mr. Lovas pointed out two separate aspects. One is the traffic impacts associated with the vehicles on the adjacent roadway system and entering the site and the parking demand versus supply. Mr. Lovas stated that the analysis of Hurley Avenue and the traffic impacts from the transportation evaluation were supported by City staff and their supplemental evaluation confirmed those results both in terms of impacts on site access and offsite intersections. City staff’s analysis determined that the full 90-student school could be accommodated by the subject property and use. In addition, the school is proposing to have a full time traffic and parking attendant to insure safety and ease with incoming and outgoing traffic and parking on the site in order to lessen the impact on Hurley Avenue. In response to Mr. Sternstein, Ms. Lee-Cho confirmed that the applicant would accept as a condition, a full-time traffic and parking attendant on site. Mr. Lovas stated that based on the analysis and the City’s supplemental analysis, this use would not represent a detrimental use to the public health and safety and traffic operations in the area. The parking demand evaluation was also conducted as part of their traffic evaluation and resulted that all parking needs can be accommodated on the site. Mr. Lovas discussed the findings and believed them to be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and the Master Plan. The Board discussed concerns regarding history of traffic impacts/accidents from the previous school use; and conflicting data regarding peak hour trips reported in a Memorandum to Jim Wasilak, Chief of Planning, dated November 4, 2009. Mr. Sternstein questioned the analysis taken regarding peak hour trips in May 2009 when the Montessori School was not there. Mr. Lovas explained that it goes back to the way the study was scoped initially and the analysis of the impacts based on 2009 volumes; it included the full 84 trips projected for the school. Mr. Sternstein questioned where that information is in the staff report. Ms. Torma of the Public Works Department explained that the data is on Page 3 of the November 4, 2009 Transportation memorandum to Jim Wasilak regarding the use by the full 90 students. Ms. Lee-Cho also explained that the 27 peak hour trips on Page 2 of the same memorandum was the initial scoping with the applicant. In response to Mr. Sternstein, Ms. Lee-Cho explained that as a result of that, the applicant did not have to perform its own separate offsite intersection. Mr. Sternstein asked if the applicant should have performed this type of analysis. Ms. Lee-Cho replied that if the applicant was required to do it, they would have done so and because of the existence of the classrooms, there was no new construction proposed and because of the history of the site of previous special exception approvals, that was the result of the initial scoping meeting with City staff. She stated that what Mr. Lovas has indicated that regardless of that, there is before the Board a supplemental analysis provided by staff of those nearby intersections. In addition, everything the applicant has done as far as its requirements for onsite impact access, onsite circulation, and parking has been accounted for the full 90 students. Therefore, it is their position that a full analysis has been done and the levels of services of those intersections are well below the full maximum and the addition of the full 90 students would not trigger anymore mitigation. The following citizens questioned Mr. Lovas: 1. Joe Headlee stated that he lived across the street from the church and the church parking lot holding 33 parking spaces and there are two busses, which leave 31 spaces. The area to drop off students only holds 4 cars. He asked Mr. Lovas what could be done with the rest of the cars on Hurley Avenue because one cannot stop and stand and cannot park. Mr. Lovas replied that the analysis is based on the arrival rate that in the 30 minute peak period of one vehicle arriving and one vehicle exiting per minute and those drop-off and pick-up operations can be conducted in under a minute, so there is no expectation that there would be a significant queuing or congestion result that would impact Hurley Avenue or the vehicles on Hurley Avenue. They believe that all of those operations can be conducted within the site efficiently. In response to Mr. Sternstein, Mr. Lovas stated that this analysis did not account for the Montessori School because it is not typically a part of a traffic evaluation for a new use in this type of situation. The Board discussed concerns as to whether there was enough parking when parents picked up their children; many students could be driving to the school; overflow of parking; when 90 students are being dismissed, is there enough capacity in the parking lot; photos from Mr. Headley illustrating the traffic on Hurley Avenue during the day and night; how many cars could queue up on the site; and the duties of the parking and traffic attendant on the site. 2. Jason Fisher, attorney with the law firm of Lerch, Early & Brewer stated that he represents the Rockshire Homeowners Association questioned Mr. Lovas regarding City staff’s offsite analysis and what would have been included if it had been done. Ms. Torma explained that staff did look at the intersections and they do so every year throughout the City. She stated that staff did look at the two intersections that the application would have been required to analyze, which are Wootton Parkway at Hurley Avenue and Wootton Parkway at the Rockshire Shopping Center entrance. Those intersections are an acceptable level of service and with the additional traffic that would be produced by the proposed use; it would not decrease the level of service of those intersections. Mr. Fisher stated that they believe that those areas should have been studied again including the analysis of the Montessori School and this was not done. Mr. Lovas explained his view of what should have been analyzed and what he was required to analyze. Mr. Sternstein stated that this is the third use on this site and every time these uses have come before the Board, there has been an analysis with results that there no problems with traffic in that area and then the neighbors come back stressing the traffic problems that are causing them stress and headaches and he said he is not sure that both the applicant and the City are capturing what is really going on that site right now. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Lovas that, in doing his analysis, did he consider the existing use by the church in addition to the proposed use by the C.C.B. School in conjunction with what the use has proposed here. Mr. Lovas replied that the analysis does not include the church because the church’s operations are at different times than the school. Therefore, there are no additional impacts from the church. Mr. Fisher inquired whether Mr. Lovas looked at the fact that administrative staff could be working at the church during the week. Mr. Lovas explained that there was no supplemental inclusion of the church. 3. Janine Lamb, resident in Rockshire, which is behind the subject site. Ms. Lamb asked Mr. Lovas whether there should be a fire lane crosswalk for those students going to and from the proposed use. Mr. Lovas replied that a fire lane is determined by the fire department. In response to Mr. Deitchman, Ms. Walters explained that when the site was reviewed, the Fire Marshal did not raise any questions regarding the site. Ms. Lamb questioned the fact that there could be 60 to 90 cars dropping off and picking up during the day and how is one parking attendant going to be able to manage the traffic. In addition, would the parking attendant be monitoring pedestrians? Mr. Lovas replied that the parking attendant would be based on site, managing the vehicles entering and exiting the site. He would be attempting to keep the sidewalks clear as well as vehicles from queuing over the sidewalk and impacting Hurley Avenue. 4. Robert Singman, 4 Gerard Court, questioned who would be directing traffic on Hurley Avenue at dismissal time. Mr. Lovas replied that the analysis suggested that arrival rate would not create congestion and the parking attendant would be available to deal with those kinds of issues. Mr. Singman asked about the dismissal time with 60 students leaving at the same time along with a maximum of 60 cars. Mr. Lovas explained that the analysis suggests that one car would be arriving/leaving per minute. Ms. Lee-Cho discussed the issues raised regarding the management of ingress and egress of cars on the site and how that would be resolved. The following citizens testified: 1. Jason Fisher, attorney, testified he is speaking for the Rockshire residents and he would like the residents to speak first and then he would speak last. 2. Laura Dugan with Keypoint Partners, LLC, testified that she is representing GFS Realty LLC and it has come to their attention that the license agreement for parking with the church was recently brought up and that is why she is present today because she is observing for the landlord of the Giant site. She said that the license agreement was for the church, not for this proposed use. 3. Janine Lamb, resident in Rockshire, submitted into the record a document that she emailed to staff as Exhibit 5 and Mr. Headlee’s photos of the previous school and the traffic it caused as Exhibit 6. Mr. Lamb stated that she is voting against this application because of pedestrian safety in that there is no stop or yield sign in the parking lot at the exit. There is very poor visibility at the exit. 4. Carolyn Armstrong, 538 Monet Drive, testified that she was living on Monet Drive when the Montessori School was in operation and when parents picked up their children, there was queuing on Hurley Avenue. Students did walk to the school, but their parents picked them up and she has had to wait to enter the Giant parking entrance while the cars moved forward to pick up the students. Mr. Sternstein stated that if the City is going to permit these schools in residential zones, isn’t that something that the City would have to contend with, if they are going to be permitted? Ms. Armstrong replied that this is a commercial business that would be using the space in the church. This is not a church activity per se. Mr. Sternstein said that the use is still in the educational mode. 5. Darlene Combs, 532 Monet Drive, testified that her child walks to work at the Giant and she is worried about the cars entering and exiting the site. This use will impact the surrounding community. There is a bike path and two circles that were added onto Hurley Avenue. In addition, there is a problem with loitering and that would have to be monitored. Ms. Combs submitted into the record a petition against the C.C.B. School as Exhibit 7. 6. Robert Singman, 4 Gerard Court, testified that he is the President of the Rockshire Homeowners Association, but will be speaking on his own behalf this afternoon. Mr. Singman stated that he is concerned about the number of students who would occupy the building at any one time. Mr. Singman mentioned the time of release of students attending Wootton High School and Robert Frost Middle School. He addressed his concerns regarding students loitering, school busses, and students riding bikes to and from the proposed school. 7. Jason Fisher, attorney, representing the Rockshire Homeowners Association, testified that the C.C.B. School does not meet the standards for granting a variance and he asked that the Board deny the variance request. Mr. Fisher discussed why the C.C.B. Plan did not comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fisher stated that the use is too intense with the number of students proposed on the site. He also went through the findings and found that the traffic analysis was somewhat flawed. He explained the reasons and stated that allowing a second variance on this property would violate the Master Plan; the first variance was granted for the church. He stated that the Montessori School had a limit of 60 students and this use is proposing 90 students per day. This number of students would cause pedestrian safety problems, additional traffic and egress and ingress queuing problems on the site and on Hurley Avenue. Mr. Fisher recommended that the Board deny the variance and require only 60 students on the site. The Board and Mr. Fisher discussed concerns with the density, use by 90 students, license agreement with GFS Realty that allows the existing church only to use 40 spaces, an existing parking agreement with Wootton students, 31 parking spaces on the subject site because two parking spaces are permanently occupied by busses, the traffic analysis should have included all streets in the surrounding area rather than the proposed school, pedestrian safety with regard to the hedges between the Giant parking lot and the site, overflow of parking, increased traffic impacts on the community and a crossing guard on Hurley Avenue during the time classes are in session. After further discussion, Mr. Fisher outlined some conditions for the Board to consider. There should be a traffic attendant who regulates cars going in and out of the property after each class; limit the enrollment to 60 students; proof with any type of written agreement with Giant Food be provided; egress and ingress agreement with Giant Food as opposed to making the students walk out on Hurley Avenue and come back into the Giant entrance, and having a stop or yield sign at the exit point of the property 8. Rebecca Le, student attending Wootton High School, testified in support of the application. She feels that the school would be beneficial for the heart of the community due to the number of SAT testing required for the students. She said she is also a member of the track team and she runs through the area during the times of 3 pm and 5 pm and the parking lot is not as perilous as people have testified. 9. A resident testified in support of the application because students from Wootton High School do need reinforcement of academic curriculum and this school would serve those needs. Soo Lee-Cho and Mr. Lovas provided answers to questions from the Board regarding the November 10, 2009 memo to a City planner from Mr. Singman concerning the special exception, why there was not a thorough analysis of the area, overflow of parking onto Hurley Avenue, providing a parking attendant to manage traffic, the Church’s parking agreement with Giant Food, the parking agreement with Giant Food and the church, and how many students would be on the site at one time. Ms. Lee-Cho stated that the proposed school is in compliance with the Master Plan. She noted that a traffic attendant would be acceptable to the applicant and the traffic study that was done was comprehensive and took account of the full 90-student impacts on site in terms of parking circulation as well as analyzing impacts on Hurley Avenue. The City’s traffic staff did a thorough job and required the applicant to do a thorough analysis of all those issues. The one element that was not done by the applicant, but was done by staff, was the intersection analysis. Based on the levels of service, they expect no change in results for counts were taken in May 2009. She said she disagreed with the community witnesses that that is a situation that requires any delay or further review of this application. There being no further questions, and no one else wishing to speak for or against Special Exception Application SPX2010-00380 and Variance Application VAR2010-00006, the Chair declared the hearing closed. DECISION Continuation of Special Exception SPX2009-00378, Victory Housing, Inc. The Board instructed staff and Counsel to prepare a Written Opinion for the Board to vote on at its next meeting in January 2010. The Opinion would include the Board’s findings, justification for those findings with certain conditions. The Board would have input in the preparation of the Draft Opinion and would ultimately vote for or against the Special Exception at the Board’s next meeting. In response to Ms. Walters, the Board recommended an additional condition regarding the roofline. Special Exception SPX2010-00380 and Variance VAR2010-00006, C.C.B. School of Rockville Before the motion was made, Ms. Lee-Cho withdrew the variance application request. Mr. Sternstein moved, seconded by Mr. Deitchman to approve Special Exception SPX2010-00380 per staff recommendations with for the conditions as modified. Condition 3 in the staff report would read “The maximum of number of students at the school shall not exceed 60 students at any one time; eliminate Condition 4; Condition 6 should specify that there would be a traffic attendant to facilitate egress and ingress of the parking and parking within the lot during the hours of operation of the school; eliminate Conditions 7 and 8; and add Condition 7 to install a Stop sign at the exit to the site and also increase the sight distance including the existing hedge along the site. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS Special Exception SPX2002-00312, Sonic Automotive, Inc. – for determination of whether the applicant is in compliance with the site’s approved Forest Conservation Plan (FCP). Jody Kline, Attorney with Miller, Miller, & Canby, stated that the applicant would like to schedule a meeting date for a show cause hearing because the applicant has received fines from the City against this Special Exception. The Board and staff also discussed upcoming applications. NEW BUSINESS Adopt the Board of Appeals Calendar of Meetings & Application Deadlines for Year 2010. Mr. Chasten announced that Ms. Walters, Assistant City Attorney has a commitment on the first Saturday of every month. The Board and staff discussed which Saturday would be selected for Board meetings. Mr. Chasten stated that he would bring a modified Calendar of Meetings back to the Board at its January meeting. Election of the Board of Appeals Chairman for Year 2010. Mr. Deitchman moved to elect Mr. Sternstein as the Board’s Chair for 2010. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Mork would remain as the Board’s alternate member.in 2010. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 4:12 p.m. | ||||||