City of Rockville

M E M O R A N D U M

January 7, 2000

TO: Planning Commission

FROM: Jim Wasilak, Planner III

SUBJECT: Use Permit Amendment USA89-440B, 11 North Washington Street

The application has been filed to change several provisions of the Use Permit approval granted in 1989 allowing development of a 101,800 square foot office and retail building.

Background

In 1989 the Mayor and Council entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement with Cornelius Whalen to develop City-owned property located on Courthouse Square into a mixed-use project containing retail, office and multifamily residential units. On May 24, 1989 the Planning Commission approved Use Permit U-440-89, authorizing the development of 137,940 square feet of office space, 7,500 square feet of retail space and 135 dwelling units on the 2.6 acre parcel bounded by Courthouse Square, East Middle Lane and North Washington Street (See Attachment). The Planning Commission approved a Use Permit Amendment on December 20, 1989 to delete the historic First National Bank building from the project, and to allow for a parking reduction of 30 spaces from the required 344 spaces (9 percent) required to serve Phase I of the project. The first phase of the project, now known as The Victoria, has been constructed with office and residential condominiums on either side of a paved and landscaped courtyard.

When the original Use Permit was approved, the Town Center Urban Design Plan was in effect. That Plan established a system of bonuses, in the form of additional density in return for provision of certain amenities. In approving the original Use Permit, the Planning Commission awarded floor area bonuses for provision of the landscaped public pedestrian area in the TCM-2 Zone and for structured parking in the TCM-1 Zone. Based on calculations performed at the time, only 40 percent of the maximum allowable bonus floor area was awarded for the proposed amenity package (See Attachment).

As stated previously, the original Use Permit application and amendment for this project were approved by the Planning Commission as part of the normal development approval process. Staff notes that Section 25-681(a)(1), which was incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance subsequent to the approval of this Use Permit, stipulates that the Mayor and Council approve Use Permits on land in the Town Center Performance District that is either owned by the City or purchased by the applicant from the City. Although Planning Commission review of this application is not formally required by the Ordinance, the Mayor and Council have expressed an interest in receiving a recommendation on the request from the Planning Commission.

Proposal

In anticipation of beginning construction of Phase II of the project, the applicant (Whalen Family Trust) has requested several amendments to the approved Use Permit, which allows the development of 94,300 square feet of office space and 7,500 square feet of ground floor retail space in an eight-story building. These include:

Staff Comment

The most significant issue that has arisen during review of the application has been the request for a separate parking garage entrance on East Middle Lane. This issue arose during the review of the original application, and the common entrance was made a specific condition of approval and was accepted by the applicant. The applicant has maintained that management of this common garage facility with separate building owners and differing types of users for the buildings would be difficult. The applicant and the owners of the Victoria (the Victoria Homeowners Association) have an ongoing dispute which has complicated the implementation of a shared driveway entrance agreement. An easement allowing vehicular ingress and egress across the Victoria property to specifically allow for the common garage entrance was required and executed by the owners. The Victoria has expressed, through the President of its Board of Directors, that it is in favor of the separate entrance. In addition, the Victoria contends that the easement allows access from East Middle Lane into the garage only. The Victoria and the applicant do not agree that the easement allows penetration of the wall to access the subject site.

City Transportation and Planning staff believe that the safety of pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles traversing East Middle Lane would be seriously compromised by side-by-side garage entrances as proposed. Sidewalks at the Middle Lane garage entrance are minimal at best, with little area for refuge from vehicles entering and exiting the parking garage. In addition, there are aesthetic concerns about locating two vehicular entrances and exits immediately adjacent to each other, and which would not contribute toward the improved streetscapes desired in Town Center. The situation as proposed could also lead to conflicts between those vehicles entering and exiting the entrances simultaneously. The applicant and staff have worked toward developing potential alternatives to the proposal. These include turning movement restrictions at the proposed new entrance, various combinations of entrances and exits on Middle Lane and a second entrance and exit to the new parking garage from Courthouse Square adjacent to the First National Bank (now Allfirst) building. All of these options have proven problematic from a traffic circulation standpoint, and staff continues to believe that retention of the common parking garage entrance is the best alternative. Accordingly, staff does not support this aspect of the request.

In terms of the removal of the pedestrian path that connected the phases of the development through the landscaped courtyard, an original condition of approval of the Use Permit was for provision of separated pedestrian and vehicular circulation elements. This feature is in keeping with recommendations found in the Town Center Urban Design Plan, which sought to establish a comprehensive pedestrian circulation system between and through certain blocks in the Town Center. Illustrative renderings for this block indicate a pedestrian pathway through this block was envisioned in conjunction with the Farmers Market and hotel envisioned for the site. The pedestrian pathway, implemented through recordation of an easement across a portion of the courtyard of Phase I, appears to have been developed as a response to the requirement to separate pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The Town Center chapter of the City’s 1993 Master Plan superseded the Town Center Urban Design Plan, and shifted pedestrian circulation away from the interior of blocks to a traditional grid pattern with wide sidewalks at the perimeter of accommodate pedestrians. Given this reorientation of pedestrian circulation patterns in Town Center and the fact that no bonus densities were granted based on the provision of this pedestrian pathway, staff can support removal of the pathway required by the approved Use Permit if other development goals necessitate it. Staff also notes that the Victoria also supports removal of this condition.

The redesign of the building has altered some key features of the previous design, including the landscaped plaza between the office and residential buildings. Unfortunately, this has been replaced by the top level of a parking garage. If approved, planters and sensitive lighting fixtures should be installed so that the visual impact on the residents of the Victoria will be lessened. Another key aspect of the design is the building and parking garage facade along East Middle Lane. As originally proposed, this would have been a blank wall that continued the effect of the existing Victoria parking garage along the street. The project architect has devised a more interesting and varied facade, punctuated by grills and variations in materials to enliven the wall. Staff supports a proposed landscape strip adjacent to the building and small niches that could potentially incorporate artwork or display areas along the facade.

Another aspect of the project's design is its impact to the adjacent First National Bank building, which dates from the 1930s as an example of Art Deco architecture in Rockville. The building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, although not located in a City historic district. The Historic District Commission (HDC) reviewed both the original proposal in 1989 as well as the design as proposed for impact on this resource. Significant concerns were raised about the impact of a three-story projecting bay from the new building which would interfere with views of the west facade of the bank building. Staff believes that the building design and landscape treatment can be more sensitive. In particular, the proposed quarter circle (in plan) at the corner of Courthouse Square and North Washington Street is an unusual design element which was, in the initial submittal for the amendment, a half-circle building projection with a domed roof. The addition of a driveway to provide a second access point to the parking garage resulted in the current proposal. Staff question the compatibility of this design with the bank as well as the utility of the interior space. In addition, it is not clear how the roof will be designed. A rectangular projection would be more in keeping with the bank and the same floor area would block less of the bank facade than the current proposal.

The request also includes a request for a 30 percent reduction from the required parking spaces. This is possible in the Town Center zones, and may be justified either through proximity of the Rockville Metro station, non-overlapping peak parking demand of mixed-use projects or common patrons of multiple facilities in close proximity to each other. This reduction has proven to be realistic in the Town Center, and staff supports this request based on the project's proximity to Metro only if the applicant is willing to contribute $.10 per square foot to a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to improve the chances that future occupants of this building will take advantage of Metro and other non-single occupancy vehicle modes of transportation.

Recommendation

For the reasons noted above, staff supports deletion of the pedestrian walkway previously approved for the property, as well as the requested parking reduction of 30 percent. Staff does not support the separate parking garage entrances on East Middle Lane for the office and residential portions of the project due to its negative impact on pedestrian and bicycle safety, potential vehicle conflicts and urban design considerations. Staff also expects to recommend a series of technical conditions to supplement those previously approved to address issues identified during review of the project, including design elements. These will be discussed at the Planning Commission meeting.

/rjw

Attachments

1.                  U-440-89 Approval Letter

2.                  Summary of Bonuses in Original Approval

3.                  Original Site Plan

4.                  Site Plan (USE89-440B) as Submitted

5.                  Revised Site Plan (USE89-440B)

6.                  Elevations

7.                  Middle Lane Facade