| Home > Government > Boards and Commissions > Planning Commission > 2006 > Minutes > April 19, 2006 Minutes |  |
Rockville Planning Commission Mayor and Council Chambers The City of Rockville Planning Commission convened in regular session in the Mayor and Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, April 19, 2006. | |||||||||
| |||||||||
Commissioner Ostell announced that there will be a briefing, only, on the last item on the Agenda, Text Amendment TXT2005-00217. The Commission will be making its recommendation to the Mayor and Council at its May 10, 2006 meeting. Final Record Plat PLT2006-00457, Mirali Mirtaghavi The applicant is requesting approval to create two buildable lots from four twenty-five wide lots in the R-60 Zone at 511 Bickford Avenue Ms. Hall presented the staff report. Ms. Hall explained the history of the lots. She stated that the property is currently made of part of four twenty-five foot wide lots on Bickford Avenue. On June 16, 1892, Nathan Bickford subdivided Samuel Martin’s real estate that created Lots 1 through 25 and a thirty-foot right-of-way in Bickford’s Subdivision. In 1960, all of the lots along the thirty-foot right-of-way lost ten feet in depth along their frontage to widen the Bickford Avenue right-of-way to fifty feet. The subject lots are part of the original 1892 plat and each lot lost 10 feet in depth due to the right-of-way dedication. Ms. Hall stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires that any resubdivision within an existing residential area maintain, to the extent feasible, the average area and frontage of lots within 500 feet. The applicant has submitted comprehensive study of the surrounding area. Ms. Hall stated that this request is in keeping with the neighborhood. Ms. Hall noted that the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) allows for the waiver by the Planning Commission for minor subdivisions that do not create a measurable impact. According to the provisions contained in the APFO, the net increase of a single lot with a single-family dwelling generates less than one child in the surrounding schools per Montgomery County Public Schools data and thus creates no impact. Staff recommends that a waiver from the APFO be granted. In response to the Commission, Mr. Wasilak explained that the way the Ordinance is drafted, there are certain uses that require a waiver from the APFO. The Commission also questioned the “good cause” for the waiver, adding a condition to the plat to guarantee that a Tudor like house would not be built on the subject property and that the applicant would work with the Historic Preservation staff. Ms. Block explained that to put such a condition onto the plat, it would prevent the applicants from recording the plat. Ms. Block stated that a note could be put on the plat that would encourage the applicants to be sensitive to the area. Ms. Hall stated that she received a call from the son of the neighbor who lives behind this property because she had concerns because the existing garage is partially on her property. Ms. Hall said she explained that the house and garage would be demolished. Ann Martin, Attorney with Linowes and Blocher, presented the applicants’ request. She noted that they would work with staff regarding the architectural style of the houses, and were fine with putting a note on the plat. The applicants will be sure to keep within the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Martin asked to modify Condition 3 by adding “of an already approved plat” to end of the sentence. Ms. Hall stated that there would be no need to modify Condition 3 because the approval letter would state “Approval subject to the following conditions”. Commissioner Ostell asked Mr. Mirtaghavi if he would agree to have the Historic Preservation staff review the architectural plans of the houses. Mr. Mirtaghavi agreed. Commissioner Holtz moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve Final Record Plat PLT2005-00457 per staff recommendations. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. Use Permit USE2005-00689, Rockville Housing Enterprises, Inc. The applicant is requesting approval to construct a 9,600 square foot office addition in the I-1 Zone at 1201 First Street. Ms. Hall presented the staff report. Ms. Hall stated that the request is for a two-story, 9,600 square foot office building and a 960 square foot maintenance building. She said that, of the nine acres on the property, 1.4 acres are being disturbed in order to place the two buildings, associated parking and stormwater management measures. The remaining portion of the development, with seventy-six housing units, interior streets and associated parking, remains undisturbed. Rockville Housing Enterprises (RHE) is temporarily operating its administrative functions in a rental space on Southlawn Lane. Ms. Hall stated that staff and the applicant have worked very closely with the City’s Department of Public Works and the biggest delay in coming to this point was creating a stormwater management facility and a parking lot that would work due to the different grades on the property. Ms. Hall stated that this parking lot and its traffic would not affect the neighborhood. In response to Commissioner Holtz regarding Condition 6 (That the sidewalk be extended along First Street from the existing sidewalk to the property line, across the David Scull Park property to the intersection of Taft and First Streets), Ms. Hall explained that the sidewalk issue would be up to the RHE. They would have to work with the Department of Public Works and the Parks Division to determine an acceptable solution. To construct a sidewalk across the street would be difficult because of grading issues. She said that Comprehensive Traffic Review (CTR) guidelines require that sidewalks be on both sides of a street, but other provisions allow for a sidewalk on only one side of the street within the I-1 Zone. Since this property is located within the I-1 Zone and because there may be budgetary constraints associated with the development proposal, the applicant may ask that this condition be deleted. Ms. Hall stated that the schoolchildren have no problem without a sidewalk across the street because the busses pick them up. Mary Ellen Jones with RHE presented the applicant’s request. She said they agree with staff’s recommendations, but asked for a waiver of Condition 6 because of grading and expense of a retaining wall to satisfy the grade to put in a sidewalk. Ms. Jones explained that there are crossing guards for the children crossing the street and there is no outlet for the street at the other end. Commissioner Holtz expressed his concern that the existing sidewalk is functioning well for the children and if a new sidewalk were to be installed across the street, it would have to be placed too close to the street and would create a hazard for the children. Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Holtz to approve Use Permit USE2005-00689, Rockville Housing Enterprises, Inc. per staff’s recommendations with the deletion of Condition 6. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. RECOMMENDATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS Special Exception SPX2006-00365 and Variance Application APP2006-00857, PMG, Inc. The applicant is requesting to reconstruct an existing automobile filling station (Class I) with ancillary retail and food sales, in the C-2 Zone, at 801 Hungerford Drive. The applicant is also requesting a variance from the development standards that require a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet and the minimum separation of 400 square feet from property in a residential zone. Mr. Chasten presented an overview of the staff report. Mr. Chasten explained that the applicant is seeking special exception approval to redevelop the existing automobile filling station, demolish the existing station facilities, construct and install a new station building Mr. Chasten stated that, in conjunction with the special exception request, the applicant also sees approval of zoning variances from special development and use requirements applicable to the subject site use such as the minimum 40,000 square foot log size requirement and the minimum 400-foot distance requirement that automobile filling stations are to be maintained from a residential zone. Mr. Chasten explained that, under Variance Application APP2006-00857, the applicant seeks the following zoning variances: 1) a variance of 260 feet from the minimum 400-foot distance that an automobile filling station is to be located from a residential zone; and 2) a variance of 16,681 square feet from the 40,000 square foot minimum lot size required for a “Class I” automobile filling station located in the C-2 Zone. Mr. Chasten stated that the subject property is located at the northeast corner of Hungerford Drive and Frederick Avenue. The property is approximately 23,319 square feet in size and located in the C-2 (General Commercial) Zone. The property is improved with a Class I (Amoco) automobile filling station, which has been operational since the mid 1960s. The existing station building is approximately 1,462 square feet in size, containing to auto service repair bays, office space and a cashier’s area. The site also contains two fuel pump islands, each containing two fuel dispensers. The applicant proposes to construct a new 2,736 square foot filling station building designed as a convenience store with an ancillary food sales component. There will be a single overhead canopy, 3,120 square feet in size to shelter the six new multi-fuel dispenser pumps. The new fueling positions are designed to accommodate twelve vehicles. The proposed freestanding canopy will be approximately 80 feet in length and 39 feet in width with a height of 16.6 feet. Mr. Chasten stated that the applicant proposes to eliminate one of the two existing entrances on Hungerford Drive and a new single right-in/right-out entrance will be constructed and located in excess of 100 feet from the Hungerford Drive and Frederick Avenue intersection. The two existing site entrances on Frederick Avenue will be redesigned and will be located 98 feet and 198 feet respectively from the abutting street intersection. Once constructed, the proposed new filling station with its convenience store and fast food component will be operational 24 hours a day, seven days a week and staffed by four employees per work shift. There will be three work shifts, each, eight hours in length. The Commission raised concerns regarding the width of the proposed sidewalk on Hungerford Drive and Frederick Avenue. The Commission recommended having wider sidewalks with pedestrian-friendly amenities for the area. Stan Abrams, Attorney with Abrams & West, presented the applicant’s request. Mr. Abrams stated that this filling station has been in operation over 40 years and is one of the ugliest filling stations on Hungerford Drive. Mr. Abrams stated that the site designer will be presenting the layout of the proposed new filling station, the tightness of the site, the access points, and the proximity of residential to the site. Mr. Abrams passed out some photographs showing the existing conditions on the property. Kenneth Colbert, civil engineer, presented the site plan. Mr. Colbert described the site, the existing conditions on the site, proposed fuel pumps, buffering of the site from the residential community, landscaping of the site, site layout, on-site circulation, and access points into the site. The Commission raised a number of questions and concerns regarding the width of the proposed sidewalks located on both Hungerford Drive and Frederick Avenue; site layout and vehicular access; testing the site for contaminants, abandoning dead end street shared by Flagship Carwash and the subject filling station, on-site circulation and the number and orientation of the proposed new fuel pumps; and new vehicular entrances on Frederick Avenue should be installed to minimize potential conflicts with vehicles entering/exiting the Flagship Carwash vehicles. The following citizens testified in favor of the applications and improving the appearance of the site as well as the traffic safety issues involved: 1. Harry Thomas, 1121 Lewis Avenue Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Holtz to recommend approval of Special Exception SPX2006-00365 and Variance Application APP2006-00857, PMG, Inc. to the Board of Appeals per staff recommendations and subject to a condition that “The applicant would work with staff to increase the widths of the proposed sidewalks and green space located along the site’s Hungerford Drive and Frederick Avenue street frontages”. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. RECOMMENDATION TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL Street Closing and Abandonment SCA2006-00096, R.E. and Catherine Bisnett, et al. The applicants are requesting abandonment of an unimproved section of Joseph Street between Grandin and Maple Avenues in the East Rockville neighborhood. Commissioner Johnson recused himself because he walks his dog on the site. Mr. Wasilak presented the staff report. Mr. Wasilak stated that this is a petition for abandonment of an unimproved section of Joseph Street. This section of Joseph Street was formed through the platting of the Readings 1st Addition to Rockville in 1888 and Rockville Park in 1890, and Janeta in 1887 subdivisions. Joseph Street is an early street in East Rockville. An important element of the design of these early subdivisions is the layout, with the major and minor streets, and alleys. This site has functioned as a community greenspace over the years and continues to that. Staff has concern with the petition in that it feels that it is important to maintain this section of Joseph Street as a greenway. The greenway is maintained by the Department of Recreation and Parks. Mr. Hurlbutt continued the presentation. Commissioner Medearis noted that the case to deny this application does not sound very compelling to her. She said that the City has done nothing to improve this right-of-way for public benefit. If this application were to be denied, the City should be responsible for The Commission discussed concerns about the right-of-way such as improving the area and turning it into a park, future intent of the petitioners to use this right-of-way, if approved, as well as how the right-of-way would be divided between the petitioners. Mary Lee Bassford, 732 Grandin Avenue, presented the applicants request. Ms. Bassford spoke for the other applicants and stated that they share the City’s desire to provide land for public use and are in favor of maintaining a pedestrian-friendly environment. She said they filed their application for abandonment with the idea that they would be doing the City a favor by taking over the maintenance of and responsibility for this particular piece of ground. Ms. Bassford explained that, contrary to what some of the neighbors believe to be an unprecedented “land grab”, if the abandonment were to be granted, they would bear the cost and responsibility of maintaining the additional property, as well as paying additional property taxes on it. Ms. Bassford addressed the present uses of the property. The right-of-way exposes the neighbors to vandalism, trespassers, litter, and denying them the same property rights enjoyed by their non-adjacent neighbors. Ms. Bassford noted that they are not asking the City to give them something for nothing, but asking for relief from the burden that this right-of-way causes them. It is their primary request that the City grant them total abandonment of the right-of-way. If not, they would request consideration of partial abandonment, with the City retaining what is needed for future pedestrian use. She said that 62 feet is certainly wide enough to provide both a pedestrian passageway and a partial abandonment to the adjacent owners, giving both the City and them what they are looking for, and providing a safer and healthier environment for everyone in the neighborhood. In response to Commissioner Holtz, Ms. Block explained that, through research, it was found that the City does not hold the land in fee, which means that the City does not have ownership of the land with all the rights and obligations of ownership including the right to sell or give away the land. The land was setup as street or right-of-way for public use by plat, which limits the City to right-of-way uses. In response to Commissioner Ostell, Ms. Bassford stated that if the right-of-way was abandoned, they would landscape, put in a garden, and if there were trespasser problems, she would build a fence around her property. Commissioner Ostell questioned whether the public could still walk through the property, if it were abandoned. Ms. Bassford replied that if they were given partial abandonment, the City could do whatever they want to do with the remainder of the right-of-way. The following citizens testified: 1. Emily Clagett, 304 First Street The citizens testified against the abandonment. The citizens addressed why they want to keep the greenspace as it exists. This is the last piece of greenspace that children can play freely, people can walk their dogs, fire and rescue trucks can easily access the properties surrounding this greenspace, if necessary, and if this area is abandoned, people would build on it. Two citizens ask that the City address the setback issues of some of the properties in that area. In addition, one citizen stated that the City needs to clarify what exactly this space is and who owns it. Commissioner Medearis stated that she agrees that the City should clarify who owns this space. The Commission further raised questions regarding a possible solution to converting the right-of-way to a greenspace. Commissioner Wiener moved, seconded by Commissioner Medearis to recommend not granting Street Closing and Abandonment SCA2006-00096, R.E. and Catherine Bisnett, et al. to the Mayor and Council with condition that the City look at options for retaining the right-of-way as greenspace and how issues of concern expressed by the applicants and neighbors can be addressed. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0-1 with Commissioner Johnson abstaining. The applicant is requesting approval for the construction of a wireless communications facility, in the C-2 Zone, in the form of a 98-foot monopole and associated equipment structure to be located in the rear of the Twinbrook Mart at 2001 Veirs Mill Road. Mr. Chasten presented the staff report. Mr. Chasten stated that the applicant is requesting a special exception to install and operate a wireless communications facility at 2001 Veirs Mill Road. The applicant (Sprint) plans to construct a 98-foot tall monopole accompanying ground-mounted support equipment, all secured within a six foot tall fenced enclosure approximately 500 square feet in size, and located at the rear of the site’s U.S. Post Office facility. The wireless communications facility is intended to provide cellular telephone coverage to Sprint customers living within the area, as well as those traveling through the area. Mr. Chasten stated that the applicant also seeks a waiver from the 50 foot height limit applicable to the proposed monopole because the Twinbrook Mart Shopping Center property on which it is to be constructed is located within 500 feet of a residential zone. While the waiver request is submitted in conjunction with this special exception request, it will be forwarded to the Mayor and Council for review and action. Mr. Chasten stated that the Twinbrook Mart Shopping Center is located on the south side of Veirs Mill Road at the northwest corner of Veirs Mill Road and Atlantic Avenue. The original shopping center was constructed in the early 1950s and later expanded in the lat 1950s or early 1960s. The property has vehicular access with the neighboring Getty automobile filling station to the west. The shopping center is approximately 3.8 acres in size and contains between 52,000 to 55,000 gross square feet of floor space. The shopping center contains a modest amount of greenspace located primarily along the site’s street frontage on Veirs Mill Road and Atlantic Avenue. The site also contains a substantial amount of mature trees located along its southwestern and southern tract boundary, which serves as a natural buffer between the subject property and the neighboring residential properties to the west and south. Mr. Chasten explained that antennas would be installed, flush mounted and located at or near the top of the pole. The applicant has affirmed that the pole is designed to accommodate three cellular telephone carriers. The equipment enclosure will be approximately 460 to 500 square feet in size. The portion of the fenced equipment enclosure in which the ground mounted equipment and other electrical utility infrastructure is to be located will measure 14 feet x 28 feet, approximately 392 square feet, while the portion of the fenced enclosure containing the monopole will measure 7 feet x 10 feet, approximately 70 square feet in size. Mr. Chasten noted that staff did not make a formal recommendation on this request. Tom Carroll, Attorney with Holland & Knight presented the applicant’s request. Mr. Carroll stated that the applicant would not be going through this process if there were an existing pole in the area. There is a large gap in this area and that is why the applicant is requesting this special exception. They look for commercial areas to install these poles and Veirs Mill Road does not have many commercial areas on which to install a monopole. They use as many existing structures as they can. Mr. Carroll presented a map of Sprint’s coverage area showing surrounding sites that have existing antennas and showing a large gap on Veirs Mill Road. All of the surrounding sites are on existing structures. They are requesting a waiver from the 50 foot height limit because it would not provide the proper coverage at that height. Mr. Carroll mentioned that the applicant was asked to consider the City-owned Twinbrook Community Center located southeast of the proposed location with access from Twinbrook Parkway. For several reasons, this location was rejected. One of the reasons was that the topography of the property is such that a large portion of the property would not permit this facility. The community center has significant stream valley areas and required setbacks from those environmentally sensitive features. Mr. Carroll continued to explain that the monopole would not release fumes or odor and does comply with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). He noted that lights are not permitted on antenna support structures unless they are required for aircraft warnings or other safety reasons. After further discussion, Mr. Robert Hunnicutt, consultant with Columbia Telecommunications Corporation provided information regarding the applicant’s reason for placing a monopole in this area, alternative existing structures near the proposed site, RF The Commission discussed concerns and raised questions regarding 1) need for the monopole; 2) loss of parking spaces; 3) what is the approximate size of the coverage area that Sprint is attempting to achieve under the proposed special exception request; 4) are other cellular telephone companies also experiencing similar coverage problems within the subject site area and, if not, why aren’t they having similar coverage complaints; 5) if the physical appearance of the monopole is designed as a flag pole, would/should a flag be flowing atop the pole; 6) the time period covered under the lease agreement as entered into by the property owner and Sprint; 7) the applicant’s desired coverage area and its ability to provide its customers with reliable service with or without the proposed facility; 8) the applicant’s analysis of other technologies and alternative site locations, and 9) the proposed wireless communication facility’s impact on future development of the existing shopping center. The following citizens testified: 1. Jacqueline Kubin Szadkowski, 13303 Ardennes Avenue The citizens raised concerns regarding 1) potential adverse health risks the proposed wireless communication facility could have on community residents and neighboring property owners; 2) the imposing visual impact the monopole would have on neighboring properties; 3) create an additional blighting influence on the existing shopping center, which according to some who spoke in opposition, is not well maintained; 4) the proposed site location of the facility would alter site vehicular traffic flow movements in the rear area of the site; 5) the facility could become a magnet or target for vandalism; and, 6) the proposed wireless communication facility could adversely impact the property values of neighboring homes in the site area. After considering all of the information and testimony provided, Commissioner Holtz moved, seconded by Commissioner Wiener to recommend to the Board of Appeals that Special Exception SPX2005-00356, APC Realty and Equipment LLC be denied because the applicant had not sufficiently made a case to justify the granting of the requested special exception. The motion passed on a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Medearis voting nay. Zoning Text Amendment TXT2005-00217, Miller, Miller & Canby The applicant is requesting to amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit new one—family detached homes and additional modifications in the Residential Townhouse Development (RTH) Special Development Procedure. Ms. Torma presented the staff report. Ms. Torma briefed the Commission on the background of the Residential Townhouse Development (RTH) Special Development Procedure. The RTH process was developed to afford the developer flexibility to promote a suitable environment for family life and to stabilize and protect the essential characteristics of the adjacent properties and neighborhood. Miller, Miller & Canby, on behalf of Centex Homes, has applied to revise the Residential Townhouse (RTH) Special Development Procedure. Centex is the prospective developer of the WINX property on Ashley Avenue and MCPS property on North Stonestreet Avenue. Ms. Torma stated that staff recommends the development of transitional sites that include new one-family detached homes in addition to townhomes. The new one-family homes where none presently exist could provide a better transition to the existing one-family neighborhood. Therefore, staff recommends limiting the percentage of existing and new one-family homes in order for the RTH to remain as a transitional site. The Commission raised questions and concerns regarding maximum density permitted; density and MPDUs, distance between one-family detached dwellings; staff recommendation of amendments; whether RTH should be applied for the entire City; lack of knowledge of where RTH developments should go in the City; lot size reductions for RTH developments; using residential as a buffer for industrial; and, fire safety issues. Jody Kline, Attorney with Miller, Miller &Canby explained the applicant’s reason to amend the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Kline stated that the City’s Zoning Ordinance is deficient in a sense that it does not have a good flexible urban planned development zone at this time. The following citizens testified their views regarding the text amendment: The citizens suggested that the language be modified to be more consistent with the neighborhood plans and felt that the Commission must be cautious when making a decision on this amendment. In addition, it was recommended that the name (RTH) should be changed because it no longer has relationship to what it really can be applied to. 1. Linda Ekizian, President of the East Rockville Citizens Association COMMISSION ITEMS Old Business Mr. Wasilak stated that the Mayor and Council did rename Newmarket Street Gibbs Street. The City does not yet have affirmation from Park and Planning. The City also has not heard from the family of Mr. Gibbs. Chief of Planning Report Mr. Wasilak reported the public hearing for Lincoln Park Neighborhood Plans is scheduled for May 10, 2006 Commission meeting. Also on the Agenda are the RTH text amendment, and three plats, and a King Farm Historic District recommendation. Minutes The minutes were passed forward for the next meeting. ADJOURN After further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 12:00 midnight. | |||||||||