| Home > Government > Boards and Commissions > Planning Commission > 2006 > Minutes > May 10, 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, May 10, 2006. | |||||||||
| |||||||||
PUBLIC HEARING Lincoln Park Neighborhood Plan and Conservation Plan This is for a new neighborhood plan for Planning Area 6 (Lincoln Park) to replace the Lincoln Park Neighborhood Plan adopted in 1984. The Conservation Plan recommends new residential development standards to preserve neighborhood character. Mr. Wasilak presented a brief introduction on both Plans. He stated that this is the second public hearing for these two Plans. Mr. Wasilak presented the background of the two Plans. Mr. Wasilak stated that one of the things that came up very strongly in the community meetings and in staff’s work with the advisory group was the idea that they wanted to maintain this as a secure and stable residential area, an opportunity for home ownership, and to that end, the plan does recommend maintaining the existing R-60 zoning in the community, and looks at creating opportunities for more compatible development on the periphery of the community. There are several properties that could b developed and there is some interest in doing so, particularly on the WINK’s property and the property owned by MCPS on North Stonestreet Avenue. The Plan recommends residential redevelopment of both sites, as opposed to the industrial use that is currently on the two properties. Mr. Wasilak stated that the goal of the neighborhood plan is to retain Lincoln Park as a stable and secure residential community. One of those aspects would be to establish circulation patterns that are compatible with the community and allowing for access to the nearby public transit facilities, while also retaining the residential character and eliminating potential cut through traffic within the neighborhood. One of the key recommendations is to protect the physical and cultural heritage of Lincoln Park. As a result of the recommendations of the neighborhood plan, there was a determination that there needed to be something in addition to the protections afforded the neighborhood plan in typical zoning. With that endeavor, there was begun a conservation plan to preserve the character of Lincoln Park. Mr. Wasilak stated that, throughout the review process, it has been identified by staff that there is some additional loosening of those additional development standards that could be afforded to the properties that are single story within Lincoln Park so that everyone has an opportunity to add onto their homes within the boundaries of the conservation district. Mr. Wasilak stated that this is the second public hearing for the neighborhood plan. He said there will be a discussion and instruction session with the Commission giving staff direction on any changes it might want to see in those documents before staff forwards the Plans to the Mayor and Council for their public hearing process. In response to Commissioner Ostell, Mr. Wasilak said that the Mayor and Council public hearing is scheduled for July, 2006. Su Le-Cho, Attorney with Miller, Miller & Canby, stated that she is representing Centex Homes, who is the contract purchaser of the MCPS school board property. She noted that they filed the initial RTH application on the site and would like to make one comment on the specific language as it relates to the MCPS property. She explained that, normally there is a master plan process; it is completed, after which, site development proposals that come forward. In this instance, it is unusual because the development process preceded the finalization of the Lincoln Park Neighborhood Plan. There has been some benefit to that in that the City’s design professionals have been able to study the site for pros and cons in the context of where the site sits in the Lincoln Park community. With that, staff is seeing that there may be some additional flexibility in the language that would not bind the City to any particular site proposal, but may open the door for more creative dialogue. Ms. Lee-Cho said she does have some suggestive language changes to page 17, first paragraph under the MCPS property section of the September 2005 staff draft of the Plan. She said that the last sentence of the paragraph, which talks about the southern portion of the property located in the east Rockville planning area is recommended for townhouses and for single-family detached homes on the northeast corner of North Stonestreet and Howard Avenues. She said that the only change she might recommend would to be to substitute the word “recommend” with “preferred”. Ms. Lee-Cho said she is recommending that word in order to allow for additional flexibility in the following sentence, which she would propose “However, additional flexibility in the mix of residential dwellings in these areas may be considered where it is shown to facilitate or serve as a compatible transition from adjacent nonresidential or institutional uses.” Ms. Lee-Cho noted that part of the RTH transitional use purpose of the floating zone, which the Commission will consider later tonight, is to serve as that type of transitional use between single families and higher density uses and there are portions of that site that may benefit from townhomes on the side of that edge that is adjacent to the historic Lincoln Park property that they would like to have the opportunity to propose or show a design to both the City and the community that would not be foreclosed by the Master Plan. Commissioner Britton questioned Ms. Lee-Cho whether she believes the existing language in the Master Plan absolutely precludes this flexibility that the applicant is trying to get defined. Ms. Lee-Cho replied that she feels the language could be interpreted as such. Commissioner Ostell asked Ms. Lee-Cho to submit the language to staff. The Commission continued to discuss the specificity of the language change and how it would be defined in the Plan and whether it would be consistent with the goals of the Lincoln Park community. The following citizens testified: 1. Anita Summerour, 715 Douglas Avenue read a letter from Sharon Duffin, 710 Douglas Avenue regarding the neighborhood plan and the conservation plan. Ms. Summerour stated that Ms. Duffin supports both plans and urged the Commission to approve these two plans without further delay. 2. Robert Reiver, owner of the WINK’s property and he wanted to draw the Commission’s attention to one item on page 16 of the Lincoln Park Neighborhood Plan. The recommendation according to staff is to provide approximately 92 units. He has spoken to the Commission before and his preliminary plans that had been analyzed by many of the residents in the neighborhood and these plans have their 100 percent support. Mr. Reiver said that he will be coming before the Commission with a plan, not for 92 units, but for 78 or less units that was one time submitted to the Commission. The only request that he has to the Commission is that they could have some flexibility with respect to the recommendations. He said he would like to have the phrase “recommendations”, but not “requirements” so that there is flexibility in the Plan. 3. Fran Hawkins, President of the Lincoln Park Civic Association stated that she was also a member of the Lincoln Park Task Force and the Advisory Committee on both Plans. Ms. Hawkins stated that they have worked long and hard on these two Plans and she hopes they go forward without delay. 4. Berl McWilliams, 206 Elizabeth Avenue stated that she believes the redevelopment of Lincoln Park is good. The idea to encourage occupants to own their property versus receiving handouts from generation to generation is also good. The new development of encouraging new families with children would result in an increase of vehicles that would be coming to the neighborhood and that is what she is concerned about. Ms. McWilliams stressed that she is disturbed at the number of units per acre that are going to be placed on Ashley Avenue, Moore Drive and North Stonestreet Avenue. This, too, would increase the traffic for Lincoln Park. Ms. McWilliams stated that her main concern is traffic, parking, and she hopes that the City, when redeveloping these properties, would remember the residents living in Lincoln Park and safety issues involved. Commissioner Ostell said she understood Ms. McWilliams’ concerns about the traffic and parking issues. She explained the development process of the upcoming applications and informed the citizens that they would have the chance to voice their concerns regarding the proposals. 5. Anita Hill Powell, resident of Lincoln Park stated that she is President of Lincoln Park Historical Foundation and the Foundation does support the Lincoln Park Neighborhood Plan, but does not support the Conservation Plan. Ms. Powell stated that the two Plans not be voted on as one document because they clearly do represent two difference concepts. Ms. Powell stated that if the Conservation Plan is approved, she would want to see it applied to new development that comes into the community to be under the same rules and regulations that existing homeowners have to abide by. In response to Commissioner Ostell, Ms. Powell replied that she would not favor historical designation for the neighborhood. In response to Commissioner Britton, Mr. Wasilak explained that the Conservation Plan applies to the platted subdivisions as they exist currently in Lincoln Park. The new developments will b subject to the development approvals, which establish the standards on an individual project by project basis so that staff can assure that those projects are compatible, but they will not necessarily fall under the same standards that the existing residents would be subject to. Commissioner Britton questioned if a house in the new development years decides to redevelop, would it be subject to the Conservation Plan? Mr. Wasilak replied that he believes that is something that needs to be clarified. Commissioner Britton questioned that if something is built in one of three new developments, could somebody decide to come in and take a property that is in one of these new projects, redevelop it, and go beyond the bounds that the City is setting in the Conservation Plan for the rest of the Lincoln Park neighborhood. Ms. Christensen explained that Conservation Plans are based on the existing community. The idea is to protect the character of that community. Therefore, these Plans apply to the blocks and the street grid and the layout of the existing community. They do not necessarily apply to new development, which is on the fringe. Ms. Christensen noted that she believes that is what Ms. Powell is referring to. Ms. Christensen explained that anything that would be built within an existing platted block of Lincoln Park that is already developed, would have to conform to the Lincoln Park standards. The Commission further discussed concerns regarding the Conservation Plan with regard to new development standards in Lincoln Park. 6. Lucinda Hall, 210 Elizabeth Avenue and Chair of the Lincoln Park Neighborhood Preservation/Conservation Committee spoke strong in support of both Plans. She addressed one thing that was taken from the minutes of February 2, 2006 meeting that was held jointly by the Lincoln Park Historical Society and the City. She said the Mayor and Council authorized volunteers to be on the Lincoln Park Community Preservation Committee to study how to preserve the character of the neighborhood. Thus, was born this Committee. It came out of the neighborhood plan and was then actually authorized by the City. Ms. Hall stated that she does support the Conservation Plan for a number of reasons. One is to preserve the historical character of Lincoln Park as it relates to the architectural design, lot size configuration and the style of homes. To preserve the sense of family and its history, while welcoming new and diverse residents; to preserve the sense of open space and environmental characteristics, unobstructed views of treescapes, unobstructed access to sunlight and proper water drainage between properties, and, lastly, to promote new neighborhood development that is in keeping with the current character of existing homes in the neighborhood. 7. Eileen McGuckian stated that she is speaking for Peerless Rockville, which is Rockville’s Historic Preservation Group. She said they are very proud to have partnered with local residents in activities that helped to document and preserve Lincoln Park. Ms. McGuckian explained that the Lincoln Park Partners Project, which maintains a website on the history and families through the Rockville Library. They have co-nominated two local sites as Rockville historic districts, and at the request of the Lincoln Park Civic Association, they have attended meetings that two years ago started to develop the Lincoln Park Conservation District plan and development standards. As the neighborhood plan was developed, residents become increasingly vocal in their concern that remodeling and new houses were in stark contrast to what existed in the community. The really was the start of the Conservation Plan, which was developed by City staff with the Advisory Committee and others very much in active roles. Ms. McGuckian expressed Peerless Rockville’s strong support for the proposed Lincoln Park Plan and for the Conservation Plan. Both Plans present a vision and recommends that are consistent with Peerless Rockville’s areas of interest and with the Mayor and Council’s goals to strengthen Rockville neighborhoods and its sense of community. Ms. McGuckian spoke about the history of Lincoln Park and its physical and cultural heritage. Commissioner Ostell stated that this portion of the public record will be kept open for another two weeks and notification will be sent to every household regarding the date of the Mayor and Council public hearing on the two Plans. The date is tentatively in July 2006. RECOMMENDATION TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL Map Amendment Application MAP2006-00096, Mayor and Council of Rockville The applicant is requesting the rezoning of the 8.06-acre King Farm Farmstead at 16100 Frederick Road from 0-3 (Restricted Office) to 0-3 (HD-Historic District). Ms. Ziek presented the staff report. Ms. Ziek explained that this property was analyzed and evaluated in 1998/1999 during the preparation of the King Farm Parks Master Plan as well as during the 2001/1002 King Farm Task Force. The historic significance of the property was understood and supported through both these evaluation process. The King Farm Task Force recommended historic designation for only the William Lawson King residence and not for the farm buildings or their environmental setting. The property was nominated for designation by the King Farm Civic Association and Peerless Rockville Historic Preservation, Ltd. In November 2004. Subsequently, the responsibilities of the Civic Associations were taken up by the newly established King Farm Citizens Assembly. This HOA was set up through the development process, and now represents the residents of King Farm. Ms. Ziek stated that Historic District Commission (HDC) held a public hearing on the property significances on March 16, 2006. Peerless Rockville testified in favor of the designation. The King Farm Citizens Assembly was notified prior to the hearing, but deferred providing a statement until this could be discussed by their External Affairs Committee on April 11, 2006. She noted that the HDC provided only a recommendation to the Mayor and Council and the recommendation of the King Farm Citizens Assembly also provided information to the Mayor and Council. The staff analysis of the property history and testimony found it eligible for designation as a local Historic District by the City of Rockville. The HDC concurred and recommended the site as eligible for historic designation on March 16, 2006. The Mayor and Council instructed staff to file a Map Amendment Application for the rezoning on their behalf on April 10, 2006. Ms. Ziek talked about the proposed uses for the buildings. She noted that the hay drying shed is proposed to be an open park pavilion and the HDC has reviewed proposals of the site. She noted the house is in terrific condition, but the buildings are in great need of repair. The following citizen testified: Suzanne Fisher stated that she is speaking on behalf of Peerless Rockville and she was also a member of the King Farm Task Force. Ms. Fisher stated the Task Force has a discussion on the number of uses for the site. She discussed the possibilities for the dairy barns on the site. Ms. Fisher discussed the background of the Task Force and the historic presentation of the buildings on the site. She said that there is no question that the King Farm Homestead meets the criteria for historic designation. There are minor alterations in the structure and site. King Farm was a nearly self sufficient farm and it is one of the last remnants of what was really their cultural, economic, social and historic heritage in the County when people would live on a property with the people who are working with them, raise as much food as they could, repair their buildings, repair their structures. The site has a collection of buildings that have been modified over time so that they could do the best they could to be self sufficient at King Farm. Ms. Fisher described the farmhouse as beautiful and the community’s entrance into the City when one is coming from the north. There is no question that this should be on the National Registrar of Public Places. There is been a question overtime by the Task Force as to whether the entire complex or individual structures should have historic designation, and the feeling is and because that is what a farm was, it was not just a house, it was not just a barn, it is a collection of those things and that is how the City must have it, as a historic district. There are also people who argue that City-owned property, which is what this is, should not get historic designation and it should not be subject to the requirements of historic designation. This strikes Peerless Rockville as a little odd because there is Beal-Dawson house, the Pump House, the Dawson Farm. The compelling argument is that if the Chestnut Lodge property, the Buckingham property and other places have to abide by the historic designation process then the City also do so. Ms. Fisher stated that the last thing she would like to emphasize is that the historic designation is not a barrier to the development of King Farm with all the wonderful options that came up as a public park. Historic designation should be the underlying consideration as this property is redeveloped and make it a great resource for the entire City. Ms. Fisher encouraged the Commission to recommend to the Mayor and Council along with the HDC that his process should go forward and the entire King Farm homestead do get historic designation. Commissioner Holtz moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to recommend approval of Map Amendment Application MAP2006-00096, Mayor and Council of Rockville to the Mayor and Council as submitted. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0. The applicant is requesting modifications to the Residential Townhouse Zoning (RTH) Special Development Procedure. Ms. Torma presented the staff report. Ms. Torma highlighted the major amendments to the RTH. Generally, new one-family detached residences - currently only existing units are allowed. They would permit the new single family homes to be built, generally under the R-60 guidelines, publicly owned and operated buildings and uses would be permitted; it is under Residential Uses. Add language to the Attached dwelling unit to modify the definition to define between one family detached and multiple family; height and setback changes – Staff recommends townhouses and one-family detached dwellings remain at 35-foot height limit; the potential height increase could go up to 45 feet for attached and detached dwellings based on the adjacent zone; setback requirements – if a property is located on a lower level street or business street and to allow for a larger sidewalk or to any of the provisions in the RTH, which must be consistent with a neighborhood plan or the Master Plan; permit the RTH adjacent to I-1 zoning districts or and one-family detached dwellings, when recommended by a Plan. The Commission expressed many concerns regarding the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the RTH Zone. The Commission also questioned, if a new Zoning Revision Committee has been created to review and make changes to the Zoning Ordinance and will be reviewing the Zoning Ordinance for a long time, then why is the Commission making a recommendation on this application tonight. If this text amendment were to be approved and as a result, the Committee could recommend something completely different as it relates to the RTH Zone. The Commission had concerns regarding width of sidewalks, buffering residential from industrial areas, stacked housing, distance between houses, fire safety issues, sprinklers, buffering residential from industrial, density, and setback issues. Soo Lee-Cho, Attorney with Miller, Miller & Canby, presented the applicant’s (Centex Homes) request. Ms. Lee-Cho stated that for the most part they do not disagree with staff’s recommendations. They would like some clarification on a couple points. Ms. Lee-Cho stated that, originally, the RTH was to address a specific request from the community, which was to have single family detached as part of development of these sites. That is the real main change they are proposing for the RTH. The applicant would like a mix of residential, but incorporate single family detached as well. To establish development standards for those single family detached homes in a development that has mixed residential planned proposed for the WINX and North Stonestreet sites. Ms. Lee-Cho presented photographs of other RTH projects as well as RTH type of projects in the City and in other jurisdictions. These standards could achieve in terms of pedestrian ways, open spaces, and streetscape as well as setbacks, and architectural styles and height. Steve Tawes, Civil Engineer, discussed other RTH projects regarding lot sizes, setbacks, streetscape and mix of development. Ms. Lee-Cho noted that they would not change existing RTH townhouse standards. She pointed out that most of the additional language in the amendment is to create development standards for the single-family detached units so that they are compatible with the townhouses, which was really the driving force for the text amendment. Ms. Lee-Cho continued her presentation and explained to the Commission the reasons for reduced setbacks, wider sidewalks, street use, and lot sizes. Commissioner Britton questioned why 25 foot front setbacks when most new projects are moving things up closer to the street. Mr. Wasilak explained that it is a matter of compatibility with the existing neighborhoods because the RTH is a transitional use where it is adjacent to single family neighborhoods, which would have at least a 25 foot setback. Commissioner Holtz stated that Ms. Lee-Cho would not be before the Commission tonight if she did not have a client who had two properties he wants to develop. Ms. Lee-Cho replied that she cannot deny that and she cannot deny that she was directed to the RTH as a potential vehicle. They worked with the City and there was joint effort in looking at what could be done with the existing framework of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Lee-Cho stated Mr. Jody Kline, Attorney, who was at the Commission’s last meeting indicated that the City does not have a good flexible urban planned development zone at this time. In looking at the City’s Zoning Ordinance, the RTH stood out as a potential to fill that hole. While, they were involved in the process of this application, the Zoning Ordinance re-write came out as a City endeavor. Ms. Lee-Cho stated that they do not know how long the Zoning Ordinance review process will take and it will address many other issues than the RTH. She noted that there are developments in the Lincoln Park draft neighborhood plans for a very long time and that is why they felt the need to come forward with these two properties. Mr. Wasilak explained that because staff is participating in the neighborhood master plans, staff would have come before the Commission to implement these plans. The following people testified their views regarding the text amendment: They 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. Other recommendations were made for the MCPS property as well as rezoning. They both recommended that this text amendment be deferred until the language has been improved. The citizens were not in favor of piggyback/stacked townhouses in their area. Density was also a great concern. Overall, they expressed concerns regarding the longer term and the broader implications if this text amendment were approved. Others recommended a science center/public park for the MCPS property. 1. Linda Ekizian, President of the East Rockville Citizens Association (ERCA) Robert Reiver, owner of the WINX property clarified one aspect with respect to the reason for this text amendment. Mr. Reiver explained that when he became the managing partner and majority owner in March 2003 of the WINX property, he was in the process of clearing the property to build an auto store yard and at that time, Mark Pentz, City Manager came to him and asked him if he would consider having the property developed for residential use, townhouses, specifically, and for him to hold up the development of the property for an I-1 use. After listening to Mark Pentz, he put the property on the market and signed a contract with Centex Homes in October 2004. They have been working diligently and prepared 14 various development plans to staff to try and come up with a plan that meet all the requirements such as setbacks, right-of-ways and these plans have been reviewed with the residents. This text amendment is coming before the Commission basically because the Mark Pentz approached him and requested to see if he would seek townhouse development. When he proceeded with that, various staff members and the neighborhood requested that single family homes be constructed on Ashley Avenue. As a result, plans have been submitted to the neighborhood and every resident on Ashley Avenue has been consulted with and has supported the plan. The most important aspect in this text amendment is to have flexibility so that an innovative design can be presented. The Commission raised questions and concerns regarding the zones and uses proposed in the text amendment. Staff explained the proposed standards applied to the RTH. Other concerns were raised as to why they would act on this text amendment now when the Zoning Review Committee are reviewing and revising the City’s Zoning Ordinance. In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Wasilak explained that the Mayor and Council, knowing that a Zoning Review Committee was to be created in the future, they felt that there were a couple potential redevelopments that the City needed to respond to. These are developments that are desired by the Master Plan. Mr. Wasilak explained that the text amendment does not need to be as broad as proposed, but would allow for some additional flexibility and these two projects would perhaps be the only projects that would come under this amendment. Most of the Commissioners felt uncomfortable to move forward with the proposed language until the community supports the language for these projects. The Commissioners felt that the piggyback townhouses, reduced setbacks, and zoning and adding more greenspace should be reviewed in the language. Commissioner Holtz, seconded by Commissioner Johnson not to recommend Text Amendment Application TXT2005-00217, Miller, Miller and Canby. The motion passed on a vote of 3-1 with Commissioner Britton voting nay. Old Business Mr. Wasilak reported that staff has not received confirmation from Parking and Planning. Staff did receive some feedback from Lincoln Park residents about the Gibbs family and apparently Mr. Gibbs does not have any direct descendents that can be contacted. New Business Mr. Wasilak reported that Commissioner Hilton is stepping down as a Commissioner and David Hill will be appointed next week and will replace Commissioner Hilton. Commissioner Ostell stated that a letter received from the Montgomery County Fire and Rescue should go into the record for both applications as well as the Lincoln Park Plan. Chief of Planning Report Mr. Wasilak reported the Champion Billiards is scheduled for the Commission’s May 24 meeting. The Julius West monopole is scheduled for the Commission’s June meeting. Mr. Wasilak reported that the Board of Appeals approved the Twinbrook Mart monopole last Saturday. Mr. Wasilak reported that there will be a Boards and Commissions training session on June 1, 6, and 9. Commissioners Ostell, Holtz and Wiener will be attending. Mr. Wasilak reported that the Zoning Review Committee will have one more meeting on June 23 to approve the outline of the draft Zoning Ordinance. The minutes were passed forward for the next meeting. ADJOURN After further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 10:03 p.m. | |||||||||