Rockville Planning Commission
Minutes

 Mayor and Council Chambers
Meeting No. 10-06
May 24, 2006, 7:00 p.m.

The City of Rockville Planning Commission convened in regular session in the Mayor and Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, May 24, 2006.
    

Commissioner Ostell welcomed David Hill as the new Commissioner.  Commissioner Hill served approximately 9 years on the City of Rockville Board of Appeals.
               
RECOMMENDATION TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL

Preliminary Development Plan Application PDP2006-00011, KAMB Ltd.

The applicant is requesting approval to construct a 12,524 square foot building for use as a furniture showroom in the RPC (Rockville Pike Commercial) Zone at 900 Rockville Pike.

Ms. Torma presented the Commission with a memorandum from the Urban Design Review Committee.  

Ms. Torma presented the staff report.  The applicant is requesting to construct a 12,574 square feet of commercial building on two floors to be used as furniture showroom space for pool tables, barstools and other recreational furniture.  There will be 36 at-grade parking spaces, including two handicap accessible spaces associated with the building.  The site will have vehicular access from Rockville Pike through an existing access easement located on the adjacent site.  Ms. Torma described the location and the site itself.  This site was previously a gas station.  She provided information that the application would be in conformance with the Rockville Pike Corridor Neighborhood Plan.   The property is located outside the Metro Performance District.  The site is currently zoned RPC and contains 25,863 square feet.  Currently the site is vacant, but has six or seven trees on the property.  Ms. Torma discussed the Optional Method of Development Requirements for this property.  

Ms. Torma talked about the first floor of the proposed building, handicapped spaces required, removing an existing sidewalk, and parking below the building, etc.

The Commission addressed concerns regarding peak hour trips in the area, surplus of parking spaces on the site, treatment of the back wall against the railroad tracks, buffering the sound from the railroad, constrained sites with narrow sidewalks, landscaping, urban design requirements, lack of open space, what the reflections in the glass on the building might do to driver visibility on the Pike, and building materials proposed for the building.

Jody Kline, Attorney with Miller, Miller & Canby presented the applicant’s request.  Mr. Kline commented on a letter from Mr. Joseph Lynott III on behalf of the adjacent building owned by Cornelius Whalen.  Mr. Kline stated that they met with Mr. Lynott and Mr. Whalen to explain the proposal.  He noted that Mr. Whalen was very candid and addressed his concerns about additional traffic on the service drive and losing some parking spaces.  After the discussion, both parties agreed to disagree and were not able to resolve the issue, itself.  Mr. Kline noted that he did discuss shared parking with Mr. Whalen.  He noted that there is a service easement issue with the Whalen property.  Mr. Kline stated that the applicant is not a co-conspirator with the State Highway Administration to close off the applicant’s driveways.  He said that the applicant’s plan, based on the initial comments received from the City, is about what they should anticipate the State’s requirement would be, but the State was not going to allow them access off Edmonston and Route 355 and that left them with only the use of the existing service drive easement that is parallel to Rockville Pike from the adjacent property.  Mr. Kline stated that he was disappointed that Mr. Lynott’s memorandum did not give them credit for the things that they did well such as brighten up that corner of the Pike with building design and the landscaping.     

Rick Donnelly with DVA Architects discussed the site plan.  Mr. Donnelly addressed the acoustic issue.  Mr. Donnelly explained only one floor would reverberate any sound coming from the railroad tracks.  He discussed the materials of the building.  He explained that the glass on the building would be a tinted blue glass and not heavily reflective, only on the top band of the building and maybe the first band below.  The glass would be no more reflective than on any other office building.  Mr. Donnelly stated that the storage would be only about 10 percent for moving equipment in and out of the site.  He said that the project would improve the pedestrian issue by building a wider sidewalk away from the curb.  He said that, currently, the sidewalk is on the curb.  Mr. Donnelly answered questions from the Commission regarding parking, and office and retail use on the site.               

Mr. Kline discussed the rear of the site and explained that the building materials would absorb the sound from the railroad tracks. 

Joe Lynott with Lynott & Lynott stated that he represents Edmonston Properties LLC and stated that there is a fundamental flaw in the way the site has been proposed.  He said his client owns the commercial property at 1010-1066 Rockville Pike, which consists of a 6-story office building and two strip retail commercial centers located directly to the south of the subject property.  Mr. Lynott stated that his client opposes this development to the extent it seeks to require sole access to the applicant’s property over his client’s land.  Mr. Lynott pointed out that the applicant’s property is presently benefited by two existing curb cuts, one on Route 355 and one on Edmonston Road.    Mr. Lynott stated that the terms in the easement agreement from 1971 establish that it was not intended to be a private easement benefiting the applicant or its predecessors.  It is a public service drive easement, not a public easement.  The applicant does not have the right to use their property for it would create a far greater burden for their site.  He pointed out that losing the benefit of the curb cut on 355 would create a chaos on their property.  The design of the building would eliminate six parking spaces.  Mr. Lynott stated that he does not believe there has been an adequate showing for this building and his client has not consented to the use of his property.  Mr. Lynott stated that he understands that a letter was written to the SHA regarding the curb cuts and there has been no response. 

In response to Commissioner Ostell, Mr. Lynott stated that he was contacted last year by a letter from Margaret Hall and Mr. Kline about the issue in June 2005.  He said he was contacted Monday evening to come before the Commission. 

Mr. Wasilak stated that staff did receive confirmation from SHA, who did endorse the configuration as proposed. 

In response to the Commission, Mr. Torma explained that the easement is called a floating easement.  Most of the service drives located along Rockville Pike are adjacent to the right-of-way.  This service drive easement is not, because when they came in for the development of the two retail strip centers, the owner of the property wanted the easement not to be adjacent to the right-of-way.  It is called a floating easement.   

Ms. Block clarified floating easement issue.  She said the purpose of the service drive easement is to allow connection between various properties and is considered a public way.  She noted that the parking spaces are going to have to be eliminated and the reason there will be a loss of six parking spaces is that they are encroaching on the easement.  The Commission and staff discussed the parking and easement issue. 

Mr. Lynott stated that this is a public easement.  Commissioner Holt stated that by putting in the parking spaces, the public easement has been turned into private property.  Mr. Lynott said he is not aware of any other property along Rockville Pike, which accesses a property solely by way of the service drive easements.  He said his client objects to the closing of the curb cuts.  Commissioner Holtz felt that the curb cut issue being so close to Edmonston Drive is a safety issue.   

Mr. Kline discussed the disagreement. 

Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Holtz to recommend approval of Preliminary Development Plan Application PDP2006-00011, KAMB Ltd to the Mayor and Council per staff recommendations.  Commissioner Holtz asked that, to the extent that anything else could be done to buffer between the back of building and the right-of-way and that the applicant and staff could address some of the issues raised this evening.  Commissioner Holtz stated that he was not comfortable with a curb cut so close to the corner.  The motion passed unanimously.    

DISCUSSION AND INSTRUCTIONS TO STAFF

Lincoln Park Neighborhood Plan – to consider testimony received and provide staff direction on any recommended changes to the documents.

Mr. Wasilak explained that staff has looked at all of the testimony on the Plans and would like the Commission to provide direction to staff on any recommended changes to the Plans. He stated that a public meeting on the two Plans has been scheduled with the Mayor and Council for July 10, 2006. 

The Planning Commission is required to approve a Plan under a State code, which is done by resolutions.  Therefore, staff needs some time to prepare that resolution so the Commission can take action on it, and, in turn, the Plan is then transmitted to the Mayor and Council for their public hearing.   

The Commission and staff discussed the Plan.  They discussed both the WINX property and the MCPS property.  Sound barriers were discussed to buffer residential from the railroad tracks.  Commissioner Ostell recommended that the Plan provide language that would better define the sound barrier issue, especially along the railroad tracks.  The Commission also discussed concerns and recommended language in the Plan regarding emergency response times and egress into the neighborhood, researching the safety issues regarding the WINX property with the possible transition of the WINX property from industrial to residential, flexibility for redevelopment of WINX property and the MCPS property, density, quality of homes in the development, unit types, pocket parks, and making sure this Plan is compatible with the Stonestreet Plan.

Lincoln Park Conservation Plan – to consider testimony received and to provide staff direction on any recommended changes to the documents.

The Commission discussed concerns regarding lot coverage, which should be explained thoroughly in the Plan, definition of an appropriate design of historic structures, research historically African-American type communities, nonconforming uses in R-60 zone, not be allowed to expand, and grandfathering of uses.

Commissioner Ostell stated that there are 28 unique testimonies, 20 citizens supported the Conservation Plan.  There were four residents, who did not support or address the Plan one way or the other, and there were three residents who did not support the Plan and the remainder were undecided. 

Commissioner Ostell recommended that people who are viewing the meeting tonight and are interested in the Lincoln Park Plans should also focus on the residential townhouse text amendment that will be heard by the Mayor and Council at its meeting on June 12, 2006.  That would affect what may or may not happen at the WINX and MCPS properties on Stonestreet Avenue. 

COMMISSION ITEMS

New Business

Mr. Wasilak reported about upcoming applications.   He noted that the next Commission meeting is June 14, 2006. 

ADJOURN

After further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 9:19 p.m.