| Home > Government > Boards and Commissions > Planning Commission > 2006 > Minutes > September 13, 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, September 13, 2006. | ||||||
| ||||||
REVIEW AND ACTION Final Record Plat PLT2006-00463, Nancy Regelin - for resubdivsion of Lot 8, Harriett Park (519 Park Road) and Tax Map Parcel P73 (104 Charles Street) to accomplish a land exchange between two property owners and create two reconfigured lots of 8,105 square feet, respectively, in the R-60 Zone. Ms. Hall presented an overview of the staff report. Ms. Hall stated that the Zoning Ordinance allows for the exchange of land between adjoining property owners without the approval of the Planning Commission as long as no new lots are created. The property on Charles Street came up for sale and the property owners on Park Road wanted to acquire some of the back part of the lot in order to gain a back yard. The property on Park Road is substandard in size, even though it appears on the Plat. The property does not have a backyard. Even though, the property is an odd configuration, this is something the owners could have done without coming to the Record Plat stage. They could have exchanged the land. However, she and Ms. Regelin had some concerns about the status of the lots given that both lots are substandard to current regulations and what would happen in the long term and the long term says that the best thing to do is to resubdivide the lots and put them on a Subdivision Plat and make them legitimate and to preserve their ability to be built upon. In granting these this, it will require a motion in order to meet the lot width requirement. Ms. Block explained the variance requirements. She noted that motion would require certain findings that must be found to approve this variance. Ms. Hall added that the only thing that is affected by this application is the lot width of the property. The fact is that both properties are currently only fifty feet wide and the resubdivision proposal does not change that. The exchange of land improves the conformity of the property on Park Road because the property currently contains only 3,910 square feet of land. Adding 4,195 square feet of land not only brings the property into conformance with the R-60 minimum lot size requirement, but exceeds it by 2,105 square feet. Deeding away the 4,195 square feet of land on the back portion of the property located at 104 Charles Street still allows for a 6,447 square feet lot. Resubdividing the properties on a plat of subdivision preserves the ability to rebuild on the Charles Street property if some catastrophic event were to occur because all buildings must be constructed on a record lot and the development standards for both lots would be clearly determined. Commissioner Holtz inquired whether there are houses on Lots 9 and 10. Ms. Hall replied that there is no house on Lot 9. There is a very substantial storm drain easement that runs diagonally across the property and nothing would be developed on that lot. The Commission further discussed and had questions concerning storm drain easement on the property at 519 Park Road and whether the owners were aware that the Declaration of Covenants must be recorded concurrently with the plat regarding the storm drain easement. Nancy Regelin, Attorney, spoke on behalf of Roberto Locci who owns 104 Charles Street and Mary bonanno and Ruby Gouker, who own 519 Park Street. Ms. Regelin explained that they are good neighbors and have been for a number of years, and when Mr. Locci decided to put his house on the market, they decided to do the plats and then ask for the variance. There would be no additional land given to other neighbors. Ms. Regelin noted that the hardship is that there is no opportunity for them to acquire additional land any other way. The remainder of Mr. Locci’s lot, which has sheds and other accessories would be the Park Road property’s backyard and would not diminish the lot for the Charles Street property. They are doing this as friends. Because the City Code has this unusual R-60 lots, they decided to submit the plats and ask for the variance for the width of the lots, which are not 50 feet since the 1940s when these properties were originally platted. There is no additional land to get from any other property owner because they are all 50 feet wide and would render them nonconforming. Ms. Regelin said that they did write a covenant and is ready to be executed and recorded concurrent with the plat. Commissioner Hill asked staff if there was an accidental destruction on half the property, the owners could not rebuild on a nonconforming lot. Ms. Hall replied that the owners could rebuild on the Park Road property, but they could not rebuild on the Charles Street property because it is not a record lot that appears on the platted subdivision. Commissioner Hill moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve Final Record Plat PLT2006-00463, per staff recommendations. Commissioner Hill stated that Ms. Regelin made the findings that hardship does exist regarding the nonconforming nature of these lots and the opportunity to make them conforming with the constraints on building and replacing structures as nonconforming uses. That it would be substantial justice that there is no opportunity to conform here and that providing for this conformance is creative but still within the spirit of what the ordinance says. The third finding regarding health, safety and welfare are existing conditions, the Commission has heard no testimony complaining that health, safety, and welfare is in danger and is not contrary to the Ordinance because there is a specific clause that accommodates undersized lots. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. Final Record Plat PLT2006-00465, Davor Kapelina – for a resubdivsion of Lots 9 and 10, Block 4, Rockville Park to create a single lot of 10,870 square feet in the R-60 Zone at 702 Maple Avenue. Ms. Hall presented the staff report. Ms. Hall stated that this lot is in Rockville Park subdivision and was recorded as Plat Book A, Plat 53 on April 12, 1890. At that time, all lots were created as twenty-five foot wide lots, except for the lots on the corner and they fluctuated a little bit in size. One had to buy two lots to build on. Some of the older properties in the neighborhood consist of two, twenty-five foot wide lots and a house straddling the middle lot line. It appears that this property, at one time, had at least two more lots that appeared to have been sold in the 1960s. Ms. Hall said she does not have any history on the house at this time. The house was under long time ownership until the last couple of years. The current owner of the property is weighing options on the house and he is going before the Historic District Commission on September 21, 2006 for evaluation of the existing house because the demolition permit has been filed. Ms. Hall explained that it makes a lot of sense to record this lot into a single lot. The twenty-five foot lot that is part of this property is of no value without it being connected with another lot. Commissioner Hill stated that this is large lot for an R-60 development. Is there any opportunity here to build a structure incompatible with the neighborhood. Ms. Hall replied that staff does not have the authority to impose on the owners not to build a large house on the lot, but staff can ask that the house be compatible with the neighborhood. Ms. Hall noted that the lot is large, but it is triangular in size, which shrinks the building envelope to where the lot has a nice potential, but not for a very large house. Ms. So Lee-Cho, Attorney with Miller, Miller & Canby, presented the applicant’s request. She asked that the Commission remove Conditions # 2 and 3 in the staff report. She explained that, earlier today, she discussed Condition 2 in that there are no bonds that were posted and Condition 3, there is no Forest Stand Delineation because it is a single-family house. Ms. Hall clarified that there is no requirement for the Record Plat if they were to build a new house, it would be imposed upon it as part of the sediment control permit. At this point, it does not appear as though the property owner would be doing any public improvements, which one would need the bonds and permits to build a new house. The applicant does not need to comply with the Forest Stand Delineation at the record plat stage. Therefore, staff is amenable to having both conditions removed. Commissioner Ostell questioned notification sent to neighbors about the application and that the notification does not really address the proposal in detail. She asked whether there is any concept of how many people realize that a much larger house could be built on the subject property. Ms. Hall replied that one person called in and the person asked her about concern about the old house and more for the house that could be built. She explained to the person that this is just a lot; it is a clean up of an old situation, and, typically, corner lots, even if they are in an R-60 development, have about 8,000 square feet and the reason is that one looses the ability to build the same size house on the lots due to the increased setbacks that are imposed on corner lots against the street. Corner lots always appear larger, but it does not mean that they have greater development potential. This property is encumbered by the shape and has two frontages. If the property owner added onto the existing house, it would be larger than building a new house. Given that the new house would have to comply with the setback requirement where the existing house encroaches on the street. The Commission discussed the square footage and that the main concern is that the public is aware about these types of applications. Commissioner Wiener informed the Commission that the neighbors are aware of this situation as well as tonight’s meeting. She said it was discussed at the East Rockville Citizens Association meeting last night. Linda Ekizian, President of East Rockville Civic Association testified that they have questions of concern and that is this is one of the first houses built in that neighborhood. She asked that the Commission wait to decide on the lot deposition until after the Historic District Commission has reviewed this application and if the house were designated historic, there would be restrictions. Commissioner Britton inquired about the Historic District Commission process. If it is historic, does it preclude demolition of the house. Mr. Wasilak explained that it would not preclude the demolition, but demolition or any other change would have to be approved by the HDC. Typically, once a house becomes designated in Rockville, it is very difficult to get a demolition permit approved for a designated property. Commissioner Britton asked what the next step would be, if the applicant were denied a demolition permit from the HDC. Sondra also explained the process. So Lee-Cho explained the situation. Ms. Lee-Cho explained that the applicant is not a resident of Rockville, but expects to be a resident of Rockville. He bought the property and has done considerable work on the house, and before the demolition was even considered, his intent was to renovate. He put in new kitchen cabinets and considerable internal remodeling to bring up to livable standards. After going through considerable expense that his structural engineer informed him that there are issues, structurally, with the house that make it infeasible to bring it back to habitable condition and that is why owner has filed for a demolition permit. Ms. Lee-Cho stated that these lots have been in common ownership for quite some time; the corner lot is hindered by a considerable two front yard setbacks and is limited by that. Without the record replatting, they would have to come before the Commission to request a variance. They do not believe it would create a mass construction; it is not the intent of the property owner. He purchased the property with the understanding of the nature of the house, wanting to bring it back to condition. If the HDC decides that the structure must move forward and it must remain; it is intruding into the front yard setback already. Ms. Lee-Cho stated that an addition onto the existing home could create a larger home. Commissioner Ostell inquired about the square footage the owner is anticipating. Soo Lee-Cho stated that it is not the owner’s intent to have his home stick out and be so obvious in the community. Commissioner Johnson asked what the Commission’s ability is or whether it would be appropriate for the Commission to consider the proposed structures that would be built on the lots. Ms. Block explained that this is not coming before the Commission in conjunction with a development. This is just a straight subdivision and unless the Commission can tie this to one of the findings, she does not see a basis for it. Ms. Hall stated that action must be taken on the plat and that means the Commission must either approve it or deny it. In order to deny this application, the Commission must find that it does not need the criteria and one of the other issues that it has gone longer than the normal 30 days. She said she did receive a waiver to put this application on the next meeting agenda. Ms. Hall stated that she would have liked to see this go through the HDC before the Planning Commission. This is a subdivision, it complies or it does not comply. Ms. Block reviewed the findings. Commissioner Hill said he felt that this is a reasonable request. The Commission agreed. He stated that this is an opportunity to combine an otherwise unbuildable lot with buildable area. While some opportunity to than build an over-sized structure may exist, denying this platting as a defensive measure against that would be a misuse of the recordation process. Commissioner Holtz moved, seconded by Commissioner Medearis to approve Final Record Plat PLT2006-00465, Davor Kapelina with Conditions 1 and 4. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. RECOMMENDATION TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL Zoning Text Amendment TXT2005-00217, Miller, Miller and Canby – for modifications to the Residential Townhouse (RTH) Special Development Procedure. Mr. Wasilak stated that this is a modification to the RTH text amendment that was before the Commission in May 2006, which recommended denial to the Mayor and Council. The situation has changed. There is a new applicant, who is proposing the modifications to the RTH, and who is representing the owner of the WINX property. Ms. Torma presented the staff report. She went over the background and changes from the previous text amendment. Ms. Torma stated that changes made from the previous meeting are: the height, not exceed 35 feet; stacked townhouses have been deleted including the definition; size of development be increased above 10-acres of the Town Center area since the WINX and Fleet Street projects do not need it; setbacks for internal roads – Staff is recommending that during the Exploratory Application stage that the Mayor and Council be permitted to reduce the front setback to 18 feet from any newly created public right-of-way in the RTH developments. The 18-foot distance would permit a reasonable setback and allow a driveway in the area to be used for required parking; inclusion of new one-family detached dwellings; 12 foot minimum separation between townhouse groups; all dwellings must have a yard; permitted in the I-1 and one-family detached, if recommended by the Master Plan; permitted, if a property is adjacent to I-2 and I-3 Zoning Districts and one-family detached dwellings, a property may qualify; allow publicly-owned operated buildings and uses; reduce setback from the abutting right-of-way for attached dwelling units; allow the Mayor and Council to recommend the initial application that the attached dwelling be adjacent to potential RTH site when recommended by the Master Plan; regulations for new one family detached dwellings such as lot area (6,000 square feet); lot coverage (not exceed 40% of the lot area); minimum front yard setback (25 feet from abutting public street right-of-way line); rear yards shall be a minimum of 10 feet; a side yard shall be a minimum of six feet; all accessory buildings must be located in the rear yard; the Mayor and Council in approving an exploratory application may authorize an increase in the MPDUs; a minimum lot width at the front setback line shall be 50 feet and a minimum lot width at the front lot line shall be 35 feet; and reduction of public street right-of-way lines may be reduced in order to promote a pedestrian oriented streetscape provided that it meet requirements. The Commission had questions and discussed concerns regarding adjacent uses being noxious or hazardous, public health and safety issues regarding industrial uses, reduction of front and rear yard setbacks, setbacks from the street, adequate on-street parking, protection of public sidewalks and pedestrian walk-ways, accessory structures in rear yards, safety access to rear yards, fire safety standards, clustering of townhouses and fire safety, a need for adequate public open space on the site, uses permitted in a residential townhouse development, 40% landscaping requirement over the entire site, and a buffer between adjacent uses. Discussion ensued regarding why this text amendment is being reviewed in light of the fact that the entire Zoning Ordinance is currently under review. The Commission questioned the properties that RTH could apply to in the City. Soo Lee-Cho, Attorney, presented the new applicant’s request. She stated that the original applicant has withdrawn from the project. They are asking the Commission to take what was originally intended in the RTH to allow it to apply to a particular site. The community has been asking for this for a number of years and at one point, the City had approached the property owner and suggested this use. The County’s master plan also suggests a residential use upon annexation into the City. It has been contemplated and dreamed of for a long time and they would like to move it forward. They would like the Commission to look at the amenities issue and other issues. Ms. Lee-Cho stated that they have to meet a deadline of the legislation, which goes into effect 1 January 2007. The new changes, they believe, address the concerns of the Commission raised at the last meeting. The stacked townhouses are gone as well as the height issue. The next agenda item is not as dense. Ms. Lee-Cho discussed the issue of the rear yard and accessory structures. She said they would like to suggest precluding an accessory structure on a 10-foot rear yard. She also commented on the 40% landscaped area. For other zones in the existing Zoning Ordinance, it does set forth a percentage and leaves it open because for the very fact that there are so many potentially conflicting requirements such as the Forestation requirement, to finding enough space to fit a stormwater facility. They still need to request offsite reforestation requirements because of the constraints of the site. She noted that flexibility could benefit the City. Ms. Lee-Cho said that setting policies or goals is fine, but they would ask for flexibility to require more. Commissioner Hill asked Ms. Lee-Cho whether all changes in this text amendment are required to accommodate the WINX proposal. Ms. Lee Cho replied that it is narrowly written. Staff’s recommendation was not specifically targeting this project. She said she would have to defer to staff on that question because they may have some thoughts on the Fleet Street project. In response to Commissioner Hill, Ms. Lee-Cho stated that when this text amendment was written with the WINX project in mind, it evolved a bit in staff’s hands and with Fleet Street. Therefore, from her perspective, the amendment was narrowly written. Mr. Wasilak stated that from staff’s perspective they look at text amendments as an opportunity to fix some things in the RTH that they noticed over the years and to look at the general affability of the RTH, not just focusing on a particular property, but how it might benefit, if modified, to achieve a type of development that has been stated in the City’s Master Plan. Staff is trying to make it work and fit it in the City’s Zoning Ordinance and not tie it to a specific site. Commissioner Hill discussed the possibility of the one-family detached homes in RTH development using the development standards for the underlying zones since the density of the RTH development may be higher than the adjacent neighborhood. Commissioner Britton stated that this is a limited area of the City and restricting it to the underlying zoning to accommodate the surrounding districts would rather destroy many of what the Commission talks about in setting up a diversity of housing. Therefore, he would be opposed to putting any restrictions to underlying zoning. Commissioner Ostell stated that what is right for this particular piece of property and the rest of the City is an issue. She noted that another way this could have done was the PRU, which would have dealt with the density issue; there would be less density and there would have been the same kind of flexibility in terms of housing types. Soo Lee-Cho stated that the applicant would like to proceed and give the residents what they want. The following citizens spoke: 1. Lucinda Hall, 210 ElizabethAvenue spoke on behalf of the Lincoln Park Civic Association. She said the Association fully approves this proposal as well as the next item on the agenda. The residential development in Lincoln Park would be compatible and preferable per recommendations included in the 1984 Lincoln Park Neighborhood Plan and they stated in the September 2005 Plan, which the Commission recommended to the Mayor and Council at its July 26, 2006 meeting. The property owner has been in contact with the L.P.C.A., and residents since the beginning of this process and he has kept them abreast of his plans for the property. In addition, the owner has received a written support from several property owners on Ashley Avenue, which does abut the WINX property. It is not the community’s desire to have the WINX property or other adjacent properties to Lincoln Park zoned industrial. Ms. Hall urged the approval of both items. They know that one of the Commissioners mentioned hazardous concerns and they know there have been issues brought forth from owners of utility companies saying that they do not approve the addition of hazardous concerns in their plan. She stated that pipelines and other utility companies throughout the city and that the existence of facilities has not impeded construction of several properties and developments in Lincoln Park and throughout the City including the Fitz Condominiums, Legacy at Lincoln Park, residential development in Twinbrook or development in Woodley or College Gardens. 2. Gail Koenig, 227 Ashley Avenue (across the WINX property) stated that she was in support of the text amendment. The Commission has had public hearings on the WINX property previously and totally ignored what the public, in general, and the residents of the adjacent areas, in particular, want for that property. Unfortunately, the Commission is still ignoring what the residents want. They have submitted letters to the Commission for the last three years requesting the Commission approve the residential project that is being proposed by Mr. Reiver. She said that Mr. Reiver, owner of WINX property has 100% support from the residents. Please consider those who are really affected by industrial. 3. Edith Gordon, 211 Ashley Avenue stated that she lives across the street from the WINX property. She said that they need the Commission’s approval. They want residential homes on the WINX property. Commissioner Ostell stated that all the Commissioners have listened to the residents. She can understand 100% why people living on Ashley Avenue and Lincoln Park want residential there and do not want industrial across the street from them. Right now, they have trees and open space there. Personally, she would like to see trees and open space on that property as a buffer. She noted that residential needs a buffer from industrial and that is the problem. If they could make all that a park or one row of houses with green space behind them, it would be far more preferable than this proposal. The problem that she does have is that she is hearing the residents’ concerns about what it is like to live next to industrial and the way the problem is being solved, is by moving the problem to the other side of the WINX property where a new homeowner is going to be even closer to the industrial area. Commissioner Ostell noted that she has to listen, not only to the people who live there now, but part of what the Commission has to do is to think about the people who are going to be living in the new houses, who are not here to speak up. The Commission needs to find a balance in this. She stated that the townhouses would be located right near the industrial area. She would like to have a parkland as a buffer. Lincoln Park does deserve a decent buffer. Commissioner Hill stated that the Commission is talking about changing the zoning ordinance and that zoning ordinance will apply to the entire city. The Commission has to consider, not just people who may live on that property, but the applicability for all existing residents in the City. That is one aspect causing the Commission’s caution. Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Wiener to recommend approval of Zoning Text Amendment TXT2005-00217, Miller, Miller and Canby to the Mayor and Council per staff recommendations and subject to the following conditions: 1) that there be no front yard setbacks be such that there are no encroachments on sidewalks and tree lawns; 2) that there be imposed or required as part of the 40% landscape area and that there be a portion set aside for recreational open space based on the number of units and; 3) that there be no accessory structures in the rear yard where a minimum rear yard is provided that are 10 feet. Commissioner Medearis recommended modifications to the staff recommended RTH Text Amendment regarding public health and safety in conjunction with this development. She said she does not trust that the public process would require, in addition to it being recommended in the Plan, that it would be specifically determined by the Planning staff to be protective of future RTH residents. She said she does not believe the safety issues, while they have been identified, have been fully evaluated by staff and she does not want it to be minimized. Commissioner Johnson stated that, as part of the recommendation to the Mayor and Council, make an amendment to that footnote to the effect “that if recommended in the Plan, it be sufficiently protective of public health”. Mr. Wasilak stated that the Mayor and Council would also be making a finding on transitional use, so, there could be a conflict. Commissioner Holtz noted that this would be more appropriate in the next application that is before them this evening. Commissioner Hill offered three recommendations: 1) Make a recommendation to consider changing name of this Ordinance, if allowing non-residential uses in an underlying overlay; 2) That the Commission suggest that this be drawn as narrowly as possible to applicable sites contemplated and not more broadly applicable across the City, and 3) Recommend that the underlying zoning should apply as the standard for single-family detached houses in these overlays as opposed to the R-60 zoning applied across all zones. Commissioner Johnson amended his motion to add all but Commissioner Hill’s last recommendation. After discussion of the conditions, Commissioner Johnson moved with the modifications that he made and those added to by Commissioners Medearis and Hill. Soo Lee-Cho addressed Commissioner Medearis’ point in that the only comment she would have is to include that in the initial application chart. It is extremely burdensome only in that that issue would not be vetted through the process. The purpose of this Table is just the initial determination for the applicant to move into the Exploratory phase. She believes it would be more appropriate when staff fully analyzes the environmental issues, compatibility issues and other things that would come up and be raised. Therefore, she asked that the Commission require the applicant to obtain an environmental consultant that met the safety issues and pre-vetted a site that really is premature. Commissioner Johnson stated that the Commission would not approve any particular plan unless it is protected. Mr. Wasilak stated that Page 22 in the staff report, under Section 25-625 in the Rockville City Code, under Required findings of the Council on exploratory application, does speak to the health and safety of those who will reside or work in the community. Commissioner Johnson stated that he would move to recommend approval of the proposed Text Amendment to the Mayor and Council with the following modifications. Commissioner Ostell listed the five conditions: 1) that front yard setbacks not allow for encroachments into the sidewalks or tree lawn areas; 2) that recreational open space be required as part of the minimum landscaped areas; 3) that no accessory structure be permitted where the minimum rear yard depth is provided; 4) that the Mayor and Council consider a new name to reflect the actual type of development that could occur in the modified RTH developments; 5) that public safety be included in the required findings for the Exploratory Application; and 6) that the RTH amendment be narrowly written to only allow development of properties likely to do so under the modified provisions and reduce overall applicability in the City. Commissioner Holtz noted that this is a text amendment that will change a part of the Zoning Ordinance at the same time as the City is in the process of reviewing the entire Zoning Ordinance. Consequently, while he does hope that a favorable resolution can be worked out for the benefit of Lincoln Park and he is generally not against something going forward for the WINX property, he is not going to vote in favor of the text amendment before the Zoning Review Commission has an opportunity to review that part of the Zoning Ordinance that the applicant seeks to amend in the context of the entire Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Ostell stated that, if this text amendment is approved by the Mayor and Council, RORZOR is still going on and this may very well be rewritten before anybody files a RTH anywhere in the City. The motion passed on a vote of 5-2 with Commissioners Holtz and Hill voted nay. Residential Townhouse Initial Application RTH2005-00019, Westmore Development LLC – for Initial Application approval of a RTH development at 950 North Stonestreet Avenue, known as the WINX property. Mr. Wasilak introduced the Initial Application. He informed the Commission that this application requires a very narrow finding in that it meets that transitional use required by the Zoning Ordinance. This would allow the applicant to go to the next stage, which is the Exploratory phase. Ms. Torma presented staff report. Ms. Torma stated that the proposed plan consists of 9.44 acres, which makes it under the 10-acre requirement. Adjacent uses are single-family detached, industrial, CSX railroad tracks, and Metro. The applicant is proposing to annex the property into the City under the R-60 Zone. They are proposing 13 new single-family detached homes facing Ashley Avenue and 65 new townhouses throughout the development of which 10 of the townhouses would be MPDUs. They are proposing a large open space between the townhouses and the single-family homes, 23 visitor parking spaces, public roads and on-street parking on one side of the internal road the applicant would be creating. The applicant is proposing a 15-foot landscape buffer adjacent to industrial, dedicated right-of-way along Ashley Avenue and Westmore Avenue and a one-acre tree save area close to the railroad tracks. In addition, there will be two stormwater ponds, one for control and one for quality. Staff is recommending approval of this application as a transitional site. This is an improved design that would benefit Lincoln Park neighborhood and the people who live there. The applicant is providing space that is more open, a larger buffer and public roads, which would help insuring that there would not be as much burden on the homeowners. The applicant has improved the visitor space parking and there is less density than previously proposed. Commissioner Holtz commented that one of the recommendations that were added to the recommendation to the Mayor and Council has to do with public safety. The only thing he sees in the staff report is that the LEPC should be fully engaged in any redevelopment of the property. Commissioner Holtz stated that for the Commission to make the finding required for the initial application, given the additional five recommendations, the Commission needs something more concrete that lets the Commission know that it meets the change that they made in the recommendation regarding health. Commissioner Johnson stated that that finding has to be made in the exploratory phase. In response to Commissioner Johnson, Mr. Wasilak explained that it is the type of action is approved by the exploratory application. Mr. Wasilak recommended that townhouses meet the transition zone. Commissioner Ostell asked staff if they had talked to LEPC. Mr. Wasilak replied that he had and explained. Soo Le Cho, Attorney, presented the applicant’s request. Robert Reiver, applicant and owner of the WINX property testified that the Commission’s concern about safety is high on his list too. Mr. Reiver stated that on July 16, 2006, he delivered a letter to his engineer requesting his engagement to fully analyze the residential development of this property and he is in the process of doing this. He said he that when he was approached 3.5 years ago by the City Manager to development this property for residential, he really tried to put himself into the shoes of the people living across the street and he is trying very hard to accomplish an economically feasible objective that will fit this particular property. He noted that staff and his engineer have been working around the clock in getting everything done to move forward in order to fit that timeframe. In response to Commissioner Holtz, Mr. Reiver stated that if the property is not annexed and an appropriate plan is not completed by the end of this year, his application will be withdrawn. The property is going to be sold to a homebuilder, hopefully before January 1, 2007 with the plan that he is proposing or it would be sold to someone else who would use it for some form of nonresidential use. Commissioner Medearis stated that there are multiple hazards with the WINX property. Commissioner Holtz moved, seconded by Commissioner Britton to recommend to the Mayor and Council initial approval of Residential Townhouse Initial Application RTH2005-00019, Westmore Development LLC. The motion passed on a vote of 5-1-1 with Commissioner Medearis voting nay and Commissioner Hill abstaining. COMMISSION ITEM Chief of Planning’s Report Mr. Wasilak reported that the September 27 meeting agenda would be a fairly light. There seems to be an opportunity at this meeting for a briefing on telecommunications. He listed some of the application coming before the Commission. He explained that the Mayor and Council member Marcuccio and staff met with COPT and their representatives and encouraged them to go back to the drawing board and look at some additional measures that they could take to increase the buffer between their property and their potential development in King Farm. There was a major issue with the community in terms of providing additional transportation access to the site in the form of a shuttle up to the Shady Grove Metro station. Mr. Wasilak reported that Chestnut Lodge would be coming before the Commission at a future meeting. He asked whether the Commission would be interested in having a briefing at that stage because they may want to know what the resolution says at its final form. The Commission discussed the cell tower proposed for Julius West Middle School. Mr. Wasilak explained that it is subject to communication between the Mayor and Council and the Board of Appeals. The applicant wants to reverse the process and have the Board of Appeals act on the application before going before the Mayor and Council for the height waiver. Mr. Wasilak said that the Twinbrook cell tower does not need to go back to the Board of Appeals. ADJOURN After further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 9:50 pm | ||||||