| Home > Government > Boards and Commissions > Planning Commission > 2006 > Minutes > September 27, 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 27, 2006. | ||||||
| ||||||
BRIEFING Paving Material – Tom Evans of the Maryland Ready Mix Concrete Association and Promotion Council will give a briefing on new technology in pervious paving materials. Mr. Evans presented a briefing on the definition of pervious concrete material. Mr. Evans defined porous pavement as a type of traffic surface, whether it is for pedestrians or vehicles, where rainwater and runoff is allowed to pass through pavement. Basically, water passes through the pavement and recharges the ground water naturally. The pavement consists of materials of stone, sand and gravel, and cement and water. The concrete industry, in general, is aware of many opportunities for their products that support LEED initiatives. Mr. Evans mentioned some websites to obtain very valuable information about concrete products with regard to green building and pervious concrete. Mr. Evans stated that the D.C. Water Shed Protection Division and Carroll County have examples of the concrete. The D.C. Water Shed changed their zoning ordinance to allow pervious paving within the District. In Carroll County, there is an 8-acre lot that was paved with pervious concrete. Mr. Evans noted that this is more of a stormwater management concept, therefore, one has to take into consideration everything involved in stormwater management costs on projects. He discussed the benefits and true cost savings of the pervious paving material. The benefits are that the pervious pavement would cause a reduction of stormwater runoff, which is a benefit to greenery, lower ambient energy, elimination of other runoff container strategies, and more efficient land use by not having swales, etc. on the property. He encouraged design teams to take a fresh look at this new technology of pervious pavements coming into Rockville. The Commission asked questions pertaining to maintenance of pervious pavement, and whether it could be designed for bike paths, industrial places, highway shoulders, parking areas, and residential applications. They questioned the difference between pervious and impervious pavements, how large volumes of rain per hour during storms would affect the pavement, saturation in the ground under the pavement, traffic, cost of the pavement, cement paste, durability of the cement, filter underneath the pavement, removing contaminants, stormwater reduction, and building codes. Commissioner Hill asked staff if the Commission could move on this or would the City have to lobby at the County/State level to pursue this type of pavement. Ms. Block replied that this pervious pavement demonstrates that water is managed, and it could conclude that this would be an acceptable pavement to manage water runoff. She noted that there are probably some State guidelines that would be involved. The City could pursue this with Public Works to see if they are aware of it or if they would like to review the data. REVIEW AND ACTION Comprehensive Planned Development Detailed Application Amendment CPD2005-02AL1, King Farm Presbyterian Retirement Community The applicant is requesting approval for revisions to the design of the Phase I building of the 1.2 million square foot senior housing community, previously approved, at 701 King Farm Boulevard in the O-3 Zone. Ms. Torma presented the staff report. Ms. Torma presented background of Ingleside. She stated that Ingleside was approved in July 2005 for three buildings up to ten stories in height. The applicant is now asking for approval to amend one of the three buildings located along King Farm Boulevard. She stated that the height has been reduced from six and ten stories to six and seven stories. The footprint has been reduced, and a driveway has been added on the west side for loading and services. The architecture and the color of the building have changed from a red brick building with white accents at the top and bottom of the building . The proposed materials of the Phase I building is precast stone and brick masonry with a mansard roof. The mansard roof will have projecting windows and is comprised of asphalt shingles that are used to simulate slate. In addition, many of the units will have covered balconies or bay windows. Ms. Torma stated that a condition has been included in the staff report stating that the applicant would come back to the Commission when they plan to amend the other two buildings. Ms. Torma stated that staff has received a letter from the King Farm Architect stating that he has approved the design, architecture and style of the building. Ms. Torma stated that at its meeting of September 18, 2006, the Mayor and Council thought the building to be too institutional and that the façade had no diversity. The roofing materials were not of a high quality and that the street level experience was not inviting. They suggested that it be setback further from street or landscaped heavily. Ms. Torma noted that there is a ten-foot build-to line in King Farm. They are not building to the build-to line; they are building further back because there is a gas easement that runs across the front of the property that makes it impossible to build there. Therefore, the applicant has requested a waiver from the King Farm Architect and has received it. Ms. Torma noted that there have been several changes to the conditions in the staff report. Many of the conditions were clarifications. Condition 4 was original to obtain a floodplain variance and not the Condition states “if it would be needed.” Condition 6 – the applicant is not certain they would have a well or public water. Condition 8 – the stormwater concept was revised to reflect the phasing of the development. It has a new date and a new letter. Condition 11 – Staff removed DPW permits. She explained that people submit building permits before the submit signature sets or they submit signature sets at the same time. Meanwhile, staff has the building permit plans being reviewed and the signature sets must match the detailed engineering, which should also match the building permits. Staff would like to have the building permits be submitted after the signature sets are approved. Ms. Torma stated that she believes the applicant not in agreement with this condition. Condition 16a. v. was added to clarify where the FCP is for the tree protection around the outside. Condition 17 – would be deleted. Area 19 is actually covered in the detailed application approval (F4) and Area 17 would be in a condition for detailed application (F7 and F8), which the Commission would be reviewing in November. Condition 22 – The applicant wanted clarification that Phases 2A and 2B, the loading pedestrian access and stormwater management would be reevaluated at that time. Commissioner Britton asked for clarification regarding the history of the site. Ms. Torma clarified that three office buildings were approved for this site and then amended for a senior citizen project in 2005. One of these buildings is before the Commission tonight. The other two buildings will be coming forward for changes in the future. Ms. Torma explained that the application before the Commission this evening is Phase I. Commissioner Britton inquired why this is coming before the Commission in bits and pieces in lieu of approving the entire project. Commissioner Holtz stated that he shares Commissioner Britton’s concern because when the Commission approved the plan, originally, they saw everything in total. Ms. Torma explained that the other two phases would come back before the Commission and they could change. Commissioner Ostell questioned whether the units remain the same. Ms. Torma replied that the ten-story portion was very small. Only one portion was ten stories and the remainder of the building was six stories. Now, the building will have a small portion with six stories and the majority with seven stories. It will be the same height in all rather than a varied height. The Commission presented questions regarding the floodplain area, stormwater runoff, and public water on the site. Barbara Sears, Attorney, presented the applicant’s request. Ms. Sears reviewed the background of the first detailed application. Ms. Sears stated that the overall project is a continuing care retirement community. Ingleside has been a charitable nonprofit institution providing affordable senior housing since 1906. They have two major facilities; one is in D.C. and one in Virginia. The overall project was first started as an amendment to the concept plan for the CPD and the Mayor and Council granted it in March 2005. It did not approve any specific buildings, it agreed that at this location, there could be a substitution of up to 1.2 million of square feet of approved office for senior housing uses. Those would be determined as the applicant came forward with various detailed applications. In September 2006, Ingleside did present a detailed application for three phases; that included an overall 529 independent units, 53 assisted living units and 68 nursing beds. There would be three levels of service and people would be helped throughout their various stages of need. They also developed a special program called Affordable Senior Housing Program to meet the intent and spirit of the MDPU law, and that was approved as part of the concept plan. This would include a fund to help reduce monthly fees and a charitable fund that would help to subsidize to reduce monthly fees as well as a reduction of some of the fees to move in facility. Ms. Sears pointed out the location of the Ingleside parcel. At this point, in Phase I, there are 250 independent living units, 47 assisted units and 36 nursing units. Reverend Bob Bell, President of Ingleside at King Farm talked about the history of Ingleside. Reverend Bell stated that throughout several studies that were done in Montgomery County that revealed a need for this type of community. A continuing care retirement community, independent living, assisted living and nursing long-term health care, and Alzheimer’s care on one campus is one way to retire and is one option among many. This has been very successful in places where they have their facilities. The building is 60% reserved. Reverend Bell stated that they came here knowing that they need to do something that the Mayor and Council would like as well as the Planning Commission and they are also working to obtain approval of this project from the Maryland Office on Aging as a senior living component that has everything from independent living to certified healthcare nursing beds. This has been sort of a compromise of bringing everybody together type of project, but the project has been very well received; it has marketed much better than any of these communities nationwide. They are ready to move ahead. The changes are so that they can serve the citizens in Rockville. Reverend Bell explained why the changes have been made. They are in response to what the senior really want and like. He noted that they are in an area of office buildings of six to seven story buildings that are very concrete and block type buildings and King Farm, itself, is a very downtown residential. So, they really want to make their building residential with flairs. They wanted the building to fit into King Farm and responded to what the seniors were looking for. So, they downsized the building. They have also adjusted things by putting a kitchen and a loading dock area towards the office buildings and not towards the community. That is why they had to come back before the Commission. Reverend Bell said they worked with staff and as a result, another road was created for a very elaborate fire access. The changes are in response to the seniors and staff. He also explained that they are now building the first 250 units, the project can stand alone and there will be green space there and that could be all that eventually goes there. If more seniors in Rockville respond and they want to move on to Phases II and III, they will respond that way and put together the plans and then come back before the Commission. Any hesitation seen is because this is a grass roots senior oriented nonprofit project. Glen Tipten Senior Vice President with CSD Architects presented the design changes. He explained that with the height change, the average unit size slightly increased in size. They will be making the sidewalk along King Farm Boulevard pedestrian friendly, softening the grading with base plantings along the edge of the sidewalks. Mr. Tipten spoke about the mansard roof, windows, balconies, building materials, and the character to the entry to the courtyard. Commissioner Holtz questioned if the market does not warrant it, would Phases II and III be built. Ms. Torma explained that if they wanted to convert those buildings back to office, they would have to come back before the Commission with an amendment. Larry Frank, Community Architect commented on some of the changes. He stated that the ten-foot gas line easement forces the building to be put back. He spoke about the character of the building. He said the façade is highly articulated. He also commented on the windows, quality of the materials proposed for the building, and the mansard roof as an upgrade. Ms. Sears commented on phasing. Revised Phase I. She explained that it would be best to come back to finalize the detail on the architecture after they had built Phase I and knew how people responded. Many of the facilities are going to be built up front, but there will be more independent living units, a few more assisted living units as well as skilled nursing units. The nursing component will be in Phase I. They will refine the architecture of the buildings. Ms. Sears said that the other comment is that Condition 11 that the building permits may only be issued after the approval of the signature sets. She noted that what they would like to do is that because construction costs are rising at incredible rates, the general manager for the construction project has talked to staff and they were willing to accept the permits and start the review on a lot of issues and that would save the applicant a couple of months while the other plans are being reviewed. The protection would be that no permit would be issued until the signature set is approved. The Commission further discussed the first level of the building and whether it would accommodate commercial space, the fire access, whether benches would be placed in the courtyard. Commissioner Holtz moved, seconded by Commissioner Britton to approve Comprehensive Planned Development Detailed Application Amendment CPD2005-02AL1, King Farm Presbyterian Retirement Community per staff conditions as modified including the recent modification to Condition 11 and the renumbering of the remaining conditions with the elimination of Condition 17. The motion passed unanimously. RECOMMENDATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS Special Exception Application SPX2006-00366, Sovereign Bank The applicant is requesting approval for the conversion of restaurant space to a drive-through bank branch in the I-3 Zone at the Red Roof Inn, 16001 Shady Grove Road. Mr. Chasten presented the staff report. Mr. Chasten stated that the property contains two two-story buildings that collectively contain 188 guest rooms. A third building structure, which comprises the hotel guest check-in/check-out office component along with the remaining 4,000 square foot portion of the building, which is subject to the applicant’s special exception request. According to available city records, the site has a total of 236 surface parking spaces. Site surface parking facilities are located primarily in the front, side, and rear yard areas of the site. Mr. Chasten stated that the applicant proposes to fully renovate the existing 4,000 square foot former restaurant space to accommodate its branch ban king operations. The renovated facility, once completed, would consist of administrative office space, bank lobby, customer waiting area, training and break rooms, restrooms, and other miscellaneous support space. The exterior façade of the building would be both renovated and improved to accommodate the proposed customer drive-thru teller windows. While the building’s exterior will be improved, the building will not be expanded, except for the installation of the drive-thru canopy, which shelters the drive-thru ATM facility and bank teller support equipment, which enables customers to interact with indoor bank personnel while conducting transactions. Heather Dlhopolsky, Attorney, presented the applicant’s request. She stated that the applicant agrees with conditions in the staff report. Carl Wilson, Project Manager with the Traffic Group explained the stacking lanes and turns into and out of the site. James King, CAS Engineering, explained the turns in and out of the site. Nazar Saleh, Civil Engineer II explained the traffic circulation and the turn lanes. The Commission discussed concerns regarding current status and design of the left turn lane, allowing westbound traffic to access the site via the intersection of Shady Grove Road and Comprint Court, onsite vehicular circulation, access to proposed parking facilities and customer drive-thru teller lanes, and the importance of site signage to direct banking customers to bank facilities and/or to hotel services and amenities. COMMISSION ITEM New Business Commissioner Ostell pointed out that she received a card from Peerless Rockville about a Recent Past conference on Saturday, October 7. She said that Commissioner Hill would be speaking at the conference. Mr. Wasilak noted that the conference will be held in the Mayor and Council Chambers. Chief of Planning’s Report Mr. Wasilak reported that the Commission’s next meeting is on October 11 and there will be two briefings; Telecommunications and the Chestnut Lodge detailed application. Mr. Wasilak stated that several items are coming up for October 25 and November 1 meetings. The meeting schedule will then change to the first and third week of the month. Minutes Commissioner Hill moved, seconded by Commissioner Wiener to approve the minutes of Meeting No. 12-06 as amended. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0-2 with Commissioners Britton and Johnson abstaining. Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Holtz to approve the minutes of Meeting No. 15-06 as amended. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0-3 with Commissioner Hill, Britton and Wiener abstaining. Commissioner Holtz moved, seconded by Commissioner Wiener to approve the minutes of Meeting No. 16-06 as amended. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURN After further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 8:55 pm | ||||||