| Home > Government > Boards and Commissions > Planning Commission > 2006 > Minutes > October 25, 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, October 25, 2006. | ||||||
| ||||||
Commissioner Ostell announced that the Julius West monopole application is not on the agenda tonight. The application has been tentatively rescheduled for November 15, 2006. Commissioner Ostell apologized for the last minute change on the agenda. Planned Residential Unit Detailed Application PRU2006-0022A, Chestnut Lodge The applicant is requesting approval of 36 new single family homes, the retention of two existing single-family homes and construction of seven condominium units, and the construction phasing plan of the redevelopment of the former Chestnut Lodge property at 500 West Montgomery Avenue. Ms. Torma presented the staff report. Ms. Torma presented the highlights of the Mayor and Council’s approval of the Exploratory application as well as the Resolution. Ms. Torma stated that the plan is approved for 36 new single-family detached homes. The Main Lodge will be converted into seven condominiums and the renovation of Little Lodge will be a single family detached home while the reconstructed Stable and Icehouse will be accessory structures to it. The Rose Hill Barn will also be converted to an accessory structure for one of the new single-family detached homes. The condition of approval was based on the reconstruction and the rehabilitation of the historic structures. She presented a brief overview of the overall plan such as setbacks, HDC approval of historic structures, the two large tracts of land in the front portion of the site would be maintained by the HOA with covenants, right-of-ways, off-site improvements, stormwater management ponds, forest conservation, construction phasing plan, location of private utilities and decorative walls, electrical transformers, grading, installation of the landscaping in the buffers, houses on Thomas Street, use of Thomas Street for construction-related vehicles. The Three-Year Maintenance Program includes a budget along with details of the pruning of trees, equipment and safety, pesticide applications and who is qualified to do the work. The applicant will also convey Frieda’s Cottage to Peerless Rockville for use as a single-family dwelling. An emergency access would be provided from the internal road to Autumn Wind Way in Rose Hill. Fire and rescue services will only use this access point in order to enter or exit the site in case of an emergency. A future public street connection could be built in this location, however, the approval of the Rose Hill and Chestnut Lodge Homeowners Association and the City of Rockville would be required. Ms. Torma stated that the applicant is required to install the buffers that were recommended in the Comprehensive Master Plan, which was adopted in 2002 by the Mayor and Council. A 10-foot buffer would be installed along the rear portion of the property abutting the homes on Tall Grass Court, Henson Oaks Lane, and Autumn Wind Way. The Chestnut Lodge homeowners association would maintain all of the buffers. Ms. Torma stated that the applicant is required to construct three off-site improvements including sidewalks, curb and gutter, and driveway aprons along the west side of Laird Street from West Montgomery Avenue to Anderson Avenue, and along Harrison Street between Forest Avenue and North Van Buren Street. In addition, they are required to install a sidewalk, curb and gutter along the east side of Thomas Street. These improvements would be phased, according to a schedule developed for this Detailed Application. The applicant would be using the front portion of the site for stormwater management and this area would not be used for new homes. The new homes would use the two Rose Hill ponds and there was an agreement that was written and approved by the Rose Hill community along with the previous owner of Chestnut Lodge. Additional items that were approved in the Resolution are; Anything adjacent to or in the historic area must obtain the Historic District Commission’s approval. The action has gone forward; they have been approved for certificates of approval for the new homes in the community. The reconstruction of the Ice House will commence when rehabilitation of the Little Lodge and Stable are 80 percent complete and will be completed prior to issuance of the occupancy permit for the Little Lodge. The rehabilitation of the Rose Hill barn will commence with the construction of the home on that lot and will be completed prior to the issuance of the occupancy permit for the home. Ms. Torma discussed many of the questions from the October 11, 2006 Planning Commission briefing, which related mostly to drainage, water runoff, stormwater management, protection of existing trees and replacement of new trees, maintenance of the historic portion of the site, emergency access, grading differences between the homes on Tall Grass Court and the proposed homes, and landscaping of the site. The Commission discussed concerns regarding drainage of individual lots. Mr. Simoneau answered questions regarding drainage of as built lots. The Commission continued to discuss concerns and questions regarding potential damage to trees from heavy traffic from construction trucks, installation of utilities on the site, Condition 25 regarding that the application make a payment in lieu of construction of the Harrison Street improvements. Craig Simoneau, Craig Daly, and Wayne Noll and Planning staff answered the Commission’s concerns regarding the above questions. Discussion followed regarding adequate turning ratio of emergency vehicles, installation of private utilities, decorative walls and traffic signal easements, CCTV evaluation, and maintenance of Bullards Circle, and retrofitting of the stormwater ponds on the site. Soo Le-Cho, Attorney, presented the applicant’s request. Scott Allen with Allen Associates Architects presented the architectural design. Mr. Allen stated that there are five distinct floor plan models. All of them have been designed in the Victorian style. He said he and his firm are responsible for all of the new homes in the back half of the Chestnut Lodge property. Mr. Allen said that all of the homes are two-story homes with wrap-a-round porches or extended porches across the front of the elevation; they all have detached two car garages, which are located in the rear part of all the lots behind the homes. Dan Pino, Civil Engineer, discussed the drainage issue of rear yards on Tall Grass Court. He presented an exhibit of the site and answered questions regarding grading and saving trees. Commissioner Medearis inquired about which lots would have the proposed dry wells and how they relate to other drainage management systems on the site. Mr. Pino explained that there is a certain volume of water that is required to recharge the ground water and that is what the dry wells do. Commissioner Medearis questioned which lots would have dry wells. Mr. Pino explained that there is a large dry well under Parcel C in the park and that would serve several lots. Mr. Pino continued to address the transitional grading on two homes located adjacent to the Tall Grass Court homes. Morty Levine and Rob Baker, Chestnut Lodge informed the Commission that this is an infill site. They had to create this site in the center of the donut and make it meet city standards. The drainage away from the houses, making sure the houses were marketable, and address the tree save area. They put on a power point presentation pointing out several other developments in Rockville as well as other cities showing different grades, landscape treatments and what the applicant intends to do on the subject site to mitigate the grade differences, screening of other houses with landscaping, design of houses, decorative stone walls, and hiding homes with higher elevations. Commissioner Britton inquired whether the trees located between lots 1 and 17 would be preserved. Mr. Baker replied that they do have some improvements in those areas such as a storm drains that need to be installed. He noted that, with the help of their arborist and the City Forester, established a clearing and grading line to prune and protect the trees and they will do all they can to stay out of that area to save those trees. There would also be tree protection fences. Mr. Baker said that they would not grade in that area. Don Zimar, Arborist said that nature can sometimes fool them, but they would replace those trees that die. Soo Le-Cho concluded her presentation. She said she has a minor modification of Condition 43. All other condition are acceptable to the applicant as proposed by staff in the staff report. Commissioner Ostell stated that this plan is quite different from the first plan. The difference between the back and the top of houses is still about 46 to 56 feet, which is a lot. She asked what else could be done in the buffer. Ms. Le-Cho replied that their intent of presenting what they have presented tonight was to show the Commission that they believe they have done all that could be done. Molly Graves, Architect discussed the plant sizes and plant spacing and the primary concern was buffering. She discussed the caliper of trees, and species of trees. Commissioner Ostell stated that residents living near muddy construction for two or three years is not good. There needs to be plantings to buffer it. Mr. Zimar stated that that is impossible. The Commission and applicant representatives discussed what could be done to buffer the construction from existing houses. Ms. Graves stated that the trees would have to have been planted five to ten years ago to have an established buffer. Discussion ensued regarding watering of trees if planted to buffer the residents from the construction site. Mr. Levine stated that they would sit down with the arborist and figure something out to minimize the impact. Commissioner Ostell asked for a condition to fill in lower wall. Ms. Le-Cho asked staff to determine whether it would be feasible. Ms. Graves stated that it would be very helpful to have some guidance on type of screening. The Commission further discussed ways to buffer the residents from the construction for two to three years. The following citizens testified. 1. Paul Newman, President of Thirty Oaks HOA commented the Thirty Oaks development was approved without plans for future access across the Chestnut Lodge property. He said there is no pedestrian access through the park into Thirty Oaks, but no pedestrian access from Thirty Oaks into the rest of Chestnut Lodge property. Mr. Newman said that was unfortunate because it means that pedestrians are using a path are looking for an access out from Thirty Oaks, perhaps to Julius West E. S. or Richard Montgomery H.S. or the bike path on Falls Road. They are cutting through private property. This is a concern. Mr. Newman stated that residents at 10, 11, and 12 Henson Oak Lane have very limited access to this property. He requested the developer build a buffer to protect them from Chestnut Lodge or other users such as a fence between two properties would be reasonable. Mr. Newman would like to reduce pedestrian cut-through to their properties. He noted that people walk through his yard as well as his neighbor’s yard. 2. Patrica Woodward, President of WECA stated that general membership voted in favor of this development. During process, there were two meetings at the senior center and she heard it was a positive acceptance of this development. Ms. Woodward stated that they want this to be the crown jewel of the West End. 3. Randall Smith, resident of Rose Hill said he has just moved here. He noted that the blockage of site line through Tall Grass Court onto the construction site, which the Commission pointed out, could be there for years. He suggested there be negotiations between the property owner and staff as to what this should look like and how it should be done. He said the existing homeowners all have water in their back yards and they should be involved in the matter regarding plantings to buffer the construction area from the residents. Mr. Smith stated his concern about the road to connecting the two facilities. He said that over 90% of the Rose Hill residents signed a petition that they do not wish a road to go in there. He then heard staff say there is an emergency road that could be upgraded. The Rose Hill residents do not want it to be a road by an overwhelming majority. They want to keep it as an emergency access way. 4. Marian Hull, 529 Brent Road stated that she has experienced the development of Thirty Oaks by the Elm Street developers and there were definite problems as the Commission is addressing this evening. There was a buffer between her property and the western edge of Elm Street, which involved a tree planting area and it occurred during a rather severe summer drought and there was absolutely no watering of the trees and they died. They put in three successions of new trees in many instances. Commissioner Ostell pointed out to staff, that on the Rose Hill approval there was a condition that the line of trees next to the storm pond was supposed to stay. She asked if staff would have any objection if the Commission were to put in a condition just reiterating the Rose Hill condition. Ms. Torma stated that Condition 44 that states, “the applicant will replant any landscaping around Bullards Pond and Falls Pond that is damaged due to the retrofit of the ponds.” Commissioner Ostell replied that the Rose Hill condition was different; this was an existing bamboo tree buffer that was never touched during construction. Commissioner Hill inquired whether putting a fence up between Thirty Oaks and Chestnut Lodge would impact in a negative way the tree area they are trying to preserve. Mr. Noll explained that they would have to evaluate where the posts would go and where the fence would go because there are many existing trees they want to preserve and, certainly, the trees would provide somewhat of a barrier themselves. There would be a bit of concern about that matter, but they would have to evaluate that at the Forest Conservation Plan approval process. Commissioner Britton recommended a condition to preserve trees between Lots 1 and Lot 17 and to maintain the integrity of the trees and replace them. Mr. Noll explained that there is a significant tree replacement calculation, but it could be five or ten years down the line before these trees would show signs of decline. Mr. Levine said at one of the meetings there was a provision in the HOA documentation that the developer prepare a packet to hand out to every homeowner so when a homeowner buys a house, he would know what his obligations are from reading the summary sheet. Ms. Block stated that that would be with respect to easements and covenants. She noted that they are talking about trees that are not in an easement area. She informed Mr. Levin that he would have to add to the covenants that those trees must be replaced if they die. Soo Le-Cho expressed concern if it would take eight or so years for those trees to die. She said she is not quite sure at what point the Commission would release the developer of his responsibility for replanting. There could be many intervening factors to cause the death of a tree. She said she would fully agree that if trees should die during the construction phase then, of course, they would replace the trees. Ms. Le-Cho said she is concerned that once the lot is turned over to private ownership and those trees are clearly outside of the HOA jurisdiction, how they would enforce it after homes are built. Ms. Block suggested adding four trees to the HOA buffer area. Commissioner Hill stated that this is intended to be part of the City; it is not intended to be a private enclave. He said he believes it needs to be very clearly stated that the Commission has no intention of setting this up as a private enclave area. Commissioner Hill pointed out as an example that a RTH development in the City within the last ten years was supposed to have a pocket park in it, and when the HOA took over, they basically came in and petitioned to have the pocket park eliminated on the argument that it was a nuisance to them because the public was using the pocket park. Commissioner Hill said he wants to make sure that it is clearly stated in the record that there is no intention to support or tolerate that change in the future. Ms. Block stated that even if there was a public right-of-way people could petition for abandonment. It is not a gated community. Commissioner Hill asked if the applicant was amenable of putting fences up across the boundary. Ms. Le-Cho replied that that was considered by the Mayor and Council and well as the HDC during the Exploratory stage. The HDC did not want a fence along the historic boundary line. Commissioner Ostell inquired about the access road and asked whether the Commission had any say over that. Ms. Block explained that the Resolution states that it is an emergency access and only if the neighboring development and the Chestnut Lodge development agree than it would be dedicated to the City. Ms. Le-Cho asked that one word be inserted in Condition 43 – that the word “residential” be placed after the word No in the second sentence. Commissioner Hill pointed out his concern regarding the contents of Condition 25. He said he was concerned regarding the looseness of the impact of Beall Avenue. In this development and questions whether this amounts to an adequate logical nexus. Commissioner Ostell stated that there is a real lack of sidewalks in that area. Commissioner Britton stated that he does not have a problem with the lack of direct connection. He feels that there lots of infrastructure improvements that a developer can contribute to, particularly, in lieu of something that does have the direct connection. He would keep Condition 25 and if language were a concern, he would add something for nearby infrastructure improvements. Ms. Torma suggested that the Commission limit it to the Planning Area 4, which is the West End area. Ms. Block stated that, to the extent that these conditions referred to specific lot numbers, when the Plat comes before the Commission, they would realize the lot numbers have changed. Ms. Le-Cho stated that before the HDC they received specific certificate of approvals for those lots on the southeast of the property that are within the Rose Hill Falls historic district. Commissioner Holtz moved, seconded by Commissioner Wiener to approve Planned Residential Unit Detailed Application PRU2006-0022A, Chestnut Lodge with conditions that have been discussed that shall include working with the City and the residents in Tall Grass Court to create some sort of a buffer in the early stages of the development, the easement on the trees and protection of trees on Lot 21. Condition 25 to include the words “Planning Area 4”, and Condition 43 to include the word “residential” after the word No in the second sentence, and including in language in Condition 44 a sentence to the effect that the existing tree and bamboo area between Bullard Park and Falls Pond remains undisturbed. Ms. Torma asked that the motion be amended to include that the architectural designs must come back to the Commission. Commissioner Holtz accepted the amendment to his motion. The motion passed unanimously. COMMISSION ITEMS Chief of Planning Report Mr. Wasilak stated that the Mayor and Council did not act on the Moratorium this Monday. It will be up for consideration this coming Monday, November 3. Staff has put together a summary of the types of application and how they would be impacted by the Moratorium and when, and also a summary of specific projects in the City and how they would be impacted. Mr. Wasilak stated that staff has included information in the Commissioners’ brief books regarding the Mayor and Council’s discussion on the Town Center Master Plan. This is a series of meetings that the Mayor and Council are considering potential modifications to the Plan. The first in a series of three was a week ago. The next meeting is in December 2006. Mr. Wasilak discussed upcoming applications for the November 1, 2006 meeting. Minutes Commissioner Hill moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve the minutes of Meeting No. 17-06 as written. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURN After further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 9:45pm | ||||||