REVIEW AND ACTION

Use Permit USE2006-00702, Champion Billiards and Barstools – for approval of a 12,574 square foot retail building in the RPC Zone at 900 Rockville Pike.

Ms. Torma presented an overview of the staff report.   Ms. Torma stated that the Mayor and Council approved the PDP on October 23, 2006.  She noted that the proposal has not changed since the Planning Commission reviewed it on May 24, 2006.  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 35 at-grade parking spaces, including two handicap accessible spaces associated with the building.  Currently, there are two existing curb cuts, which the applicant is proposing to close.  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.  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 stated that the architecture is of contemporary design utilizing glass and panels that are made to look like precast limestone panels.  There will be no windows or openings on the rear side of the building, which faces the Metro tracks and the residential neighborhood.  Ms. Torma noted that the proposed streetscape provides for a landscaped berm, including street trees and an eight-foot sidewalk along Rockville Pike, which would connect with the sidewalk at the edge of the bridge along Edmonston Drive.  Ms. Torma provided information that the application would be in conformance with the Rockville Pike Corridor Neighborhood Plan and Rockville Pike Access Management Plan found in the Rockville Pike Corridor Neighborhood Plan.  Ms. Torma stated that there are two existing driveway entrances to the site, one along Edmonston Drive and one from the right turn lane on Rockville Pike remaining from the previous development.  The applicant proposes to close both of these entrances.  The entrance along Edmonston Drive would not be permitted today due to its proximity to the intersection and the steep slope reducing visibility for drivers.  The entrance along Rockville Pike would not be recommended as an ingress/egress by the State Highway Administration (SHA) and the City’s Department of Public Works staff due to its location in the right turn lane.  In addition, the existing entrance is very close to the intersection of Edmonston Drive and Rockville Pike, which creates a traffic hazard.  Therefore, the applicant has proposed to close the existing entrance and use the floating service drive easement that is parallel to Rockville Pike from the adjacent property.  Ms. Torma said that if the neighboring parcel to the south decides to move that location or close it, SHA would have to approve it as well as the City. 

Ms. Torma presented the site plan of the property.  She said the proposed sidewalk would be eight feet wide and it tapers down to four feet when it gets closer to the bridge.  The parking is surrounding the building.      

Commissioner Hill posed two questions.  He asked if it was the best configuration of the crosswalk at the northwest corner of the site.  He sited two examples: assuming that the crosswalk was pushed too far back from the turning radius, one example is located at Norbeck Road and Rt28; there is a hot turn lane there and it works pretty well; the visibility is good because the crosswalk is moved forward towards where the turning radius starts.  Another example is located off MD355 and Gude Drive where there is a similar situation to this site because the crosswalk is pushed back where the Millennium Trail crosses.  There always seems to be a hazard there because people coming along at that point seldom see people because they are busy looking ahead and down the road and as they turn, all of a sudden someone is in front of them.  Commissioner Hill asked whether there is a consideration that that crosswalk might be safer if it were actually moved more to the front.  Mr. Saleh explained why they placed the crosswalk in that location, however they could look again, but if they move it more towards MD355; there is the chance that someone would cross outside the crosswalk.   

Commissioner Britton stated that this whole discussion raises the issue about whether it is appropriate to have a hot lane in any intersection at all.  He said he thought the City was trying to take away those kinds of things and that is what the City did on Montgomery Avenue and Nelson Street.  Commissioner Britton questioned the control of traffic through that lane.  Mr. Saleh replied that it is a hook up.  Commissioner Britton noted that a pedestrian really has no chance of crossing there safely.  Mr. Saleh  explained that this was a State Highway requirement.  Ms. Torma explained that SHA’s goal is trying to get people moving through the intersection and one way to do that is putting in hot lanes.  Commissioner Britton replied that hot lanes are not safe for pedestrians.  He also questioned whether staff had looked at making that a normal intersection when there is a Stop on red and a Yield to pedestrian traffic before one turns. 

Commissioner Hill asked if there was a reason why that lane could not be moved?  Mr. Tannir explained that SHA encourages the use of exclusive of right turns and the reason for this and because of the nature of MD355 being a high capacity and high speed road, they want the right turning movement to move quickly and the exclusive right turn is a good device to accomplish this movement.  Mr. Tannir stated that with regard to pedestrian safety, when the signal is red, it would give pedestrians enough time to walk safely across the crosswalk.  In order for drivers to make a right turn, they would have to come to almost a complete stop before they could make the very sharp right turn; therefore, the pedestrians would be able to see those drivers and that is enough sight distance to make this happen, especially when the two curb cuts are closed. 

The Commission continued to discuss safety concerns with Traffic and Transportation staff regarding the pedestrian crosswalk, the hot lane at the intersection of Edmonston Drive and MD355, possibly moving the crosswalk forward, and implementing solutions such as installing warning signage for pedestrians crossing the crosswalk, and encouraging drivers to be more aware of the presence of pedestrians crossing the street. 

Jody Kline, Attorney, presented the applicants’ request.  Mr. Kline stated that he had a mixed reaction appearing before the Commission this evening.  He said that they have had a continuing running feud with adjacent property owner expressed in the correspondence in staff’s files and they are sorry, but they have not been able to work things out with them.

Mr. Kline stated that all conditions are acceptable to the applicant.  He noted that this proposal has been studied a lot.  With the regard to the issue about the hot right turn, from day one when the applicant entered City Hall, they deferred to the City’s Transportation planners and the SHA on access, use of the service drive and the crosswalk.  He said they have no problem with working with staff regarding the best location for the crosswalk and adequate signage program to make sure it will work as safely as it can.  It does not alter what they want to do with the property at all. 

Commissioner Hill stated that when the applicant was before the Commission in May 2006, there was a discussion on the sound projection from back wall of the building.  He asked about the outcome of that discussion.  

Rick Donnelly with DVA Architects explained the sound projection.  He explained that the discussion was about how much sound would be transmitted.  The railroad tracks are down about ten feet, so most of the noise from the trains would be reverberating off the concrete retaining wall.  He said the building would be constructed with metal studs with a lightweight wall system, which actually gives; it is not solid concrete like the retaining wall down by the railroad tracks.

The following citizen testified:    

Carl Harger, homeowner who lives behind project.  Mr. Harger talked about the traffic and pedestrian safety.  Mr. Harger said he would rather see a library on the site; he does not want to see another building thrown up on that corner for it would impact their quality of life.  Mr. Harger said he would like to see more green space and no more parking lots for cars.  He wishes the City would respect other peoples’ wishes.  This project is not a good thing for Rockcrest and Twinbrook communities.

Joe Lynott, Attorney, stated that he was representing the Whalen property next door to this site.  He stated that they had previously expressed opposition to this plan.  Mr. Lynott stated that they do not oppose access into their property, but they oppose the closing of the two curb cuts on MD355 and Edmonston Drive.  The approval of this plan would unlawfully deprive his client of the benefit of the easement negotiated back in 1971.  He noted that the subject property could be safely developed through access through its existing curb cuts and that plan has never been submitted to his client.  This plan would deprive his client of his vested property rights.  They do not have a plan before them tonight that they could comment on. 

Glen Cook, Vice President of The Traffic Group explained his concern with the access locations.  Mr. Cook stated that it was represented to him that SHA has gone on record stating that they would require random closure of the access locations on MD355 and based on his experience, he does not believe the SHA would make that statement.  If every landowner is entitled to an access to his property, the SHA certainly has guidelines that are very thick as far as the preferred way of maintaining access to properties.  Mr. Cook noted that many corner lots have limited frontage.  The bottom line on this property is that he does not believe using the existing access point to the property would create an unsafe condition.  Would it be better not to have access points?  Certainly and they would like to eliminate all the access points along MD355 on Rockville Pike.  It is not necessarily the number of access points, but the volume of traffic using them. 

Mr. Cook stated that he has read the letters from SHA and nowhere did he see that the State would not allow access to the property from the existing location.  They would prefer not to have it there and he understands that, but in certain situations, they do not always have that option.  The legality of the easement is not his issue, but if that easement area were not there, that property would be served by that existing access point.  In fact, the SHA’s most recent letter even suggested that an alternative was to use that entrance, provide a deceleration lane along MD355, and close another access.  Mr. Cook stated that, for 32 years, he has worked on many projects that were situated at the corner of an intersection similar to this site.  He said he does not believe that using an existing access point on that property would be creating an unsafe condition.  If it were an unsafe condition, it would not have been there from the beginning.  Mr. Cook stated that he understands the entrance off Edmonston Drive and he would recommend that that entrance be closed also. 
Commissioner Hill asked Mr. Cook, as a transportation expert, for his evaluation of what is the safest configuration that could be put there.  Mr. Cook replied that he does not know that there is a degree of safety.  In his mind, a condition is either safe or unsafe.  If not safe, then the City has a problem.  Would it be preferred from an operational standpoint that that access be moved further away from the intersection, no question, it certainly would be.  Would it be better for the operation along MD355 if all the access points were closed, no question.  Mr. Cook noted that if a condition is safe, it is safe.  Obviously moving something further away from the intersection improves the operations in that area, but it does not make the old situation an unsafe condition. 

Commissioner Hill read from the SHA letter of March 9, 2007, which states that the SHA recommends the closure of the MD355 entrance to the site.  He also read from the letter of August 29, 2006 that states that the SHA offers a compelling explanation why the applicants proposed access arrangements are much better than the existing MD355 access from an operational and safety standpoint. 

In response to Commissioner Hill, Mr. Cook stated he agrees with the safety issue, but not from an operational standpoint.  He said he understands why the SHA would recommend something else.  Providing access to that property is a requirement of the SHA.  If the applicant cannot provide safe access to their property, they would have to condemn that property.  Mr. Cook stated that moving that entrance further to the south would certainly be better than having it there, but that does not constitute an access along the property frontage as being unsafe.    

Jim Whalen of Investment Properties stated that he owns the property next door.  He stated that he in opposition to closing the existing curb cuts.  Mr. Whalen explained that no one has asked him about the property.  This plan is not here because it is safer; it is before the Planning Commission because it is a better plan for the applicant.  They want these entrances closed; it is a better development for the applicant in that way because they can have a denser project; they can have better traffic flow and they can use somebody else’s entrance. 

In response to Commissioner Johnson, Mr. Whalen replied that he does not believe the City has the right to mandate that an adjacent property owner can use his entrance.  He said that he was never informed of this project and if they had been invited in the process, maybe he would not be before the Planning Commission this evening. 

Commissioner Johnson asked how this plan would impact generation of revenue from Mr. Whalen’s property.  Mr. Whalen stated that there would be more congestion and traffic on his property.  This plan should be denied and applicant should be sent back to draw up a better plan.

Commissioner Ostell asked staff if the access road were connected up to Edmonston Drive, how would extra trips be estimated just for people who would be passing through this site.  Mr. Wasilak stated that they have not looked into that. 

The Commission and staff discussed the access points and the entrance to the property is through the service drive in accordance with the Access Management Plan.  Commissioner Hill read a statement out of the easement requirements in the Zoning Ordinance and asked Ms. Block to interpret it legally for the Commission. 

Jody Kline clarified that there is currently no service drive easement on the Champion Billiards property.  The language in the easement states that it would serve the subject property.  They are creating that easement on the face of the plat and whether it is 18 feet or 25 feet, it can be anything they want because there is no standard as long as they were able to say one can move from Investment Properties to the south and move through the Champion Billiards property.  Mr. Kline stated that the service drive easement essentially talks about north/south movement held to Rockville Pike.  There is no reference anywhere in the document to the access points at all.  There is no correlation between the right to move up and down Rockville Pike and entering the entrance to the easement area.   
Commissioner Johnson asked staff whether there could be one access, which could be moved so it would be on both properties.  Mr. Wasilak replied that that is possible, but staff has not analyzed that to date.   

Joe Lynott, Attorney representing Investment Properties stated that they do not have a plan to analyze to that effect.  He said that there is nothing before them to indicate a comment on how it would affect the Whalen property. 

Mr. Kline noted that it is entirely possible that Mr. Lynott has not seen the plan, for it was delivered to his partner.  The plan is called the straddle plan.  It splits the baby down the middle and this plan was provided to Investment Properties.  Mr. Whalen noted that he saw the straddle plan; it was a sketch, and they had two days to respond to it, and his response was how could he respond to a plan when he had nothing with which to compare it.  Why could they not see a plan that uses an entrance point on their property? There are ways it could be done.  He stated that making a decision under pressure without having any benefit  to see whether another plan would work could not be done.  If staff had invited him into the discussion from the beginning, he would not be here this evening.

Mr. Lynott clarified that the curb cut on the Whalen property is not an easement; it is several feet away from the public service drive easement.  The City Attorney mentioned that the property owner has a right to ingress his property over their property.  That is half the equation and it does not address their property rights.  Those are reciprocal easements for ingress and egress.  What that ignores is that they have a right to egress from their property over their property; it does not give up the service drive easement.  

Commissioner Hill asked the applicant whether there would be a hardship for deferral of this application.  Mr. Kline replied that he would want this to be acceptable to Mr. Whalen. 

In response to Commissioner Hill, Mr. Kline explained that there are hardships to the deferral such as real estate issues related to the deferral in terms of their present location; they have a time element to that.  He would like to get it done quickly. 

Commissioner Hill commented to staff that he recommends the crosswalk issue be re-analyzed with the primary focus of safety. 

Commissioner Wiener stated that a compromise must be made to solve the disagreement.  She said she did not hear Mr. Whalen say anything about a compromise. 

Mr. Whalen stated that he would want the entrance on the Champion Billiards property, by itself.  He said there are other reasons, which are bigger than just where the access is.

Commissioner Ostell stated that she had no inherent problem with deferring this plan.  She said she is concerned about an access going out onto Edmonston Drive. 

Commissioner Johnson stated that he would want a safer egress point as far away from Edmonston Drive as possible.  A straddle access seems like a viable option.  He said that from his own perspective, he is prepared to move forward with approval of this site plan.

Commissioner Hill moved, seconded by Commission Wiener approve Use Permit USE2006-00702, Champion Billiards and Barstools  including conditions imposed by staff with modifications by the applicant.  Ms. Torma stated that she has one portion of a condition to add and it is related to Condition 12.  The second sentence of Condition 12 would state, “Nothing in this condition is intended to amend or modify requirements for the adjacent landowner to otherwise comply with the use permit U-193-80.  She stated that the applicant shows an island on the adjacent property and that is related to that issue. 

Commissioner Hill questioned who was proposing this modification.  Ms. Torma replied that the applicant proposed the modification and staff agreed.  Mr. Kline explained that it basically says that if the applicant cannot get approval from the adjacent property owner, they can not implement the things shown on the plan that are consistent with the approved use permit plan for the adjacent shopping center.  Commissioner Hill said he would amend his motion based on staff’s wording.  He would amend this motion further offering that the  direction to staff to consider the greatest safety of the crosswalk configuration at the northwest corner of site.  The motion failed on a tied vote of 3-3, with Commissioners Ostell, Britton and Medearis voting nay. 

On a second motion, Commissioner Britton moved to entertain and approve the applicant’s request to defer this consideration pending a much more comprehensive review of the ingress and egress situation discussed this evening.  This would be in addition to pedestrian safety traffic flow because he does not feel that he understands these issues properly.  Commissioner Britton stated that when information is handed to him the night of the meeting, there is no way he could digest it that night.  He said he is very uncomfortable with the discussion of leaving the pedestrian safety just for people’s consideration when he hears the basis of everything being done to facilitate SHA’s philosophy to move traffic.  He wants specifics on what they want they want to do regarding pedestrian safety, and the whole traffic flow and access issues for one, the other, or both properties.   

Commissioner Hill said he did not hear the applicant ask for a deferral. 

Mr. Kline  stated that, if there were to be no other motions to be made, the applicant  would ask for a deferral to address the issues raised in Commissioner Britton’s comments. 

Commissioner Britton moved, seconded by Commissioner Hill to defer Use Permit USE2006-00702, Champion Billiards and Barstools.  The motion passed unanimously. 

Commissioner Britton asked both parties and others who are interested, that when submitting information to the Commission, to do so well in advance of scheduled meetings.         

Final Record Plat PLT2007-00476, Douglas Kelly – for approval of a single record lot of 25,863 square feet in the RPC Zone at 900 Rockville Pike.

Commissioner Hill moved and duly seconded to defer Final Record Plat PLT2007-00476, Douglas Kelly.  The motion passed unanimously.

Use Permit USE2006-00699, Duball Rockville LLC – for approval of 485 multifamily units and 45,300 square feet of ground floor retail and associated structured parking in two buildings in the TC-4 Zone at 196 and 198 East Montgomery Avenue.

Mr. Chasten noted that, this evening, staff has given the Commission a list of modified conditions, which is before them to review.  Staff recommends that the Commission impose all the modified conditions on the list. 

Mr. Chasten presented the staff report.    Mr. Chasten stated that Preliminary Development Plan Amendment PDP1994-0001E, Rockville Renaissance West, LLC is a proposal to redevelop Parcel 2-J/Block 3 and Parcel 2-K/Block 2 as referenced in the originally approved PDP94-0001 from its previously approved land use of  office and retail to a mixed use development of primarily residential with street level commercial, residential amenity facilities, and structured parking facilities.  As noted, the site is zoned for TC-4 land usage and is located within the Rockville Town Center Planning Area.  The property is bounded by Maryland Avenue, East Middle Lane, Monroe Street and East Montgomery Avenue.  The property is located immediately north of the Regal Cinemas Retail Pavilion and is improved with an existing surface parking lot approved under Use Permit USE96-0565.  The site is located within 1500 feet of the Rockville Metro Station, one and one-half blocks due west of the station site.  The applicant proposes to re-subdivide the property into two record lots of similar size and dimension.  Both Parcels are improved surface parking lots.  Parcel 2-J contains approximately 203 parking spaces; Parcel 2-K contains approximately 158 parking spaces with 361 parking spaces.  Access to the surface parking facilities is via East Middle Lane, in the approximate location of proposed Renaissance Street.  The proposed Renaissance Street is currently located within a public use surface easement along the eastern portion of Parcel 2-J, which intersects East Montgomery Avenue to East Middle Lane.  As a condition of the use permit approval, staff is recommending the applicant convey/convert said public use easement be converted to public right-of-way, dedicated to the City of Rockville. 

Mr. Chasten stated that the applicant proposes to redevelop Parcel 2-J/Block 3 and Parcel 2-K/Block 2 in accordance with previously approved PDP1994-0001E.  The proposed building structure to be constructed on Parcel 2-J will be a maximum of 144 feet tall, contain 230 dwelling units, 23,100 square feet of ground level retail floor space and 631 structured parking spaces that will be located in the core of the proposed building structure.  The structure to be constructed on Parcel 2-K will be a maximum of 173 feet tall, contain 255 dwelling units, 22,200 square feet of ground level retail floor space and 631 structured parking spaces located in the core of that proposal building structure.  During construction, the applicant will temporarily relocate those spaces required for the retail pavilion.   

Mr. Chasten stated that both buildings would have a maximum height level of 77 feet along all of the street frontages with a minimum of 30-foot setbacks from the exterior side of the buildings. 

Mr. Chasten stated that the proposed building structures would be of varied colored stone, masonry, metal and glass construction with gateway corners detailed street level building base and varied rooflines to evoke multiple buildings built over time. 
 
Vehicular access to the structured parking facilities located within the planned building structures for the patrons and employees of the retail uses and other non-residential users will be via Renaissance Street.  Vehicular access to the building structures for residents of the buildings would be provided via Maryland Avenue and Monroe Street.  Renaissance Street has been designed to accommodate dual lanes of vehicular traffic along with 8-foot wide sidewalks and 7-foot wide tree panels/parking lanes with established private pedestrian/amenity zones.  Loading and delivery areas for both residential and retail uses are designed to have trucks enter the buildings on the north side from Maryland Avenue, East Middle Lane, and/or Renaissance Street.

Mr. Chasten stated that in accordance with previously approved PDP1994-0001E, the proposed building elevations were presented to the Mayor and Council for courtesy review on January 22, 2007. 

Mr. Chasten referred to the recommended conditions of approval that have been amended with one note that “staff would recommend that the Planning Commission if and it chooses to approve this application would impose all of the conditions listed in the amended copy with the exception of Condition 25.  Only one part of that condition would be changed “no permanent parking structures are permitted within the PUE.  Twenty feet of head clearance must be maintained above the PUE except for building amenities as approved by DPW”.    

Commissioner Hill questioned whether this would be the highest residential building in the City.  Mr. Chasten replied in the affirmative.  Commissioner Hill asked if there has been any consideration given for safety aspects for fire access to the building.  Mr. Chasten replied in the affirmative.  Commissioner Hill asked if anyone consulted the Fire Department as to whether the equipment would reach that height.  Ms. Block replied that she believes the Fire Marshall looks at that.    

The Commission discussed concerns regarding the details of the plan with regard to Conditions 14 and 22 (detailed engineering plans for the parking garage and $309,249 and $200,000 to implement the use permit for both parcels).  The Commission questioned where the monies would go, what would be the improvements and what neighborhoods would be affected.  The Commission also questioned staff regarding the 40% parking waiver for the project, sidewalk widths and emergency evacuation planning for the project. 

Mark Dubick with Duball Rockville LLC, presented the applicant’s request.  Mr. Dubick presented slides of the property and the proposal.  He said that 485 residential units were approved at the PDP stage, and 73 of the units are intended to be MPDU units, half of which would be marketed to individuals of 55 and older.  Mr. Dubick discussed the height limitations and mixed uses, and presented a model of the buildings.  He noted that they will be building the project in phases and intend to have sufficient parking for the in place retail and theaters.  Mr. Dubick discussed the details of the site plan.      

Commissioner Medearis questioned whether the applicant had prepared plans for emergency evacuation purposes.  Ms. Regelin, Attorney representing the applicant said that they would be happy to go back to consultant and send the information back to the Commission. 

John Torti with Torti Gallas and Partners explained the exit way requirements by code do have capacities that one can easily identify and then checking with the creators of the code and than get a time capacity through that capacity.  Mr. Torti stated that they could deliver the numbers to the Commission in a few days.  Commissioner Hill commented that one of the public amenities suggested for this project was the ability to combine Renaissance Street with East Middle Lane.  He asked if there were any access problems that were traded in building a residence there.  Mr. Dubick replied that they do not believe so because they have two entrances and exits, both for pedestrians and vehicles in each building.   Commissioner Hill noted public concerns with the height of the building.  Ms. Regelin explained that the thought was to create a skyline and create a town center and perhaps a vision in 1994 because it was incredibly in need of economic development.  Mr. Torti explained the reason for the height and other design matters.  Commissioner Britton explained the situation a year ago when Ms. Regelin came in with another applicant (Akridge); the Commission denied the first proposal.  This applicant has come back with improvements.  Commissioner Ostell asked if the applicant would contribute more than $25,000 for improvements. 

Ms. Regelin addressed the parking circulation.

Ms. Regelin stated that the applicant would double the $25,000 to $50,000 for improvements.

Commissioner Britton moved, and duly seconded to approve Use Permit USE2006-00699, Duball Rockville LLC per staff recommendations with a change in Condition 13 suggested by the applicant and with staff amended conditions and Condition 25 to read, “Eliminate balconies to building elements as approved by DPW”.  The motion passed on a vote of 5-1 with Commissioner Medearis voting nay.

Commissioner Hill stated that he regrets that the City granted the building height for this project.

COMMISSION ITEMS

Old Business

Use Permit USE2006-00701, Bank of America – for presentation of conceptual site and building plan revisions.  This application was deferred at the Commission’s February 28, 2007 meeting.  The Commission’s primary concern was whether the proposal met the intent of the Town Center Master Plan and the Design Guidelines included in that plan. 

Mr. Hurlbutt stated that the applicant has come back before the Commission with new design elements. 

Pam Terrell with KSI stated that they have worked with their architect to interpret what they heard.  The design has not been approved by the bank at this time.  Ms. Terrell presented the site plan.  She said they have moved the drive-thrus to the rear of the building.  Ms. Terrell presented a new design with different colors and materials.  She noted that they would make it a mixed-use building.   

Commissioner Johnson stated that he likes the new design much better than the old one and he really appreciates putting the drive-thru on the back.  His concern is having the structure entirely inside of pavement so whatever happens on the adjacent property, it will never be connected up with the building and that is a key feature of an urban streetscape.  In order to better screen the parking, trees could be planted on the edges of the property.  He does not see a pedestrian link between the sidewalk that will be on MD355 and the bank.  He mentioned that glass would be appropriate so that pedestrians could see through and it would not look like a retail space.       

In response to Commissioner Ostell, Ms. Terrell said the footprint would be the same, but they have raised the structure eleven feet, and the stormwater pond is in the same location.  Commissioner Ostell requested that there be some discussion with Danac Construction and she said she would also be concerned about their view on how their access and visibility are during construction.     

New Business

Mr. Wasilak stated that he met with TCA and Burgundy Estates Presidents regarding the Twinbrook Neighborhood Master Plan.  He said that they are proceeding to come back next time. Mr. Wasilak stated that staff anticipates a written summary and feedback from those groups for the next meeting.

Chief of Planning Report

Mr. Wasilak stated that Fallsmead Elementary School would be coming before the Commission for expansion along with two Fallgrove applications. 

Mr. Wasilak stated that all of the staff liaisons are having training to refresh them on ex parte rules next Thursday with the City Attorney and he felt that it would be good to have a refresher with the Commission at the next meeting or the following meeting.

Minutes

Commissioner Hill moved, seconded by Commissioner Medearis to approve the minutes of Meeting No. 3-07 as amended.  The motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Hill moved, seconded by Commissioner Britton to approve the minutes of 4-07 as amended.  The motion passed on a vote of 5-0-1 with Commissioner Medearis abstaining.

The Commission discussed concerns regarding information presented to the Commission on the evening of a scheduled meeting. Information for each application should be in their brief books, not on the night of the meeting.   It was noted that, after the brief books are sent out to the Commissioners, no information would be presented into the record unless the Planning Commission decides, unless the information is from staff.  If it were not in the packets, the Commission would not make a decision at the hearing.  For good cause, the information should be given 48 hours before each meeting.   

After further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 10:28 p.m.