REVIEW AND ACTION

Use Permit Amendment Application USA2005-0684A, Twinbrook Commons LLC – to amend the use permit for a portion of the Twinbrook Station development, located east of the WMATA/CSX tracks, north of Parklawn Drive and west of Ardennes Avenue and Twinbrook Parkway in the RPC Zone.

Mr. Wasilak presented the staff report.  Mr. Wasilak discussed the background of the project.  He stated that this is an amendment for the Twinbrook Station, formerly known as Twinbrook Commons, and it is located on the east side of the Metro tracks.  There were three use permits related to Twinbrook Commons that were approved in June 2005; those are all pursuant to an improved Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) that allows up to 1,595 multi-family units, 325,000 square feet of office and 220,000 square feet of retail.  The amendment proposes a series of modifications to the approved use permit including the elimination of the bridge over Street A, eliminating a six-unit residential building at the corner of Ardennes Avenue and Street A, eliminating the parking garage behind Block A and adjacent to the Linear Park, constructing a parking garage behind Block B in this phase of development as opposed to a later phase, reducing the amount of residential lobbies that are along the streetscape, raising the height of some of the buildings north of Fishers Lane from five to six stories, providing for additional plantings along Linear Park, which is adjacent to the Cambridge Walk communities, and relocating the curb cut and entrances to the parking garage behind Block B.  Staff recommendation is approval for this use permit amendment and finds it complies with the PDP.  Mr. Wasilak clarified a few of the original conditions.  He explained that there was a condition of approval from a previous use permit that provided for an alternative if any of those improvements could not be made.  DPW could provide for an alternative, or require an equivalent dollar amount contribution. 

Commissioner Hill expressed his concern that the application may go outside the boundary of what would be a use permit amendment as opposed to stepping back to the conceptual stage of this application.  He pointed out that this staff report really addresses the use permit stage.  He asked for staff’s opinion about taking this back to the original approval authority in terms of the scale of what is being changed.  Mr. Wasilak explained that staff’s opinion was that it was within the bounds of the original PDP; that the detail was what was being changed at this stage.  All of the modifications were in accordance with the approved PDP. 

Commissioner Hill said that, at this point, making these changes, he would tend to look to see if there was a balance of what was being done such as positive and negative related impact and merits of what is happening.  He asked Mr. Wasilak if he thought that balance exists in this set of items.  Mr. Wasilak replied that staff believes these changes have met the intent of the PDP. 

Pat Harris, Attorney, presented the applicant’s request.  Ms. Harris explained that most of these changes are because once an applicant gets into fine-tuning of a plan, they start preparing the building permit plans, they realize there are ways to do things better, ways to make functional improvements and some of the changes were dictated by things out of their control.  For instance, the elimination of the bridge over Street A was a result of a WSSC easement.  Therefore, they could not accommodate the bridge and the easement, which was an unnecessary fact of the project.  Ms. Harris stated that the changes are in strict compliance with the PDP.  The most significant change is moving the garage, which was originally intended for a later phase by moving up towards this phase.  The other changes are more detailed in nature.  In fact, along Street A, there were individual stoops, and they have been removed due to a design change.  Ms. Harris pointed out that the important issue of concern with the community is the height issue.  Therefore, the applicant is proposing a decrease in height in three instances.  One is the parking garage that is moving into this phase of the project; the height has been decreased from 6 to 8 stories to 5.5 stories.  The development along Fishers Lane is being reduced from 6 stories to 5 stories and the residential building, which is closest to Cambridge Walk will be reduced by 2.5 feet.  Ms. Harris said that the applicant accepts staff’s conditions, except Condition 5a.ii.1 regarding the PUE.  In discussing this condition with staff, there was an accommodation made in that the trees could be accommodated in a PUE without interfering with one another.  Ms. Harris stated that they continue their outreach with the community and JBG has worked hard to have a good relationship with the community. A letter was submitted from the community acknowledging some of the changes made regarding the improvements to the façade and landscaping and retention of trees. 

Commissioner Johnson inquired about the design change with the stoops.  Ms. Harris explained that the stoops did not add anything to the architectural design, but the removal of the stoops increases the sidewalk widths. 

In response to Commissioner Medearis, Kevin Johnson with Johnson Bernat Associates  explained that parking will be provided on both sides of Street A; the street width is 36 feet and the total building height is 55 feet.  Mr. Johnson stated that the measurement from building-to-building including the sidewalk widths, is almost 70 feet. 

The following citizens testified:

1.  Joe Mclean, President of Cambridge Walk II HOA stated that they have been very consistent in their letters to the Planning Commission and to the Planning staff about their concerns.  Their priority has always been the transition between this massive development and their little townhomes.  Mr. McLean pointed out that JBG has been very good with meeting with them and they have come a long way in terms of their vision matching the community’s vision.  He said they still have some concerns as they stated in their letter to the Commission.  The concern is with the monolithic building next to their townhomes and this change will be the first time they have seen the plans for a parking garage directly next to their townhomes.  It is like an aircraft carrier sitting next to their little boats.  Mr. McLean stated that they feel there has been a lot of progress made, but they are still concerned about the transition area, screening, pollution, and all the things mentioned in their letter.   

Commissioner Johnson commented that he has not seen the letter from the Cambridge Walk II community.  Mr. McLean stated that they submitted the letter in time to be included in the staff report. 

Commissioner Medearis questioned the height of the townhomes.  Mr. McLean replied that the height is three stories. 

Commissioner Hill asked Mr. McLean what he would like the Commission to do.  Mr. McLean replied that that was the point of the letter.  He said he would get a copy of the letter to the Commission.   

2.  Tracy Pakulniewicz-Chidiac, President of Cambridge Walk I stated that they were happy with many of the changes made by JBG.  She noted that one thing concerns her community is that the parking garage is parallel with the townhomes.  She noted that they do not want to look at a stark parking garage.  She stated that there are trees in that area but they are the height of the townhomes and would not obscure the garage from their view.  She noted that JBG was wonderful about refacing one portion of the garage. 

Commissioner Medearis inquired about the trees.  Ms. Pakulniewicz-Chidiac replied that the trees have been there for a long time; they are Willows and White Pines.  Commissioner Medearis commented that in five to ten years, those trees could fill out.  Ms. Pakulniewicz-Chidiac said that at one of the meetings, JBG offered to plant new trees, but in 15 years, she may not be living in Twinbrook.  Commissioner Medearis stated that these days and age, they have many fast growing tree options.     

3.  Paul Folkers, 219 Halpine Walk Court stated that he and his wife strongly support the project.  He said they moved to Twinbrook last summer and they believe that Twinbrook Station really is something that they saw as a positive and they have great confidence in JBG.  Mr. Folkers stated that there is some fine-tuning that has to be done.  JBG does quality development  and quality projects.  He said the back of their townhouse faces the development, so, the distance between of the Linear Park would be between them and the development.  He pointed out that some additional focus needs to be placed relative to the Linear Park.  He would like to have some of the willow oaks.  With regard to the plantings, they should be large and fast growing.  Mr. Folkers stated that additional enhancements could be done to the garage.  Lighting is also a key concern. 

4.  Bill Nichol, Treasurer of Cambridge Walk II addressed points related to the Linear Park.  Mr. Nichol stated that getting the Linear Park into the project is a major achievement.  He said he would like JBG to consider screening that would emphasize native species.  JBG has agreed to do this.  He also pointed out the issue of the willow oaks behind the parking garage.  JBG agreed to save these.  The question is - how do they save them during construction, which would be a major impact? 

5.  The Vice President of Cambridge Walk I stated that they support the letter of consent and, of course, exposure is their big issue in Cambridge Walk I of the parking garage.   

6.  John Tyner, 5901 Halpine Road stated that the Twinbrook community is the next street over and they are also interested in this development.  Mr. Tyner stated that he generally supports what JBG has been doing and TCA has been working with them for 9 years on this project.  Mr. Tyner pointed out that the concerns of the people on Halpine Road relates to traffic.  JBG has agreed to working with the TCA on traffic mitigating throughout the neighborhood.  This is only the second time they know that a developer, through thick or thin over the years, no matter what the changes are in the market, have always come back to the communities to try to work out some arrangements.  They give them a lot of kudos for that.

7.  Judy Miller, Vice President of TCA stated that there is a need for community groups to have a place to meet.  She stated that they have discussed this with JBG and they would like to see something like a community meeting room or building a long the line.  Ms. Miller pointed out that the big issue is the conversion from condominiums to apartments because they are concerned about unoccupied residences.  There is a great need for places where families can live.  They also have a concern regarding the accessibility of the community and community services provided by the developer.

8.  A citizen asked what would happen to the Twinbrook geese.  Do the geese have any rights.  JBG is proposing to install a stormwater management building over where the Twinbrook geese are located.  If these geese were to be relocated, they would die not being in their natural habitat.  Have the Animal Rights Commission and the Sierra Club been asked about this issue?  He commented that since the condominiums are not selling, they would be turned into rentals.  Is the vision of the City of Rockville planning to turn Twinbrook into the next Langley Park?

9.  Christina Ginsberg, President of TCA stated that they met with JBG in April 2007 and this documentation for this phase was not ready.  So, this is the first time she has seen this application, and she has not had time to form an opinion about it.  Ms. Ginsberg stated that changes to the parking garage façade have been at the request of the two HOAs.  There are also concerns about the impacts of the traffic in the neighborhood.   

10.  John Miles stated that he lives in the townhouse that would be looking at the façade of the parking garage.  He said that he would like to see changes there as mentioned.  Mr. Miles stated that he does appreciate the developer working with them.  He also commented that Twinbrook and Cambridge would not be the only communities impacted by this development.  In looking at the City of Rockville, they want the project to redound the City’s benefit overall and he knows that the Commission will take this into account. 

Commissioner Johnson stated that the Commission has just received a response to Cambridge Walk’s letter.  They have raised a serious concern.  He asked that Ms. Harris address their concerns.  Ms. Harris stated the differential in height between the residential building and the Cambridge Walk is approximately 10 feet.  In terms of the fence, that divides the property, some people from the Twinbrook community say that the fence serves as a barrier.  The fence was put up because of the response to Cambridge Walk community.  Ms. Harris stated that the western façade of the parking garage is of some concern and the important thing to emphasize is that this is a phased project.  Because it is phased, not every component is going to be complete after the first phase is completed and that is what one sees with the phased garage.  Ms. Harris pointed out that when Phase II comes forward, that building would be aligned with some type of building.  They will be providing 13 trees and they have committed to putting them in at 12 to 15 feet heights. This is a temporary situation.   

The Commission and applicant discussed nonstructural changes to the appearance of the parking garage façade, the building that would be aligned with the parking garage, and the timeframe for each phase.    

Commissioner Hill said that he was not clear about the changes.  He encouraged the applicant to give them a statement as to what are the benefits of the changes? 

Mr. Harris pointed out that they are reducing the heights of the garage, the buildings along Fishers Lane and the residential building; they eliminated the bridge over Street A, which was an issue that was dictated by WSSC.   They have eliminated a six unit residential building at the corner of Street A and Ardennes Avenue, which was small and inefficient.  This elimination has enabled them to provide a more balanced gateway from Ardennes Avenue onto Street A because there was some open space on the west side and now they have additional space on east side.  Ms. Harris said they eliminated the parking garage behind Block A and that was because the buildings are going to be rental.  The reality is with a rental building, there must be a generous level of amenities to provide an attractive rental facility.  A swimming pool and a clubroom were critical.  Ms. Harris said that they have also relocated some of the curb cuts along Fishers Lane.

A representative described what is going on at Linear Park.  The Linear Park has been an integral part of this project.  The representative spoke about the Willow Oaks that had to be removed, how they were going to supplement those areas where the trees had to be removed.  He discussed the screening of the garage.

The Commission discussed the western façade of the garage.

Mr. Wasilak read the applicant’s modification to Condition 5a.ii.  1.  Where the utilities are parallel to the street trees/lawn, utilities must be located four feet below the existing grade.  2.  Where the utilities are located perpendicular to street trees, the utility connections must be located between the street trees.     

Commissioner Hill clarified that the northern exposure of this building and the treatment of that should be the model for how the western phase of this building is treated. 

Commissioner Hill moved and duly seconded to approve Use Permit Amendment Application USA2005-0684A, Twinbrook Commons LLC per staff recommendations and the changes that staff read into the record for Condition 5; Condition 34 should include Conditions from the original report of an earlier session on the latter half of circle page 21, Item 24 and that Condition 35 should likewise include language that is on circle page 21 for Condition 25.  An additional condition would require the architectural treatment of the north face of the garage that should be extended around to the west face of the garage as a requirement of building up to this current phase not to be postponed until another phase of the project.  The motion passed on a vote of 4-0.  Commissioners Ostell and Wiener were absent.      

Time Extension for Use Permit USE2005-00684, Twinbrook Station (west side) – request for one-year time extension to begin construction.

Mr. Wasilak presented the staff report.  These time extensions are in advance of their actual need.  The use permit approval letters went out in December 2005, therefore, they have two years from that date.  The applicant is requesting a one-year time extensions for both, which would extend the validity period for both use permits until December 2008.   

Commissioner Hill questioned whether it the scale of these projects requires more time than for the average time that is in the Zoning Ordinance.  Mr. Wasilak agreed and stated that these use permits are complex with the phases and permits to be issued.     

Ms. Harris presented the applicant’s request.  She said that it their hope and intent that Phase I A will be under construction by the end of the summer.  However, knowing what they know about life and construction life and Murphy’s Law, they wanted to make sure to request both extensions.  She said that one-year extensions for both use permits would give them the amount of time necessary to get things going. 

Commissioner Britton moved, seconded by Commissioner Medearis to approve Time Extension for Use Permit USE2005-00684, Twinbrook Station (west side) per staff recommendations for a one-year time extension.  The motion passed on a vote of 4-0.  Commissioners Ostell and Wiener were absent. 

Time Extension for Use Permit USE2005-00685, Twinbrook Station (east side) – request for one-year time extension to begin construction.

Commissioner Britton moved, seconded by Commissioner Medearis to approve Time Extension for Use Permit USE2005-00685, Twinbrook Station (east side) per staff recommendations for a one-year time extension.  The motion passed on a vote of 4-0.  Commissioners Ostell and Wiener were absent.

Use Permit Amendment Application USA2006-00696A, JBG/Market Square II LLC – to amend the Use Permit for Blocks E and F in the Upper Rock development at 1-11 Choke Cherry Road in the I-3 Zone, in order to lower the building height in Block E from 90 to 74 feet and reduce the amount of units from 431 to 275.

Mr. Wasilak presented the staff report.  Mr. Wasilak stated that this is also a use permit amendment application for another development that was approved under a PDP and that is the Upper Rock district.  This property is located on Shady Grove Road at the I270 Interchange, just west of Choke Cherry Road.  There was a use permit that was approved last year for the first new construction within the PDP.  The PDP approval for the entire site includes a considerable office component; both of those buildings currently exist, although the older building under the PDP could be converted into residential units at a later date.  There is also a total of 23,500 square feet of retail and a portion of that is within a marketplace and a maximum of 844 multi-family residential units in six buildings, which include up to 126 live/work units.  This is the overall PDP Plan for Upper Rock, which is a redevelopment of the existing office park.  One of the major issues is maintaining the parking for those office buildings on the site during the phased construction of the entire development.  To address that issue, a major parking garage is being constructed as Block F of the PDP.  This would allow for a majority of the parkers who would be working in the SAMSA building, the central office building to park in that structure and allow for additional areas to be opened up for development.  The original use permit was for Blocks E and F.  The use permit essential consists of two components, reducing the size of the overall development covered by the use permits from 431 to 275 units with a corresponding decrease in height on Block E from 90 to 74 feet.  The footprint would remain the same with a corresponding decrease in the overall size of the Block E building.   

Mr. Wasilak stated that he has modifications to two conditions.  Clarification of Condition 8 to read, “A signing and marketing plan is required to be submitted prior to issuance of Public Works permits and that would be incorporated into the signature sets.  This is really a clarification with the timing of that submission.  Condition 32 to be modified to read, “That the County’s Development Impact Tax is payable prior to issuance of each building permit”, not the first building permits.       

Pete Jervey with JPG Companies explained the project.  He stated that the footprints or the landscaping have not changed.  JBG does have a building permit that has been submitted for the first portion of the construction, which is the parking garage.  To construct this project, they must construct the garage first so that the surface parking moves into the garage allowing for the construction of the residential buildings.  All was conceived in the charrette and in the original use permit approval; therefore, there is no change to the phasing. 

Anthony Lucarelli, Architect with Grimm Parker explained the architectural design.  Mr. Lucarelli stated that their objective was to make no new changes; the only changes are the grading and to try to obtain more accessibility at the corner of Block E.  They have relocated the entrance of Block E from what had been the center of the buildings at the corner.   He discussed the reduction of height and reducing the amount of units from 431 to 275 units.       

In response to Commissioner Johnson, Nancy Regelin, Attorney explained that the changes are market driven.   

Commissioner Hill inquired about the office tower.  Ms. Regelin stated that the office tower is nine stories and is in the center of the site.  She talked about the heights of the buildings on the site. 

Commissioner Hill commented about improving the pedestrian flow on the site. 

Commissioner Britton moved, seconded by Commissioner Hill to approve Use Permit Amendment Application USA2006-00696A, JBG/Market Square II LLC per staff recommendations with the modifications of Conditions 8 and 32.  Mr. Wasilak provided the modified text to Condition 8 and this would be a substitution of the last sentence in Condition 8, “Signing and market plans shall be approved prior to building permits for each phase as applicable and shall be incorporated into the approved signature set.”  Modified text to Condition 32 will read, “Applicant shall pay the County’s Development Impact Tax, as applicable, subject to allowable credits, prior to the issuance of each building permit.”  The motion passed on a vote of 4-0.  Commissioners Ostell and Wiener were absent. 

COMMISSION ITEMS

Old Business

Mr. Wasilak pointed out that a first series of three open houses in discussion sessions for the Twinbrook Neighborhood Plan is scheduled for this Sunday, April 29, 2007 at 2:00 pm.  It is a combination open house where people can look at the station setup for previous community meetings and gather information; there would be a discussion afterward.  The open house will be at the Glenview Mansion Conservatory Room.  Two subsequent sessions on May 15, will be held at the Rockville High School in the cafeteria.  He said the Commissioners are invited to attend as observers.     

Boards and Commissions Report – Discussion of Mayor and Council’s recent recommendations and legal issues

Mr. Wasilak explained that staff had a training session on the legal issues. 

The Board discussed the legal issues such as interaction and communication between the Boards and Commissions and the Mayor and Council, open meeting laws, rules of procedure, ex parte communication, ethics/conflicts, liability, and legal impact of decisions.  Ms. Block explained how those issues should be communicated. 

Chief of Planning Report

Mr. Wasilak reported that the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for May 9, 2007.   Commissioner Hill noted that the Bike and Transportation Commission would like to meet with the Planning Commission for a briefing on the subject of bike stations.  He suggested having the briefing at the beginning of the May 9 meeting.  The Commissioners and staff agreed. 

Minutes

Commissioner Hill moved, seconded by Commissioner Britton to approve the minutes of Meeting No. 5-07 as amended.  The motion passed on a vote of 4-0.  Commissioners Ostell and Wiener were absent.

Commissioner Hill moved, seconded by Commissioner Britton to approve the minutes of Meeting No. 6-07 as amended.  The motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioner Britton abstaining.  Commissioners Ostell and Wiener were absent.

After further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 9:23 p.m.