Mr. Wasilak announced that the new draft proposed Rockville Zoning Ordinance was authorized for filing by the Mayor and City Council at its meeting Monday evening, October 8.  Mr. Wasilak encouraged everyone who is interested in these meetings to become involved in the review process for the Zoning Ordinance, which will probably be coming forward to the Planning Commission in January for review.  Mr. Wasilak noted that the City would be undertaking a comprehensive public outreach process and will be looking for comments from everyone. 

Mr. Wasilak stated that the information on the Ordinance would be posted on the City’s website and comments could be made via regular mail to the City of Rockville or via email or telephone to the Community Planning and Development Services Department. 

Chair Johnson announced that no action would be taken this evening.  This is an opportunity for the public to express their views, opinions and comments about the Twinbrook Neighborhood Plan.   

Commissioner Tyner announced, for the record, that he was elected Chair of the Twinbrook Neighborhood Planning Advisory Group on April 7, 2005, and he had a major hand in the formulation and editing of the current draft that was officially submitted to the Commission on November 30, 2006, which is the subject of this public hearing this evening.  Commissioner Tyner noted that, with his subsequent appointment to the Planning Commission, he resigned as Advisory Group Chair on June 8, 2007.  Mr. Tyner asked Assistant City Attorney, Sondra Block, in a letter dated June 8, 2007, whether there was any legal precedent and/or opinion that would preclude him, as a Planning Commissioner, from taking further deliberative action on the draft Twinbrook Neighborhood Plan as the Commission undertakes its discussions and recommendations to the Mayor and Council. 

Ms. Block responded that there was no legal reason why he should not exercise his duty as a Planning Commissioner in this regard.  Commissioner Tyner assured everyone that he remains open-minded with no particular bias about the contents of the Plan, and he is looking forward to considering all public comment about the plan, fairly and evenly.  

Chair Johnson stated that he would like to make a few opening comments.  He stated that the purpose of these comments is to assist the Planning Commission, which is ultimately charged with the responsibility of drafting a plan for the Twinbrook Neighborhood.  Therefore, the Commission is opening the floor up to anybody and everybody to speak on whatever topic they wish related to the Plan.  Chair Johnson pointed out that, from his own perspective, the most useful comments will be those related to what provisions should be deleted or what provisions should be included in the Plan. 

Chair Johnson pointed out those individuals who are representing organizations will have five minutes to speak; there will only be one person per organization who speaks for five minutes.  Other public comment will be limited to three minutes.  

PUBLIC HEARING

Twinbrook Neighborhood Plan  – for a neighborhood plan for Planning Areas 7 (Twinbrook Forest/Northeast Rockville) and Planning Area 8 (Twinbrook)

Ms. Wallas presented a brief update.  Ms. Wallas discussed the three open houses and three group meetings, mailings to citizens and outreach in English and Spanish through the Rockville Channel, Rockville Reports, The Gazette, El Tiempo Latino and the Washington Hispanic.  The standard legal public hearing notice was printed in the newspapers.  In addition, 4,000 postcards were sent to every household in the two planning areas.  

Ms. Wallas stated that staff has been working with an architectural firm, WGM, and they are present this evening to give an overview of draft concepts for redevelopment of the commercial areas.  A public outreach program is underway to let people know about these draft concepts, and they are essentially being introduced this evening. 

Rick Kleponis and Jeremy Kline of WGM presented a series of draft concepts to illustrate what might be possible should the Veirs Mill Road Commercial area and the Lewis Avenue Industrial area redevelop.    

Mr. Kleponis presented slides illustrating what could be done to the surrounding neighborhoods based on the proposed draft Zoning Ordinance.  There were many schemes illustrating a concept plan for the Twinbrook neighborhood area, which encompassed retail, office, commercial and light industrial uses along Twinbrook Parkway, Lewis Avenue and Viers Mill Road. 

After the presentation, Commissioner Ostell stated that it was the first time she has seen this presentation.  Ms. Wallas replied that these draft concepts arrived this evening, and staff felt they should be made public as soon as possible.  Ms. Wallas stated that she realizes it is short notice and that is why staff is proposing to undertake an outreach process on these concept plans, as well as advertising them on Rockville Cable.       

Chair Johnson pointed out that this is really one architectural firm’s perspective on what could be done with the zoning. 

The Commission and the architects discussed the zoning details that would support a development of the size just presented to the public, such as residential mixed-use development connected to a public transport mechanism, major constraints such as height restrictions, structured parking, and public open space, and having less of a F.A.R. and density than what is currently written in the draft Plan.  Also discussed were environmental concerns regarding commercial and light industrial uses.            

Commissioner Tyner stated that after having two public hearings, staff could invite these architects back for a worksession in order to discuss not only what the public said, but some other basic ideas as well. 

The following citizens testified:

1.  Linda Bozzonetti, member of the Twinbrook Neighborhood Planning Advisory Group, testified that she was speaking on behalf of Joe McClane, who is their chair and is now on travel.  Ms. Bozzenetti read Mr. McClane’s testimony.  She read that both the City and the planning group members worked together over the years to ensure that the entire Twinbrook community was part of the process in developing the Plan.  Their outreach effort, which is well documented, was one of the most extensive and expensive efforts of its kind ever undertaken by the City of Rockville.  They ensured that the full range of ethnic groups in their diverse community was encouraged to participate in this process. 

The Maryland Department of Planning was thrilled with the Neighborhood Plan and congratulated them on the Plan for it best meets the unique needs of their neighborhood.  From the feedback they received from those few residents who do not like a part of the plan, they can find no agreement among them on an alternative to the plan they have presented.  The Plan, which has the support of the community and the Maryland Department of Planning, should now be approved and supported by the City of Rockville’s Planning Commission. 

Ms. Bozzonetti said she would like to remind everyone that the drawings seen tonight are a concept.  It is an idea.  It is not set in stone.  It is something that could happen in the future, if they dare to dream to make changes to their neighborhood and community to make it better for everyone.         
2.  Karl Harger, 1024 Paul Drive, testified that there is always some resistance to change.  The concern is that there will be more and more people driving.  There is newer technology, which will provide better green building techniques.  Mr. Harger stated that his concerns are focused on fewer cars, auto traffic, and massing of buildings.

3.  William Neil testified that he lives in the Twinbrook neighborhood and serves as the Lane Use Chair of TCA.  Mr. Neil talked about the downturn in national and local real estate markets.  He expressed his concerns about the concept of high density and terrible market headwinds.  Mr. Neil stated that his recommendation for the Twinbrook Neighborhood Plan’s desire to bring their two main commercial areas under the mixed use spell is to leave them as they are for now, because they are doing well, and revisit their future shape in five years when they all have a better sense of the actual level of demand for new projects.     

4.  Alison Moser testified she lives in Twinbrook Forest.  She said she was gratified to see the presentation that the architects gave because she believes they realized once they started doing the planning that the density was too high for what was planned for Twinbrook Shopping Center.  She said she thinks 65 feet is too high.   

Ms. Moser stated that she feels that the cut-through on Atlantic Avenue would be great.  It would help the pedestrian access a lot and it would help with access to the library.  It would also slow some of the cars that are surfing through the parking lot.  

Ms. Moser said that another issue is that the former Broome Middle School does not have compatible uses.  One is a methadone clinic located next to the Meadow Hall Elementary School.  Ms. Moser said that the property is not in good shape.  She does not know if something could be put into the Plan about a better working relationship with the County.  She said she walks past Broome every day and the upkeep is terrible. 

Commissioner Tyner asked Ms. Moser if the clinic director would be interested in coming to the November 14 Commission meeting about his use of that facility in a neighborhood.  He also asked Ms. Moser if she cared to comment on the traffic on Twinbrook Parkway.  Commissioner Tyner stated that this Plan also is going to be looking at more than traffic calming sort of situations. 

Ms. Moser stated that she likes the speed cameras in that area.  Everybody has slowed down along Veirs Mill Road out to Norbeck Road.  She said she is not sure that the football actually helps pedestrians; she feels it makes it more confusing. 

Commissioner Tyner stated that comments concerning traffic circulation are very important because the streets are 26 feet wide in that area and any comments would be helpful.               

5.  Lora Meisner with Burgundy Estates Civic Association testified that she was part of the group that worked on the Twinbrook Neighborhood Plan.  After watching the presentation, the only thought she had was “a third town center”.  Ms. Meisner said that there is too much development going on in Rockville over the next decade and with the high density suggested in this particular Plan, she doubts it is sustainable because of the amount of development that precedes it.  Over the next few years, Rockville can be expected to add over 7 million square feet of commercial space and more than 3,600 residential units.  Therefore, when people say there is more development taking place in Rockville than in any other place in Montgomery County, they are pretty much on the mark.  Ms. Meisner pointed out that many people in the Atlantic Avenue area do not want a cut-through because the traffic is already bad. 

Ms. Meisner questioned somebody who served on the Twinbrook Neighborhood Plan who is going to turn around and vote on it.  She feels there is a conflict of interest.  Commissioner Britton pointed out that he thinks it is publicly damaging for Ms. Meisner to make a statement of people’s ethics. 

Ms. Meisner commented that she would be moving to Oregon in the near future because the quality of life here has deteriorated.  The cost of living keeps increasing rapidly; the infrastructure continues to lag and Rockville is becoming a city with all the negatives a city offers and few positives.

6.  Sherry Lane testified that she actually lives on Atlantic Avenue.  She said that many things that people have said she totally agrees with, although not all of it.  She feels that something has to happen in Twinbrook and to say that they should not change anything is not a good idea at all.  The shopping centers are in decay; there are problems with crime, with litter, and with drunkenness.  She feels that development of these areas might improve all of those issues.  However, the lack of sales in Town Center does cause her to wonder whether they are going to be able to sell all of those condominiums, houses, and apartments that are part of this plan.  The traffic is a huge issue, especially on Atlantic Avenue.  Ms. Lane discussed the greenspace, that the bike path in Twinbrook is not safe, and what happens when the traffic density doubles. 

7.  Mary Ann Barnes testified that she has lived in Twinbrook for 42 years and has seen many changes.  This Plan seems to focus on excessive development.  Who is going to pay for all of this?  She said she does not believe that all development should change the quality of her life or in the future.  She realizes that both shopping centers are in sad condition and the sidewalks on both sides are deplorable. 

8.  Tracy Pakulniewicz-Chidiac testified that she is President of Cambridge Walk Homeowners Association.  She said she is here tonight as a citizen of Twinbrook.  She supports this plan; it is not perfect, but it is flexible.  The beauty is that people can contact city staff and attend the forums and open houses to gain information and express themselves. 

Ms. Pakulniewicz-Chidiac noted that, as Ms. Wallas mentioned, there was a tremendous amount of outreach that the City has done to get people involved with the Plan.  One thing she was impressed with at the last public hearing was that the Planning Commissioners provided an opportunity for an association to provide a supplemental document recommending changes and were given 30 days to turn those changes in to City staff.  It was much to her dismay and disappointment that this was not done.   

9.  Paula Squire-Waterman testified that that she has lived in Twinbrook for 12 years and has seen changes.  She noted that the Atlantic Avenue cut-through would hit Gruenther Avenue where she lives and they have terrible problems with cut-through traffic as well.  Ms. Waterman stated that she was also on the planning group and they worked very hard on the Plan.  She suggested that people send in written opinions. 

10.  Judy Miller testified that she was a member of Advisory Group and the Vice President of TCA.  Ms. Miller stated that she believes in government and she believes in process, but she is having grave doubts about this process.  She said she also has some concerns about the conflicts of interest on the Planning Commission now and she is disappointed.  Ms. Miller also commented on the presentation tonight by the architects, which has not been seen before this evening.  Chair Johnson asked what the problem was with that because the presentation was to aid people’s visualization of what is in the Plan.  He asked Ms. Miller why she has a problem with seeing this tonight.  Ms. Miller replied that this is the only time to make comments on it and some of the people present have made time in their lives to come tonight. 

Ms. Miller stated that she firmly felt that 35 feet was probably right at the Twinbrook Shopping Center and Mart, and that this was a reasonable level, because they did not have all the information needed.  She thought there would be design workshops but that did not happen.  Ms. Miller stated that she also agrees with having commercial on the first floor and professional offices on the top, but keeping local businesses and allowing them to prosper.  Ms. Miller said that there is a real need for family-based housing in the Twinbrook neighborhood.  One bedroom, two bedroom condominiums are not helping families.  There is a missing component and that is for the families.  There is a need for townhouses, not condominiums.  They would also like to have a community center with greenspace surrounding it.  Ms. Miller said that they would also like to take out the conservation districts. 

Commissioner Hill questioned Ms. Miller’s statement regarding the need for family-based housing and mentioned townhomes.  Ms. Miller explained that a townhome would be enough to raise a family and condominiums have exorbitant fees.   

11.  Harry Thomas, 1121 Lewis Avenue, testified that this is a plan that needs to go forth, but they need some type of tool to go to the landlords and property owners whose buildings are in desperate need of being revitalized.  He noted that this Plan needs regulations in order to grow and go forward.  He said he does not like the heights of buildings in the Plan.  He asked that Commissioner Tyner recuse himself.

12.  Christina Ginsberg testified that she is the current President of TCA.  Ms. Ginsberg stated that this is not a done deal.  The process has been completely disappointing.  She said that they have been before the Planning Commission three times and staff has ignored their recommendations.  The presentations this evening do not reflect what went on in these meetings.  Ms. Ginsberg discussed RORZOR, and removing the conservation districts from the Plan. 

13.  Kevin Gallagher, 1200 Highwood Road, testified that this Plan should be tabled until the RORZOR document has been approved and implemented.  Mr. Gallagher said he was not happy with the Plan.  He said the process is one that commands comments from Mayor Giammo regarding a survey as to people’s satisfaction of the Plan.  Mr. Gallagher reprimanded the Planning Commissioners and said they should really think about another line of work.  He stressed that this process is flawed.   

14.  Steve Wilcox testified that he lives on Atlantic Avenue.  He said that a plan like this could do a lot of damage.  The (TCA) Executive Committee met and discussed many things that were wrong with the Plan, and the Commission has heard some of them and they are going to hear more.  What he has read in the Gazette about the process, such as statements by Commissioner Johnson and the Mayor, is evidence of shamefulness here and he said he is concerned about what poor process will do to Twinbrook.  

15.  Carl Henn testified that it would have been nice for the architects to share their plans with the community before tonight.  The presentation did help him visualize the Plan better.  On the other hand, it would have been nice to have the presentation shared with the community in advance if that was possible.  He said he would like to focus on park areas and there is a need for more park area in the community.  Mr. Henn  said that he would like to see the availability of community gardens to the people of Twinbrook.

16.  Denise Fredericks, 1024 Scott Avenue, testified that she has been a member of Twinbrook Planning Group since their first meeting at Meadow Hall where they got together as a community to see what things were most important in their neighborhood such as the strengths, the weaknesses, and the threats and the opportunities.  Ms. Fredericks described the people who were part of the group who started this process.  The things that were foremost in their minds were issues of traffic and congestion, the safety of our pedestrians, the needs of their seniors because there is no senior center on their side of the City.  In addition, their concerns are of middle school students because they are old enough to stay alone, but it does not make it a good idea and it does not really make the best of children’s time to have them roaming the streets or sitting at home alone watching television.  Ms. Fredericks stated that even though the Plan may not be perfect or permanent, she urged the Commission to approve the Plan.  She thanked the Commission for listening to the comments and she hopes the Commission can find a way to approve the Plan. 

17.  Todd Harrison testified that he lives on Marshall Avenue.  Mr. Harrison talked about affordable housing, and extra programs for kids after school.  He said he is TCA’s Traffic and Transportation Chair and he really looked at the traffic and transportation part of the Plan the most.  He said the pedestrian safety measures that are outlined in the Plan are great.  He said he thinks that part of the Plan should remain.  Mr. Harrison talked about transportation, extra bus lanes along Veirs Mill Road, a circulator trolley, and a few bus stops.  He noted that this Plan needs to be updated.  He said his biggest concern is with the traffic part of the Plan and it does not talk about the traffic impact from adding all of the condominiums.  Mr. Harrison stated that the Town Center is a success on the first floor.  He noted that he does not feel that they should be pushing a mixed-use idea in their area, especially considering the traffic impact that it would have on intersections that are already failing. 

Commissioner Tyner said it would be helpful if Mr. Harrison could come back on November 14 and talk about ways of increasing bus traffic, or he could do it in writing.  

Commissioner Hill asked Mr. Harrison his thoughts regarding what mechanism would be better for creating affordable housing in Twinbrook.  Mr. Harrison replied that he was not a zoning expert and he had no answer.  He noted that the developers want to make the best use of their land to generate the most profit, but what are they going to give in return.  There are trade-offs, and maybe they could institute something where they could build another floor of condominiums and the trade-off would be that they would have to increase the percentage of MPDUs.  That could be done in other ways such as environmental considerations.  Commissioner Hill pointed out that he is particularly interested in affordable housing approaches for Twinbrook as to what pitfalls the residents would see in that proposition and what mechanisms would be approvable.  Mr. Harrison replied that he is speaking for himself when he says that, when it comes to affordable housing, one cannot just turn their back on their neighbor and say, “not in my backyard”.  Mr. Harrison stated that he would welcome affordable housing units.  He said he believes a rich diversity of people of all incomes and all types of occupations would make a healthy community.  Therefore, affordable housing is great, but, only if it is affordable.  In Town Center, they are building $900,000 condominiums and that is not helping the problem.  To help the problem, the Commission should figure out a way to change the zoning, and the approval process, so the developers would build two and three bedroom condominiums or townhouses that are affordable for families and good for the neighborhood.

18.  Naomi Belkin, testified that she is the President of Twinbrook Mart Condominium Association and she has been in business for 22 years.  Ms. Belkin stated that she has attended two of these meeting and it is disturbing because of the unfavorable comments.  The community is not with the Planning Commission.  There are so many people against the Commission and she represents the business people.  She pointed out that the shopping centers look lousy and they have always looked lousy.  When she took over the management of the Twinbrook Shopping Center, she tried to make the Center look better.  Ms. Belkin stated that, in the period of time that she has been taking an interest in this Plan, she has been consistently disappointed.  There have been no workshops.  She said she expected a certain level of community involvement.  Ms. Belkin said she does not see too much feedback in this Plan.  All she sees is a lot of antagonism in this room. 

19.  Jacquie Kubin, 13303 Ardennes Avenue, testified that she is a member of the TCA.  However, she is not an active member.  Ms. Kubin stated that she applauds the work that any group can do to create a 129-page document.  She said she moved to Twinbrook about 20 years ago and she is not against change, but how does one possibly imagine or try to plan for what will happen 20 years from now.  She noted that the Twinbrook she moved into in 1987 is nowhere near where it is today.  Ms. Kubin stated that she is not against progress or change, but she feels that the Plan is a little bit grandiose with ideas and thoughts and she feels they need to decide as a group whether they are a city or a suburb.  She noted that she is upset about the lack of consideration for the environment.  She said she does not want another stick-built project in Rockville.  She stressed that what the City needs to do is to spend money on fixing centers, infrastructure, broken sidewalks, and light pollution.  She suggested fixing the stuff that is broken now and making the community more beautiful and look at the next five or six years and tomorrow, because twenty years might not come.

20.  Brigitta Mullican testified that she has lived in Twinbrook for 42 years.  She said she agrees with Ms. Ginsberg not wanting a conservation district.  Ms. Mullican discussed residential, and having more green space, and traffic.  She noted that the community wants to be heard and they have the same issues such as traffic.   

Chair Johnson asked Ms. Mullican why the neighborhood feels that conservation districts are bad.  Ms. Mullican replied that they do not want more restrictions. 

Chair Johnson asked if there should be a mechanism from preventing people to tear their houses down and rebuilding a massive house.  Ms. Mullican explained that houses should be built within the City’s code.   

Chair Johnson reminded the audience that there will be another public hearing on November 14 with additional opportunity for comment and he encouraged everybody to send emails, and comments to the Planning staff.  Chair Johnson stated that he has been listening to everyone this evening and how the Commission reconciles all of what is going on will be difficult.  He said he looks forward to hearing from more people.

Commissioner Tyner suggested that everyone present this evening should go back and tell their friends and neighbors to watch this tape.  Because a lot of this information will collect more ideas that they may want to have and that is what they are all really looking for in the first place.  Commissioner Tyner reminded everyone that the Commission is going to make a recommendation to the Mayor and Council and then after the November 6 election, the newly elected Mayor and Council will be looking at this Plan, too and they will have public hearings as well.  

Ms. Block noted that the Plan would be adopted by the Planning Commission, but it would go to the Mayor and Council for approval.   

Commissioner Ostell stated that she found the presentation helpful and the concept had a lot less density than what is recommended in the Plan.  She asked Ms. Wallas what her plan was for starting the process for the neighborhood to look at the drawings.  Ms. Wallas replied that staff will start out by working with the Rockville Channel 11 and she will meet with them on Friday.  She noted that the first step is to try to put together a short program that highlights the drawings, which will also include pictures in Rockville Reports and the web.  Now that they have something to show them, they can engage in conversation.  They will also be reconnecting with the businesses. 

The Board discussed having additional workshops to discuss ideas with the architects.

Commissioner Britton stated that the consensus tonight is to lower the heights.  He discussed the importance of telling neighbors to submit their ideas in writing.  As for the floating zone issue, that is a non-issue because there will be no floating zones in the City.   

Chair Johnson asked if it would be possible to have computer renditions of the drawings at the workshop.  Mr. Kline replied that it would be possible in a very rough sense. 

REVIEW AND ACTION

Final Record Plat PLT2007-00481, Twinbrook Commons LLC – to consolidate existing deeded parcels into 2 record lots (Lots 1 and 2, Block A, Twinbrook Station) consisting of 69,083 square feet and 671,669 square feet respectively, including street dedication, in the RPC Zone as part of the east side of the Twinbrook Station development.

Commissioner Tyner disclosed his former role as Chair of the Business Development and Relations Committee of the Twinbrook Citizens Association.  He explained that he helped represent the Association while they negotiated, over a five-year period, with JBG and its predecessor companies in the climb up to the Preliminary Development Plan approved by the City in April 2005.  The three items before the Commission this evening constitute technical matters ensuing from the approved plan.  He sees no conflict of his participation at this time.  There were no objections. 

Margaret Hall presented the staff report.  Ms. Hall stated that she would like to discuss the next three applications together.  The first and third applications are the record plats for the property and the second application is the Ownership Plat for the first record plat.  Ms. Hall stated that there are two plats containing three lots.  The plat for the east side (PLT2007-00481) has two lots, Lots 1 and 2, Block A and the plat (PLT2007-00484) is the west side plat which encompasses most of the parking area on the west side of the tracks, towards Rockville Pike.  It is intended to be a single lot by this Record Plat.  These plats are to allow for the final steps in development.  All buildings must be constructed on a record lot.  Ms. Hall explained that the two record plats constitute all of the land within Twinbrook Commons PDP.  Ms. Hall explained that because of the Ownership Plat, it was discovered that there is not a single use permit for the east side.  Therefore, as part of the recommendations being made for the conditions for that plat, staff needs to consolidate the already approved use permits into a single use permit that meets the requirements for an ownership plat.  The ownership plat will create the lots consistent with the approvals that have previously been given, and staff intends to administratively create a new use permit number that encompasses the approvals that have already been granted with no change whatsoever for the east side of the development.  Ms. Hall noted that, as part of approving these plats, the Planning Commission must adopt a street name.  She said that Fisher’s Lane is a given in that it extends a street within the County.  However, the applicant proposed that the new street name within the development would be called Park Mews Lane.  If the Commission does not feel that the name of the street is acceptable, they could send it back to find a new name.   

In response to the Commission, Ms. Hall stated that the applicant has an alternate name, but it has not been approved by the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission.  Ms. Hall noted that Park Mews Lane has been accepted by the County, but that does not mean that it is the best name for the street. 

Ms. Block clarified that subject to prior recordation, the plats would come back to the Planning Commission to decide on a street name.  Ms. Hall stated that the record plats cannot be recorded without a street name and the name must be acceptable to the Commission.   

Commissioner Tyner noted that there are a number of historic names in that area.

Commissioner Tyner inquired about the ownership plat as to how the discussion between the applicant and WMATA come up with the part of the plat that would become available for ownership and what part is going to be rental.  Ms. Block explained that an ownership plat is a mechanism often done to accommodate the financing and separate ownership of the buildings as required by the Zoning Ordinance.  It does not necessarily have to do with ownership versus rental.     

Pat Harris, Attorney, presented the applicant’s request.  Ms. Harris explained that, in terms of the street name, she stated that Park Mews Lane was previously approved by Park and Planning, however, they put on their creative hats and came up with three other names they like, but they must be approved by Park and Planning.  The new street names are oriented around the theme of the railroad.  The names are Signal View, Signal Park, or Signal Hill.  Ms. Harris said that they would like to get the Planning Commission’s approval for one of those names. 

Ms. Harris stated that on the east side plat, which is Block A, there is one issue, which is “pursuant to a comment made by DPW, they had indicated minor dedication along the Ardennes Avenue frontage of that property.  Their dedication was consistent with the use permit’s Condition 28 that requires the applicant to dedicate in order to provide for the necessary width of the sidewalk, and the tree panel, and the comment by DPW “to show as a PIE instead of street dedication”.  The applicant is in conflict in that if they pay attention to DPW’s comment, it would throw them out of conformance with the use permit.  Ms. Harris suggested that that one note be eliminated and go back to what the use permit said, which is to provide a street dedication.  In addition, in terms of the ownership lot, she agreed with what Ms. Block said and she would note that the two ownership lots, 2A and 2B would not be that portion of the property, which ultimately would earn a fee and portions of the remainder of Lot 2 would be those acquired in fee.   

The Commission discussed the street dedication and the selected street names from the applicant.  The Commission agreed that it was not ready to vote on street names this evening. 

After further discussion regarding the applications and whether they would be affected if a street name was not selected by the Commission.  Commissioner Tyner moved, second by Commissioner Hill, to approve Final Record Plat PLT2007-00481 with the proviso that staff check with DPW to  allow Condition 28 and that the street name would be part of the recordation later and would be brought back to the Commission to vote on street names.  The motion passed unanimously.   

Ownership Plat PLT2007-00482, Twinbrook Commons LLC – for the creation of three ownership lots from Lot 2, Block A, Twinbrook Station, in the RPC Zone.

Ms. Hall presented the staff report. 

Commissioner Tyner moved, seconded by Commissioner Hill, to approve Ownership Plat PLT2007-00482, Twinbrook Commons LLC per staff recommendations.  The motion passed unanimously.

Final Record Plat PLT2007-00484, Twinbrook Commons LLC – to consolidate existing deeded lots into a single record lot of 8.48 acres in the RPC Zone as part of the west side of the Twinbrook Station development.

Ms. Hall presented the staff report. 

Commissioner Hill moved, seconded by Commissioner Tyner, to approve Final Record Plat PLT2007-00484, Twinbrook Commons LLC per staff recommendations.  The motion passed unanimously.

Use Permit Amendment USA2006-0699A, Duball Rockville LLC – for an amendment to the existing Use Permit USE2006-0699 to incorporate a 175-room hotel into the approved mixed-use building at 196 East Montgomery Avenue in the TC-4 Zone as part of the Rockville Center development.

Mr. Chasten presented staff report.  Mr. Chasten stated that the Planning Commission voted to approve Use Permit USE2006-00699 on March 14, 2007 subject to certain conditions.  The approval allowed the applicant to redevelop Parcel 2-J/Block 3 and Parcel 2-K/Block 2 with a mixed-use development of primarily residential, street-level retail, structured parking facilities and other associated site amenities. 

Mr. Chasten noted that the site is zoned TC-4 and is located within the Rockville Town Center Planning Area.  He said 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 1,500 feet of the Rockville Metro Station, one and one-half blocks away from the subject site. 

Mr. Chasten stated that Parcel 2-J/Block 3 is approximately 78,933 square feet (1.8 acres) in size and Parcel 2-K/Block 2 is approximately 57,631 square feet (1.3 acres) in size.  The parcels are currently improved and used as surface parking lots.  Parcel 2-J contains approximately 203 spaces and Parcel 2-K contains approximately 158 spaces for a total of 361 spaces.  Current access to the surface parking lot is via East Middle Lane, in the approximate location of proposed Renaissance Street.  The applicant proposes to resubdivide the property into two record lots of similar size and dimension.  Under the previously approved use permit proposal, the applicant is allowed to redevelop Parcels 2-J and 2-K with a mixed-use development containing 45,300 square feet of street level retail floor space, 485 residential dwelling units on the upper floors of the buildings and structured parking facilities contained in the core of both buildings.  The previously approved building structure to be built on Parcel 2-J would be a maximum of 144 feet in height, containing 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 building that would be constructed on Parcel 2-K would 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 the proposed building structure.  Under the subject use permit amendment, the applicant proposes to modify the building structure that would be located on Parcel 2-J.  The applicant plans to add a 175- room hotel with limited services, construct 715 structured parking spaces, retain the previously approved 230 dwelling units, and 23,100 square feet of ground level retail space.  Staff notes that there are no proposed changes to the building that would be constructed on Parcel 2-K. 

Mr. Chasten stated that inclusion of the hotel component has required that the proposed 230 residential dwelling units approved in the mixed-use residential building structure be modified in size and type of units constructed.  For example, under Use Permit USE2006-00699, of the total 230 residential units proposed, 122 units were to become one-bedroom units and 108 were to be two-bedroom units.  Under this proposal, there will be 23 studio units, 126 one-bedroom units and 81 two-bedroom units.  The applicant has affirmed that the residential unit sizes in the Parcel 2-J building structure, under the approved use permit, ranged from 708 square feet to 1,914 square feet for the proposed one and two bedroom units.  Under the proposal this evening, the sizes of the residential units would be as follows:  a) studio units range from 480 square feet to 750 square feet; and b) one and two-bedroom units will range from 635 square feet to 1,330 square feet in size.  It is further noted that the penthouse level reflect a mix of unit sizes, which includes studio, and one and two-bedroom units. The hotel guest rooms would be incorporated into the first eight floors of the existing approved building structure.  As per plans provided, the architecture and building materials remain substantially similar to that previously approved, but include minor modifications to the base level building façade to incorporate a change in the scale of the windows for hotel guest rooms.  As required, architectural plans, building cross-sections, and elevation drawings have been provided.  The hotel lobby would be located in the space of the former second residential lobby on Renaissance Street.  No second residential lobby is now included.  The hotel’s retail services area, including the newsstand and concession area would front on Renaissance Street.  The hotel would have a publicly accessible lounge (accessory restaurant) with direct sidewalk access located adjacent to the garage entrance.  The hotel pool and fitness facilities, meeting rooms, and service area would be located on the below grade level.  There are no changes to the previously approved building heights or setbacks.  There were no additional changes to the previously approved sidewalks, streetscapes, landscape plans or green areas. 

Mr. Chasten stated that, under the amendment to include a hotel, 1,343 spaces are required within the project and 1,346 spaces would be provided.  Mr. Chasten stated that 302 parking spaces are required for the 203 residential units, 222 spaces for the hotel and retail uses, and 191 spaces that are replacement spaces for surface spaces lost to site redevelopment.  The 302 spaces for residential dwelling units are reserved and not shared with commercial uses.  Thus, 715 spaces are required for Parcel 2-J/Block 3 and 631 spaces required for Parcel 2-K/Block 2, which are not being modified by this use permit amendment.  Both building structures would have a maximum height of 77 feet along each street frontage with a maximum of a 30-foot setback on the exterior face of the building to the taller sections of the building.  In accordance with the previously approved PDP1994-0001E, at the 77-foot level, the upper floors would extend to the maximum building heights.  Based on the plans submitted, the proposed heights are measured from the building midpoints on the north sidewalks of East Montgomery Avenue.       
             
Commissioner Hill questioned the extent of accepting vertical mixed-use beyond the first floor of the project and whether it would apply.  Commissioner Hill stated that it is not obvious to him that an amendment to the PDP envisioned this and he is wondering whether a use permit process is an appropriate place for this project.  Mr. Wasilak explained that the PDP clearly allows for a hotel use to be located on any of the lots within the PDP.  Ms. Block stated that it is not necessary to interpret the hotel as being residential.  Commissioner Hill asked if this is a change of intensity of this site.  Mr. Chasten explained that, in the previous approval, the applicant accommodated for the trip generation that this hotel component would generate.  Staff looked at that issue relative to intensity with regard to pedestrian activity, to quantify anything outside of traffic generation for this project.  Commissioner Hill noted concern that no traffic numbers are presented in the staff report.  Mr. Chasten explained that, overall, the footprint has not changed. 

The Commission continued to question and discuss concerns regarding intensification of uses as specified in the PDP, the real estate market regarding the residential units, additional traffic because of the project, traffic analysis of intersections in the Town Center, traffic mitigation, and cost of traffic improvements and where the improvements would be implemented, and environmental analysis of the project.     

Marc Dubick, with Duball Rockville LLC, presented the applicant’s request.  Mr. Dubick explained to the Commission that there are no significant changes to the East or West buildings except for the addition of a hotel component.  All of the other aspects of the project remain the same.  Mr. Dubick noted that having a hotel in Rockville has been a mission for many in the City for numerous years.  Mr. Dubick stated that the Rockville Master Plan called a hotel a highly desirable component for the redevelopment of the Town Center.  In fact, the Rockville Economic Development Inc. had commissioned a feasibility study in December 2005.  Including a hotel is a keystone to a great Town Center.  It is important to achieve activation for the retail and the restaurants.  There will be a 175 rooms in the hotel and that would bring approximately $3.5M per year spent primarily in the Town Center.  Furthermore, the applicant has not asked for any financial assistance from the City.  Mr. Dubick stated that it is regularly the case that cities to provide financial incentives.  The project is only able to support the inclusion of the hotel through the construction of the 230 residential units in the West building and the total unit cap between the two buildings of 485 units.  The hotel that the applicant is finalizing arrangements with is a Starwood hotel.  Mr. Dubick described the reputation of the Starwood Hotel. 

Mr. Dubick continued to describe the proposed hotel and the surrounding area.  He said the hotel will have a restaurant and other amenities provided.          

Nancy Regelin, Attorney, pointed out that this site is subject to a Preliminary Development Plan that was approved in 1994 and, so, people forget all of things that were approved, were conditioned, and have already been built by this project, which are five lots; not just these two lots.  The Mayor and Council approved a resolution, which is over 90 pages and was very detailed.  Ms. Regelin noted that the Mayor and Council accepted the owners’ proposal to reduce 850,000 square feet of office on these two sites and all the utilization of public facilities that 850,000 square feet takes, down to 485 dwelling units and the Mayor and Council stated they wanted a hotel here resulting in another 100 trips.  Therefore, when the Commission asks if this is an intensification of use, the answer is “no” based on what they are comparing it to.  They are comparing it to the PDP and the use permit that the Commission approved in March 2007.  Now, the applicant has been able to secure a hotel; it is very consistent with the intensity of use that was approved in the PDP; 485 dwelling units and a hotel and it would not generate more than 100 additional trips.  Ms. Regelin stated that the Resolution states that a hotel is an allowable use in addition to the allowable uses and that 100 trips in the AM and PM peak periods are reserved in addition to all of the traffic that is generated by the existing uses.  The Mayor and Council established a framework of allowable uses and those are the only allowable uses.  It provided a form within which any of these uses could be included.  Everything in this proposal fits within this box as was approved by the Mayor and Council with the PDP, and as well as these buildings approved by the Commission in March 2007.  The Mayor and Council made certain findings at the time of the PDP.  They made these findings twice, once in 1994 and once in 2005 when the PDP was amended to reduce it from office and convert it to residential.  The findings were that the project would not overburden public facilities; would not adversely affect the health or safety of persons; would not be detrimental to public welfare or injurious to property or improvements.  It said specifically that the PDP complied with the Master Plan and was compatible with all existing and proposed developments in the area.  The Planning Commission found that the proposed buildings met the Town Center Guidelines and the requirements of the PDP.  There are no changes to the building.  The applicant prepared a full traffic analysis and there is a one-page statement from the applicant in the staff report.  Ms. Regelin stated that this project has been in the pipeline since 1994.  However, when they did the circulation analysis, they evaluated for the City what the $600,000 contribution would be used for in the City.   So, not only did they look at the specific access points of this project, with the hotel, but, at a point in time when everything that is approved in Town Center would be built out, going through those intersections.  It is to help the City say “We know that the PDP says the applicant has to contribute $600,000; this is what you can use it for”.  They did a traffic analysis at the time of use permit and they included 100 trips.  The Commission probably never saw it because a hotel was never discussed, but those were included at the time.  At that time, there was a determination made that the traffic met all of the burdens that it needed to meet. 

Ms. Regelin stated that Commissioner Medearis raised a concern at the March 2007 meeting regarding the evacuation of the building.  Ms. Regelin explained that, after studying the matter, it was found by a consultant that it would take 30 minutes and 15 seconds to evacuate the building, which is excellent and well within what is seen in the industry.  The question is where those people would go after they evacuate.

Ms. Regelin concluded her testimony by stating that the hotel is not an intensification of use.     

The Commission discussed concerns regarding the possible intensification of use, removing some of the units, hotel amenities, valet parking, taxis and drop-offs, access to the site, increasing the number of MPDUs, size of apartments, environmental features, increasing the amount of money for transportation mitigation, and loss of local businesses. 

Commissioner Britton stated that the Commission does have a concern with the intensity or the difference in what is perceived as intensity in use and he agrees with many of the comments made by the applicant’s representatives because the Commission is comparing it with the previous use permit.  To mitigate the Commission’s perception problem, he would like to see a couple of additional features, which would help the community such as:  1) increasing the amount of money for transportation mitigation, and 2) the Commission is now hearing complaints about loss of local businesses.  He would like to see a commitment for a certain percentage of outreach to local businesses such as mom and pop businesses, so they would be able to stay in Rockville.  Mr. Dubick stated that they would do what they can.  Ms. Regelin explained a special benefit that is helping the mom and pops in the Regal Row now, because the businesses are within the PDP even after structured parking has been constructed on Duball’s lot, they would continue to enjoy discounted parking, if not free, for their patrons.   

Commissioner Britton asked if they would agree to a condition to helping local businesses.  Mr. Dubick replied that he would be afraid to commit to something not knowing the framework.  Ms. Regelin talked about all the contributions given to the City by this project and this project is carrying more than their fair share. 

The following citizens testified: 

1.  Bridget Newton, Chair of Town Center Action Team stated that the TCAT heard from Duball in July and was very pleased to have a hotel coming to the Town Center.  Ms. Newton said that they were initially disappointed because they were told it was a boutique luxury hotel, but once they learned the description of the hotel, they found it would be good for Rockville.  She expressed the Action Team’s concerns regarding the number of residences have not decreased, only the size of the residences.  She asked about the lack of three bedroom condominiums because there is a dearth of affordable housing and there are many people who would prefer three bedroom condominiums or apartments.  The City needs to be very cognizant of what is being done in the Town Center, especially if only studios and one bedrooms are built.  Ms. Newton stated that the $600,000 contribution is nothing; it is a drop in the bucket.  Money needs to be spent on sewer lines and infrastructure.  She said she would be very curious to know the square footage of the hotel rooms.  There is much to be done with this project to make it work for the applicant and the City.  She said the Town Center needs a hotel, but the City does not have to compromise everything away.    

2.  Martin Heilman, resident of The Victoria and a member of TCAT stated that he was the former Chairman.  Mr. Heilman stated that he strongly supports the idea of having a hotel in the Town Center.  He pointed out that there would not be a full restaurant in the hotel and that is important because they want the residents of the hotel to utilize other restaurants.  Mr. Heilman recommended larger rooms for the hotel. 

3.  Patricia Woodward, President of WECA, stated that late summer, Ms. Regelin sent the Association several packets, which were disseminated among the Board members prior to their meeting in September.  After reading the material, everybody seemed to be excited about the hotel.  When the Board meeting occurred in September, everybody came with comments and questions.  As a result of the meeting, there are concerns about the addition of the hotel in that there would be a reduction in size of the residential units.  They are aware that the new apartments in the Town Center are not doing well and they are very concerned about the real estate market conditions.  Ms. Woodward also discussed the concern about parking with the addition of the hotel as well as the ambience and interior design of the hotel lobby that it is inconsistent with historical character of Rockville.  After the meeting, it was agreed upon that Rockville is a County seat with the Judicial Center and part of the hotel would be looking upon the Red Brick Courthouse, which was built in 1891.  They are excited and they have met with Duball two times and they are encouraged and will continue to work with them. 

Ms. Regelin stated that they have been glad to work with The Victoria, the West End, Americana and the Town Center.   She asked what the scope of authority is in the Planning Commission with regard to unit sizes.  There are no specific regulations on the authority to regulate the size of units.  The City of Rockville’s code is also devoid of regulation on interior layout, unit size and unit mix.  Ms. Regelin stated that during the revision of the Zoning Ordinance, that topic might be something to discuss.  The closest regulation is the Housing Code and that regulation is requires 250 square feet for a unit.  She said she would caution the Planning Commission on putting additional square footage on units because unit size/unit mix is an economic risk; it is a market decision by a developer and their lenders and they take the risk.  They do the studies; they evaluate.  The City is not in a position of dictating market to the developers at this point in time.      

Mr. Dubick presented a description of the proposed hotel.

Ms. Regelin noted that this property is subject to County impact taxes for both schools and transportation, which is close to $2million.  The majority of the transportation dollars would remain in the Town Center.

The Commission discussed the improvements provided by this project, local businesses, mitigation dollars that are insufficient, size of units, where the (developer) monies are going and what are are the benefits to the citizens, marketing for local businesses, what would be the public welfare harm that might be caused because of the glut of certain sized units that could be detrimental to the community, and traffic mitigation should be increased.  Chair Johnson stated that this developer has provided many improvements early on in the project and he is in full support of this project.  He said that the smaller units make sense to him as three bedroom units would not be affordable. 

Commissioner Tyner moved, seconded by Commissioner Wiener, to approve Use Permit Amendment USA2006-0699A, Duball Rockville LLC, per staff recommendations with a condition that the applicant use their good offices to investigate the possibility of marketing a few three bedroom units and incentive marketing to local businesses.  The motion passed on a vote of 4-3 with Commissioners Ostell, Britton, and Hill voting nay.   

COMMISSION ITEMS

Old Business

The Commission discussed topics that would be discussed the Commission’s upcoming retreat. 

Chief of Planning Report 

Mr. Wasilak reported that the next meeting is scheduled for October 24.  Chair Johnson said he would not be present for the November 14 meeting. 

Commissioner Tyner discussed the meeting dates for December. 

Minutes

The minutes were deferred until the next meeting.

ADJOURN

After further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 12:32 a.m.