Chair Johnson announced that the briefing on the draft Zoning Ordinance might have to be rescheduled due to the long agenda this evening.

RECOMMENDATION TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL

Map Amendment MAP2007-00102, Mayor and Council of Rockville – to change the zone of property at 503 Baltimore Road from R-60 to R-60HD (Historic District) to create a single-site historic district. 

Ms. Ziek presented the staff report.  Ms. Ziek stated that this project went before the HDC on September 27, 2007 and the HDC found the property eligible for designation.  Ms. Ziek described the characteristics of the house.  She noted that the overall character of the house has a high level of integrity.  The house is an American Foursquare and has its original pebbledash stucco finish.  The house was built in 1914 by Walter and Bessie Thompson.  The current house really conveys the 1914 house.  The property is significant because of the Rockville Park subdivision layout with the street and the alley.  The person who built this house, Mr. Thompson, was an active builder in East Rockville.  He lived down the street and built two other houses on Baltimore Road.  Ms. Ziek stated that Mr. Thompson may have been responsible for the stucco siding on the house.  The Thompsons were a farming family and sold it to a farming family.  Ms. Ziek stated that the house was modified in the third quarter of the 20th century from a single-family dwelling to a four-unit apartment house.  In the last years of the 20th century, the house was reconfigured once again as a single-family dwelling.  Alterations associated with this effort include rear additions and replacement windows.  The owners are very excited and may or may not be here tonight.  The house and property comply with the master plan and the neighborhood plan.  This building faces the street and is a prominent house. 

Chair Johnson asked for an explanation as to why the applicant is the Mayor and Council rather than the owners.  Mr. Wasilak explained that the Historic District process involves a zoning map amendment in the nature of a sectional map amendment, and only the Mayor and Council and the Planning Commission are authorized to file those types of applications.  Otherwise, it would be a local map amendment that would be much more difficult to enact.  This application was initiated by the owners. 

In response to Commissioner Hill regarding the location and the garage, Ms. Ziek explained that the history of the property is significant to the City.  The garage was built after 1960 and is not considered a historic structure, but is included in the entire property. 

The owners were not present.

Commissioner Hill moved, seconded by Commissioner Wiener, to recommend approval to Mayor and Council per staff recommendations.  The motion passed unanimously. 

RECOMMENDATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS

Special Exception SPX2007-00374, St. Raphael’s Parish School – for the expansion of an existing private school in the R-90 Zone at 1592 Kimblewick Road.

Mr. Chasten presented the staff report.  Mr. Chasten stated that St. Raphael’s Parish Church has been an established institutional land use within the subject community since the late 1960s.  Both the church and its school component have been in existence for well over thirty years.  The property is located in the southeast quadrant of Falls and Dunster Roads.  The overall property is approximately 11 acres in size and is zoned R-S (Suburban, Residential).  The existing church campus includes a 750-seat church sanctuary, an activities building, which houses the existing church school, an auditorium/gymnasium, a modular office building, a rectory, and elderly housing facility.  The site has vehicular access onto Dunster Road to the north and Kimblewick Road located to the south.  The elderly housing/assisted living facility (known as Raphael House) has separate but direct vehicular access onto Dunster Road via a semi-circular driveway, allowing for pick-up and drop off of persons entering and exiting the front entrance to the housing facility. 

Mr. Chasten stated that the applicant affirms that the site has 224 surface parking spaces.  Of the total number of parking spaces provided, nineteen spaces are required for the elderly housing facility, while the remainder is provided for the church, school, and other ancillary support site uses.  Site surface parking is located in the western and northern areas of the site.  The site is bound to the north by Ritchie Park Elementary School and a community private swimming pool, to the east by a wooded area of the site and neighboring single-family detached dwellings, and to the south and west by single-family detached dwellings. 

Mr. Chasten said that the subject school currently provides educational instruction for 164 pre-school, kindergarten, and first grade students.  The applicant affirms that the current staff level for the parish and school is 35 employees.  The school’s academic year starts in September and ends in May.  The school operates on a weekday schedule, starting at 8:00 am and ending at 3:00 pm.  As noted, the applicant seeks special exception approval to construct a building addition on the southside of the existing parish school and to increase the grade level offerings of the school adding grades two through eight.  Based on City records, the church has never formally applied for nor has been granted a special exception to operate the existing church school.  Thus, the applicant seeks special exception approval to bring the existing church school into compliance with current requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, to increase the grade level offerings of the school and expand the existing school building facilities to accommodate the expanded school operations.  The school’s enrollment of 164 students would increase by a total of 220 additional students.  Thus, the school would have an enrollment of 384 students.  The existing school does not and has no future plans to provide bus service to the facility.  The applicant notes that due to the age of the children currently attending the school, the majority of the children are driven to the school except for a few children who walk to school with their parents.  The proposed three-level building addition is to be constructed on the south side of the existing school building and on the west side of the auditorium.  The proposed new building addition would create new classroom space, computer and science labs, a library, office and administrative support space, meeting rooms, and storage area.  When the new 12,861 square foot building addition is completed, the subject private school and church will total approximately 49,851 gross square feet.  The proposed building addition will also be of masonry construction and designed to be compatible with the existing school building.  The new classroom building addition will feature a front building entrance, which opens onto a courtyard connected by a series of walkways. 

Mr. Chasten noted that, currently, 224 parking spaces are provided on the site.  Under the proposal as submitted, a total of two additional parking spaces must be provided by the applicant.  The Board of Appeals has the option of granting a parking reduction for those two parking spaces per Section 25-390 of the Ordinance. 

Mr. Chasten noted that the church also signed a lease agreement with the abutting community swimming pool to the north of the site for parking facilities. 

The Commission discussed concerns regarding the types of uses on the site; traffic impact as a result of the proposal; proximity of the addition to residential; overlapping uses on the site; whether the City was ever involved in taking a driveway off of Falls Road that goes into the site’s parking lot at the southwest segment of the site, and providing safer access into the site.    

Chair Johnson stated that he did not see a report that analyzed how many new car trips would be required for the additional 220 students.  He asked whether that would be required at the use permit stage, and why it is not in the staff report.  He stated that he is not sure about the value of the traffic study because it was done during the summer when the existing school was not in session.   

Anis Tannir explained the traffic situation.  He explained that the addition of more than 200 students would generate at least 200 trips based on how they would come to school and as well as being picked up from school.  There will not be any buses to transport the students to and from school.  The applicant has developed a plan for parent drop-off and pick-up of their children, which would not impact the intersection of Dunster and Falls Roads.  Chair Johnson asked Mr. Tannir how he would know that, as there is no analysis in the staff report of levels of service on those intersections that he could find.  Mr. Chasten replied that the study was not provided in the report, although the applicant went through the comprehensive transportation review process extensively.  The data was collected in February when the school was in session.  There is no school from grades two to eight, yet.  Therefore, transportation took the numbers and then made a projection on the additional number of students or trips they would generate and added that number to the existing data.  Chair Johnson questioned why this analysis was not provided to the Commission.  Mr. Tannir replied that the applicant could address this question in more detail.  Mr. Tannir stated that transportation staff is satisfied with the analysis provided.    

Commissioner Hill questioned how Kimblewick Road is classified.  Mr. Tannir replied that it is classified as a residential street.  Commissioner Hill asked what number of trips on that street would be considered an acceptable level of traffic per day.  Mr. Tannir replied that 800 to 1200 trips per day.  The street, itself, as far as right-of-way, depending on the speed, he assumes the street could take up to 10,000 vehicles per day. 

Commissioner Hill stated that there is another street in the City that has formal classification and a number of changes to that street were advocated by the City because of the number of trips on that street were over its service level.  He is trying to obtain the same analysis for Kimblewick Road.  Mr. Tannir said that Kimblewick is a dead end street with a cul-de-sac.  There are two lanes and one parking lane.  He noted that the street would accommodate approximately 10,000 vehicles a day.   

Chair Johnson inquired whether there were any efforts made by the applicant to talk to the community.  Mr. Chasten replied that the church has met with the members of the community periodically and as recently as last week.   

Commissioner Wiener asked if there is parking on both sides of the street.  Mr. Chasten replied that there is parking on both sides of the street and staff did not see that as a concern.   

Patrick Coggins, Parishioner at St. Raphaels, is assisting Father Bill Finch, the Pastor, with managing his project.  Mr. Coggins presented the applicant’s request.  Mr. Coggins stated that there is one condition in the staff report they object to, and that is Condition 5.  He said that they have a proposed alternate to that condition and he will have the civil engineer explain what the concerns are and what the proposed solution would be with regard to the condition. 

Mr. Coggins said that the Commission would hear from some neighbors.  There are and have been some continuing issues with the immediate neighborhood regarding the parking and with traffic.  The church is trying to discourage people to park on both sides during services with handouts and announcements.  They have met with the neighbors several times and they had an extensive discussion on this subject last night before the City’s Traffic and Transportation Commission.  There are several options beyond what is in the staff report, which is a gate, that they are willing to try to ameliorate the conditions out there.  Father Finch also lives on Kimblewick Road and they believe there are solutions to solve some of the traffic issues.    

Commissioner Tyner asked Mr. Coggins if he would address the Falls Road access.  Mr. Coggins explained that they have indicated to the neighbors and to the City that they would be willing to approach the State Highway Administration (SHA) to try to get a right in right out onto Falls Road.  They would be reluctant to make that a condition of approval because they are not sure it would be possible.  They would commit to making a “good faith” attempt to get the SHA’s approval to do it at a reasonable cost because the church’s finances are tight.  Provided they get a right in/right out access, they would close the access onto Kimblewick Road, which would solve the traffic problem, but it would not necessarily solve the parking problem.     

Commissioner Medearis asked Mr. Coggins if most of the problems voiced to him from the neighborhood related to weekend church service parking.  Mr. Coggins replied that the problem predominately occurs on Saturday evenings and Sundays during the mass services.  There are some issues with the school day.  There are people dropping off children.  The parents are instructed by the principal of the school that they are supposed to drop the children off by entering in and exiting out through Dunster Road, but that does not always happen.  When the parents are late in dropping their children off, they drive straight through the parking lot and exit onto Kimblewick Road.      

Commissioner Wiener questioned the time of weekday masses.  Mr. Coggins replied that they are 6:30 am and 9:00 am.  Commissioner Wiener stated that she is worried about stacking onto the main road.  Mr. Coggins replied that there is enough room in the parking lot to stack the people coming in to drop off children.  '

 The Commission further discussed concerns regarding stacking of cars dropping off children, installing a gate at the site’s Kimblewick Road entrance during the hours of the school’s operation, recreational facilities for the additional grades, if the waiting list is maxed out, other ad hoc or regularly scheduled traffic generating opportunities other than what is already on the schedule, possibly obtaining a better route and a better through-way on the site to the school to alleviate parking on the road, and to restudy how traffic moves through the facility. 

Steve Crum, civil engineer with Macris Hendricks & Glascock, referred to Condition 5 regarding the fire access lane issue.  Mr. Crum stated that they proposed a 20-foot fire lane to serve the new building.  He said that Condition 5 requires a 14-foot fire lane, which they believe is on the narrow side for a fire lane.  They would like to offer a compromise for a 16-foot fire lane.  Mr. Crum stated that they are concerned with the existing trees to the south where the lane would be.  He said they discussed this with the City’s Fire Marshal, who said he would be more comfortable with a 16-foot fire lane.   

In response to Commissioner Tyner, Mr. Crum said that they spent a great deal of time talking with the City Forester about the trees.  Mr. Crum said there would be no champion trees removed.   

Elise Cary, Assistant City Forester, explained that she has met at the site with Transportation staff and looked at the trees.  The applicant adjusted the plan in order to minimize the impacts on the critical root zones.  There are no trees selected for removal based on the 16-foot fire lane access.     
The following citizens testified:

1.  Marie Murphy testified that she is a recent resident on Kimblewick Road.  She said they bought the house in the neighborhood knowing there was a church.  However, within days of living there, she found out about the proposed addition.  Ms. Murphy pointed out that their neighborhood is no longer a cul-de-sac; it is a traffic nightmare.  She said they did not get the notice of this application until last Wednesday.  She explained that there is much traffic, excessive speeding, and people parking on their street and in front of her driveway.  This is not a good quality of life.  She is asking that the Commission not approve the application until the existing traffic and parking problems are solved. 

Commissioner Johnson asked if Ms. Murphy had any objections to the proposal to expand the school.  Ms. Murphy replied that she has an objection to the expansion because it would only exacerbate the traffic and parking problems. 

Commissioner Wiener inquired why the parking lot was full today.  Father Finch replied that there were funeral services.

2.  M. J. Garcia testified that she is a teacher’s aid at St. Raphael’s preschool and a resident of the neighborhood.  Ms. Garcia spoke of how St. Raphael’s has been a wonderful neighbor to the adjoining facilities over the years.  She explained that when the Potomac Woods Swim Club, which is across the street from St. Raphael’s, needed a place to host its pre-season meeting for all its members, St. Raphael’s stepped up and offered its facilities.  When other nearby associations needed a place for their function, St. Raphael’s offered its facility.  Across the street is Ritchie Park Elementary School, which also uses St. Raphael’s facilities.  In both cases, the church offers overflow parking to those facilities, especially to Ritchie Park Elementary School.       

3.  Catherine Keech testified that she is a resident of Potomac Woods.  She said that today the parking lot was packed, so they parked on Dunster and Kimblewick Roads.  She said she has lived in her house for 20 years.  Ms. Keech stated that she does not believe that the neighbors were adequately informed about this application.  She found out about this meeting by accident.  She informed her neighbors and they did not know.  She said there was no sign posted.  Ms. Keech said she does not think the traffic study is accurate.  St. Raphael’s needs to be very clear on the enrollment numbers.  The traffic is a big problem and it will become worse with the addition.  There is a lot of pedestrian traffic, too. 

4.  Theresa Dwyer explained that the number of children is confusing and she would like to clarify that the school did have more than 200 students in the nursery school; they have approximately 185 three and four year olds who come at different times during the week.  There are never more than a certain number at the same time.  Ms. Dwyer clarified that the funeral was for a young man who was killed in an accident, so it was a large turnout.  The only problem was at the nursery school, not the school, but the nursery school midday pickup overlapped with the funeral parking because they moved into a luncheon in the St. Raphael’s facility. 

Commissioner Tyner asked if St. Raphael’s also draws their students from St. Elizabeths.  Ms. Dwyer replied that, having just done the enrollment, St. Raphael’s is only meeting the needs of their own parish. 

5.  Tim O’Conner testified that he has children who attend St. Raphael’s school and is a school board member.  Mr. O’Conner said that one of the most important things to him and his wife, is that their children draw commitment to service from their school experience; not just the service within the parish community, but to others as well.  He and his family are very involved with the church and school.  Mr. O’Conner stated that he and his family are for the proposed building addition.   

6.  Lee Dupont testified that she is a resident of the City and has a daughter who goes to St. Raphaels.  Ms. Dupont stated that she is for the proposed building addition.  Ms. Dupont stated that the children participate in the walk for the homeless that supports Stepping Stone Shelter in the City.  They are very active in the junior high and high school programs for the teens and they learn about faith at the same time.  She talked about the many services of St. Raphaels to others in need.  Ms. Dupont stated that she was at St. Mary’s for nine years and is very familiar with the traffic and parking issues there.  Father Finch and the principal of the school do a lot to make sure those types of issues do not happen at St. Raphael’s.  There are four good reasons why the traffic is such an issue at St. Mary’s School.  1) There is a 7:00 am mass that directly coincides with the drop-off; St. Raphael’s does not have that; 2) They have a huge amount of construction traffic; there are 20-30 trucks that park in that parking lot every day; 3) Many parents park their cars and take their children into the school; that does not happen at St. Raphael’s; and, 4) The parishioners park in the St. Mary’s parking lot and walk to the Rockville Metro.  These will not happen at St. Raphael’s.        

7.  Maryann Kearns testified that she lives at 1378 Kersey Lane in Potomac Woods and two of her children attend St. Raphael’s.  She said she walks her children to school everyday.  Ms. Kearns stated that she and her family really support the school and the church and the warm reception from the community that they have received since they moved into the area.  She said she has spoken to a lot of people, and she understands the traffic concerns.   She hopes those concerns will be addressed, especially for the Kimblewick residents.  Ms. Kearns explained the car trips.  She said that when parents pick up their children, one would see that there are many children getting into those cars.  There is also carpooling.  Ms. Kearns stated that she is in support of the building addition.      

8.  Rush Williamson testified that he lives at 1583 Kimblewick Road and he would be affected by the building addition.  He said he has no hostility with the church; however, there is too much traffic.  He said he knew the church was there when he moved into the area.  Mr. Williamson stated that he is opposed to the construction of the building addition.  It would be the fourth major construction since he has lived on Kimblewick.  The Homeowners Association will not take sides.  The church is proposing to increase the enrollment, which would affect the traffic on Kimblewick and affect their quality of life.  There are too many people unaware of this addition and were not informed.  Mr. Williamson stated that a lot more details need to be studied; the stacking problem concerns him greatly.   

9.  Michael Rose testified that he sends his children to St. Raphael’s school.  There is a need for expansion of the school; there is overflow at St. Elizabeth’s School; there is a need for parochial education.  He thinks that people move to the area because of the school and because it is within walking distance to the school and church.  Mr. Rose said he was in support of the project.   

10.  Susan Mullen testified that she lives next door to Father Finch.  She said her house will be 60 feet away from the building addition.  There is no place for the children to go for recess.  She said she expects the property values will be impacted by the addition.  Ms. Mullen stated that it was going to affect their backyard; they have a pool.  This church is beginning to look like an industrial park.  She said she opposes this project. 

11.  Todd McCreight testified that he lives at 1584 Kimblewick Road.  His house backs onto the church property.  There is much traffic and noise and he is prepared to support the school if the traffic issues could be addressed.  He noted that there could be a police presence there.  Mr. McCreight stated that changing the access to the property would also be an advantage.  He said he believes that closing gate full time would not impose hardship on church users but would greatly help out residents on Kimblewick Road.  He urged the Commission to consider a full time gate closure.

Commissioner Tyner asked Mr. McCreight if he and his neighbors would consider having an “entrance only” gate and whether they discussed the possibility of having permit parking in the area.  Commissioner Tyner pointed out that he lives across the street from a church and the permit parking helped work out parking issues with the parishioners who attend the church. 

Mr. McCreight explained that he does not believe that the “entrance only” gate would extensively mitigate the current traffic problem on Kimblewick Road.  Mr. McCreight said that there was extensive discussion about permit parking last week and he thinks the consensus was that those who live on the lower half of Kimblewick Road would like resident parking because that is where the church traffic tends to park.  Those residents living on the upper end of the street do not desire resident parking because they rarely suffer from the church parking.     

12.  Marty Kearns testified that he and his family live at 1378 Kersey Lane.  He commented that he walks his children to school.  He moved from Silver Spring and he thinks this is the country with butterflies, birds and hawks.  Mr. Kearns stated that 90% of traffic comes in through the main gateway and that is the road that he crosses with his children and dog.  Mr. Kearns pointed out that the City should keep in mind of what real high traffic roads looks like and this is not it.  Mr. Kearns stated that he and his family support the application.  He also noted that there is plenty of room on the site for a play area for the students. 

13.  Tom Sullivan testified that he is a parishioner of St. Raphael’s and has two children enrolled in the school.  Mr. Sullivan spoke to the comment of the parish and school reaching out to the neighborhood because he was one of those people involved trying to notify all of the neighbors.  He helped hand out flyers to adjacent properties regarding a meeting at the parish on February 28, 2007 to preview the church’s expansion plans for the school.  He submitted a copy of the flyer to the Commission.     

14.  Donna Badge testified that she works at St. Raphael’s nursery school and is a resident of Potomac Woods.  Ms. Badge stated that St. Raphael’s has been wonderful with the Boy Scouts and Eagle Scouts and extra space is needed. 

15.  Eric Klun testified that he lives at 1595 Kimblewick Road and he is one of the neighbors who will be impacted the most from this proposed building addition.    He said he does not oppose or support the school.  He commented that Kimblewick Road is a residential street; it is a cul-de-sac; it is marked a “No Outlet” street.  Yet, the applicant is going to be allowed to build the project and all parking and traffic should be contained on St. Raphael’s property and Dunster Road.   It is a quality of life issue.  Mr. Klun stated that he did move there knowing the church was there, but he would like to see a gate at the Kimblewick Road entrance to shut down traffic; there is speeding and there are parking problems, and there is damage to vehicles on occasion.  He and his family live on a cul-de-sac and it should remain one with little traffic. 

16.  Ann Gleavy testified that she and her family live at 8 Sunrise Court in Potomac and she supports the school.  She noted that St. Raphael’s is a wonderful church.  The County needs more good private Catholic schools.

17.  Dave Bowen testified that he is a resident of the neighborhood, and when he and his family first moved in, he had an issue with children throwing rocks over the fence and into their pool, but Father Finch was more than helpful.  He handled that issue and Mr. Bowen  appreciates him as his neighbor.  He lives in the middle of Kimblewick Road and he is concerned about the traffic and speeding problem.     

18.  Patrick Murphy testified that he lives at 1593 Kimblewick Road.  He said he lives across the street from Father Finch, who is an outstanding neighbor and he has done a lot to try to convince the parishioners to slow down and not park on the street.  Everyone is in a hurry.  He said he does not support nor oppose the project.  He does not agree with permit parking without blocking off the driveway seven days a week.  This would leave two lanes of traffic open for speeders and it would be a nightmare trying to cross the street.  If the driveway could be blocked off seven days a week, permit parking would be great.   

19.  A resident testified that he is a parishioner and has two children; one is attending St. Raphael’s preschool.  He said the parking issues existed prior to the school plans being proposed.  Staff has proposed conditions on the application that would mitigate any increase in traffic.  He noted that the traffic problem is not solely due to the school or church activities.  He supports the application.  The church has been willing to work with the community.  There are ways to mitigate negatives.

20.  A resident testified that this is a quality of life issue.  He is not in opposition to the school.  With this building addition, there would be more traffic on the street, if the application were approved.  There is a lack of information for the Commission to make a decision when they are hearing that there are 10,000 cars per hour.  This is not a reasonable basis on which to make a decision. 

The Commission discussed concerns regarding traffic and parking on Kimblewick Road; creating a recreational area for the children or renting space from the County, how the noise would affect the neighborhood, Condition 6 requiring the applicant to contribute in the amount of $30,000 for a sidewalk on Falls Road that does not belong to property in the City; possibly hiring a policeman to direct traffic; and what would be the impact on the church by closing the gate on weekends.    

Dennis Delizio with Delizio Architects and Planners stated that, besides St. Raphael’s being his client, he has served as architect for at least three dozen other archdioceses and parishes.  This parish does not have a middle school and what the City is proposing is way beyond Father Finch’s ability to make promises.  The typical parochial school grades go from preschool through 8th grade. 

Mr. Delizio stated that there seems to be a concern about exterior activities during the day.  He said he believes that Father Finch tried to alleviate the concern of the community about after-school activities, including sports such as soccer, softball, etc.  He believes it would be very difficult for the parish in the future to sneak a football stadium onto that property.  Father Finch has mentioned that they are currently and would continue to rent space from other public facilities.  In terms of recreation during the school day, it is a very short recess period and one of the ways they have designed the building with a courtyard between the new building and the existing building and another courtyard between the new building and the existing church, is exactly for those outdoor recess time activities for the children.  The current preschool and first grade playground would be no more or less active than it is right now.  They are completely confident that they have the available space to take care of the exterior recreation activities during the school day.  Mr. Delizio stated that the parking lot could be used for more increased activity. 

The Commission further addressed concerns regarding the gate and why it could not be closed on weekends, and background for staff recommending Condition 6.

In response to Commissioner Hill, Mr. Chasten explained that, in order for the church to petition the State Highway Administration (SHA) to consider an entrance from Falls Road into the site, they would have to show compelling evidence that they need access onto Kimblewick Road.  Mr. Chasten, in response to Chair Johnson, explained that if the Commission recommends to the Board of Appeals, and the Board agrees to close the gate seven days a week, it may be the compelling reason that the church could bring to SHA.  The SHA has the final say because it is a State road. 

The Commission continued to discuss the issue with SHA and getting a driveway to the site from Falls Road, and the fact that the Commission does not have enough information on the traffic problems from staff to make a decision.    

Mr. Tannir explained the background of Conditions 5 and 6.

Commissioner Hill stated that he has been looking at the impact on this site and he feels they need to solve the question of traffic generation for the public street.  He believes the Commission has heard compelling evidence that a problem already exists and the idea of adding a significant intensity there is a problem they need to address.  They need a site plan that eliminates the traffic nuisance of using that road for access to an institutional use now.  He said he is frustrated that SHA is involved.  They can begin by recommending to the Board that they have a week and a half to consult with SHA on the possibility of opening an entrance on Falls Road.  He does not mind the idea of adding a school on the site, as he believes it is an appropriate land use related to the existing facility; it is the intensity of traffic that would be added to the neighborhood that is the problem.

Commissioner Medearis stated that she agrees with Commissioner Hill except that she does not know that the Falls Road entrance is the only solution.  She said she believes there are other solutions within the recommendations and some of the discussion that provides more of a temporary fix while the SHA alternative is researched.   

Commissioner Tyner inquired about the applicant’s timetable as to when they would like to proceed with the project.  Mr. Chasten replied that the applicant would like to begin the project as soon as possible.  

Chair Johnson suggested that the applicant come up with some hard and fast plans within the timeframe of the Board of Appeals’ public hearing and satisfy them that the applicant will figure out the traffic problem on Kimblewick Road. 

Commissioner Hill expressed some dissatisfaction from the analysis from staff.  He said he would think it relevant to know the classification of the street and what the parameters of service that the classification dictates, because he was not satisfied with the answer that was given.        

After further discussion regarding traffic alternatives and staff’s conditions in the staff report, Commissioner Hill moved, seconded by Commissioner Wiener, to recommend to the Board of Appeals that, as this application has been presented, the Commission cannot make a finding of lack of impact on residential properties surrounding this site, for the reasons that were stated as this project does impact a residential neighborhood.  The Commission recommends that the applicant, with staff’s support, look at alternatives to solving the traffic impact in whatever time is available, and that this body makes a finding that it sees a compelling reason to open a driveway on Falls Road to this property in support of this use.  The motion passed on a vote of 5-0.  Commissioner Ostell was absent.

Chair Johnson recommended postponing the Twinbrook Neighborhood plan worksession until the next meeting.

After further discussion, the consensus was to postpone the Twinbrook Neighborhood Plan worksession and the Zoning Ordinance briefing until December 12, 2007. 

REVIEW AND ACTION

Use Permit USE2007-00707, Mayor and Council of Rockville – for the construction of a 48-space parking lot to serve the Rockville Senior Center in the R-90 Zone at 1150 Carnation Drive.

Ms. Walters presented the staff report.  Ms. Walters stated that the Mayor and Council propose to add 48 parking spaces to the north end of the building located at the Rockville Senior Center.  The site is located within the Woodley Gardens neighborhood.  There is existing parking located to the east and north sides of the building. The building itself is 30,377 square feet; the site contains a basketball court, a garden plot, a small play area and space for members to play bocce. 

Ms. Walters stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires that the site contain 152 parking spaces, which is based on one parking space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area of the building.  Six spaces are required to be handicapped spaces.  Currently, the site only has 109 parking spaces, which means that the site is deficient of 43 parking spaces and is not currently meeting the Zoning Ordinance requirements.  However, under this proposal, the site’s surface parking facilities would satisfy the requirements with the construction of 48 additional parking spaces. 

Ms. Walters noted that the Recreation and Parks staff has expressed their concerns and the need for parking for quite sometime.  The additional parking lot that was constructed in 1999 to provide an additional 40 spaces did not alleviate the parking situation.  Staff finds that on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, the parking lots are full.  Due to the parking being filled to capacity, members/participants have no choice but to park on the lawn or near adjacent properties in order to be able to participate the Senior Center activities.

Ms. Walters stated that the proposed parking lot would not generate additional trips to the facility, but would eliminate the need for participants to park on the lawn, shoulder of the driveways or in the adjacent neighborhood. 

Ms. Walters stated that staff finds that the proposed parking lot complies with requirements in the Zoning Ordinance.  The proposal would not affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood; the site has existed for many years prior to being a Senior Center.  It was an elementary school from 1965-1980.  Staff is currently looking with the Assistant City Forester to obtain approval of the project’s forest conservation and landscape plans.  There will be 11 trees replaced and 6 significant trees removed, one of which is an elm tree that has been determined to be in poor to moderate condition, and Forest Conservation will be met through the preservation of the existing forest. 

Ms. Walters said that staff has sent out notifications and has met with various members of the Senior Center.  An open house was held by Recreation and Parks on September 27, 2007 to further involve those who may not have been aware of the proposal.  Out of 564 households, only 23 were able to attend the open house along with five City staff members.  Following the open house, the Assistant City Manager sent out a letter to those participants responding to some of the concerns that were raised at the open house meeting and to notify them of the next steps in the process. 

Ms. Walters noted that there are many residents opposed to the project, but there are many who like the proposal.                      

In response to questions from the Commission, Burt Hall explained the location of the proposed parking lot and other alternatives that were considered.  He also explained that bringing a driveway off of Gude Drive is a project that has been around for more than 15 years in concept; it has been in the CIP, unfunded, but was removed a couple of years ago.  Recreation staff was very close to starting that project in the early 1990s, but it was opposed by the neighborhood at that time and it did not go forward.  Since then, just in the last year, there has been renewed interest in looking at it.  Mr. Hall stated that there has been a formal request from the Woodley Gardens Civic Association to fund a study of the Gude Drive entrance and that is going to be proposed in the upcoming budget. 

In response to Commissioner Hill, Mr. Hall explained that the parking lot, as proposed, works with the Carnation Drive entrance and works equally well with the Gude Drive entrance. 

Mr. Hall said that they looked at every other possible location on this site including the former ball field at the front of the site; the garden plot area; the area to the west of the existing parking lot toward I-270; and the basketball courts as a possible location. It is a relatively small site and Recreation staff looked at every possible area. 

Commissioner Hill questioned why the space near the front door of the Center was not a selected site.  Mr. Hall replied that there were two reasons:  it is the front of the property and it is a green space that is very attractive right at the front of the building and, for aesthetic reasons, staff felt that it would be less preferred than the site at the rear that staff is proposing.  In addition, the buffer between the existing homes, next to the ball field is much narrower than the buffer between the existing homes to the east of the proposed site. 

Commissioner Hill noted that there was an observation from some of the materials submitted to the Commission that people do not use the back part of the existing parking lot now, and putting the parking lot even further away was possibly making this large impervious area that really is not functional for the purpose of a senior center.  When he went to the site, he observed exactly what they described, which is the circle was completely full of parked cars and half of the parking lot was empty and the further back he went, the fewer the cars. 

Mr. Hall explained that they try to use the circle for staff parking and it saves the users from trying to parallel park.  The parking spaces that are farthest from the door fill last.  Commissioner Hill noted that locating the parking nearer to the front door is the more practical solution. 

Chair Johnson said that, in terms of alternatives, he read in the materials that the growth in the senior population would continue and so this facility will be serving more and more people.  Therefore, the proposed 48 spaces may not be adequate.  He asked if there was any consideration to adding a parking deck on top of the existing parking lot.  Mr. Hall replied that that was not an option that was considered.  It would be very expensive relative to building surface parking.  Chair Johnson questioned that if the membership continued to grow, and the Center is out of surface parking, they would have to begin building up at some point.  Mr. Hall replied that it was not considered at this time primarily because there is adequate space for additional surface parking.  They would be required to build an elevator to get people in and out of the garage; it would be a very expensive undertaking and considerably more obtrusive on the site.  

Commissioner Wiener inquired about moving the Senior Center as the Center grows.  She asked if there is a better location or idea of growth down the road.  Mr. Hall replied that the City does have plans in the budget to do a feasibility study for an expansion of the Center.  There is no consideration to actually abandon this site.  There will be and has been consideration of using some of the City’s other existing facilities such as Twinbrook Recreation Center and Lincoln Park Community Center, which get relatively low use because the children are at school.  Therefore, the concept is more toward expanding senior services into other City facilities.  That would also put the seniors in other neighborhoods around the City and reduce transportation needs and traveling time. 

Commissioner Hill said he favors opening up a parking lot off Gude Drive for seniors to enter the site and get to the facility.  This would be shifting the traffic burden away from the neighborhood.  Mr. Hall said that that has been discussed, both at neighborhood meetings as well as over the years at the Senior Center.  He believes that the Planning Commission would like to hear from the Senior Center members prior to landing on that as a solution because he believes there is considerable opposition from what staff has heard from senior center members to the Gude Drive entrance.  They feel that it would be a high-speed road with left turns across a high-speed road and limited sight distances coming up over the bridge.  Commissioner Hill said he would propose that the connection should be at a signalized intersection.  Mr. Hall said he would recommend that the Planning Commission vett that with the seniors who travel to the Center and hear all their concerns before that is chosen to be the solution. 

In response to Commissioner Tyner, Mr. Wasilak explained that a Gude Drive interchange on I-270 is another consideration.  The Transportation staff has been talking to the State about that possibility because it is in the City’s Master Plan as a recommendation for HOV only.  He did not know the latest status on that issue. 

Jill Hall, Senior Center Supervisor presented the applicant’s request.  Ms. Hall stated that the Center has served Rockville for over 25 years.  The Center serves more than 2,000 adults, ages 60 and older in an attractive facility for community meetings, programs, special events, and other public uses.  The current number of parking spaces have been insufficient both for the safety of the Senior Center users and for providing the required number of spaces as specified in the City Zoning Ordinance.  Ms. Hall stated that, on behalf of senior center members and users, staff has requested approval of the Planning Commission for the construction of 48 additional spaces to address these inadequacies.  In fact, the Senior Center leadership, which is Rockville Seniors Incorporated, felt so strongly about this project that they are providing $26,000 of their hard-earned money in support of the project.  Residents from the surrounding neighborhood have expressed concerns regarding the proposed parking area including whether the additional parking is needed, whether it would result with additional traffic through the neighborhood, and the loss of green space on Senior Center property.  These concerns have been expressed at a series of meetings held over the past two months and to City staff.  Currently, the Senior Center has 90 general parking spaces and 19 handicapped spaces.  The requirement is 152 parking spaces. 

Ms. Hall stated that they require a higher level of handicapped parking spaces at the Senior Center, and with the proposed additional 48 parking spaces, there will be a total of 157 parking spaces.  There are a number of parallel parking spaces around the circular entrance road; however, the road is quite narrow, thereby creating conflicts when buses and trucks come in and try to maneuver around the corner.  If the proposal is approved, their plans are to eliminate most or all of this parking.  Either way, No Parking signs have been ordered to stop additional parking at the entrance near Carnation Drive because this creates a one-way street, which is a significant safety problem. 

Ms. Hall explained that the extent of review of all opportunities to locate additional parking on the property was conducted by the firm of Maddox, Incorporated.  Senior Center users, members of the Rockville Seniors Incorporated Board and the Senior Citizens Commission also contributed to the decision-making process for locating additional parking.  For overall site, aesthetic and environmental reasons, everyone felt it was important to maintain the former ball field at the front of the property as a green open space, even though it provides the closest access to the building.  Other options were explored, including using the basketball court and putting parallel parking along the driveway, the garden plot site, or adding to the west side of the back lot.  These were less desirable due to safety concerns, lack of sufficient space or conflict with existing uses.  The site in the back of the property was chosen because it would preserve the important green space at the front of the building and is easily accessible to the Senior Center.  Construction of additional parking is needed to address concerns for people using the Center during the day as well as evening and weekend users.  Ms. Hall stated that many times during each month of the year, the current parking lots are at or near full capacity and overflow users park along the driveways, on the grass areas, in the fire lane and sometimes on the nearby neighboring street.  Parking deficiency was mentioned in the recent Senior Center Participant Survey as one of the top things people like least about the Center.  Nearly 110 users have signed a petition requesting more parking at the Center.  Additional parking will make parking an asset to the Senior Center, considerably safer for users, and help to eliminate overflow parking along the Senior Center driveways and grass areas. 

Ms. Hall stated that to ensure the Center meets the needs of the community it serves, a number of long-range planning activities were developed to determine the future needs for the Center.  Ms. Hall stated that in addition to keeping the Senior Center users informed and surveying their opinions on the need for additional parking, the City has notified and met with neighborhood residents to prevent the proposed project and gather input.  On July 10, 2007, letters were sent by the Planning Division staff to the presidents of the Woodley Gardens Civic Association, Woodley Gardens West End Civic Association, College Gardens Civic Association, and the Condo Association notifying them that the use permit application had been filed to construct the new parking lot.  Postcards were also sent to the surrounding neighbors notifying them of the application.  On August 22, 2007, the Planning Division again sent postcards to all residents in Woodley Gardens notifying them of the intent to construct an additional parking area for which the use permit application had been filed.  It announced that the Planning Commission would take action on this application on September 12, 2007.  On August 27, City staff members from the Recreation and Parks Department, Community Planning and Development Services, and Neighborhood Resources met with the Woodley Gardens Civic Association presidents, Mr. Marty Trusty and Mr. Jim Reshovsky, to discuss the parking lot proposal.  At the conclusion of the meeting, staff readily agreed to postpone placing the application on the Planning Commission agenda and to hold an open house in the interest of enhancing opportunities for neighborhood input.  On August 30, 2007, letters were sent to all 564 households in the neighborhood surrounding the Center notifying them of the Open House on Thursday, September 27, 2007 at 7:00 pm at the Senior Center.  The package also included a letter explaining the rationale for the expanded parking, a design plan, and an aerial view of the site with the parking lot identified.  On September 27, 2007, the open house was held and 38 people attended the meeting.  Eight were Senior Center members.  Of the 22 neighborhood households, thirteen indicated that they did not support the parking lot, while three expressed support.  Six people had no opinion.  On October 4, notification was sent to all participants of the open house to follow up with the issues raised and provide notice of the next step in the process, including the November 28, 2007 date of the Planning Commission meeting.  On October 25, 2007, staff attended a general meeting at the Woodley Gardens Civic Association to obtain feedback and concerns from residents regarding the parking lot project.  On November 19, notification was sent by Community Planning and Development Services to the Woodley Gardens residents notifying them of the intent to construct the parking lot for which the use permit had been filed.  It was announced on the notification that the Planning Commission would take action on the application on Wednesday, November 28, 2007.

Ms. Hall further stated that it was staff’s intent to proactively address both the Senior Center and the neighborhood problems by increasing parking capacity that would satisfy the Senior Center members’ needs as well as greatly reduce overflow parking on neighborhood streets.  Another key objective is to make parking and access to the Senior Center considerably safer for members.  This project would greatly reduce the need to park on uneven surfaces such as grass areas and driveway shoulders.  

Chair Johnson commented that there was a reaction of disbelief from the community when Ms. Hall suggested a willingness to work with the community.  He asked Ms. Hall if she could account for that reaction because there is obviously a feeling that the outreach was not as much as they expected.  Ms. Hall explained that there is a concern from the community that when staff held the discussion, the plan was already drawn up.  When staff began this project, they had to see if there was any site on the property that would accommodate 48 parking spaces.  She noted that there were concerns that the City had already gone with the plan without listening to the neighborhood.  Chair Johnson questioned what input from the neighborhood could have changed anything.  Ms. Hall replied that some people have called staff and suggested parking on the ball diamond, parking where the garden plots are located, and to close the entrance on Carnation Drive and open an entrance off Gude Drive, which is not desired by many seniors. They have done surveys on that entrance and the result was that 66% of the seniors opposed that entrance. 

In response to Chair Johnson, Ms. Hall explained that each of those alternatives were discussed at the meetings that were held with the neighborhood residents and Senior Center members.  Staff informed the residents and members that those were options that staff had considered, but, in the end, the only place that they could locate the parking lot was in the back of the Center.         

Mr. Burt Hall added that the feasibility study for expanding the Senior Center is far more complex and has the potential to add traffic to the neighborhood.  It would require working with the neighborhood residents from the beginning.  Mr. Hall stated that staff has heard, loud and clear, the complaints that the City did not involve the neighborhood in the early stages, and staff wants to rectify that matter by being a good neighbor.  Mr. Hall said that staff pledges to involve the neighborhood residents very early on in the feasibility study to expand the Center, which is a far more complex project than the proposed parking lot.       

Commissioner Hill recapped what Ms. Hall said, that the front ball field is an important green space that is used for activities.  He asked Ms. Hall if they schedule outdoor activities in that space.  Ms. Hall replied that the Center does not schedule; it is used by Children’s Soccer groups, and people walk their dogs on the green space.  Commissioner Hill asked if there was a requirement that all the spaces had to be together on the site.  Ms. Hall replied that there was no requirement; the site seems to be efficient for the construction of 48 spaces. 
Chair Johnson inquired whether it would be more expensive to scatter the parking spaces. 

Mr. Daus explained that if they were to carve out nooks and crannies in some of the remote areas on the site then it would be more expensive.    

Commissioner Tyner questioned whether there was a way of letting the Commission know the percentage of people who come and go by the bus service, or are dropped off, versus those who come and park at the Center.  Ms. Hall replied that in October 2007, 2,571 bus rides came to the Center.  Because, the Center has five entrances, she does not have a good count.  She said she knows that there are many programs at the Center as well as many activities in the evenings and on weekends.  Commissioner Tyner asked if the Center would need every one of those 48 spaces.  Ms. Hall replied that some days they would and some days they would not.

Commissioner Tyner inquired, if this project were approved, would members still park around the circle.  Ms. Hall replied that staff would try to stop that.

The following citizens testified:

1.  Rusty Embrey stated that he has been involved with the Senior Center for 14 years.  Ms. Embrey said she approves the parking lot.  Ms. Embrey read a letter from Mr. Ciriaco Gonzales, Chair of the Senior Citizens Commission.  Ms. Embrey stated that Mr. Gonzales had to leave, but he is aware of the additional parking at the Center and supported the parking expansion.  The letter read that Mr. Gonzales and his neighbors want to be informed about the Center’s projects at the conceptual stage, not budgetary or start-up stage when these projects actually begin.  The Center needs to be operated in a much more transparent manner about expansion plans and the membership.  To accommodate the neighborhood’s concerns, Woodley Gardens Civic Association has offered to form a liaison committee to the Center to keep abreast the Center’s initiatives that might impact the neighborhood and have input on proposals in a proactive manner.  To date, the Center has not responded to this request.  As it is now, only the Woodley Gardens residents, who are active members of the Center, and have a stake in its expansion, are given a voice in the conceptual and planning phases of the project.  Other residents, who will provide further comments on the issues, realize there are differences of opinion on this matter within the community and they appreciate the opportunity that the Commission provides for all voices to be heard. 

Commissioner Hill asked Mr. Trusty if some of the neighbors had some resistance to a Gude Drive entrance.  Mr. Trusty replied that he wrote the CIP proposal for a feasibility study to look at the Gude Drive entrance and the only caveat they put on it was there should be no cut-through through the parking lot onto Carnation Drive.  The original proposal projected closing the Carnation Drive entrance completely and going with Gude Drive 100 percent.  That raised a lot of consternation in the neighborhood.  At one of the meetings, Burt Hall came up with the suggestion that they have an opening off Gude Drive, but with no cut-through.  That is where the Civic Association is now and that is the basis for the Center’s CIP proposal.   
The Commission discussed having more than one lot for the additional parking, and City and County bus traffic impacting the neighborhood. 

2.  Betty Briscoe stated the she has been a member of the Senior Center for many years as well as a member of the Board, but she is now speaking for herself.  Ms. Briscoe reminded the residents of Woodley Gardens that the Center has been there for 25 years; the residents knew about the Center, but moved in anyway.  Woodley Gardens has a beautifully equipped community center down the block.  Woodley Gardens feels that the open house in October 2007 was a sham.  They were in favor of parking in the circle before they complained.  They complain about the lack of studies done, yet they throw in a comment that multiple Woodley Gardens residents who use the grounds testified.  They do not observe parking to be insufficient.

3.  Margery Carter testified that the Center is a lifesaver.  She does not like to park at the circle; she parks in the back.  Putting the parking lot adjacent to the other lots is good.

4.  Martin Trusty, President of Woodley Gardens Citizens Association read a letter.  The letter read that Mr. Trusty and his neighbors want to be informed about the Center’s projects at the conceptual state, not the budgetary or start-up stage when these projects actually begin.  The Center needs to be operated in a much more transparent manner about expansion plans and the membership.  To accommodate the neighborhood’s concerns, Woodley Gardens Civic Association has offered to form a liaison committee to the Center to keep abreast the Center’s initiatives that might impact the neighborhood and have input on proposals in a proactive manner.  To date, the Center has not responded to this request.  As it is now, only the Woodley Gardens residents, who are active members of the Center, and have a stake in its expansion, are given a voice in the conceptual and planning phases of the project.  Other residents, who will provide further comments on the issues, realize there are differences of opinion on this matter within the community and they appreciate the opportunity that the Commission provides for all voices to be heard.   

5.  Ralph Digaetano stated that there is a wall of trees the City is planning to tear down.  He said he objects to the project.  He noted that they did not tell them that the garden was an option for the parking lot.  The City has stonewalled the residents.  They asked for data at the September 27 meeting because the data in the report is out of date. 

6.  James Conway stated that he has been a volunteer teacher at the Senior Center for five years and lives around the corner on Aster Boulevard.  He sees and deals with the bus traffic for he is approximately 50 yards away from the Center.  Lack of a Master Plan of the Senior Center, that takes into account all of the factors that have been brought up regarding Gude Drive, the use and the expansion and how it would be spread out as the Center grows, is one of the chief concerns of the neighborhood.  The history is that the Center would be built on and on, and add parking without a general plan for how the City would address this long term.  People do park near the entrance; there is parking in the back very often.  When he started working at the Center, he thought it was a good neighbor, but lately, he does not feel that it is a good neighbor.  There are many reasons, such as when the last traffic study was done in a snowstorm in February 2005.  Therefore, it is not representative of traffic to a senior center at that point.  That traffic study was brought up because the neighborhood had asked about a Gude Drive entrance, and after that traffic study, everything shut down.  At a recent meeting, the residents raised the issue of the Gude Drive entrance and immediately upon hearing this, it was off the table.  It is really the lack of a Master Plan for the Center.  In addition, the noise of the buses is overwhelming coming out of the Center.  If the buses could be rerouted onto Gude Drive as part of a Master Plan, that would make the neighborhood much happier.  There would be less traffic and the buses would be better off coming underneath the thoroughfare.  Mr. Conway stated that he understands the desire for more parking amongst the seniors, but the need for more parking is something else.             

7.  Thomas Reid stated he and his family live at 1010 Aster Boulevard.  The proposed Gude entrance would be close to his property.  He said he understands the need for parking is in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance.  He asked if this would be the right thing to do to destroy a little more parkland because it is the easiest thing to do.  He said that many people enjoy that land for various reasons such as playing football, and walking their dogs.  Mr. Reid questioned whether there are other alternatives besides putting parking on this property.  On the other side of Gude Drive, there is a significant number of commercial parking spaces that go unused.  None of those companies has governmental contracts and some may be willing to offer spaces freely.  Mr. Reid questioned the data collected regarding seniors using their own cars and being transported by buses to the Center.  He noted that bus service is underutilized and should the City use taxpayer’s money to build additional parking spaces for non-Rockville citizens using the Center.  Mr. Reid stated that he objects to the parking lot.  It would be a reduction of quality of life for the community.  It seems that the number of petitioners who signed the petition is 110, which is only 5.5% of the 2,000 registrants.  Mr. Reid pointed out that 59% who attended the meetings were against the parking lot.    

8.  Jim Reshovsky, a resident of Woodley Gardens, talked about the possible solutions rather than paving over the large part of the grounds.  The City needs to document and demonstrate the need for the parking spaces, which they have not done.  The staff report states that it has 109 parking spaces, but, in fact, it currently has 125 parking spaces, if one includes the 16 spaces around the circle.  The 16 spaces are not addressed in the transportation report.  The roadway/circle is 24 feet wide; it is one-way and there is parking on one side.  Most of the streets in Woodley Gardens are 24 feet wide; have parking on both sides and support two-way traffic.  Mr. Reshovsky noted that the residents do not support the statement that parking there is unsafe.   Nobody has done an analysis of the circle.  He suggested other sites for the additional parking closer to the building.  Keep the 16 spaces around the circle, add 24 spaces and, as a result, it would be less destructive to the environment.  Mr. Reshovsky spoke about data that was not provided to the residents. 

9.  Fran Thompson stated that she is a resident and pointed out the lack of data not provided by the City.  Ms. Thompson stated that she opposes the application.  She said she does not see any documented need for the additional parking.  She said that environmental sustainability is an issue.  It is time that they really think about themselves as the tree city and a green space.  They need to find ways for people to lessen energy use, not to increase it.  Instead of using money on a parking lot, use the buses.    This proposal should be reworked.

 10.  Caroline Walker stated that she is a 17 year resident of Woodley Gardens.  She has raised her children there and they love the neighborhood and the City of Rockville.  Ms. Walker stated that they have a problem; the problem is that there is not a good process to involve citizens in the community.  She said that she understands that seniors need and want to have safe parking as well as safe access into the building.  The residents care about that property.  Children play back there and ride their bikes there.  There needs to be a process to involve the community, not just voices from within the Senior Center.  In October 2006, according to the staff notes she read, the Senior Center began their design project for the additional parking spaces.  Ten months went by and the neighborhood was first approached with postcards in mid August 2007 regarding the plan.  Ms. Walker stated that she received the notice about this application one week ago.  She asked the Commission to deny this application.     

11.  Mitchell Stengel said he has lived in Woodley Gardens for 18 years and has spent hundreds of hours on the green space that is proposed to be destroyed.  Their children have played ball and learned to ride their bikes on the green space.  The same is true for many neighbors in the area over the 18 years they have lived there.  Mr. Stengel pointed out that it has been stated in the staff report that it has been determined that this project would not adversely affect the health and safety in the neighborhood.  Mr. Stengel stated that, in his mind, this is a very narrow and hopelessly outdated conception of what health and safety means.  Today, in every area, citizens have to think more and more about public health, and public health includes green space, open space, and trees.  Mr. Stengel mentioned that Jill Hall mentioned in her staff report that 3% of those invited to the meetings expressed opposition.  There were 110 seniors who signed the petition in favor of the project.  He questioned whether all the activities on the list of heavy use were really senior activities or activities that are more ancillary.  Mr. Stengel stated that he objects to paving over the green space. 

13.  Linda Brenner stated that she lives in the Woodley Gardens neighborhood. She expressed disappointment in the handling of the proposal.  She spoke about the meetings with the City and its reluctance to sharing basic data with the residents.  The City should explore other alternative sites for the additional parking spaces and keep green space.

14.  Karen Barber stated that one thing she has not heard expressed is opening a Gude Drive entrance, cut off the cut-through, make permit parking on the Woodley Gardens side for those who cannot drive through to the Gude Drive side, have all the commercial traffic come in from Gude Drive, and put the parking spaces wherever the Center can, so that there will not be a huge parking lot that takes up the major green space.  

15.  George Galasso stated that he has lived on Crocus Drive for 40 years, which is a block and half from the Senior Center.  He noted that he is the Chair of Rockville Seniors Inc. and a member of Woodley Gardens Civic Association (WGCA).  He received a copy of the Woodley Gardens Civic Association report that was given to the Commission, which purports to be a statement of the WGCA.  He received it, not because he is a member of the WGCA, but because he is involved with the Senior Center.  He noted that he is a bit bothered by this and he is incensed at some of the language and inaccuracies.  Mr. Galasso pointed out that he does not know if it really represents the WGCA because there was no poll taken; there was no survey and it has been noted that the Senior Center and the City have not been open and fair with the community.  Well, neither has the author of the document been open and fair with the community because none of them has seen it.  This is the largest outpouring of complaints that he has seen in all of the meetings that have been held.   Most of the community do not care.  Everyone who cares are present tonight.  Since the document was not based on any poll or survey, it could only be taken as the thoughts of the Executive Committee of WGCA and the individuals speaking tonight. 

Mr. Galasso stated that parking across Gude Drive deserves no comment.  Parking in the back of the Center is fine.  He stated that this project needs further study.

Chair Johnson asked whoever put together the WGCA paper whether it represent the Civic Association membership or the Executive Committee or the person who drafted it.  Mr. Trusty explained that the Executive Committee met on the issue of the parking lot on August 25, 2007.  On August 23, 2007, they met with Jill Hall and October 17, 2007 they  released a newsletter, and it was hand carried to every residence in Woodley Gardens including the condominiums.  Mr. Trusty said they met with staff on October 25, 2007, for they were interested in knowing what the items were for the meeting on the following day at the Senior Center.  At the meeting on October 25, 80% of the conversation was based on the project.  They did not take a poll because there is no mechanism to do it.  He received a lot of emails with strong opposition.  It represented a sampling of the neighborhood. 

The Commission and staff discussed concerns relating to a master plan for the Senior Center, lack of data to the community, analysis of the parking situation, location of the proposed parking lot, questions about tree removal, ancillary traffic on the site, moving the garden plots for parking spaces, adding parking spaces behind the building, other transportation options in lieu of additional parking, paving over the green space, a need for much greater planning for the Center, researching the Gude Drive access to the site, and an option to have commercial lots close by for employees. 

Commissioner Hill moved, seconded by Commissioner Tyner to defer Use Permit Application USE2007-00707 for further consideration.  The motion passed on a vote of 5-0.  Commissioner Ostell was absent.   

WORKSESSION

Twinbrook Neighborhood Plan – to discuss issues raised during the public hearing on the neighborhood plan.

The worksession was postponed until December 12, 2007.

BRIEFING

Draft Zoning Ordinance – Briefing on Chapters 8-12 of the draft ordinance.   
The Briefing was postponed until December 12, 2007.

COMMISSION ITEMS

Chief of Planning Report

Mr. Wasilak reported that the next two meetings are scheduled for December 12 and 19.  Mr. Wasilak stated that staff would plan the Twinbrook Neighborhood Plan worksession and the Zoning Ordinance briefing for December 12.  

The Commission discussed a work plan to work through the Twinbrook Neighborhood Plan, closing the record early and letting the community get involved, and consider future schedule for Zoning Ordinance hearings.  

Mr. Wasilak announced that the kickoff of the Rockville Pike Plan is scheduled for December 4, 2007 at the Ramada Inn, beginning at 7:00 p.m. and a Zoning ordinance public forum would take place on December 5, 2007 at the Scott Fitzgerald Center beginning at 7:00 p.m.     

Minutes

Commissioner Tyner moved, seconded by Commissioner Hill, to approve the minutes of Meeting No. 18-07 as amended. 

ADJOURN

After further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 12:02 a.m.