Good morning. My name is Alan Frankl and I am currently the chairman of the City of Rockville Board of Appeals. With me this morning at the desk or fellow Board of Appeals members, Dr. Peter Mork and Mr. Scott Marravella. Also with us today are our incredible Rockville staff and I would ask each of them to please identify themselves. Jody Schultz, Senior Assistant City Attorney. Bobby Ray, Supervising Planner with Community Planning and Development Services. Brian Wilson, Principal Planner with Community Development and Plane Services. And I thank each of you for being with, meeting development and playing services. And I thank each of you for being with us this morning and spending your Saturday morning here rather than doing other things. So welcome everybody who's here. This morning as well as all of you viewers at home who have decided to turn in to see the Board of Appeals. This is Board of Appeals meeting 04-2108 and we have two items on our agenda this morning. We'll begin with the request to amend variants VAR 2 0 1 4 0 0 0 4 2 at 700 hunger for drive with the applicant please come forward. Good morning. Good morning. Yes, you're right Glenn. Landjuice Council for Great Wall Supermarket and with me today is Ruby's Joe who's the manager of the supermarket. Would you like to present? We do have a short staff reason to hold. Oh God, I'm know, I've only been doing this for a year and a half. I'm sorry. Please take a seat. And with that build up, we hope it's, you know, working with. Okay. It's it's a early Saturday morning. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman. In 2014, the Board of Appeals approved a variance to this property which required the enclosure of loading at the grocery store site. Since that time, the applicant has come back in front of you and applied to modify that variance requirements basically to allow an exception to that condition. I would note that when you are modifying a term or condition of a previously approved variance, that is the only item that is up for discussion today. We're not revisiting the entire variance just the specifics of the requested amendment. With that, the applicant has provided language that would allow for the modification, which is solely based around refrigerated trucks and ensuring that those are not required to be within the enclosed building when they are unloading and unloading. The staff has reviewed the proposed language and we concur with the language and recommend approval. With that, I'm available for any questions. Thank you. Dr. Mort. Mr. Mayor Vellan, do you have any questions of staff. I'm wondering about the specificity of the amendment to the condition in specific the last question. Did staff consider something more precise than to the extent practicable? Well I would offer that you know what language could you provide without having a really difficult enforcement issue on the city's hands? Obviously if they're not meeting the requirement and it's a regular occurrence, we would send somebody out for a review of that complaint to ensure if they're meeting the requirement, which is essentially what's been going out now. But putting specific time restrictions, I mean we could put something specific on there. I'm sure the applicant would probably object to that. It's difficult in regards to enforcement, but that's something available to you for discussion. Thank you. I just have one question. Is this something that was considered at the time of the original application for the variance? No, no, the language that was approved as part of the variance did envision that the trucks would be fully enclosed within the loading dock area. But at that time there was no discussion over any particular types of trucks that may need to be in there that this would not apply to. I don't recall any specific discussion of the types of vehicles. I mean obviously, you know, the cabs do need to be outside of the enclosure while it's running for an area's reasons. It just wasn't something that was brought up or discussed at the time of the original approval. Thank you very much. Okay, now I'm going to do this right. We have heard from staff. Now I would ask the applicant to come forward and please identify herself and give you a hand. So again, thank you. Nancy Reglin from Land Use Attorney from Shulman Rodgers here on behalf of Great Wall, Supermarkets. With me is Rubizo, who is the manager of Great Wall. And I'll have her available for any questions. After the fact, I thought succinctly I would just make a presentation and if you have any additional questions she'll be available. So as staff said this is something that sort of caught this applicant by surprise. Once the loading dock was actually built and the buffer wall was in place because before that there was no enclosure for a loading dock they were just openly unloading on the site. Before the variance was approved and the new loading dock building was built and the extension of the buffer wall was built, it didn't come to their mind that the refrigerator trucks were different than other trucks. And so I've actually brought a picture today to sort of show you what this looks like. And what it is is... In the series of three photos. So this is the largest truck. That's a refrigerator truck that comes to visit, the site to make deliveries. And what you can see on the very first picture is that truck backing up into the loading dock. And then the second picture is it almost fully into the loading dock. And then finally, this is where it stopped just so that the face of the refrigerator unit on the truck is open to the air and the cab, which can remain idling during the time that he needs to have the refrigeration unit continue to operate is outside of the unit. You can see the scale of the buffer wall that's right beside them. And since this loading dock was installed with the buffer wall and became operational in mid-August of 2017. They have not received any noise complaints for all of that time. I will mention that there was a noise complaint last week, but it was about a exhaust fan on the roof. So nothing to do with the loading dock itself. So the screen wall, which is, excuse me, is 19 feet high and 60 feet long and the loading dock, which is now a fully enclosed building, seems to have completely mitigated and noise issue for the neighbors that are behind this in the residential townhouse community. So in order to continue to receive refrigerated goods, which is an absolute necessity for a grocery store, they ask for this modification so that the simple requirement right now says while loading, an unloading truck must be fully contained within the enclosed loading dock. We're asking for the exception for these refrigerated trucks to allow them to stay behind the buffer wall, but to not be fully contained within the loading dock. And loading and unloading, this large truck while we Ruby and I stood there and watched it to take these photographs. It unloaded in five minutes. So they're not there very long. The longest Ruby as advised me is 20 minutes to unload. If you have a very large delivery of refrigerated materials, it might take 20 minutes to unload. But most unloading of these trucks, they're very organized, and it's five minutes. They pull in. Everybody, their staff is ready to go. They unload, and then the truck pulls out. It moves fairly quickly. So with regard to the condition, we're trying to limit the amount of time to the extent practicable, but it is not totally within the control of the supermarket. It is also in control of how that delivery truck is set up and how organized the deliveries are to get them out of the truck into the loading area. So. Thank you, Mr. Eggland. Mr. Marraville, Dr. Mork and in questions for Council. I beg your pardon. First, procedurally, can we enter these pictures into evidence? Absolutely. Does that take a motion? I think you just have to decide. Oh, okay. Then I believe that it's appropriate to move and accept these photographs that have been provided by the applicant today's record is part of the evidence for today's hearing. Do you want to accept them as one packet or do you want them individually numbered? No, I think we can accept them as one packet or do you want them individually numbered? No, I think we can accept them as one package. They are staple together and they do have one purpose. So is this exhibit A? We'll make this exhibit A. Sorry about the slight digression there. No, thank you for that administrative. As I had asked staff previously, are there reasonable limits that we can place on the times perhaps in which the trucks are loading and unloading? It doesn't seem reasonable to have these trucks running at three in the morning, for example. No, actually they don't. I've been told that the loading begins at 8 a.m. And generally almost all the trucks are finished by 4 p.m. except for one truck that comes from New York. And it is finished loading before 9 p.m. They have no unloading in this loading dock area after 9 p.m. And so restricting it to 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. would be great. Would it be acceptable? Correct. All right. And I think my last question for the moment, in the pictures that you provided as part of exhibit A, you mentioned that the third picture shows the truck in a position ready to unload. Correct. So that suggests to me that the refrigerator unit is contained within the cab or as part of the very front of the trailer. So the very front of the trailer you can see that is the HVAC unit, that's the refrigerator unit. So they have that right at the face of the door and then the cab, the truck is actually idling and so it is totally outside so that there's no exhaust inside the loading area. So both the HVAC unit and the truck are outside of the loading dock phase. So in that third picture, the refrigerator unit is right at the plane. Correct. Thank you very much. Are there any other questions from members of the board? Okay. Thank you very much. Now, are there any members of the community here to speak in favor of the modification of the variants? Seeing none, I will ask, are there any people present to speak in opposition to the applicant's request for modification to the variants? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and now we will deliberate. Okay. Any discussion other than adding the condition? So I'd be interested in striking the time duration language that as staff noted, putting any sort of concrete numbers there would be counterproductive and impossible to enforce. I don't think it's possible for staff to enforce limiting time duration to the extent practical. I'm not such a vague and unenforceable aspect to the condition that I would rather strike that last sentence and replace it with something like applicant shall load and unload refrigerated trucks only between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. All right. Mr. Mayor, do you have thoughts? I'm up for it. Is that reasonable? only between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. All right. Mr. Mayor Vell, your thoughts? I'm fine. Is that reasonable? Yes, I'm fine. I think it's more than reasonable. All right. The Chair would entertain a motion for the approval of the modification to the variance number VAR 2014-000042. I make a motion to approve. I would approve with the additional change language. All right, just to make sure that we have that concretely in the record, the new condition will read while loading and unloading trucks must be fully contained within the enclosed loading dock, except for refrigerated trucks whose tractor cab engine and refrigerator unit may remain outside the enclosed loading dock when running. But the tractor cab engine must not extend beyond the limits of the extended screen wall. Applicant shall load an unload refrigerated trucks only between the hours of 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. And so phrase, eye second. a load and unload refrigerated trucks only between the hours of 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. And so phrased, I second. Okay. Okay. All those in favor? Signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. The modification to the variance 2014-00-042 is approved. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for coming out this morning. Okay. See if I can do it right this time. Before we start, I'd like to welcome our youngest member of the audience, this heartwarming to see you out here. Thank you. We were trying to encourage him to speak, but he declined. Thank you for your time this morning, Mr. Wilson. Thank you. Okay, we will now move on to variants VAR 2018-00069-381 West Montgomery Avenue. And I would ask staff to please make it, staff to please identify herself and make her presentation to the Board of the Bureau. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Frankl and members of the Board. For the record, my name is Nicole Walters. We are here before you for application BAR 2018-0069, which is for the Project at 301 West Montgomery Avenue. What they are proposing to do is remove the existing 1,400 square foot flat roof garage that is currently there and its place construct a one-story 240 square foot garage in this place. They're also going to install, which is going to be 640 square feet. And in its place, they are going to, in the area of the, when they build the garage, they're also going to build a brick driveway. Current frontage is off of West Montgomery and also of Forest Avenue. So with the installation of Dugarage, they have vehicular access through the alleyway. They would hopefully want to at this point do a alley access. Instead of having alley access, they would also want to have access from forest avenue. Excuse me, mouth is dry. So the variance request of floor air variance of 140 square feet, which is over the allowed 500 square foot limitations that is allowed for an accessory, a detest accessory structure. They're also requesting height variance because although it's only 640 square feet, it will exceed the height required that it's allowed today of 15 feet. It will exceed the height required that it's allowed today of 15 feet. It will be 21 feet. Just the general information about the site, it's in commerce off of Commerce Street and the Commerce Street subdivision. Surrounding land uses are R90. It's located in the West Montgomery historic district. Again, as I previously mentioned, it has frontage on West Montgomery Avenue, as well as Forest Avenue. And the property size is 22,464 square feet. Excuse me. As we look at an analysis, and doing analyses of what they're requesting, again, the floor air variance they're requesting because they already exceed the 500 square foot limitations that's required by this detached structure. So as proposed the 640 square foot garage exceeds it by 140 square feet. The R90 zone allows for a rear yard limitation of 8%. So they are allowed to cover 720 square feet. And that's based on a minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet. So this could be reached by multiple buildings on a lot in order to get to the 720 square feet. Again, as mentioned, we currently have a 114 square foot garage there now. So with this one building, they are exceeding it, they're, excuse me, they're under by 80 square feet, one building. That's required in the art 90's zone. And looking at the height variance, again, the maximum allowed is 15 feet and that is to the peak. They are proposing 21 feet to the peak. When you look at the design, the hip root design allows for it to diminish the scale of it. So it doesn't look as big as it's projecting to be at 21 feet. As you can see from this picture, in proportion to the existing house, the scale, there's a proportionate scale to the existing house in the property. The applicant has gone to the HTC, and again, the placement isn't keeping with the historic property in the location of historic structures. The property needs all of development standards other than what we're requesting here before you today and we also receive the letter of support. And these are pictures I'm sure you guys went out there either this morning or during the week and you've seen that existing garage there. So as you all know all the findings have to be met in order to grant approval for the variants. And based on that, and what's also in the report, staff was able to make all the findings. And we approve, we recommend approval to you. If you have any questions, I'll be more than happy to answer them. Thank you. Thank you very much, Walters. There are any questions from the Board of Appeals, Mr. Mayor Valla. Dr. Morg. Attachment six in the staff report is a letter of support from the resident of 103 forest. I think you said it, but I missed it. Where is that house in relation to the applicant's house? I didn't say it though. Thank you for catching it. I'm going to see if I can pull a little area foot. Can I, if there are more questions, I'm going to try to pull something up to show you in relation if I have it on there. Any other questions, Dr. Mark? Once again, get some looking. I'll wait for the finish before I. And while you are looking, the other question I will have has to do with the height variance. I was wondering if the height variance, if another location for the garage would, if the height variance is required irrespective of the sighting of the garage or if it's owing to its position near the property line. Can you repeat that? The 15 foot height limitation is that a 15 foot height restriction anywhere on the property or is that 15 feet because it's close to the edge of the property? Well, there are setbacks that are required. So the minimum setback required generally is 12 feet from the property line. So accessory buildings have to be moved over three feet for each additional foot up to 15 feet in height. So it is based on a setback that's established. Gotcha. So if you were even closer to the edge of the height restriction, it would be lower. It would be a correct, it would remain to make it be lower than what it's being proposed to be. Gotcha. Thank you. Okay. Miss Walters, do we have any idea as to when the current structure that is on that lot the garage was constructed? You know, I tended to look through our archives, which it took a lot. I was not able before we had computers, the way that we documented permits what we hand wrote them. So I went back to those records and I could not find where a building permit was actually applied for it. That does not mean they had little letters B as in building E as an electric. There it was, what they call a building permit, but I don't know what that was for. It was never described so I'm not sure. I don't know if the, if Jeff knows, but I was not able to find anything in our records that strictly told us when it was built. Thank you because I mean the follow-up question to that is did somebody before us approve this building because it appears to me it never should have been constructed to begin with. I do have a substantive question. One of the findings that the board needs to make to grant a variance is that it is the result of conditions peculiar to the property and not result of any action taken by the applicant. It's clear that the applicant didn't do anything. They bought this house in May and this is the way that the house looks. Can you illuminate me about what conditions are peculiar to this particular property? That is sufficient that we should give a variance for this building. Personally, staffs, analysis would indicate that while the lot does not have irregularities, it's not oddly shaped, I think the issue that we have here is that it's an historic property. And their idea of maintaining this property and as to do the restorations to this property, it's a competing priority of a non-contributor versus a property that is historic. So in trying to mimic and have a property that's in keeping with the historic, it to us is that peculiarity. So the fact that it is an historic district is by itself something that makes this particular lot peculiar to lots that would not otherwise be in historic districts. I believe it has that challenge of trying to maintain that historic property with a non-historic structure. And I believe that we can all agree that the structure that is currently there does nothing to advance the historic character of this property. Staff would agree. Thank you, thank you so much, Ms. Walters. I appreciate your presentation. And if we could go back, yes, I had asked earlier the relation of the property with the subject property with the letter of support. Let's see. We got to pull it down. Here it is right here. Oh my God my I don't know if you see it up there okay here's the subject property yeah my nails aren't done That's the corner of poverty. Thank you. The letter is supported across the way. It's in the vicinity. It's not someone locked away. Not somebody adjacent and not somebody in my neighborhood. Thank you very much. If there are no further questions of staff, I will ask the applicant to please come forward and identify himself and give his presentation on behalf of the owners. Certainly, good morning. Good morning. My name is Jeff Broadhurst. With Broadhurst Architects, I reside at 306 First Street in Rockville, and I run my office out of that location as well. The only comments I wish to make I believe the staff report is well written and certainly takes into consideration what we put into the application. One thing that I don't believe is restated but was part of our our our submittal was just an excerpt from these owning ordinance that reads. The ordinance states that the purpose of this chapter are to provide an appropriately scale designed and cited buildings that are compatible with the natural and built environment, protect and enhance the aesthetic and visual character of the city and its residential neighborhoods and provide attractive high quality development and design that enhances the communities and quality of life. It further states that the purpose is to stabilize and protect the essential characteristics of the existing residential development. We believe that our application, what we're trying to do with this accessory building, supports those purposes. Okay. Thank you very much. Do the board of appeals have any questions? I'm going to ask the same question that I asked of staff. What is it about this particular lot that makes it peculiar? This is an historic property. It's probably one of the grandest historic properties in the city of Rockville. While I know the board is not the historic district commission, I will say that there is an architectural history in the city. Houses of this vintage normally had outbuildings that had a significant scale to them. The current ordinance certainly has been changed and the scale of accessory buildings has diminished over time. I've been practicing in the Rockville area for three decades and at a certain time we were able to build things that were appropriately scaled. The ordinance has come to reduce itself over time to be in my opinion a bit questionable and our ability as architects to design well proportioned buildings. In any case, this is a very large lot, a very large scale building. For whatever reasons in the history of this property, this six car garage was placed there. We are suggesting something that is significantly smaller and significantly better designed and more appropriate for this site. And I don't think anybody here disagrees with that characterization of the building significantly smaller and significantly better designed and more appropriate for this site. And I don't think anybody here disagrees with that characterization of the building that you have designed and that the owners who are here this morning intend to construct on that lot. Thank you very much. Certainly. Thank you. Appreciate you're coming out. Are there any members of the community here who wish to speak in support of the application of this variance? Seeing no one coming forward, I would ask whether or not there are any members of our community who are here to comment in opposition to their request for variance. There being none, I will close the public hearing, and we will now deliberate in our work session, gentlemen. I concur with everything that's in the staff report, and knowing that the questionable point is whether or not there are conditions peculiar to the property, which I think is an important consideration. I believe that its historic designation means that some amount of flexibility is required in order to preserve the historic character of the neighborhood. And given that that is one of the purposes of the zoning ordinance, I find that peculiarity to be compelling. And I would agree with that, Dr. Mark. And I would also concur, I believe, the explanation is to what makes this particular property peculiar. It's the fact that it is in the historic district. The building is clearly consistent with the other buildings in the neighborhood. It is certainly an improvement of what is there now. And I would certainly support the variance for all of the reasons stated this morning as well as in the staff report and the materials that were presented by the applicants. I would then ask. We want to review the conditions just to make sure that we concur with all of them. Sited as a proposed approved by the Historic District Commission and shall not exceed the indicated footprint, limited to a single story, constructed in substantial conformance with the plans, minimum driveway width of 10 feet, that the apron details are in accordance with something. Department of Public Works. Thanks. You're welcome. A hand-post-and-appet- David of Posting. I think those are all reasonable. I don't think we have we have any concerns about them. Okay. We will now entertain a motion to approve the variance application VAR 2018-0-0- Dr. Morte, do you have a motion? I move that we approve with conditions variance VAR 2018-00069301 West Montgomery Avenue with the conditions stated in the staff report and for the reason stated in the staff report. Do I have a second? I second the motion. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Variance application, VAR 2018-006-9 is approved. Thank you this morning. Good luck to you, Mr. Williams and Ms. Monahan. And we thank you for coming out to be with us this morning. Okay, we will now return to our agenda. Do we have any old business this morning? No. No. Seeing no old business, we will move on to new business. Do we have any new business this morning? Just an FYI that there is no board meeting in August. The next meeting will be September 8th, and we do have at least one agenda item for that meeting. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Ray. Has the board, the members of the board have an opportunity to review the minutes of the Board of Appeals meeting of 3, 2018 from May 5th. I have. Yes. Are there any changes, corrections corrections or additions to be made? I have no corrections to be made. Then the chair would entertain a motion to a motion. Can I add just one quick typo? Under. Under. Under minutes, there should be a space in between April 7th. There's a comma 2018. There should be a space in between April 7th. There's a comma 2018. There should be a space there. Thank you very much, Ms. Schultz. With that amendment to the minutes, the chair would entertain a motion to approve the minutes as amended. I move that we approve the minutes as amended for meeting number zero three dash 2018 from the fifth of May. Is there a second? Aye, second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? All abstain, so that was. Okay, thank you very much. Then until September 8th, we are in a German. Thank you all. you