Good evening, Rockwell.

Today is Wednesday, August 13th, 2025.

This is meeting number 10-25 of the City of Rockville Planning Commission.

I'm Jamie Espinosa, Chair of the Planning Commission.

I'm joined in chambers tonight by Commissioners Cheyenne Salo Dean, Commissioner Susan Pittman, Commissioner Eric Fulton, and Commissioner Mong San.

Tonight's meeting is being conducted in person and virtually by WebEx.

Tonight's agenda includes a work session, then this will be followed by regularly scheduled commission items.

Our first agenda item is our third work session on the zoning ordinance rewrite uses and parking.

Over to Mr.

Wasserlach for any staff briefing.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, members of the commission.

As you stated, this is our third in a series of work sessions on the zoning ordinance rewrite project.

And our deputy zoning manager Holly Simmons is here to present on parking and uses, which is essentially a duplicate of the mayor and council's work session that was held on August 4th.

And then we will give you an update on the council's direction on the process changes that you've already considered and made a recommendation to the mayor and council.

And so with that, I will turn it over to Holly.

Thank you, Mr.

Wazlack, and good evening, Mr.

Chair members of the Planning Commission.

As Mr.

Wazilak said, I am Holly Simmons, the deputy zoning manager, and I will be going over some information with you this evening related to our zoning ordinance rewrite and comprehensive app amendments, specifically focusing on uses and parking for the beginning of the presentation.

All right, we are in business.

So for this presentation, we are going to go briefly over the project timeline.

You all have seen this before, so it'll be just kind of a brief touch there, land uses, parking, and then an update on review processes and the direction that we've received from Mayor and Council.

So as you all are aware, the project kicked off back in 2023.

We went through a number of phases and began drafting the zoning ordinance back in January.

We've been before you two times previously for work sessions on processes back in April and zones and our comprehensive map amendment in May.

And we'll have one more work session in October before the public release of the draft zoning ordinance and map in December, followed by our adoption process, which we're anticipating to wrap up in late spring of 2026.

So to start out, our first topic is uses.

Within this section, I'm going to go over some kind of key concepts, some terms and definitions to understand there an overview of how uses are regulated.

I'll also our anticipated outcomes of the changes that we are proposing, and then go into actual proposals, recommendations to modernize our use regulations.

I'll go over kind of the umbrella recommendation with a couple of notable changes, one or two within each recommendation, which is intended really to illustrate what those recommendations will accomplish.

So first, starting out with our overview of how uses are regulated.

This is one of the primary functions of our zoning ordinance regulating uses.

So really, when we're regulating uses, we're identifying where different activities can be located within the city and under what conditions.

So you see a number of different terms on in bullet points on this slide.

I'll go through each of these points again so we have a bit of a common understanding.

The first is uses.

So uses are the different activities or land uses that are allowed within different zones.

These can be addressed at a really high level, if you're able to see my cursor.

High level being residential and retail and sales on this slide.

And then they can be broken down at a more granular granular level, which you see housed under those broader uses.

These are all actual uses which are proposed to be contained within the zoning ordinance.

All of the uses along with the zones are listed in what we call a use table.

And this is basically a matrix that includes our uses, which are listed along the left-hand side, the zones along the top, and then what we call use permissions within the cells in pink.

And those use permissions, each zone within the city permits certain uses while either prohibiting or restricting others.

These are generally answering the question of can this use occur in this location.

So we have four use permissions within our zoning ordinance.

We have uses which are permitted.

They're allowed by right anywhere within the zone.

Conditional use permission, which is permitted in the zone, but it needs to comply with certain criteria or conditions.

For example, there may be limitations for each individual use on the size or setbacks within a particular zone.

Special exceptions are intended to be more impactful uses, and they also have conditions associated with them, but they need to go through an additional process before the Board of Appeals for approval prior to any site plan, project plan approval that they may require.

Conditions are requirements for a specific use within a zone.

So generally, these are answering the question of how can this occur here.

So there may be again special setbacks, height restrictions, design requirements, safety requirements, operational requirements, etc.

So before we get into the specific recommendations for modernizing our use regulations, I did want to go over our anticipated benefits of regul of making these changes.

We're anticipating that the recommendations will make our regulations more consistent, allowing for easier interpretation and regulation, reduce complexity and increase accessibility and ease of understanding.

We're anticipating that this in some instances will streamline approvals while still ensuring that impacts of these uses are addressed.

We're anticipating that it will increase equity and also certainly support plan goals and policies and the mayor and council's priorities.

So our first recommendation is to ensure that use terms and definitions are clear and current.

If you have read through the uses we have in the zoning ordinance, you might have seen that in some instances the terms aren't immediately obvious what they are.

They might be outdated, their meaning may be unclear.

In some instances, we don't define the uses, which all can lead to a bit of difficulty in interpreting and implementing the regulations, both for staff and for applicants, whether they're business owners, developers, other property owners, etc.

So we are working to modernize all of the use names so that they're easily understood.

One example here is that we are proposing to revise a current use, which is called alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises to a new term, which would be alcoholic beverage retail establishment.

The second part of this is that we are proposing to update the definitions so that they are clear and accurate.

We're really working to over to eliminate any overlap between the use terms and also to remove regulations.

In some instances, you'll have within one of our existing definitions some conditions or requirements that a use needs to meet, and we're working to pull that out of the definition section and put it in a section that's that's like designated specifically for uses and use standards.

So in some instances, this will result in policy changes.

We did want to go over one of those with you.

Our first notable change.

This one relates to home-based business enterprises, which are currently allowed within the city.

Um if they meet different criteria.

So this includes things like in home hairstylist, lawyers operating out of their homes, doctors operating out of a dwelling, tutoring, piano lessons, things of that nature.

Notably, it does not include telework.

It doesn't include in-home daycares, those are regulated separately.

It also doesn't include things like bed and breakfasts, those are separate uses.

So currently we do have our definition of home-based businesses broken out into three different categories.

These are no impact home-based business enterprises, low impact and major impact, if I'm not mistaken.

And we're proposing to revise those categories just slightly to little to no impact, low impact, and major impact still.

The difference between these really hinges on the number of non-resident employees that are allowed to be associated with the use and vehicle visits.

So you can see on the slide in front of you what we're proposing for each of these categories, and really the intent here is to add a bit of flexibility, particularly on the lower end of the scale.

Currently, if you're in that no impact category, it effectively precludes any business.

Like it's very difficult to have a business and be in that category.

So we did bring this recommendation to the mayor and council.

They had some questions about the different types of home-based business enterprises, reiterating whether in-home childcare is included, asking about a couple of different specific uses, but ultimately they did provide unanimous support for this recommendation at this stage.

Our second recommendation is to update the list of uses, and this is really going to look like three different things.

In some instances, we are proposing to eliminate uses, which we either are not seeing within the city or they're quite antiquated, outdated things like duplicating services, archival record storage, taxicab services.

We're just not anticipating seeing many of those in the future.

And if a duplicating service were proposed, we could address that through another kind of broader use that we are retaining in the zoning ordinance.

We're also proposing to add new uses to address emerging technologies or to address recommendations of the comprehensive plan, things that we are anticipating increasing in the future, for example, our middle housing types.

And we're also proposing some that would help to clarify regulations.

An example there is that within the city you can have backyard chicken coops, but that's not apparent from our zoning ordinance.

So we are proposing to add those in, even though they're addressed in another portion of the code, the regulations are housed elsewhere.

We do want to make that clear in the use table that that is something that is permitted.

Finally, we are proposing to consolidate uses, particularly in instances where it seems really logical or where it's directly supported by the comprehensive plan.

One example that we have here is that we have two uses that we are proposing to consolidate along with a couple of other uses into a retail establishment use.

Currently, we have a use called consumable goods to be used in the home, and a use called durable goods to be used in the home.

So the first one, those consumable goods is intended to cover things like grocery stores, hobby and craft supplies, and drug stores, things that you take home and consume their products, whereas the durable goods to be used in the home are uses like bicycle shops, hardware stores, home furnishings.

In thinking about this, we didn't really think that the distinction was necessary.

So we're proposing to consolidate them together into this new retail establishment use.

With this, one of the impacts is that it actually would reduce the amount of process necessary to transition your existing hobby shop into an antique store.

Currently, that would need a minor site plan amendment to change that use, even if you're not doing any exterior work.

But by consolidating them into one use, you would only have to go through a tenant fit out permit.

So it would reduce the amount of process required to make that change.

We also think overall this would make the use table clearer and simpler and increase its usability.

So one notable change that we are proposing here, and this actually would not really result in policy change, is to reconfigure the way that we are addressing the regulation of more than five unrelated tenants in one dwelling.

So currently, in order to understand our regulation around the number of tenants that can live in a single dwelling, you need to combine information from the zoning ordinance, both in the definition section and in our use table, along with information from chapter 18, which actually deals with the rental licensing, and you need to kind of cross-reference these different pieces of information, put on your critical thinking hat, and then you arrive at a regulation, which causes some difficulty in frankly understanding what our regulations are.

It's not immediately apparent.

It also causes difficulty with enforcement, because if it's not easy for us to understand, it's not easier for the general public to understand.

It's also difficult for us to kind of indicate why and how someone might be in violation of our regulations.

So we're proposing to remove two terms and definitions from the zoning ordinance, boarding house and family.

You can see those listed at the bottom of the slide, and move the regulations entirely into chapter 18, which is our rental facilities and landlord tenant relations chapter of the city code.

And retain that current policy, as I said, but locate it all in one location just to increase transparent transparency and equity and strengthen our ability to enforce those regulations.

So this is something also that Mayor and Council did unanimously support.

So there were some questions there, but ultimately Mayor and Council did support this recommendation as well.

And our final yes, final recommendation in the uses section is to update our use permissions and use standards.

So this would involve sorry, this would involve just doing a wholesale review of the use permissions within the zoning ordinance, updating them to modern, and reviewing all of the standards, those kind of criteria and conditions that we have and making sure that they make sense and increasing flexibility as well.

Our notable change here is that we are proposing to convert many of our special exception uses to conditional or permitted uses.

This is something that was recommended through FAST 2 back in September of 2024.

This was brought forward to Marin Council as part of kind of a package of recommendations, process changes there.

We are anticipating that this again would reduce the amount of process associated with the uses that are converted from a special exception, which requires that Board of Appeals approval to a conditional or permitted use, which is approved by the normal approving authority through whatever site plan or project plan permit is required.

We are proposing to retain 10 of the most impactful uses as special exceptions.

Again, those would require Board of Appeals review, but the rest about 20 others would be converted.

And in instances where it makes sense, we are proposing to retain those use standards associated with the uses.

So the next two slides, this one and the following one actually give you a full list of our current special exception uses, which are proposed to be converted to either permitted or conditional uses, along with the ones that are proposed to stay special exception uses.

So you can see all of the proposed use permissions on this slide and on the next slide as well.

I will note one caveat here is that this is not all of our uses, right?

So you're seeing, for example, large group home, but you're not seeing small group home.

So there are some gaps here that might lead to some questions.

These are really just the uses that we have that are currently special exceptions.

So anything that is proposed to have its use changed to conditional or permitted, you see shown in red.

And then the use permissions are also shown in red where they're proposed to change.

And this is the rest of the uses.

Happy to answer any questions about these.

They did have some comments on this.

In some instances, it'll actually go back to the last slide, particularly in the residential group of uses shown here with the housing for senior adults and persons with disabilities, and also our large group homes.

There was some desire to see those use permissions further relaxed and use standards eliminated where they're unnecessary.

There was also some amount of conversation regarding automobile filling stations and electric vehicle charging, which we actually do plan to discuss more in depth in the October.

I think it'll be an October work session with you all when we talk through our proposals related to non-conforming uses.

But there was there was a bit of conversation there as well, and desire to hear more information, both about automobile filling stations and about electric vehicle charging during that next work session.

This is still within that same recommendation to update the use permissions and use standards, but we did have one more notable change in this area, and that is to allow the development of multifamily housing on property owned by nonprofits or places of worship.

This is something also that has gone before the Mayor and Council was recommended during their September 2024 housing supply work session.

And this basically would allow for nonprofits and places of worships to develop this type of housing regardless of the underlying zone.

Mayor and Council did note and clarify that that is already allowed for senior housing or for housing for seniors and persons with disabilities because that is a use that is permitted within condition with conditions in our residential zones, but this would actually expand that to all multifamily housing.

We understand from our colleagues in the Department of Housing and Community Development that they um this is intended to allow for those facilities to utilize excess land for mission-based purposes and co-locate housing and with existing um services and facilities that they have.

And there are two examples of locations that have already done something like this.

One is the state of California, but the other one very close to home is Montgomery County.

So Baron Council also provided unanimous support for this with some desire to see um context sensitive height limitations for interior lots.

Um yeah, that is the primary note.

So with that, um we are at the end.

I believe, yes, the next section relates to parking.

So I did want to pause there for any questions that you all may have, questions or conversation.

Sure.

Uh I'll start.

Uh the first question I have is the table itself of uses.

Is this a product that already goes to the public in some form?

Or is this just for the slide deck?

That is something that we are continuing to work on refining.

Um, so that has not been released to the public at this point in time outside of this slide deck.

Yes.

Yes, absolutely.

It will be incorporated into the zone.

Yeah, can you go to it and I just have a comment on it?

So you see in the key.

Just any, yeah.

In the key, it says S E equals special exam exception.

But I don't see S E in the chart.

I see an S, which isn't in the key.

Yes.

So I would just it needs to be revised.

Yes, absolutely.

Thank you.

Um, and then the question I have recommendation one on the home uh businesses.

How do you define few visits under the little to no impact?

Very few customer visits.

Because I'm trying to distinguish, I I get the no employees under little to no impact versus employees allowed under the low impact.

But then when you get into the customer client visit, how do you define few?

So the final code will have some numbers attached to these parameters.

Uh but we thought that because kind of working from home and running a business from home has changed over the last few years, that there are more deliveries and things like that that um or part and parcel to to a business.

So we thought we should allow a certain amount of uh vehicle visits in the form of those deliveries.

So I would say, you know, it could be anywhere between one and three visits per day or some equivalent that's the same as a single family home.

So the whole intent of having this little to no impact is that there's really no uh indication that there is a home-based business being run out of that particular dwelling.

So at a minimum, we would like to be able to afford that business the same amount of no visits.

And I'm tracking, I just don't, you know, just in use of the English language.

I don't see much distinction between very few customer visits versus visits are minimal.

So I would just tie a specific metric to the definition.

Otherwise, if it's left to interpretation, I think that's gonna cause some pro serious the code will not use these terms.

Um I have uh do we just want to go uh Commissioner Salhoudine and then just kind of go down the line here.

Um sure.

So I got a couple things.

One's actually really the very last point that we made here, and that is around uh allowing places of worship or nonprofits to um develop multifamily housing.

So what uh have we contemplated what language we might use to um prevent some sort of like sale and lease back um arrangement where clearly a developer is just utilizing um a nonprofit in order to skirt the rules around multifamily development or have we contemplated that?

That is not something that we have discussed today, but we certainly can.

It's a point well taken.

So that is uh something that I could see absolutely happen happening.

Um it's a clear loophole.

I think developers will immediately pick up on that.

And um that that that's very, very easy to see.

Um, when the when when the time's right and that that opportunity um exists.

The second thing I had was you know, you're gonna have to come back to look, I'm gonna have to look at my notes.

Okay.

All right, Commissioner Pittman.

Um I I just I was gonna ask about the um defining minimal versus no unreal.

So what Jamie said on that one.

Um and I just want to say, you know, this whole five unrelated tenants and a single family home has been um bothersome for years for all those reasons equity, transparency, safety.

You know, if we don't know they're there, how do we help?

How do we keep them saying you know, do our part to keep them safe?

So thank you for taking that on.

I think that's a really good first step is to move it to landlord tenant relations.

So it's not so hinky.

So thank you for that.

And I that's all I have right now.

I remembered.

Go ahead, Commissioner Sound.

Um, okay, so uh two sort of related things.

One is on the the table that we were referring to earlier, um, how it looked like everything that had been changed had been highlighted in red.

Um is it like everything's highlighted in red, which means should we assume that everything was in the is moving from a uh more constrictive use into a less constrictive use?

Or is there any place in here where it might have gone the other direction?

Uh if there is, I don't need you to highlight them for me right now, but if there is, we might want to like color code that or just make it apparent somehow.

Um and the second thing is can you maybe just give us a little bit of an overview on if a use is going to be moved from a special exemption to uh special exception to a conditional use.

Um how does that impact the um the participation or level of awareness for residents in in Rockville, right?

Like what what sort of participation would they normally have in a special exemption um or opportunity to provide input in a special exemption uh scenario, which they would lose by moving it to a conditional exemption.

And then uh I guess from from conditional to uh permitted would mean really that there isn't um really much, right?

That the if it's permitted, then the business can just or that the use can just go forward without really much in the way of um input from um from the citizenry I well just to keep in mind that a lot of it depends on the zone that the use is use is located in.

Uh most uses require site plan approval, except for single family detached and duplexes.

So if there is a use that's gonna be located on a um commercial or mixed-use zone property, then they would still require site plan approval.

Um if it's an institutional use, uh potentially they could still require site plan approval on a residential zone uh as well.

So it's really cutting out the special exception process that goes to the Board of Appeals where they would lose the ability to weigh in at that stage.

But in a lot of cases, and I don't think we know how many, but uh there will be an ability via the site plan approval process for for the public to weigh in.

Okay, so then the um the public hearings that happen currently as part of mayor and council's meetings, as a part of this body's meetings, that would still remain regardless of whether it was um a special exception or a conditional approval.

As long as there's there's a site plan involved, it would come before these sort or a project plan or whatever it is, would come for these bodies and and there'd still be a process, right?

Depends on what the use is and what the zone is that the use is proposed, but generally yes.

Okay.

Thanks for the clarification.

Commissioner Fulton.

Uh thank you.

So I've uh similar to Commissioner Sal Houdin's first question about uh the faith in nonprofit multifamily development.

So I in general I'll say I support this.

Um, but I have a lot of questions about uh just the parameters of it.

Um who defines what mission-based is um, you know, it who defines what serves the mission of a nonprofit, there are a lot of different kinds of nonprofits.

Um does it have to be affordable or market rate, things like that.

Um but I think when I think about this and I think about all of the standards or parameters that we have to put in place, my conclusion is why are we limiting to faith-based and nonprofits and not all types of property owners?

It's not for you to answer.

Um, but that's my conclusion when I look at this uh that we can expand this if it's going to fit within uh the certain height, weight massing of the codes, we can expand this out to all property developers and not necessarily uh nonprofits or faith-based organizations whose primary mission isn't real estate.

So thank you.

Commissioner Sun.

Yeah, thank you.

Uh first I want to follow up with the the Commission for the things, uh, comments on the type of approval.

So the conditional approval, can you elaborate like what kind of conditions are needed for those approval union contracts to permitted?

It's a good question and an important um an important one to ask because the process for a permitted use and a conditional use within the same zone really doesn't it doesn't change based on whether it's permitted or conditional.

Typically, what you'll see with the conditional uses in our zoning ordinance is that they have different conditions based on the zone.

So you might have a permitted use that has certain conditions associated with it regardless of the zone.

I'm thinking, for example, of our housing for seniors and persons with disabilities.

There are specific occupancy requirements to ensure that the units are occupied by the intended occupants, and those apply regardless of the zone.

With our conditional uses, you'll see some different types of conditions based on the zone that it's in.

So there may be particularly now in our zoning ordinance, we have um gross floor area limitations, which you'll see a lot of the time in the mixed-use neighborhood commercial district, um, where, for example, you'll have a use that is not permitted to occupy more than 2500 square feet of gross floor area or 5,000 square feet of gross floor area.

And that would not be applied to the mixed-use transit district, for example.

So there might be different conditions.

And I will say that's something that um we have asked our consultants to take a good hard look at.

Are these necessary?

If they're necessary, are they set at the correct threshold?

Um, et cetera, on down the line.

You'll also, in some instances, see um minimum lot sizes or additional setbacks that are kind of tailored to the use.

Um, ones that I'm thinking of off the top of my head are private educational institutions.

Um, and again, life care facilities, which include nursing homes.

So that's something that we've also asked um our consultants again to kind of measure our current standards against best practices and understand that we can arrive at kind of modern standards for the uses.

Thank you.

That's a very elaborate explanation.

My next question is uh look at that report.

There is uh uh something about the accessory drilling units.

And so currently we allowed like uh attached accessory drilling units, and then the the proposal is to combine the attached and detached into one category by right.

And so do we have different regulations for this type, the two type, or we just try to combine them.

As it turned out, the current code um allows for both detached and attached ADUs.

Uh they were zoning text amendments that were adopted separately and by do two different mayors and councils, and so the regulations are slightly different for each.

And so going forward in the new code, we will make them align so that they will be the same.

So it's also they already permitted by right both.

They're permitted by conditional conditional uses.

Oh, okay, that's both of them, yeah.

Any follow-ups?

I I have a follow-up.

Um, Ms.

Simmons, when going back to the multifamily dwellings on nonprofit property, did I hear you say where services already or might already exist?

Is that the tie-in?

Is that why it's nonprofit or faith-based?

Or did I hear that wrong?

You did not hear that wrong.

I think that is not that's more of the rationale as to why this would be allowed, that there's um a thinking that not only are the housing being provided by a mission-based organization, they're using excess land, but also that there are existing services nearby.

So I don't anticipate that that is necessarily a condition that we would put on that type of development, but it's more the rationale for allowing this type of use on these properties.

I think coming back to Commissioner Salah Hideen's questions about, you know, there's a thousand loopholes in this, right?

I mean, I could just start a nonprofit and say my mission is to provide housing, right?

And now I'm mission-based, and I'm nonprofit, but we all know the CEOs of nonprofits often make astronomical salaries.

So that may just be something to think about that if we are going to pursue a nonprofit or faith-based only bent to this, that we may want to think about these loopholes.

Because it's it's so it's very noble.

It's a very noble thing to do.

And if services are already there, why not house people where the services are, meet people where they are at?

Um, it's a great idea.

So just some thoughts on that.

Any other follow-ups?

Hearing none.

Back out over you back over to you, Miss Simmons.

Thank you very much.

Uh, so we'll move on to parking.

So we are also proposing through the zoning ordinance rewrite some significant changes to our current parking and loading requirements.

Um, in this section, I will be focusing on two big recommendations.

One are our recommendations where we're kind of enhancing our vision zero goals.

And the other is where we are proposing to right size our minimum and maximum parking requirements that currently exist within the zoning ordinance.

So I do want to note some things that we are proposing to do with a zoning ordinance, but that I won't focus on this evening.

And those include um provisions for compact spaces, electric vehicle parking, additional loading space requirements, and parking lot provisions for parking lot solar canopies, as well as updated provisions for shared parking.

So our first recommendation again is to um institute some changes that would further our vision zero goals.

So one of these is Sherley Structural.

We are proposing to introduce a new pedestrian and bicycle facilities division into the zoning ordinance.

Currently, we do have bicycle and pedestrian related requirements, but they're scattered in a number of different locations in the code, including our parking and loading division or parking and loading article article, but also in our mixed-use zones and elsewhere.

So we wanted to consolidate those all into one location.

So it's very clear that we do have pedestrian and bicycle facilities requirements and how you can access them.

We're also proposing to require bicycle parking for both principal and accessory uses.

Currently in the zoning ordinance, we require for vehicular parking that all of the demand be addressed for both the principal and accessory uses on the site.

So we establish minimums and we say you need to meet these minimums for all of the uses.

In our bicep with our bicycle parking requirements, we don't do that.

We just say, and this is very clear in the code that bicycle parking requirements only apply to the principal use on the site.

So we wanted to rectify that as we didn't think that that is in alignment with city goals.

We also are proposing clarifications to our bicycle parking location requirements.

Currently, we do have requirements that indicate where on a site bicycle parking needs to be located, but they're honestly a little bit complicated.

It might be difficult to understand which requirements apply to you based on your developments.

We're proposing to clarify those.

And finally, we're adding provisions for pedestrian visibility at parking facility entrances.

And this is something that our pedestrian and bicycle coordinator on staff recommended.

I believe it is something that he has talked through with um relevant committees.

And um we're basically saying that there is kind of an area around where a sidewalk intersects a parking facility entrance where no structures can be placed.

So outlining specifically what that is in the zoning ordinance.

The first item within this recommendation is updating all of our minimum requirements.

So the zoning ordinance, much like the use table has a parking table.

This is also a matrix.

It addresses all of our uses that are contained within the zoning ordinance and establishes a minimum ratio of parking spaces that are required for the use type.

So we have requested that our consultants go through and evaluate all of those minimums to relax them just a bit, modernize them, and reevaluate all of those parking minimums.

We have also requested that the ratios be based on objective criteria that are knowable at the time of entitlement.

So currently our zoning ordinance includes ratios that are maybe based on the number of employees that a use is going to generate or the number of work vehicles.

And as I'm sure you are aware, at the time of entitlement, sometimes we don't know what tenants are going to go into a commercial space.

So it's very difficult to understand the number of employees or the number of work vehicles that will be required when you don't even know what tenant will be in the space.

So generally they are taking those requirements and transitioning them to be based in large part on gross floor area.

In some other instances, I believe hospitals is based on number of beds.

But basically updating those so that it's easier to understand what requirement will apply to you.

We are also proposing to introduce a number of by-right adjustments in alignment with city goals and policies, specifically adjustments that would allow a lower provision of parking for electric vehicle charging spaces, any MPDU apartments, bicycle commuter facilities, which are provided over the minimum required, and pick up drop-off spaces, which are particularly since COVID and emerging need.

And we're also proposing to institute parking maximums for most zones, specifically our mixed-use zones, medium density residential zones, the proposed high density resid residential zone and industrial zones.

I will note that currently we do have parking maximums required for our mixed-use transit district zone and our mixed use corridor district zone, but they are very stringent.

They say your minimum is your maximum.

So you can go no lower, no higher, you have to hit it right on the nose, which is problematic for reasons I'm sure you can understand.

So we really we did some research into this and are proposing that the parking maximums be set at 12025% of whatever the minimum is.

This would take that policy and expand it beyond town center to other parts of the city as well.

So what does that look like?

On the left hand side, you can see a map that was prepared as part of the town center master plan.

In blue are the areas within town center where parking minimums will be eliminated with the zoning ordinance rewrite, that is adopted policy.

So we do anticipate that that will occur.

On the right-hand side is our proposal, all of the blue areas within the city are the locations where that those parking minimums would be eliminated.

And finally, we are recommending a revised process for requesting parking reductions.

So we would allow over and above any of those by right adjustments, a parking reduction up to 10%, just as a de minimis reduction to be approved by the project's approving authority, and then if an applicant wanted to reduce their parking requirement by more than 10%, they would need to provide a parking demand analysis to support that request.

Again, this could be approved by the project's approving authority.

And that second bullet point in each of these areas is important to note.

Currently, the planning commission and the mayor and council have the authority to approve a parking reduction, but the chief of zoning does not.

So this would change that policy a bit.

I'm sure you all have seen kind of standalone parking waivers before.

And those parking waivers, which should really be called parking reductions, um, would be if they're associated with an administrative approval, this would change it so that those could be approved administratively with the project that they're associated with.

So that is just a note, it would slightly revise or slightly reduce the number of parking waivers or parking reductions that you as a body see.

So before we move on to the process update on process with the mayor and council direction, did want to note that all of those recommendations that we did provide to Mayor and Council related to parking were supported unanimously.

There was some desire, frankly, to go even further with eliminating the parking minimums.

There was also desire for flexibility to allow parking above the maximums to be approved with a similar process to our parking reductions process that we proposed with specific conversation around doctors' offices needing perhaps additional parking.

There was also some desire for consideration of additional adjustments for pregnant individuals, for example.

And there was reiteration that we want to make sure that we're providing enough ADA accessible parking.

And that is the last note on this portion of the work session.

Okay.

Any questions?

Thank you.

I'm also in support of those policies for parking reduction and everything.

And I'm just want to ask, so you will not mention about the solar canopies for parking in this session, right?

But have you have we have contemplate the idea of maybe some landscaping requirement for the parking lot and all those impervious services and if they're hot?

Yes, absolutely.

We do currently have landscaping requirements for parking facilities.

Um that is something that we also have taken a look at and will be incorporating updates into the zoning ordinance rewrite.

Um updates, I would say are minimal and mostly intended to ensure consistency between the requirements, but we will be touching on landscaping as well during the next work session.

Thank you.

Commissioner Fulton had any questions.

Um questions and just a couple of thoughts.

I mean, one, you can certainly add me to the voices who want to expand parking, uh eliminating parking minimums.

That's not a surprise, I don't think.

Um you glossed over uh exploring shared parking, but I want to thumbs up that because I think that's a big thing.

Um recommendation one, we were talking about eliminating structures to increase pedestrian visibility at I guess parking lots where they come out.

Is that include parking like structured parking garages?

Or just parking lots and is the structures free standing, or does that include like structural columns?

This is an excellent question.

Um just so I understand is the idea is what you're getting at that the columns of the parking structure might be close to.

It is born from experience.

Um if you want to take a walk up uh North Washington uh where the uh the square parking garage comes out right in front of where the dry cleaner is, I think it's a a good example of what I'm talking about, um, where there's two structural columns wrapped in concrete uh that do prevent, I think, direct visibility depending on where the vehicles are located.

So both that's that's a great point, and something that we can certainly keep in mind when we go back and revisit the language that we have drafted.

Um I'm not remembering the distance off the top of my head, but I with what we've drafted, if those columns were within that certain distance of the sidewalk letter letter of the zoning ordinance that we drafted, I do, I believe that those would not, they would be qualified as a structure and wouldn't be allowed within that area.

Um and to kind of yes and what uh the pedestrian bicycle coordinator added in.

Um there's also been many conversations about if there's ways to add provisions or standards for safe pedestrian access and egress through parking lots as well, not just across them.

Um there's a significant amount of collisions that occur in parking lots between vehicles and people, most are fortunately low speed, uh, but I don't believe there's any necessary um standards or provisions for pedestrian way wayfinding or navigation through parking lots.

So if there's any way to explore that, I'd I'd certainly be supportive of that.

Um, that's it.

Commissioner Parton.

Um I just have a couple of comments on things that uh have already been said, and to add to Commissioner Sun's comment about uh landscaping and parking lots.

I would say if there's any way to address uh permeable park permeable surfaces and parking lots along with the landscaping.

Um that would be great.

Um and Commissioner Fulton, what you just said about wayfinding and parking lots, that's come up before, where we talked about having like pedestrian walkways within a parking lot, um, protected or unprotected to help eliminate that.

You see that you know Texas is uh you know the land of giant parking lots and with giant parking spaces.

But I've noticed when I visit family there now that there are a lot of newer play newer parking lots that have dedicated pedestrian lanes walking through to go through those parking lots, and it really helps with safety.

I love this bicycle, the extra bicycle parking and the drop-off and pickup spaces.

You know, if we're going to be eliminating parking, that's that really helps balance things out.

We do need more bicycle parking.

I ride my bike all over town, and it it can be hard sometimes to find a place to lock it up.

Um, and I've locked it up on street signs and all kinds of other inappropriate places.

Um, so that was great.

I really like that.

Um you know, uh my concern about the parking remains places like Crab Avenue.

Yeah, um, it's it's a I don't know that we'll ever fix that.

Um the people who make their living with their cars and also who live close to a metro station are uh bus transit.

I I hope that the conversation will continue about what to do about neighborhoods who are already experiencing dangerous conditions and difficult conditions.

You know, you've got people, you know, people in a neighborhood who maybe the family has a car and maybe there's a work truck and maybe there's a second work truck or another car for work.

And what do we do when the whole streets full because there's no parking regulations anymore?

Or park, not there aren't parking regulations, but you know, it's kind of a free-for-all parking permitted.

So I hope we'll continue that conversation about what to do in those special locations as we work through this.

Um, but I think it's it's really coming along well.

Thank you.

Commissioner Saladin.

Yeah, um you asked one of my questions.

So you you talked about um a conversation with Mayor and Council around um some sort of exemption process for um exceptions to the maximum parking um allowance.

So what what was the conclusion of that?

Like does someone have to like apply for an exception if they wanted to create something more than what the maximum allows.

Is that is that the what the conclusion of that conversation was?

And also can I get a little bit of clarification on what the what the purpose of installing a parking maximum is, actually.

So to answer the first question, I don't know that there was resolution to that conversation in the work session with Mayor and Council.

Um however, we have drafted language that would allow an applicant to exceed the maximum if they were to provide a parking demand analysis, very similar to the way that they would get a parking reduction that demonstrated a demand for that the amount of parking that they're proposing that also would be approved by the approving authority.

Um so I think that's that's kind of that's what's currently in the draft, um, although you know, subject to the adoption process, certainly.

Um the rationale for parking maximums is very similar to the rationale.

It's kind of like similar, but a different way of getting at the same um the same reasoning for eliminating parking minimums, just that it's intended to increase walkability to not be providing parking over what's really necessary and required for a use, um, better use of land, more ability to use um different modes of transportation.

It's more of a um a stick as opposed to a carrot, though, I suppose.

Because the maximum itself really doesn't have much of a bearing on any of that, right?

I mean, like it depends on like if if you're creating a uh a parking lot, for example, versus a parking structure, right?

Like you could make a whole lot of parking space out of a very small footprint if you used a parking structure versus a lot, right?

I mean, like you're you're you're not really impacting land use at that point at all and limiting and a developer's ability to install the number of parking spots they think that they are their particular use or their envisioned use uh might require, and asking them that they you know, making that a impediment towards uh you know actually developing that piece of land to me is far more detrimental than um you know a uh a stick around a parking, you know, regulation that just just kind of to in my mind misses the point in in the first place, right?

I mean, like we we we've never had um anyone coming by asking for more than what's necessary to date.

To my knowledge, we do occasionally have people coming by and asking for less than what's necessary, but we are limit, you know, we're we're trying to to delever ourselves from mandating parking in general.

I I just don't understand why that there would be in the introduction of a new um limitation while everything else that we're doing is looking to get rid of limitations.

I guess there's no question there, just a statement.

Any uh any follow-up questions or comments?

No.

Okay, back to you, Ms.

Smith.

All right.

With that, I will hand it over to Mr.

Wazilak to go over some updates regarding Mayor and Council's direction in the proposed development review process changes.

Thank you, Ms.

Simmons.

We wanted to just circle back with the commission on the uh development review process recommendations that you've considered in the past and made recommendations to the mayor and council and let you know um what their direction is or uh is to us at this point.

Um the first recommendation was to streamline the plan development amendment process.

Uh, we know that the um project plan is the vehicle to do that, and because they um has been support for a much simplified project plan process.

Um the thought was that there should be a much simplified plan development amendment process that uses the project plan.

And uh you had considered that previously and recommended it, and uh the council also unanimously supports this approach for recommendation two.

Uh it was to um allow for site plans in certain zoning districts uh to be approved administratively.

Uh the mayor and council uh did support this recommendation and does as did this body previously.

Um just to remind you what that is is for uh our more intense mixed-use zones, MXB, MXCT, etc.

Uh, near transit and existing infrastructure, but not within 300 feet of a residential zone, uh, that those uh developments could be approved administratively for recommendation three.

Um that was to uh designate uh certain project types uh for administrative site plan approval.

Um the mayor and council uh were not unanimous in their recommendation on this one, although they did support it.

Uh you will recall that the planning commission supported this as well.

And that uh includes approving research and development projects, uh housing developments with 20% or more green or more affordable units, uh housing for senior adults and persons with disabilities, et cetera.

So there are a number of different categories of uses that could be approved uh administratively at site plan.

And then recommendation four was the update to the residential area impact in our point system uh within the zoning orders that determines the level of review.

Um you recall um John Foreman, our colleague uh had developed a much simplified way of doing that, and uh the commission saw that previously, and the mayor and council also supports that recommendation uh unanimously.

So, with that, unless there are any questions, I just wanted to let you know uh what the council's direction was on those specific items that you had seen a number of times.

I think Commissioner Pittman has a question for number three.

You said that was the one that was not unanimous.

Do you mind sharing the concerns that Mayor and Council had around that?

I may ask for uh either of my colleagues to kind of weigh in on on this.

Um I think there was just some concerns that um having the specific uses was not really the the approach to go.

And actually, some wanted to be more even more flexible.

Um so just wasn't unanimous unanimity on um what the categories necessarily should be.

I don't know if you have anything to add.

Okay, any other questions or comments?

Nope.

Mr.

Wasalak, that ends our work session, correct?

That is correct.

All right, that moves us to our next uh agenda item.

Uh staff liaison report.

Uh Mr.

Waslack.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um your next meeting will be on September the 10th.

Um, four weeks from this evening.

Um we have one item lining up for that meeting, and that is the mandatory referral review of the uh diversion center on Seven Logs Road.

There are no other items uh lining up for that agenda.

Uh looking beyond that, uh there's a meeting on September 24th, and we have potentially a site plan application in the uh Shady Grove Innovation District uh coming forward that is tentative at this point, and then following that, which is the October 8th meeting.

Uh, we have your fifth uh work session on the uh zoning order three running comprehensive map amendment that will be following the mayor and council's work session on September 29th.

Okay, thank you for our September 10th meeting to my fellow commissioners pack a snack because we may be here a while.

Um that brings us to old business, any old business.

Hearing none, any new business.

Hearing none, that brings us to uh minutes approval.

I saw one set of minutes for meeting number six-2025.

Is that correct, Ms.

Watson?

That is correct.

I had no comments or edits.

Do any of my fellow commissioners have any comments or edits on this set of minutes?

Hearing none, do I have I didn't read them, so I don't uh was I here that meeting?

Do we know?

Yes, I was.

So I I'm not in a position to um to approve or uh to vote on it yet.

So can we set these for the next agenda?

Yes.

All right, thank you.

Um that brings us to just FYI.

I just opened it up and my name's spelled wrong.

There's one.

I saw it, I think it's happened several times.

It's in the header.

Yeah, yeah.

So we'll take it.

I apologize for that.

That's okay.

We'll take it up at the end.

There's 10 letters about to get one wrong.

We'll take it up at the next minute.

That brings us to any FYI correspondence.

I didn't see any, but what was there any, Mr.

Wasserek?

No, there was no.

All right.

Do I have a motion to adjourn?

Move to adjourn.

Second.

All those in favor, raise your hand, say aye.

Motion passing unanimously.

Good night, Rockwell.

Thank you.