Good evening, Rockwell.

Today is Wednesday, November 12th, 2025.

This is meeting number 15-25 of the City of Rockwell Planning Commission.

I am Jamie Espinosa, Chair of the Planning Commission.

I am joined in chambers by Commissioners Eric Fulton, Commissioner Susan Pittman, Commissioner Shayan Selo Dean.

Commissioner Mungson will be joining us very shortly.

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

Tonight's agenda includes two final record plat applications, one ownership plat application, a level two site plan application, and a recommendation to Mayor and Council.

Then this will be followed by a regularly scheduled commission items.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair and members of the Commission.

This application is essentially a lot consolidation.

And uh we have principal planner Kimia Zulfagarian to make the presentation after I swear her in.

Could you identify yourself for the record?

Chemia Zulfigeria.

And will you provide truthful testimony this evening?

I will.

Thank you.

Good evening.

This is a final record plat application.

PLT 2025-641 at 210 First Street and 811 Grandin Avenue.

The subject property as noted is located at 210 First Street and 811 Grandon Avenue.

The land use designation is RD, residential detached.

The zoning district is R60, single unit detached dwelling.

The land area is approximately 29,08 square feet, and the existing use is a place of worship, a church.

The applicant proposes to resubdivide lots eight and nine, block one of the Janita subdivision to create an approximately 28,764 square foot lot, creating lot 10, block one of the Janita subdivision.

It will include a 10-foot wide public utility easement and a two-foot-wide right-of-way dedication with an area of approximately 323 square feet.

With that, staff recommends approval with conditions of final record plat PLT 2025-641.

And on the screen here, you have the recommended motion as well.

Thank you.

Do any of my fellow commissioners have any questions of staff?

Hearing none, do we have a presentation by the applicant tonight?

No presentation by the applicant.

Anyone want to discuss anything on this item?

Hearing nothing, does anyone want to make a motion?

Mr.

Chair, if you could uh ask if there are any public uh comments.

Yep.

Thank you.

Is there has anybody signed up for uh public testimony tonight?

Doesn't seem uh and my understanding is there's nobody indicated that they would be providing testimony over uh WebEx, right?

That is correct.

Right.

So hearing nothing, does any of my fellow commissioners want to make a motion?

I move to approve final record plat PLT 2025-00641 to resubdivide lots eight and nine, block one of the genetic subdivision, subject to the conditions in the staff report.

I second the motion.

All those in favor, raise your hand say aye.

Aye.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

That brings us to our second item, which is final record plat application 2026-96-PLT for the creation of one record lot and to dedicate a portion as right of way in the MXT mixed use transition zone at 22 West Jefferson Street, Macris Hendrix and Glossick, PA applicant.

Over to Mr.

Wassilak for any staff presentation.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, this is essentially a resubdivision of property that you have uh previously approved the site plan for and also a final record plat to consolidate the lots.

And the function of this plant actually is to dedicate right away for West Jefferson Street.

And I also have uh principal planner Nelson Ortiz to make the staff presentation after I swear him in.

Can you identify yourself for the record?

Nelson Ortiz with community planning and development services.

And when you provide truthful testimony this evening.

This is for the property located at 22 West Jefferson Street identified here on the aerial.

The land use designation is residential and/or office.

The property is zoned mixed use transition.

It is currently 1.25 acres in size, and the property is authorized for multifamily building and townhouse uses.

So this is the proposed plat here.

The proposal was for one record lot.

The lot 16, the proposed lot 16, will be 1.21 acres in size after the dedication of seven feet to the state highway administration.

The dedication to the state was coordinated with the state highway administration, and they are in uh support of the uh dedication.

Uh the seven feet are also uh they're currently a public access easement uh to accommodate uh public sidewalk, and so that's what's going to be uh dedicated to the state.

So there are no findings for final record plants, and staff does recommend approval with conditions of final record plat 2026 96 PLT.

That concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Mr.

Ortiz.

Do any of my fellow commissioners have any questions of staff?

Hearing none, is there a presentation by the applicant?

Did anyone sign up to provide public testimony here tonight on this application?

My understanding is no one signed up on WebX, correct, Mr.

Wasilac.

Okay.

Hearing none, do any of my fellow commissioners have any items for discussion of this application?

Hearing nothing, does it do I have a motion?

Uh Mr.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion.

I'd like to make a motion to approve final record plat application 2026-96-plt, subject to the conditions in the staff report.

I will second.

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

Aye.

Aye.

Motion passes unanimously.

That brings us to our next agenda item.

That's ownership plat application 2026-107-plt for the creation of two ownership lots in the R90 single unit detached dwelling restricted residential zone at 850 Nelson Street, Woodley Waves, LLC applicant.

Over to Mr.

Wasselak for any staff presentation.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh Principal Planner Nelson Ortiz will present this item as well.

All right, so this is uh the next item on the agenda is for uh ownership plant application 2026-107-plt.

This is for the property located at 850 Nelson Street.

The property is located within planning area five, Woodley Gardens and College Gardens.

The subject property is zoned R90, single unit detached dwelling, restricted residential.

The property is 3.23 acres in size, and it is currently authorized for a private educational institution and a non-accessory swimming pool.

So the proposal here is to create two ownership lots.

The first one, lot 6A, which is the location where the Georgetown Hell School is located.

It is the proposed lot is 2.18 acres in size.

The second lot, lot 6B, is where the Woodley Gardens pool is located.

That ownership lot will be 1.04 acres.

Of course, there are shared site improvements for both facilities on the subject property.

And the main purpose for uh this ownership plat was to uh facilitate separate financing for the uses on the site.

There are uh findings for ownership plates.

Uh and after uh the analysis of those uh findings, staff does find that uh the proposed ownership plat is consistent with the findings and does meet the findings uh on the screen here are uh summary of those uh findings.

Uh we do find that the ownership plat is necessary to accommodate separate financing.

Uh it wouldn't be feasible to establish record lots without impacting existing developments since the improvements on the site serve both uh uses uh and will serve both ownership lots.

Uh the uh two uses uh are currently authorized in the Rs R90 zone through past special exception requests, and this uh proposal remains consistent with uh previous planning approvals.

So with that, staff does recommend approval with conditions of ownership plat application 2026-107-plt.

That concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Mr.

Ortiz.

Do any of my fellow commissioners have any questions of staff?

Okay, hearing none.

Is there a presentation by the applicant?

Uh Nancy Reglan, uh law firm Shulman Rogers here on behalf of Woodley Waves.

I'm not here with a presentation.

I just want to respectfully request the approval of this.

This will set up the stage so that we can uh place the financing for Georgetown Hill and get it under construction.

So it's been long awaited, and this is the last step to get that going.

Thank thank you, ma'am.

Um I no questions.

Um to provide public testimony on this item.

Mr.

Chair, no one has signed up in advance, although I would uh suggest that anyone who is online and wishes to speak for this item should read their raise their hand at this moment.

I I don't see anything.

Do you see anything on your stream?

I do not.

Okay, hearing none.

Uh do any of my fellow commissioners want to discuss this, or does anyone have any questions of the of the applicants since we have them in the room?

Uh Mr.

Chair, just in the interest of full transparency, want to go on the record as uh noting that my family in the past has been members of the Woodley Gardens pool and most likely will again.

Uh, and way in the past, my children were students of the Georgetown Hill School on this property.

Appreciate that.

Thank you.

Uh again, any items for discussion or questions of the applicant or anything else that anyone wants to bring up on this item.

Okay, hearing none.

Do I hear a motion?

Uh I move to approve ownership plat application 2026-107-plt, subject to the conditions in the staff report.

I second.

All those in favor, raise your hand say aye.

Aye.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

That brings us to our next item, which is a level two site plan application stp 2024-00492 to permit construction of a 360-unit multifamily building at 100 and a 145,000 square foot building with proposed lab and offices uses with a standalone parking garage, BXP, Shady Grove Lot 5 LLC, BXP, Shady Grove Lot LLC, BX, Shady Grove Lot 7, LLC, BX Shady Grove Lot 8, LLC applicant.

Over to Mr.

Wasilak for any staff presentation.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair and members of the commission.

This is a site plan for phase two of the Shady Grove Innovation District, located on Shady Grove Road between Gaither and Chokecherry Roads.

And Planner Kimia Zulfregarian is here to make this presentation.

Good evening again.

This is a level two site plan application, STP 2024-492 for the Shady Grove Neighborhood Center, Phase 2.

This aerial map shows the location of the overall project area for the Shady Grove Neighborhood Center.

You can see on this map, it's located on the edge of the city.

Just a little bit of an overview of the project.

The site addresses are 15815 through 15825 Shady Grove Road, Two Trocherry Road, and 2092 Gaither Road.

The planning area is Planning Area 16, King Farm and Picard Drive.

The land use designation is OCRM, Office Commercial Residential Mix with a zoning district of MXE.

The land area is approximate for this phase is approximately 6.11 acres, and the existing uses on site are office.

This is another aerial image that depicts the existing conditions of the site.

Just a little bit of background on this site.

With resolution 7B-19, was approved on April 29th, 2019 for the phase development of up to 1,336 multi-unit dwellings, up to 330 townhouse units, up to 390,000 square feet of office, hotel or institutional uses, and up to 170,000 square feet of retail uses on approximately 31 acres.

A level two site plan STP 2020-393 was approved on April 10th, 2020 to construct 136 townhouse units, a one-acre park, and a stormwater retention pond, implementing the first phase of the project plan.

A major amendment site plan application, STP 2024-489 was approved to amend condition six of the previously approved site plan.

The applicant is proposing to construct three a 360-unit multifamily building and a 145,000 square foot building with proposed lab and office uses, in addition to a standalone parking garage implementing phase two of the approved project plan.

And with that, uh per city code, a site plan that implements all or portion of an approved project plan is deemed to meet the findings for approval.

So as long as the site plan complies with the conditions and requirements of the approved project plan and where the application will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood.

It will not constitute a violation of any provisions of this chapter or other applicable law or being compatible with the surrounding uses or properties.

With uh those findings and staff's review, staff recommends the planning commission approve level two site plan STP 2024-492 based on staff findings and subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report.

That concludes the presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Alpha Gary.

Um any of my fellow commissioners have any questions of staff at this time.

Okay, hearing none.

Uh, do we have a presentation by the applicant?

Yes.

Please come forward and uh be you'll be sworn.

Sir, could you identify yourself for the record?

Yes, uh CJ Overly with BXP, the applicant.

And will you provide truthful testimony this evening?

I will.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you, Commissioners, for your time this evening.

Uh we have a PowerPoint which uh Ms.

Zolfagarian's going to pull up.

And uh there's some overlap with her presentation, but I'm going to move through it quickly and add a little bit of color.

Um before I do that, I just want to first take a moment to thank the city staff.

Uh we've been working with staff for about 18 months on this particular application, but really I've spent the last four years working with staff since we acquired this site.

And it's been uh I think a wonderful experience to work through it, and this application is better for that that work.

Um, I also just want to quickly thank our project team, some of whom are here this evening and many of whom are on the uh WebEx I'm here presenting, but really they're the ones who did a lot of the hard work to get us here.

Um on the first slide, uh we'll skip past the agenda.

You're familiar with the location.

Um go to the next slide.

Um you're familiar with the location uh as we just reviewed, but I would mention in terms of adjacent uses, right?

We have got Upper Rock on one side, which has a lot of retail amenities that are relevant to our project.

We've got the King Farm community uh on to the south of the site.

Um, it's very important that we develop something that's in keeping with that, as you'll see.

And then uh to the east is the future redevelopment of the park plaza office building.

So keeping all of that context in mind as we as we developed our plan.

On the next slide, um uh Miss Ovigarin did a great job of explaining the project plan and the history as well as the approved site plan.

This provides a little bit more context in regards to that phase one site plan.

As she mentioned, it was approved back in 2020, but more recently, plats have been approved uh and permits are are underway to actually begin uh the development of that portion of the site and the 136 townhomes uh slated to go there.

We're our focus this evening is is on the phase two area uh highlighted in orange, and we'll talk more about that.

And then there's a future phase of additional townhomes and the Central Green Park that will come uh forward in a future application.

On the next slide here is the site plan that you just saw.

Um, and just to orient everybody in this view, Shady Grove Road is to the plan north and then Gaither uh to the east and chokecherry to the plan west in this image.

At the bottom of the screen is the new Discovery Street that will connect through the site from Chokecherry to Gaither Road.

As you can see, the portion closest to Chokecherry Road is um is not dark and is in light gray lines here.

That's because that portion of discovery will be constructed as part of the phase one site plan that's about to be implemented.

Uh, it was approved with that site plan.

Our site plan includes the Discovery Street extension all the way through to Gaither Road, as well as the Progress Street connection from Shady Grove to this new Discovery Street along the multifamily uh building, creating the multifamily block uh at the corner of Shady Grove and Joke Cherry, and then the larger lab block.

Um, in terms of pedestrian, we go to the next slide.

Um, and we'll talk open space and then uh tie that into the pedestrian and transit improvements.

So I think what I would emphasize here is the green space and the open space is very much in keeping with a more urban type development where you bring the buildings out to the street.

Um that that was really our goal with both buildings.

Um, and then the public use space is really centered around the prime corner uh where we are planning a plaza to uh complement the BRT stop.

So uh MCDOT began running the Bus Rapid Transit line this past year.

Uh currently there's a it's using the temporary stop on the uh west side of Chokecherry at Upper Rock, but their intention is to create a new station at the corner uh here where you see in yellow.

And so to sort of celebrate that transit amenity, we're including a plaza and a setback there for that.

We did not include other areas that are public use, for example the corner of Gaither and Shady Grove, you know, and also all of the dedicated spaces which we'll talk about on the next slide.

Those are not factored into the public use base calculation and the contribution of this particular block to the overall project plan requirements.

On the next slide, speaking of those transit improvements, just wanted to highlight a few kind of moving from clockwise around the site will be reconstructing the sidewalk on Chokecherry Road with a new eight foot sidewalk.

As you can see there's kind of a bend in the sidewalk as it approaches Shady Grove Road that was intentional to accommodate a potential future right turn lane if one should need to be added in the future per our conversations with the transportation group.

Coming around Shady Grove Road, the really focal point here is a 10 foot shared use path that runs along Shady Grove Road.

That shared use path has been located both to complement the BRT station and also in the final location should MC DOT eventually construct a dedicated BRT lane as they have indicated they might do this this shared use path is located to accommodate that essentially in the future and that shared use path will then round the corner on Gaither Road go along our frontage on Gaither Road and tie into the existing shared use path in King Farm to fully connect the loop all the way around.

And then we've of course got internal sidewalks all of which are 10 feet per the particular road designation.

You saw these images a moment ago and they're also in your packet but I would just want to highlight a few things on the long sides of the building we wanted to emphasize the height and so you'll see that the fenestration is done with the precast in a way to create essentially two tall windows if you will on the long sides of the buildings to really emphasize that height and the grandness of the structure there really is no back to this building because the front while the front is internal to the site the really sort of ceremonial front is facing Shady Grove Road and we wanted to make sure it had a presence on Shady Grove.

So we gave equal care to the quote unquote back of the building and then on the short sides you'll see this sort of alternating L pattern in the fenestration there's sort of a a Tetris inspired design that was a remnant from an earlier concept that we kept in and there's sort of a more pronounced grid around the windows you can see there to provide some depth.

And then at the base of the building there's a solid base but a lighter in tone in order to ground the building but kind of created a bit of airiness to the overall structure so it's not quite so heavy.

And then if we go to the next slide you've got the multifamily building it with this it was really important being that it is on the prime corner of the site that we really celebrate that arrival experience and so you see in the upper left image what you would see as you approach either on foot or in your vehicle the site this kind of prow of the building that is actually an overhang that reaches and kind of creates an embrace of the pedestrian plaza below it also kind of gives it that sense of kind of floating above the plaza.

Beneath that in the glazed area are some of those building amenities that were mentioned which are located on the front of the building to really engage the pedestrian streetscape with what's going on inside and then again the multi-story kind of fenestration harkens to the lab building to kind of tie them together architecturally even though they're two very different uses and lastly as was mentioned the building steps down considerably from 85 feet down to 45 feet as it approaches the townhomes so that you have the that sort of consistency across the the site it takes advantage of the grade.

So with that I'm happy to take any questions.

Thank you Dan any of my fellow commissioners have any questions of the applicant which is thank you for the presentation I'm very excited about the new building coming to the side so just I'm looking at your phase plan so the whole phase tool is outlined the Shady Grove Road but in the detailed plan the central piece are not shown.

So what is the plan for that P then the other piece is not included.

So those uh two future development sites were intentionally excluded from this site plan for a variety of reasons having to do with stormwater management and some other factors.

They will be left as is in this particular iteration.

In the future, we would anticipate coming back for an amendment to the site plan to add additional buildings.

We don't yet know what those will be.

Um, but per the project plan, there are likely to be either some additional multifamily or additional commercial uses within the approved project plan.

Okay, so you didn't include it because the stormwater uses at least another.

It just had to do mostly with the technicality of the calculations around the stormwater.

It just made more sense in our discussions with staff to leave those undisturbed effectively.

Okay, thank you.

Any other commissioner have any questions of the applicant?

No.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Um, remind me we are taking public testimony tonight out of this.

Yes, you were.

Uh has have you been able to see the sign-in?

Did anyone sign up?

Uh no one has signed in to to address you on this issue.

Does anyone in the chamber would would like to provide public testimony on this item?

All right, seeing none.

My understanding is nobody signed up online, but if anyone online would like to provide public testimony on this item, please indicate by raising your hand.

Okay, seeing none.

Um Stephanie, I have a proposed motion.

I'll pull down on the screen again.

Okay, can you put that up?

Thank you.

And while they're doing that, do we have any?

Do any of my fellow commissioners have any item for discussion or anything they want to comment on with this application?

Okay, seeing none, does any of my fellow commissioners want to make a motion?

I move to approve level two site plan application stp 2024-00492, subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report.

I will second that motion.

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

Aye.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

That brings us to our next item, which is a recommendation to Mayor and Council on Project Plan PJT 2025-23 to permit construction of a hundred and forty-seven unit affordable multifamily building along with a building height waiver and parking reduction in the PD RCI Plan Development, Rockville Center Incorporated Zone at 41 Maryland Avenue, SCG Development Holdings, LLC Compstock 41 Maryland, LLC Compstock 44 Maryland LLC applicants.

Over to Mr.

Wassock for any staff presentation.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair and members of the commission.

Uh, this is a project plan application that is also an amendment to an existing plan development known as Rockville Center Inc.

Uh, originally approved in 1994.

Uh, you've seen a couple of other uh recent amendments uh for this uh particular uh plan development.

And tonight we have uh senior planner Christopher Davis to uh make the staff presentation for you.

Uh will you identify yourself for the record?

Yes, Christopher Davis with community planning and development services.

And will you provide truthful testimony this evening?

I will.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mr.

Chair, members of the commission.

As Mr.

Wasalek indicated, this is a project plan application PJT 2025-2.3 for the momentum at Rockville Station Project located at 41 Maryland Avenue.

So the project site is shown here on the screen online in red.

It is 41 Maryland Avenue, located in planning area one, corresponding with the town center.

The site is approximately 0.42 acres and has a land use designation of office commercial residential mix.

Uh the zoning for the site is a planned development for the Rockville Center Incorporated zone and has an equivalent zone of MXTD.

The existing use for the site is a surface parking lot.

The applicant proposes to redevelop the site as shown on the screen here, is the proposed site plan.

Uh the proposal is specifically uh to redevelop the surface parking lot into a 12-story multifamily building with 147 affordable housing units.

In addition to this request, the applicant requests a waiver for building height and a parking reduction in order to move forward with the proposed development.

The request also includes a proposal to replace 40 MPDU units at the neighboring 44 Maryland Avenue building with 46 MPDU units on the subject site to facilitate the changes in use and modifications of standards.

The applicant is proposing this amendment to the plan development.

As you can see here on the screen, the project will completely redevelop the site with most of the building occupying the site.

So first, some brief background on the Rockville Center PD.

As Mr.

Wasleck indicated, it was approved back in 1994 as part of the redevelopment of the original Rockville Mall site into a mixed use development.

This approval established five new blocks for the mixed use development with the subject site being block four outlined in red on the screen.

As part of the standards for the site, it established a maximum building height of 100 feet beyond the 448 elevation, which was a reference elevation for the entire plan development.

As part of the subject proposal, the applicant proposes to increase the residential units proposed to 147 and modify the building height to move forward with such requests.

So staff has reviewed the proposed project plan and has found that it meets the findings for approval of a project plan amendment, including the first finding that it will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood.

Staff has found that the proposed project will replicate similar residential uses in the area as well as provide affordable units consistent with the city's housing goals.

Furthermore, the project will conform with applicable code requirements to ensure health and public safety.

Additionally, staff has found that the project will not conflict with the comprehensive plan.

Specifically, the comp plan and the recently adopted town center master plan promotes additional housing in the town center consistent with the proposed request.

And furthermore, the town center master plan also recommends a waiver of parking requirements, also consistent with the applicant's request.

The project will also not overburden public facilities.

Staff has reviewed the project for adequacy for schools, transportation, and water and sewer facilities, and has found that available resources will be available to serve the subject project.

Finding four that the project will not constitute a violation of any provision of the zoning ordinance, with exception to the waiver and parking reduction proposed.

The project will conform to the applicable requirements, including the proposed use, and further compliance with applicable requirements will occur at the time of site plan.

And finding five, the project will not adversely affect natural resources or of the environment or surrounding area.

The project does meet necessary requirements regarding forestry and stormwater management.

And furthermore, the project does not have any historic resources on record.

Moving to the proposed waiver, again, the proposed request is to exceed the maximum height of the MXTD zone, which is 120 feet, and the proposed request is to exceed that to a maximum height of 137.25 feet.

Staff has reviewed this request and it's found that it meets the criteria for approval of a height waiver based on the findings mentioned in the staff report.

As you can see here on the screen, the subject project is outlined in the center with the surrounding buildings showing uh compatibility with the surrounding buildings.

Moving on to the requested parking reduction, uh the project would require uh a maximum or a minimum number of parking spaces of 169.

Um the applicant requests to provide zero parking spaces on site.

Um staff has reviewed this request as well and has found that it meets the necessary criteria for approval, including the six outlined in on the screen, um, notably being in proximity to transit and access to other public parking facilities and multimodal transportation options.

The applicant has fulfilled their requirements related to notifications in accordance with the city code.

Uh as you can see here, they have uh completed all necessary area meetings as well as briefings before the planning commission earlier this spring and before the mayor and council.

Uh the applicant also did um complete a meeting with the neighboring Victoria condominium residents back in February as well.

So for the next steps, should the project plan be approved by or receive your recommendation this evening, it would move to the mayor and council for a public hearing and consideration of approval on November 17th.

Um, if approved by the mayor and council, the project would then come back to the planning commission for uh review of a level two site plan.

So with that uh finding with staff findings, uh it recommends that the planning commission forward to the mayor and council the following recommendation concerning the subject site, want to approve the project plan to amend the Rockvale Center Inc.

PD to permit construction of a 147-unit affordable multifamily building, approve the building height waiver, and as well the parking reduction uh subject to staff's findings and conditions in the staff report.

And with that, that concludes staff's uh presentation.

Thank you, Mr.

Davis Danny.

My fellow commissioners have any questions of staff at this time.

Hearing none, do we have a presentation by the applicant?

Yes.

So good evening, Nancy Reglin from Law Firma Shulman Rogers here on behalf of the applicants, which is SCG Development, Comstock 41, the property owner, and Comstock 44, the owner of uh the boulevard full of 44 across the street.

Ms.

Regaland, will you provide a truthful testimony this evening?

I do I will.

Thank you.

All right, well, that's coming up.

Um I think last time you met Kirk Salpini who gave a presentation during the briefing.

Uh he can't be here tonight, so I'm gonna give his remarks.

Um he previously gave you a little bit of background on SEG, which has affordable housing projects all over the East Coast and elsewhere.

Uh, and they have these four in the local area.

But what I want to do and cover this evening is really focus on the special elements related to this project and the particular waivers that we're requesting.

All right, so uh next slide, please.

Next slide, please.

So SCG's uh pleased to deliver 100% affordable housing project in the city with affordable housing that will range uh from 50 to 8 to 80 percent under federal and county financing programs and the city's MPDU.

And they're able to do it at this site because their partner here is going to be Comstock, who is the owner of the property.

Um 41 Maryland, as you heard, will deliver 147 units.

And I want to give you a couple perspective numbers, like to put this in context, is that if this property and boulevard 44 had both been market rate projects, there would have been 15% MPDUs.

But because the two of them are working together for 41 Maryland Avenue, there's going to be 85 additional MPDUs and the Boulevard 44 MPDUs are going to expire 15 years after the 41 Maryland is built.

So there's going to be 85 more years of covenants on those units.

And the other thing that I want to point out that most people just don't have this understanding, but Comstock owns the building where the Boulevard Ansel is, Boulevard 44, and 41 Maryland.

And when if all three of these are built, two are built, when the third is built, there'll be 660 multifamily units.

43% of those units, 43% will be affordable housing.

So that's an impressive thing, but it does take some innovation between property owners in order to deliver that.

So I just wanted to make that clear.

So what does that really mean?

So a 60% median income is about someone with $68,000 for one person or 98,000 for four-person.

But if you think about that, that's what the city's MPDU program is.

But when you go down to 50%, what you're doing is you're widening the broadening the range of qualified households who could live here.

So and we want all households in Rockville to thrive.

So if you are an MPDU resident in Boulevard 44, and you've that project has been there since 2012, is as your income may increase, you may lose your qualification to stay in an MPDU.

But you're giving being given first priority to move over to 51, I mean 41 Maryland, and that gives you a broader range.

So if your uh income reduced, those Boulevard 44 residents will have the opportunity to potentially get a lower price unit if their income qualifies at the 50%, or if their income increase, they'll still be able to stay in an affordable unit by having uh access to the higher uh AMI.

So it's a it's a good thing, I think for these residents.

Um next slide, please.

Oh no, this one.

So it is a unique site, you've seen it before.

Um it's only 82 feet wide, and it has uh high-rise buildings on either side.

So it is a very complex urban infill.

But on this perspective, we just want to give you some figures because you know, as uh staff said, we're asking for under our PDRCI, uh, all of our elevations are from the 448 elevation, which is basically the platform across to the metro.

So I've given you some additional numbers here so you can see the difference uh in context.

So the Boulevard Ansel is 173 feet from the sidewalk, Boulevard 44 is 145, 41 Maryland is 137, and the Victoria is 123.

So it's right there within the context of the high rises in these buildings.

And the reason for the increase in height is um this building has been designed at this concept level so that there's flexibility depending on what the building structure system could be, whether it's concrete or uh steel, and that will give them flexibility when it comes time to actually finance this building, they can make the selection.

Uh they'll have enough height if they have to go one direction or the other.

All right, next slide, please.

So this is a rendered landscape plan with the aerial of the neighborhood.

So you can see in white in the center is the site, and then you can see the Victoria with their courtyard to the left and their condo building along Middle Lane, and then you can see the Boulevard Ansel across Maryland Avenue.

What's interesting is we've worked very diligent with the city to enhance public safety by expanding the sidewalk area at the intersection of Maryland Avenue and East Middle Lane.

So when town center was actually built, they all had the pedestrian ball outs to make the crossing between Maryland Avenue and Give Street smaller for a pedestrian.

But on this side of Middle Lane, that wasn't a thing.

And so it just has straight sidewalks.

So we're actually recommending proposing to actually do a ballbound here to help improve the pedestrian crossing of middle of Maryland Avenue at Middle Lane.

But also we worked with the city since we're proposing no parking to have three short-term pickup and drop-off spots right near the lobby entrance.

And for the convenience of the residents, the lobby will have carts, dollies, things so that if you went to the grocery store and you needed to move your things into the lobby and then move your car out of the short term, you would be able to handle that.

Next slide, please.

So we've provided a lot of information about the transportation plan.

There's a transportation analysis, a parking analysis, but this site takes advantage of all the walkable, bikable and transit amenities that are adjacent to the property.

And this provides an affordable community, a really unique situation.

And so this would be the place that you would choose potentially to live, so that you can get access to everything that you need, either through walking, biking, all the transit, whether it's bike or metro, within a huge uh shed.

All right.

So next slide, please.

So this is the walk score, which is 94.

Next slide, please.

This is the overall access plan, and you can see whether you are biking or walking or whether you're taking the metro.

I mean, pretty much you can get anywhere within 30 minutes from the site.

Next slide, please.

So this building is designed to be engaging to the pedestrians at the key corner.

Uh, the significant glazing of the lobby, the entrance, the welcoming lobby gathering space, a vibrant leasing office, and the clubroom program with activities will add to the vitality, I think, of town center that might be missing on this corner since it's adjacent to a parking garage face.

This proposed building proposes both traditional and Juliet balconies.

And the Juliet balconies are along Maryland Avenue, and you can see them on this site.

But we are proposing full balconies on the west facade, uh, which are not a normal amenity in an affordable housing project.

So it's great to be able to give outdoor space to affordable.

Next slide, please.

So this is a close up because we did meet with Victoria and we've had uh continuing conversations and feedback from them, and uh some of the owners that have units at middle lane at the east end of the condo building, which is at the top left of the screen, uh we're concerned about uh the building proximity.

So this building is 80, this lot is only 82 feet wide and for this project, um and it is set back in to the maximum that it is able, but in response, um there are no balconies that actually actually confront the windows on the end of the Victoria condo building.

The only balconies are the ones that overlook the um car courtyard.

All right, next slide, please.

So we did this elevation study so that you can see that the building face to building face from the Victoria to the 41 Maryland is 35 foot nine inches from the balconies, it's 35 feet.

Um, in an urban area, 30 feet would be the minimum.

So this is uh better than the minimum what we could do.

This is the max.

And approximately two-thirds of the proposed building actually confronts the car courtyard.

Um also in to be responsive to the Victoria.

If you look down at the second floor, um the second level terrace, which backs up to the Victoria garage wall, was set down intentionally 13 feet below the terraces that are on the first floor units of the Victoria condo.

And that was to give uh distance so that the terrace people wouldn't be looking directly into the terraces on the 41 Maryland.

Next slide, please.

So this is from the Victoria Courtyard looking uh onto the west side, and you can see the balconies are only in that one center portion overlooking the court, the car courtyard, and the rest of the building has no uh balconies.

Next slide, please.

And you can see this is the section that's confronting the Victoria condominium with no balconies.

All right, next slide, please.

And this is just a elevation and uh perspective looking down Maryland Avenue, uh so you can see what the new frontage will be in lieu of that parking lot.

Uh and then next slide, please.

So we think that this is the right place, the right time to address both the acute shortage of affordable housing and support the city's vision for transit-oriented development at a prime location in Rockville Town Center.

And so we respectfully request the planning commission's recommendation for approval of the project plan, the height and parking waivers, and the MPDU transfer as the first step to making this project feasible.

And the proposed conditions are acceptable to applicant.

Thank you, ma'am.

Uh do any of my fellow commissioners have any questions of the applicant?

Go ahead, Commissioner Summer.

All right.

Uh thanks for the presentation.

So uh yeah, our briefing package.

I do see some uh slides about like the greening the wall or some landscape in that terrace to give some more viral uh appealing to the terrace for the Victoria Condo residents.

I think that is a uh presentation that was done by the Victoria, one of the Victoria members put that in as a comment.

Okay.

And certainly we're at uh project plan, so we'll deal, we'll all be back for site plan for the details.

Okay, yeah, I think that those are very interesting ideas that they propose, right?

And they also see one on your one of the project owner deed there with like mural trees on the wall.

I think all those uh can be added value to the building.

So we've heard that comment, and when we get to a site plan, we'll be dealing with that.

Right, perfect.

And then so I have a question for the parking.

So this building doesn't provide parking.

So how about even a resident needs a parking?

Can they get a parking spot in the 44 Maryland building?

So under the parking analysis, uh you'll see that there's over 3400 parking spaces that are available on an hourly or a daily basis within town center, so within 500 feet.

Um the only ones who are going to be guaranteed parking in Boulevard 44 are any of the Boulevard 44 MPDU residents.

If they currently lease parking in the Boulevard 44 garage, when they move to 41, they'll be able, for as long as they're tenants of 41 Maryland, they'll be able to rent spaces at Boulevard 44.

The only difference is currently they're in a reserved area, which is uh upper levels, but when they uh move to 41, they'll be part of the general commercial area.

But they'll be able to rent those at MPDU rates.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Any of my other fellow commissioners have any questions?

Uh thank you.

Just uh quick question on the the terrace again.

Is that uh resident amenity space or is that attached to a residence within the building?

So the second floor terrace is it unit by unit, or is yeah, I think it that belongs to a unit.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Fulton.

Any other questions of the applicant?

Okay, hearing on.

Thank you.

Um staff, can you put up the recommended motion, please?

Do any of my fellow commissioners have any other questions of staff while that's happening?

Any items for discussion on this application.

Mr.

Wasilak, uh at this stage, do we take public testimony?

Uh certainly at the commission's option.

Uh no one has signed up to speak on this one.

If anyone in the room would like to provide public testimony, please.

I see no nothing.

Uh anybody online if you would like to provide public testimony, please indicate such by raising your hand.

Okay, seeing none.

Do I have a motion?

Uh I move to uh I move the I move that the planning commission forward to the mayor and council a recommendation to approve project plan PJT 2025-00023 to amend the Rockview Center INC Plan Development to permit construction of a 147 unit, affordable multifamily building, approved building height wave waiver, WAV 2025-00015, and the parking reduction waiver, WAV 2025-00016 at 41 Maryland Avenue, based on staff finding and conditions in the stab report.

I second the motion.

All those in favor raise your hand, say aye.

Aye.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

That brings us to a regularly scheduled commission items.

Mr.

Waselak, do we have a staff liaison report?

Yes, we do.

And thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I didn't want to note that your next meeting will not be until December of the 10th.

And at that point, provided the mayor and council take action on December 1st to authorize the filing of the zoning rewrite text amendment and map amendment.

We would like to provide a briefing for you on both of those items.

Umticipating that you will be conducting public hearings and work sessions in the new year.

So we have uh tentatively scheduled those for your regular meeting dates uh in January.

Um January 14th and 28th would be the typical meeting dates, although you haven't approved your schedule yet.

Um so we anticipate at least uh two of those evenings you would be taking public testimony in addition to conducting worse work sessions and then uh as needed in and your February meetings uh looking for a recommendation to the mayor council in late February or early March.

Uh 10 to leave the council's public hearing on both of those items is scheduled for April 13th.

Um so that's what you're looking at over the next uh several months.

Um I will say that it's possible that you will have uh two members joining you on the dais in that time.

I don't have a time uh timeline for that, but it is uh possible.

So uh I would just uh wanted to note that uh there are no other uh applications.

Uh we certainly have some pending applications, but none have kind of landed on a meeting just as of yet, and uh I will anticipate uh slotting those where I think uh we can also accommodate your public hearing and work sessions uh during that time.

So and I would be happy to uh work with the new chair on on scheduling things out and what you will discuss uh at each of those work sessions as well okay great.

Uh any old business uh hearing none that brings us to new business.

I saw that you sent out the 2026 meeting dates.

I don't know if my fellow commissioners you've had a chance to look at it.

I didn't see anything that I was concerned with.

I did have a question for my fellow commissioners if there are any dates there that may uh conflict with anyone's um personal schedule I uh or religious potentially observances that I might be unaware of personal schedule um the necessary date of August 1st I will not please oh my bad.

Uh yeah, the if necessary date on there that is August 1st, that will be unavailable if we have to have a meeting that day.

I think that was August 12th.

Oh, was it?

Yeah.

I'm also unavailable on August 12th.

Okay, all right.

Um, but nothing jumps out to anybody.

Okay, so um do we move to approve these?

Or do I mean they or they just are see what I'm asking, Mr.

Wasslock?

By acclamation, you can if you agree on them, then that's fine.

I think we just agree on them.

Um that brings us to election of new chair.

Uh as a reminder, this commission usually elects a new chair in December.

Uh we do have the discretion under rules of procedure uh to designate uh or and do our election at a different time if a majority of the members would like to do so.

As I expressed, I can't be here for our next meeting in December to ensure there are no quorum issues.

I was hoping that we could do the election today, and so just for the record, uh do a majority of the members agree to have our election today.

Please indicate as such by raising your hand.

Okay, a majority indicate that we will have an election today.

All right.

So me being the chair, I would like to, and any other fellow commissioners can nominate anyone, but I I would like to go first.

I would like to nominate Commissioner Meng Sun to serve as our 2026 uh chair.

Are there any other nominations?

Okay.

Hearing none, Commissioner Sun, you would you would agree to serve if elected, correct?

I just wanted us the first time I'm asking her.

No, yeah.

It's the first time I'm asking her.

So okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, yeah.

I think I agree to serve, and thanks for uh the trust and opportunity to nominate me.

Commissioner Dumay, do we vote on this?

Do we uh like raise our hands?

Okay, although we do vote, yeah.

Okay, uh second a second.

Yeah, so so there should be just like any vote, there should be a motion a second.

So can I make the motion as the chair in this case?

Yes, okay.

Uh Commissioner Pittman seconded.

All those in favor raise your hand say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, Commissioner Sun.

As a reminder, since I won't be here next commission or next meeting, I under our rules can designate someone to serve for me.

So I designate you to serve for me in December, and then in January, you would take over in your own right.

Right.

Mr.

Chair.

Yeah, the lag tool, but I think that in the December media, I might be only doing virtually is that a good occasion to definitely me for December or well, we can we'll talk about that offline.

Okay, yeah, we'll we'll talk about that offline.

Um other new business that anybody might have.

Uh question for staff, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, did I hear Mr.

Wazlick that the town center master plan won an award of some sort recently?

Yes, that is true.

At the Maryland chapter of the American Planning Association did win an award.

Well, congratulations.

Uh to you and to all the staff that worked on it.

Um, you know, we we spent an amount of time on it, and I can only imagine how much more time the staff spent on it.

And uh I think the final product was great, so congratulations.

Yeah, Ms.

Gerbis and her team uh went to Baltimore to uh receive the award last week.

Yep, absolutely congratulations.

Uh that brings us to our approval of meeting minutes.

I saw two sets of minutes.

I got that right, Mr.

Waslack.

I said the uh February 19th minutes today.

Previously I had sent the July minutes, although I did not resend those.

So I can understand if you're not ready to adopt either one of those.

Well, let's start with uh the February 19th, 2025.

Uh I I if my fellow commissioners have had a chance to review.

Do any does anyone have any edits?

I didn't see anything.

I have one note on page three.

Going down to the seventh paragraph.

Uh we have a mystery commissioner asking a question.

Uh just says commissioner asked if uh the impervious surface.

I don't think that was me.

Oh, it's also identified as the she, so I don't think that's me.

Um, but I don't know if uh any of my other commissioners want to put their name to that question.

I believe that was Commissioner Pittman.

I also think so.

And history indicates that you and I get mixed up quite a bit uh under this chairmanship, so I can understand.

Also, impervious is one of my favorite words.

So she also is a bit mysterious.

So any other uh edits.

Okay, hearing none, do I have a motion on this set of minutes?

I move to approve the minutes from February, what is it, 19th?

February 19th.

February 19th, 2025.

With the correction.

With the sole correction of adding Pittman to the end of the word commissioner.

A second.

All those in favor raise your hand say aye.

Aye.

Are adopted.

That brings us to our second set of minutes.

These are the minutes from July 23rd, 2025.

I have reviewed them.

I did not see anything that caught my attention.

Do any of my fellow commissioners have any edits they would like to make?

I have none.

Okay, hearing none, is there a motion?

I move to approve the minutes from July 2025.

I think all those in favor adopting raise your hand say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Those minutes are adopted.

Okay, that brings us to FYI correspondence.

Uh Mr.

Wassock, I saw one email to add to the public testimony, which was on an applicant here tonight.

Was there anything else?

No, I do not have anything else.

Okay.

Any my fellow commissioners have anything else they would like to add on any subject?

Hearing nothing, uh, do I have a motion to adjourn?

I move to adjourn.

Second.

All those in favor raise your hand say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Good night, Rockbell.