Good evening, Rockville.

Today is Wednesday, January 14th, 2026.

Happy New Year, everyone, and welcome to come to the meeting in person.

And this is meeting number one 26 of the City of Rockville Planning Commission.

I am Mong San, the chair of the Planning Commission for 2026.

I'm joined in chamber by Commissioner Cheyenne Salahadin, Commissioner Sulan Pittman, Commissioner Eric Futen, Commissioner Jamie Esponosa, and let's welcome our new commissioner Jeff Zainz on board.

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

So tonight's agenda includes well agenda, public hearing and work session number one on zoning tax map map tax amendment and comprehensive map amendment.

Then this will be followed by our regular scheduled commissioner items.

And uh commissioners will have opportunities to raise additional issues for discussion after we finish the agenda for this meeting.

So before we proceed, does any commissioner have any thoughts about tonight's agenda?

Hearing none.

Okay, so now let's proceed with our first agenda.

Public hearing and working session number one on zoning tax map tax amendment TXT 2026-00271, the draft zoning ordinance and map amendment, MAP 2026-00126, the comprehensive map amendment.

Mayor and Council of Rockabillo are the applicants.

So now let's turn to Mr.

Westlett.

Is there a staff presentation?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, we'd like to give a brief uh overview uh prior to the public hearing.

Uh I would suggest that anyone in the audience who wishes to speak and address the commission this evening to sign up uh in the back of the room and because we will follow that uh list.

So we're very pleased to be with you this evening for the first in a series of public hearings and work sessions on the draft zoning ordinance and the comprehensive map amendment that accompanies it.

This is the culmination of a long process to get to this point, and uh we realize uh we still have a lot to do to get through the review process.

So we look forward to uh doing that uh with you and everyone who wants to follow along.

I just wanted to outline a little bit uh kind of where we have been and what we plan on doing this evening.

Uh we wanted to remind everyone about the timeline and schedule that we are on.

Uh it is an ambitious one, and uh we'll have some perhaps discussion about that uh at the end of the meeting.

Uh we have scheduled two uh public hearings and work sessions uh for the commission because of our compressed schedule.

We felt that we need to do both uh on the same meeting night.

So um so we'll see how that works out.

We've also slotted the topic areas uh that the mayor and council and the planning commission have identified uh for your work sessions.

And tonight we are scheduled, we have scheduled the historic preservation discussion, uh, the comprehensive map amendment rezonings for planning area 12, which is Tower Oaks and 10, which is Montrose and North Farm, and uh potential amendments to the RMD 25 development standards, uh, in addition to discussions on parking and loading, pedestrian and bike facilities, and amenity space.

And that is just tonight.

So we have uh kind of changed our timeline now that we're in adoption.

We're not gonna go back the two years that it took to get to this point.

Um, but we uh started out at authorization to file.

That made the text amendment and the map amendment real, and the mayor and council um essentially told us to file those applications, uh which we have and proceed with the public review process, which we have also done.

So the planning commission review is scheduled for January and February of this year.

Uh we are anticipating that you would make a recommendation to the mayor and council on February 25th.

We've also scheduled meetings with the mayor and council, including a briefing uh in March, as well as public hearings and work sessions for them in April and May, leading up to adoption on June 1st.

So to show you kind of what that looks like.

Um, this is uh our timeline between now and June 1st.

And includes all of the public hearings and work sessions and briefings that we have scheduled to date.

And for specifically for the Planning Commission, this is the schedule that we have outlined with the topic areas for each of your work sessions.

There's a little bit of flexibility on February 25th, but not very much.

So I know that the commission perhaps wants to talk about and find out whether there are other issues to discuss.

So if there are additional topics that we really need to add to your work session schedule, perhaps looking at a separate meeting or another meeting in addition to the ones that are scheduled here.

So with that, uh that's my introduction.

I look forward to hearing uh the public testimony, and I'll turn it over back to Madam Chair to conduct the public hearing.

Um thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So yeah, before we start, does any commissioner have any questions for staff?

Uh I have a question for staff.

It is about technology.

Can someone resend me the WebEx link?

I'm having trouble logging in.

Thank you.

I follow on.

All right, thank you.

So as Mr.

Watlack um states, so if anyone likes to uh provide public testimony and has not been signed, and please go ahead to sign in the back of the room.

And before we proceed, let me remind as the time limit for the public testimony.

For individual, uh each individual will be allowed for three minutes to provide comments on uh on the subject.

And um if you are present representing uh organization such as uh HOA or community group, and you will be allowed up to five minutes.

And there is a clock in front of you so you can see, and I think Mr.

Dumain will um uh enforce the time.

And um so before you start, and please come over and state your name and address for the record.

Okay, Mr.

Wetlick, we can start from first.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair.

The first speaker is Pat Reber, to be followed by Alex Belita.

Good evening.

I don't know if I have to move this.

Uh, my name is Pat Reber.

I'm here to speak on the proposed rezoning of parcel ZORID 17 in planning area 12 to uh rezoning to RMD-25.

Um I'm Pat Reber, as I said.

We moved to Newmark Commons in 1985, a wooded historic community with little traffic and safe paths for our children.

We connect closely to the Potomac Valley Road community and their representatives from both communities here tonight, as you can see from our signs.

We learst first learned in June of 2025 that the adjacent 9.75 acre plot is recommended to be rezoned to RMD 25.

Prospect of high rises towering over our community and an additional 500 or so cars transiting through us is an alarming prospect.

Such development would not be compatible with our communities.

Compatible, that's a word that uh we talk about a lot in this uh uh um uh organization that that I'm part of in the residents of Newmark Commons.

In fact, the 2040 Rockville comprehensive plan states that development should be compatible and connected to adjacent communities like ours.

Compatible would be to leave zoning as it is at R90, similar to the underlying zoning of Newmark Commons.

We are asking you to do this if indeed that is the only alternative to RMD 25.

The lack of flexibility about this plot as outlined in your briefing document is puzzling.

In months-long discussions with mayor and council and staff, we were told that you and the planning commission have the opportunity, you have the power to change this designation.

That the RMD 25 was not set in stone.

We heard that repeatedly.

We believe you have the power to change it.

Mayor and council appeared to believe that too.

Since the night they filed the ZOR and CMA to you on December 1st, they discussed possible alternatives, such as in Phil, RMD 10, or RMD 15, and noted that they would like further discussion about this plot.

We are not opposed to all development on this plot.

We note that during five work sessions in 2025, however, mayor and council made changes in the comprehensive plan affecting Lincoln Park, the West End, and other areas.

We were late to the game because we were not informed until June of 2025.

We got no information until then.

If indeed there is no alternative to RMD 25 other than R90, we ask that you reject this designation.

Two thirds of homes in Newmark represented on our petition ask you to do this.

In the meantime, we invite each of you to come visit and see this plot for yourselves and see what it looks like.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, ma'am.

Let's go to the next person.

The next speaker is Alex Belita to be followed by James Nations.

Good evening.

I'm Alex Belita, a homeowner in Newmark Commons for the past 40 years and past vice president of our HOA.

Like you, I take an active interest in our community and our city, and like you, I want to make a difference.

I want my voice to be heard.

And that's why it's important that you know that close to 700 people representing two-thirds of Newmark's residents have signed a petition to oppose the rezoning to RMD 25 of parcel Z O R I D 17 and Tower Oaks Area 12 that abuts our community.

The plot is currently zoned R90, just like Newmark, which is a nationally recognized historic property.

We don't believe the kind of high density development allowed by RMD 25 is compatible with our neighborhood and compatibility, as you just heard, is the key word in the in the city's 2040 planning vision.

The plot is admittedly a problematic one.

There's a stormwater facility and wetlands.

There are lots of trees and wildlife.

Former mayor and Newmark resident Rose Krasnow recalls there's also an old agreement with Tower Oaks saying no more than nine holes houses could be built on the land, and not as long as any of the residents on Don Mills Court adjacent to the plot who signed that agreement still live there, and two of them still do.

The mayor and council have toured the site.

They've asked you to take another look at it in the guidance they issued you after sending you the map and plan amendment on December 1st.

Why?

Because they've seen the plot, they've heard our appeals, and we hope that you will also conclude RMD 25 is inappropriate.

And please don't think that there's nothing to be concerned about because any new development is likely to be years away.

The staff report offers you two options.

Accept RMD 25 or leave it R90 like it is now.

For some reason, you have no flexibility, it says, to explore other options, as the mayor and council requested.

The staff report also seems to imply that it's not accepting RMD 25 is somehow contrary to Maryland's land use law.

I don't see how.

The law calls for citizens being actively involved in planning initiatives, that's us, protecting natural resources, what we all favor, and achieving a high quality of life, what we in Rockville must preserve.

You have the power.

You have the option of rejecting RMD 25.

It says so right there in the staff report.

So please do it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

The next speaker is James Nations, to be followed by Sandra Crow.

Good evening.

My name is James Nations.

I am a 10-year resident of Rockville, and I serve as secretary of the board of directors of the Newmark Commons Homeowners Association.

I'm also one of almost 700 Newmark community residents who signed a petition opposing the rezoning of the Tower Oaks parcel and Planning Area 12 to RMD 25.

The Planning Commission staff report points out that developing the site will face significant environmental constraints, including its role as an active water infiltration basin and wetland mitigation zone.

Simply building taller structures on smaller construction paths does not diminish the overall environmental impact of building new housing.

The physical footprint of a building is not the significant factor.

What's more important is the number of people living on a site and the technology they use, which in this case means cars, trucks, and roads.

The Tower Oaks parcel shares a geographical boundary with Newmark Commons and Potomac Valley neighborhood, and that proximity will tempt the use of our streets for construction vehicles and commuter access.

We recognize that the final decision on rezoning lies with the mayor and council of Rockville, and we ask that they and the Planning Commission continue to work with us to protect the safety of our neighborhoods and our residents.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir.

Next person.

Next speaker is Sandra Crow to be followed by Kenneth Becker.

Thank you to the Planning Commission for allowing us to testify tonight.

My name is Sandra Crow, and I've lived in Newmark Commons for the better part of the last 10 years.

And I'm here tonight to echo my neighbors and to promote the idea of either leaving the current R90 zoning on the Tower Oaks 9.75 acres that abuts Newmark Commons, as is or consider other zoning options.

On December 1st, the mayor and council met and questioned the suitability of rezoning the property, given that the proposed RMD 25 zone designation would enable high density developed development and that it would not be compatible with our Newmark neighborhood.

And as you may know, we are listed on the National Historic National Register of Historic Places.

We are a historic district as of August 1st, 2017.

This designation is specifically for planning and eligibility of planning and for Rockville's Historic District Commission, who supported the nomination.

We're the first planned residential unit development in Rockville, using clustered housing, preserved green space, and curving internal streets instead of conventional subdivision grids.

This was the vision of Edmund Bennett in 1967, who was the original architect for Newmark Commons.

That the mayor and council recognized that a high-density development proposed zoning designation is not compatible with the historical nature and architecture of our neighborhood.

Given the street flow, school bus travel, and people walking in the neighborhood, increasing those traffic patterns would be a safety hazard for children and pedestrians.

The streets were not designed or uh they were not designed to handle such a traffic flow.

Newmark and the adjoining property are a bit of a sanctuary in Rockville.

And if you haven't been there as Pat invited you to, we'd love you to come and experience the property.

Foxes, birds, rabbits, and deer thrive there.

There is an un, it's kind of like an undesignated park.

It's like a nature space.

And although it is next to 270, there's a stillness and a rawness to the area that is hard to find in the manicured world that we live in.

In the same way, you can feel someone in your space when someone is standing next to you but not touching you.

In that way, we in Newmark can feel the serenity that this property exudes.

Changing the zoning designation to RMD 25 would directly distort and disrupt not only the compatibility with it with Newmark, but also the distinctiveness of Newmark and the original intention of Edmund Bennett, one of Rockville's true visionaries.

Disrupting Newmark is disrupting Rockville.

Let's keep it at R90 or come up with another in-between zoning solution.

Thank you all.

Thank you, ma'am.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Kenneth.

Thank you.

Kenneth Becker, to be followed by Anna Astrid Molina.

Good evening, and thank you, Commission members, for the opportunity to speak tonight.

Please note that also our detailed letter dated January 12th was previously submitted to the Commission.

My name is Kenneth Becker, and I'm speaking as a general partner in the ownership of the communities of Rollins Park, Congressional Towers, Rollins Congressional Clubhouse, encompassing approximately 51 acres at the northwest northwest quadrant of East Jefferson Street, Rollins, and Rollins Avenue, also uh labeled as Area 10.

Uh it was 1959, and I was nine years old when I had the thrill of accompanying my dad on this site as he and his partners constructed Montrose homes and subsequently Rollins Park and Congressional Towers.

It was nothing like it in the area, and even then, at the tender age of nine, I knew my dad and his partners had a special community vision for what was then still very much considered an outer suburb to the metropolitan area.

Today, some 66 years later, we see a vision for the future that is equally promising, laying the foundation for the next generation while respecting the beautiful, well-tended community of detached homes to carefully gradually renew multifamily structures that inevitably fall into functional or market absolute obsolescence as time marches on.

We support staff's alternative proposal set forth in their most recent report.

It protects existing single-family uh neighborhoods.

It provides economic elements for long-term phase redevelopment of the property, resulting in more housing.

It concentrates the height and density to the northern portion of the property far away from the single-family areas, and it preserves our Rollins Congressional Clubhouse for the entire community, albeit without not without cost, approximately 250 housing units, uh, and not to mention the cost of operating and maintaining this facility.

Prior to the alternative proposal, staff's initial proposal was the uh source of great concern to ownership.

It lacked necessary density and corresponding financial viability to develop the property to anything other than perhaps townhouses for the entire site.

Expanding on this briefly uh redevelopment uh requires shutdown of income producing properties of upwards of two to four years.

The effort creates uh lost income, potential relocation costs, construction costs, and so on, uh requiring a much larger asset base to support such an effort.

Just replacing what currently exists is not financially viable and relegates the community to endure functional and market obsolescence inherent with aging structures.

Finally, we wish an additional, wish to raise an additional requested modification to staff's alternative proposal for the uh Commission's consideration.

The staff under the staff's proposal, 25% of the property is proposed not to be rezoned at a density in excess of current limits.

Sir, please wrap up the Am I done?

Please grab up, thank you.

Uh let me just wrap up with one sentence and I'll move on.

Um we would propose and urge the current zoning line proposed uh that is proposed at 400 feet north of Rollins Avenue between the RHD zone and RMD 25, be shifted 200 feet south, but subject still to the height limit in the RHD development standards for the 75 feet uh 75 feet for properties within 200 feet of the RMD zone.

This adjustment continues to protect the transition buffer by uh distance and height, but permits the additional density to the north and more importantly, also offsets the lost density with the set aside of the clubhouse ground remaining at R 75 status.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir.

The next speaker.

Next speaker is Anna Astrid Molina to be followed by Tanya Rakovskaya.

Good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to speak for to you tonight.

My name is Anna Astrid Molina, and I have lived in Markwood for 30 years.

Our neighborhood is one of the smallest and most tight-neat in Rockville, sharing a connection with our neighbors at Newmark Commons.

I am here tonight to strongly oppose the rezoning of parcel CORID 17 from R90 to R MD25.

Despite being one of the neighborhoods that will be directly impacted, we received no notification from the city.

We only learn of these proposals through our Newmark neighbors last November.

The parcel was listed as R90 on in the city's website as recently as May 2022.

A transition to a high density residential is a significant change for any community, and we believe it warrants a more inclusive outreach process to ensure the voices of the most affected residents are heard.

The proposed RMD 25 designation is not a tweak, it's a radical transformation.

It would allow 244 units on an IP.75 acre plot.

To put this in perspective, it's eight times the density of Markwood.

You are essentially proposing to drop 60 to drop 65% of Newmark Commons homes into a tiny limited plot.

75 foot high rise or a 45 foot high rise is not compatible with the existing character of our single family homes.

It is an island of high density infrastructure in a low density area, which creates a jarring visual and structural disconnect.

Potomac Valley Road is one of the only two access points to this massive proposed development.

This road already serves Markwood, Newmark Commons, and the Potomac Valley Nursing Home.

In addition to the regular traffic of the residents, it is constantly navigated by three shifts of healthcare staff, visitors and ambulances.

Most importantly, the Rockville Volunteer Fire Department uses this road at least three times a day to reach the nursing home.

Adding, I don't know how many cars, at least two 44 plus vehicles to this specific bottleneck isn't just a traffic inconvenience.

It is a public safety hazard.

When every second counts for an emergency vehicle, we cannot afford a gridlock this density will create.

RMD25 fails both tests.

It is a massive overreach that ignores the physical constraints and establish scale and surrounding neighborhood.

Markwood stands with Newmark Commons.

We have signed our petition to and we ask to you today to reject the RMD 25 designation.

Again, we invite you to walk the property with us and see that RMD25 is simply not a viable or safe option for this site.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, ma'am.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Tony Rokovskaya, to be followed by Stephen Plotkin.

Good evening, members of the Commission.

My name is Tania Rachovska.

My family moved to Newmark in 1997.

We chose this community because it's safe, quiet, and beautiful.

Newmark is a historic neighborhood that carefully combines nature, the lake, large oak trees, and surrounding forest with well planned single family homes and townhouses.

We love this family-oriented environment so much that when our older daughter started her own family, she also bought a home in Newmark.

Today she has four children.

And because of this deep family connection, preserving the character and nature of our community is extremely important to us.

For this reason, the news about the proposed rezoning of parcel ZOR ID-17 and Planning Area 12 from R90 to RMD 25 was very troubling.

Our neighbors and we met with members of City Council and were told that there was still time to change the plan and that our concerns were understood.

We submitted a petition opposing the rezoning signed by the vast majority of Newmark residents.

Many residents also sent individual letters expressing their protest.

We truly hope that you will listen to our voices and take our concerns seriously.

Our opposition to this proposal is based on several clear points.

High-rise development next to a low density community will bring significantly more traffic through our streets, reduce pedestrian safety, especially for our children, and destroy green areas supporting the wildlife that is abundant in and around Newmark.

In addition, this development would drastically change the character of our neighborhood, which is a nationally recognized historic community.

Thus, this proposal is not compatible with our community and directly contradicts the Rockville 2040 comprehensive plan, which clearly states that new development must be compatible with and connected to adjacent neighborhoods.

We strongly urge the commission to reject the proposed rezoning from R90 to R and D 25 and to protect the residents of Newmark and the green environment of Rockwell.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, ma'am.

So before we proceed, I want to thank you everyone who has been provided.

And also thanks for the invitation for us to tour your site.

And I personally live right next to Newmark.

So I walk to Newmark all the time.

I really enjoy that.

And yeah, so I think it's a great place.

And what I heard, and uh so far is um there is alternative you want to explore.

And also the mayor and council has agreed that the high density is not a viable option and is not compatible with the historic character of Newmark, right?

And there are concerns about increased population, school crowding, and the traffic and safety concerns for pedestrians, and um also you want a more inclusive process in decision making, and also the density that will bring and the access road, all that.

So that we have the already received.

Thank you so much.

So in considering the time and the packed agenda, so for for you uh the other um person you want to testify, please bring please bring maybe additional points that in addition to that we already heard.

You've you make thank you.

Yeah, please proceed.

Thanks, Steve.

Speaker is I'm Steve Plotkin.

I live at 892 Newmark in a townhouse that I've lived there nearly 52 years.

So all these other people are sort of interlopers.

This zoning application uh basically it yields a classic trade-off for you guys.

The need for housing or other development first versus environment, traffic, and noise, and neighborhood cohesion.

You have a much better handle on the need for housing and other development than I do, but my impression is that there has been massive development in Rockville in the last 10 years or so.

Rockville Pike has been like mushrooms, you know, uh apartment buildings coming up.

There's a massive new development near Seven Locks and Montrose.

Um it's not clear to me that you really need more large-scale development.

Um in terms of the trade-offs, the environment here you have untouched woodlands.

Uh I often uh wander through there, and uh it's really a wonderful area.

Uh, it would really be pretty sad to see it go.

I think that's a high value on the not to rezone part of it.

Uh Newmark Commons, as you've been told, is a truly unique neighborhood.

The traffic, I live right over a part of Newmark Commons which is closed.

But unfortunately, if this development comes in, I think it's going to be open.

It's going to change the character of my townhouse and my peace of mind, but also allow tons of traffic into Newmark.

Uh, people walk there.

A lot of people walk in the streets simply because uh asphalt is a lot easier on the body than concrete is.

I walk in the street.

Um the because of the wetland area in this, the actual footprint of any development is going to be much smaller than the total acreage, which means a high rise.

It's the only the only economic possibility, and I think it's completely incompatible with Newmark Commons.

Um at the very least, please in these in any in any change in zoning, there has got to be a restriction on access to this property because if if the traffic enters new Newmark Esplanade, it is going to be disastrous for our neighborhood.

Thank you for listening to me.

I appreciate the time.

Thank you, sir.

The next speaker.

The next speaker is Laurie Krug, to be followed by Mark Persheila.

I appreciate your comments, but I'll speak to the rest of the council.

Maybe they don't aren't neighbors of Newmark and read eight or eight points, and I've worked on this for a long time.

So I just want to say my name is Laurie Krug.

I've been a resident of Newmark for over three years.

I'm here to ask you to halt consideration of rezoning to stop the rezoning of parcel area planning 12.

I found the illustration that you were given in the PDF on page 11, and it shows the you know this this area.

And that is really does not convey the beauty of Area 12 with full foliage.

And that's what I have printed down below.

I don't think you got the documents I intended to share with you.

I also want to uh you know make it clear to you that this area of green space, which is not developed but to our neighborhood, and that's Newmark Commons.

And 60 years later, we can appreciate the vision of Edward Bennett, as was mentioned, who designed the neighborhood of attached homes and townhomes with modern elements at the time, ceilings that window to um see windows that go from floor to ceiling, so you could embrace nature.

They were put positioned to fit the topography of the land and preserve trees.

And um, there's actually a YouTube video about Rockville history featuring our neighborhood on our website.

So I really treasure the tranquility of a neighborhood nestled in suburban green space.

We have trees everywhere, we have shade in the summer.

We see foxes and owls and songbirds and pollinators, and those those link up to that green space that's right next to us.

Parcel 12 traps pollutants in the waterways and mitigates flooding, and this parcel also buffers us from the heat and the noise of 270.

So I was really shocked to learn a few months ago that we're gonna be rezoned to RMD 25, high density housing surrounded by parking lots, and I guarantee you that always begins with clear cutting.

We were informed that rezoning doesn't mean development, but Tower Oaks owns all the remaining parcels.

This is the last bit that would give them a nice continuous area for large scale development.

And the roads that end to the south would connect beautifully to Don Mills Court that's in our neighborhood.

So high density development would bring traffic to reach Maryland Avenue.

It threatens the kids who ride bikes, the people who walk dogs, and children who line line the streets to board the school buses every day.

The comprehensive plan states compatibility is a major factor when rezoning.

We are in nationally historic neighborhood designed to integrate natural landscapes.

Homes are clustered on cul-de-sacks along winding roads connected by pedestrian walkways in a wooded setting.

I serve on the Newmark Landscaping Committee and tree stewardship is our key focus.

Our neighborhood lake is home to migrating waterfowl, falcons, and great blue herons.

The proposed rezoning of this parcel threatens the historic and environmental integrity of our community and jeopardizes pedestrian and cyclist safety.

The mayor and council were really interested in alternative lower density options that seem more in keeping with our neighborhood's character on their December 1st meeting.

And we are following up with you tonight on that promised discussion.

You have the power to choose a more compatible fit.

Please listen to our voices.

And those of 248 homes in our neighborhood that sign that petition, maintain compatibility, keep us at lower density, such as the current R90.

Please do not rezone to RMD 25.

Thank you for the three minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Matt.

Next speaker.

Next speaker is Mark Prushela, to be followed by Natasha Hurwitz.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the planning commission.

My name is Mark Prushela, 816 Fordham Street, and recently elected president of the College Garden Civic Association.

I have an observation and a complaint and a suggestion.

The so-called high-level summary is itself 58 pages.

The draft zoning ordinance is 293 pages, and there is no crosswalk between the old zoning ordinance and the new zoning ordinance.

From a civic association perspective, there isn't adequate time to prepare for the planning commission hearings tonight and just two weeks from now.

I was heavily involved in the 2009 zoning ordinance, known at that point as Roarzor.

And when I was president of the College Garden Civic Association then, and then I spent 12 years on the mayor and council where I had to deal numerous times with the with the with the impact of that particular zoning ordinance, and I have seen how a zoning ordinance plays out.

And I know that the devil is in the details, especially in all that text.

293 pages of text where there's no crosswalk, where there's a complete reorganization of the zoning ordinance, it's gonna take even someone like me who has been knee deep in this stuff for a long time, a lot of time to sort out the implications of the text.

The actual map amendment is fairly easy to review.

There's a neat tool where you can see, use a slider bar to see the old versus the new um zones.

I think that's really great.

But I would say that at least from the College Garden Civic Association standpoint, even two weeks we have between now and your next hearing is not adequate for us to dive through and assess all that text.

So I urge you all to add a third hearing later in your process.

The um I I don't see how we can have a uh civic association meeting on this topic before early March, and that would be a special meeting.

So you know it does give us time to prepare for mayor and council planning uh uh hearings, but but yeah, I know from experience that if an association has a point of view, you better get it in front of the planning commission.

Try there, and if you don't get it there, then try to mayor and council.

So thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, sir.

Next speaker.

Next speaker is Natasha Hurwitz.

Good evening, Planning Commission.

I'm Natasha Hurwitz.

I live at 1708 Lori Drive.

I am a representative from the Montrose Neighborhood Association.

I'm here today to support the alternate proposal.

We have spent a lot of time with Mayor and Council and also with Jim and Holly, who have been fantastic at walking us through the process, making sure our neighborhood understands the reason for the changes, why they must happen, and now has negotiated it seems with the property owner to ensure that we have a comprehensive plan for Area 10 that meets the needs of our neighborhood association and also the property owner.

I will say I was a little caught off guard by Mr.

Becker's comment about a change to the alternate proposal.

So we look forward to Jim and Holly walking us through exactly what the change he has requested would mean for our neighborhood.

And we also just received this information two days ago.

So we do need to walk through this with our neighborhood as a whole, make sure that everyone in our association understands the alternate plan.

But I just wanted to let you know tonight that it looks like the alternate plan that has been presented for Area 10 is going to be something that the neighbor the Montrose Civic Association can support.

And again, we want to thank Jim and Holly, Mayor and Council came out to see the site.

It seems that everyone in the city of Rockville has been very receptive to our feedback and interested in our concerns throughout the entire process.

Thank you for this opportunity.

Thank you, ma'am.

The next speaker.

Madam Chair, that is the last of the speakers who have signed up in advance.

Okay, so now we're open to anyone who likes to still like to provide testimony.

So hearing none.

Anyone want to provide testimony online?

Madam Chair, I do not see anyone online uh that would be providing testimony.

Okay.

So with that, um, thank you for everyone that has provided testimony.

And uh with that, does any commissioner have any questionable concerns for discussion at this point?

Excuse me, should we raise concerns or questions now or when the topic comes up in our deliberations?

So just uh for the commission's information, what we plan on doing for the work session is uh have discrete discussions about the topic areas that are on your agenda.

So it seems to us that that would be the time to raise uh discussion points from the commission.

Okay, now we can maybe conclude the public testimony and uh let's move to the next agenda, the working session.

So does staff have a presentation?

Yes, uh, thank you, madam chair.

Uh, our intent is to provide uh brief introductions to the topic areas that are on your work session schedule for this evening.

And that first topic area is historic preservation, and we have uh comprehensive planning manager Kitty Gerbus to uh provide the uh staff recommendation and uh lead this discussion.

Thank you.

Good evening, commissioner.

It's nice to see everyone.

Happy new year.

Um so we have a few slides that we're gonna go through today um briefing you all on the proposed changes to the historic preservation sections of the zoning ordinance.

Um what we're presenting on the slides are gonna be kind of high-level bullet points.

Obviously, your staff report has much more detail on all of these topics.

Um, as a reminder, this is not the first time we've talked about this with you all, but it's been quite some time since we have.

Um so we'll kind of go through at a high level a bunch of uh topics, and then we will open it up for any questions, discussion with the commission.

So we've organized this deck by kind of grouping liked like changes together.

So the first set of changes that we're going to talk about is for certificate of approvals, which we call COAs.

So as a reminder, a certificate of approval is a basically permission that needs to occur before any exterior alteration is made to a locally designated historic property in Rockville.

So that goes from large alterations, maybe we're adding on an addition to the home, but that also applies to small alterations, such as landscaping, adding a new mailbox, changing the lights on your front porch.

Truly any exterior alteration needs to come to the historic district commission for permission before that alteration can be made.

There is very limited ability for staff to approve any of these exterior alterations.

So as a result, we see a lot of things come through the Historic District Commission COA process that frankly we think are givens that shouldn't be subject to that level of scrutiny and frankly shouldn't take that long for the property owner to have to wait to get permission in order to make those modifications.

The only exemptions that we currently have are for replacements of existing fence, for trees if they are dead, diseased, or hazardous in some way, and for signs, which honestly we have very few of in our historic districts since most of our historic districts are residential properties.

The other note about our certificate of approvals is they currently expire after one year.

So if one year and one day has gone by and you have not actually made that alteration, you need to submit a new application.

You need to go before the HDC again and kind of restart that.

So we have two proposed revisions here.

The first is we would like to create a process whereby staff can administratively approve certain certificate of approval applications for work that's deemed to be minor or common.

So your staff report gives some examples of what we believe should qualify for that.

I'll say some of them out loud.

Um, so installation of storm doors and windows, uh, landscaping.

So if you're removing certain trees and shrubs, installation or replacement of utility meters and devices.

This is something that happens quite a lot.

An HVAC system goes out, you're replacing the unit outside.

That is an exterior alteration.

And so I hope that doesn't happen in August.

And then you have to wait for the HDC to go through their process before you could replace that.

Um things like mailboxes, um, numbering for your sign or numbering for your property address, minor alterations to already approved plans.

So maybe you got approved for new door model ABC, and then you go to order it and you learned actually we don't make ABC anymore.

We make ABD, which is incredibly similar, but technically it's a different specification.

Currently, you would have to come back.

We think we should be able to sign off on that as staff.

Larger items, larger alterations would still go through the regular HDC process as they currently do.

Our other proposal here is to extend the expiration period from one to five years.

There's a few reasons for us doing this.

Um, one through this zoning ordinance rewrite, we're proposing extending expiration periods for many of our other CPDS permits to five years.

So this would be consistent with many of our other approvals.

The other reason that we're seeing, especially recently, as kind of the economic times are starting to change, is folks might have applied for a certificate of approval, thinking they were gonna do work in a certain time frame.

Um, and then things change, pricing might have changed.

Maybe someone's employment status has changed over time.

Um so we don't really want to punish them for that and instead extend that expiration period.

The next set of changes worth discussing discussing tonight and deals with local designations, the process and consent.

Um, so right now, anyone may file an application to nominate any property for local historic designation.

You do not have to have any tie or connection to that property.

Um so I could look at all of you who I know happen to be Rockville residents, and I can apply for historic designation for every single one of your homes.

Um, and you don't get a say in the matter of filing that application.

Um similarly, that next bullet point is property owners are not required to consent to the nomination or the actual designation of their property.

Um so, as you all know, because you are experts in planning and zoning, um, when we are designating a historic structure locally, we are rezoning it.

We are taking it from its existing zone and we are placing it within the historic district overlay zone.

Anytime we're changing zoning, that's kind of the package of property rights that goes with that property.

Um so we believe that property owners should be able to have a say in that process, not necessarily saying they'll always get their way, but their consent or their dissent to that designation nomination should be taken into consideration.

So our two proposed revisions here.

One, we'd like to limit who can file a nomination application.

And we would limit it to the property owner, the historic district commission, or the mayor and council.

If there is a third party who is interested in seeing a property be designated, they should appeal to one of those three groups that I just mentioned and ask them to take up that, you know, to consider that nomination application.

This is actually how our most recent local designation, which was for Courthouse Square, the farmers banking and trust building, that's exactly how this happened.

Pierreless Rockville brought up to the HDC, they said, hey, this is a really important building in Rockville's history.

We think it meets some of your warrants for designation.

Will you look at it?

The HDC said sure.

They directed staff to do some research, and the HDC said, yes, we agree with you.

We're going to go ahead and file this nomination application.

The other change that we're proposing here is to kind of create two-bar system dealing with consent and what is required to go ahead and designate a property.

So right now you simply need a majority vote.

Our historic district commission has five commissioners, so we need three.

The mayor and council have seven, so we would need four.

That is whether the property owner loves it, the property owner hates it, the property owner is agnostic, you still just need that simple majority.

Our proposal here is that if we have a circumstance where the property owner is opposing the designation, that we raise that bar and a unanimous vote is required.

So it makes it a little bit more challenging.

I want to note that it does not prevent it from being possible.

There's still a circumstance and still an avenue here where if we have a historic resource that we are truly at risk of losing forever, and the property owner says, I don't think I want this designation, there's still a way to protect that building.

There's still a way to designate it, but it makes it a little bit harder than if we have a property owner who's really willing or a property owner who's silent on the matter.

Delisting.

So delisting is kind of the term and a phrase used to remove sites and structures from our local register of historic places.

Right now, there is no way, there's no mechanism to remove designated properties from our local register.

So as a result, we have properties and structures that physically do not exist that are still on our local historic register.

So it gets a little bit confusing then when you're looking at our historic district map and you're seeing things and you're like, there's not a building there.

Correct, that building is not there anymore, but that property is still in our historic district zone.

So what we're proposing here is creating a process for the removal from the historic district overlay zone in very, very rare circumstances.

So we're talking about if a site or structure has lost all of its physical characteristics that justified the designation.

That could be things like it was demolished.

A great example is right across the way, the courthouse used to be the home of the 1971 Rockville Library.

That was demolished many decades ago, but it is still listed on our local register.

Another example is Chestnut Lodge Sanatorium.

That structure burned down.

So it is not physically there any longer, but it is still listed on our local register.

We also have some cases where the historic district commission has actually approved the complete demolition of designated historic structures because of the state of disrepair that those structures are in.

There's one specifically that I'm thinking of that's on West Montgomery Avenue, that you cannot literally cannot step foot in because it will fall to the ground.

So we want to have a way to make our register kind of catch up with that.

We want to limit who can do this.

It's going to be the mayor and council and property owners are the only folks who could file an application.

And just because they file an application does not mean it's going to happen.

We would go through the same process as we would for adding something to the historic district zone to remove it.

So that would be hearings and work sessions before the historic district commission, the filing of a sectional map amendment, coming to you all for a recommendation, and then ultimately going to the mayor and council.

So this is not something that we are adding in here because Joe Schmoe is tired of having to come to the HDC to trim his bushes.

This is something that is truly meant to make sure that our local register is accurate and up to date with what's actually on the ground here in the city.

Demolition by neglect is our next category.

So demolition by neglect is a defined term in our zoning ordinance.

The definition is failure to maintain property within the historic district zone so as to jeopardize its historic integrity.

But besides being a definition, it is not mentioned anywhere else in our code.

So as a result, it doesn't say do it.

It doesn't say don't do it, and here's the penalty.

So we want to change that by expressly prohibiting demolition by neglect neglect and allowing a municipal infraction to be levied in cases where we do find demolition by neglect to be the case.

Again, this is something that I don't think we would use a ton.

Certainly we hope and want most of our historic property owners to be investing in their property, to be maintaining in their property.

But sometimes we do have kind of an intention, kind of a willful neglect of these properties for one reason or another.

So this would be a tool in our toolbox where we could go after a property owner who is found to be like willingfully continuously neglecting their property.

I also want to reiterate that like other sections of our code, just because we have the ability to levy a municipal infraction doesn't mean we always do it immediately in every single case.

For those of you who have worked with city staff, whether that's commissioners, folks in the audience, folks watching this recording, you know that we try to work with property owners.

We try to be flexible, we try to understand circumstances that are going on, but ultimately it is a tool that we would have in our toolbox.

Evaluation of significance is our next section.

So the evaluation of significance is the formal process whereby city staff as well as the Historic District Commission review a property's history to determine if it meets one of our nine designation criteria.

There are two things that can trigger an evaluation of significance.

The first is an application to nominate that property for local historic designation.

We just talked about that a few moments ago.

The other trigger for an evaluation of significance is the filing of a demolition permit.

So right now, the way our code is written, all structures, regardless of their age, regardless of their condition, regardless of if they are in a historic district zone or not, must undergo a full evaluation of significance before we can issue a demolition permit.

On the one hand, that sounds really great because we're checking these things so we don't lose resources.

On the flip side, it is incredibly resource-heavy.

We recently did an assessment of staff time spent doing different processes, and we estimate each evaluation of significance takes between 40 and 50 staff hours to do.

For context, we have three of them in February.

So between now and our February HDC meeting, we have three evaluations of significance that we will be performing there.

So what we're proposing to revise here is that we're only going to require evaluations of significance to come to the full HDC if the structure is identified in our historic buildings catalog.

So we've already kind of flagged it as this is a spectacular example of a certain architectural style of a master builder of a craftsman of a unique site here in Rockville.

Or if as staff are going through their review, we determine, like, hey, we think this meets at least one of these designation criteria.

The evaluation of significance would still have to be applied for.

Staff are still going to do their review, but this would be allowing some administrative approval by staff in instances where there truly is nothing historic about the property.

An example that I like to use is quite literally the way our code is written right now.

If you constructed an accessory building on your property last year and you say, I don't want it anymore, I want it to go away.

I have to do a full evaluation of significance on that.

We think that's a little bit silly.

We think it's not the best use of resources and it's not very friendly to our residents and property owners here in the city of Rockville.

The other change we're going to make here is right now there's no limit that says if you've been reviewed for an evaluation of significance within X period of time, we don't need to do another one.

That's not in our code.

So in theory, if you wanted to demolish your property last year, we did a full evaluation of significance.

Maybe you sold the property.

Somebody else has bought it, and they're saying, hey, I think I want to go ahead and demolish that.

We are required to do another evaluation of significance, even though one was just recently done.

So we would like to add in some language here that basically says if it's been reviewed in the past five years, we're not going to do a full new evaluation of that.

And then lastly, we have a couple of bullets with some minor changes.

I doubt there'll be many questions or concerns with these, but some of the other proposed revisions are to consolidate our preservation regulations into one article.

Right now they are in several articles.

It's kind of confusing, it's hard to follow.

We want to codify our local designation criteria.

Right now, there is a reference to external documents that contain our designation criteria, but they're not actually in the code.

So we think that's something that should be codified.

We are a certified local government with the National Park Service.

That basically means that we have agreed that our preservation program will do certain activities, will uphold certain standards.

Some of those standards being that there are qualifications for our historic district commissioners, educational and kind of work-related experiences.

So we want to go ahead and codify what those requirements are in the section of the code that talks about the authority of the historic district commission.

And then lastly, we want to remove reference to a document from 1977 that is listed as a reference material that should be used when reviewing certificate of approvals.

A couple of reasons we want to do this.

One, as you can tell, it's from 1977, so it is quite old.

A lot has changed in how we view preservation.

A lot has changed in, frankly, the technology that we're using to make improvements to our homes between now and then.

Additionally, when this design guideline or kind of guidelines were given in 1977, there were very few historic districts in Rockville.

It was largely the West Montgomery Avenue Historic District, which is one of our largest here in the city.

It's certainly an important one, but it has a very different architectural style and context than many of our other local historic districts.

So we don't think it's fair that we should be evaluating historic districts in other parts of the city to standards that are meant to apply primarily to the West Montgomery Avenue Historic District.

That I believe is the end of my list of uh bullet points and discussion topics.

So I will turn it over to you all as a body for any questions or discussion you have.

All right, thank you, Ms.

Grober, for very elaborate presentation.

So now let's open for uh discussion among Cummington North.

Commissioner Jeff?

I hate to be first.

Please.

My name is always last anyhow.

Um a couple of points on the designation over object objection by the landowner.

Um has the mayor and council all ready weighed in on this unanimity to designate.

So I would swim upstream to say why not just four votes.

Yeah.

So this is I don't want to swim upstream, that's enough.

That's correct.

For the um delisting, couple of points there.

Uh number one, if I set a fire myself, I would qualify for your delisting quite criteria.

Because all it says is the physical attributes are are gone.

Shouldn't you amend that to say not caused by the uh property owner themselves or their agents?

We'll take that into consideration.

Okay, then on uh uh delisting as well.

It's extraordinarily open-ended to say an other good cause.

Extraordinary.

Uh can you be more specific?

Uh because typically uh there might be an economic reason, there might be a political reason, there might be, I don't know, any other kind of reason except historic preservation.

And delisting is very serious.

So number one, I I would hope you can more be more specific on other good causes.

And number two, where you have extraordinary votes to designate, here you require simple majorities to delist.

Shouldn't you have uh four votes required to delist, which is probably the most significant thing you can do in historic preservation.

Am I losing anybody on this so far?

No, I actually those were two points I was gonna bring up as well.

I'm sorry to take no no.

I you keep going, you're doing great.

All right.

I used to do this for a living.

Um demolition by neglect.

Um if you look at the state definition of demolition, it does include where a lack of maintenance is caused by the financial inability of the owner, something like that.

That is if you if you can't afford it, the state doesn't declare it's it is demolition.

And you get this, we are getting authority from that state statute, which excludes that from demolition.

So somewhere you should recognize that limitation.

Um maybe council has an idea on that, but but somewhere.

Um just do it that way.

Sure, and I can speak to that point uh very briefly.

Um we have already started putting together language that would address that issue.

Um I don't think that the current language, either in the current code or or or in the proposed code necessarily requires that the city would violate the state law, but I agree with Commissioner Zion's that providing clearer guide or guardrails on uh the financial inability of an individual to maintain a structure would be a good thing.

Um there is a hearing that's proposed as part of the demolition by neglect process, and and we think that would be a good opportunity for an individual to demonstrate financial hardship.

Um that comment is certainly noted.

Um, and certainly would welcome any other comments from the commissioners on that point.

Any other points?

I'm done.

All right.

Any other commissioners?

Um thank you, Ms.

Gervison.

Thank you for staff.

Um, you know, we've seen this once or twice before, so I I appreciate it coming back around.

Um thank you, Commissioner Zions, because you did take a couple of points that that we had, and we are all very long-winded and short-winded, so welcome aboard.

Um I have I have a question and a comment on top.

Um regarding uh the consent and the property owner consent.

I think the way that it is listed now that uh if the property owner consents, it follows the standard operating procedure that we do now.

If the property owner does not consent, there is an avenue that requires a higher bar of votes.

And then there's I believe a third category.

If the property owner uh provides no opinion, does not reply, does not give consent, does not not give consent, just is out there in the ether.

Um I clarify that real quick.

What's that?

Can I clarify please that real quick?

So the draft that was released in December, it's really a two avenue.

So it's lumping owner consent and being silent on the matter as we need the simple majority and written documented dissent as what triggers that unanimous.

Got it.

Okay, so yeah, so the the silence is the same process as the owner consent.

Um my personal opinion on that is anything short of explicit owner consent follow the procedure that we have, and anything else, which is owner does not consent, and silence requires that higher bar of the unanimity of the HTC and the mayor council.

That's that's my my personal opinion on that.

Um the delisting process, I believe there is a a time frame for the the historic designation process, 270 days, maybe.

Is there a similar time frame for the delisting process?

210 days.

210.

Yeah, I don't know if we've gone into that level of detail.

That's certainly something to flag.

Um I believe that's triggered by the land use articles.

I would have to look into it.

We would likely want to apply that because we're proposing that it follows the same process.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Any other commissioners?

Okay.

Um just a couple things.

One thing I will echo uh Commissioner Fulton's uh last statement on there was something you said that was interesting and that I agreed with, and now I'm forgetting it.

Uh but it was great.

I can throw something out there if you just so you know it was great, and I do agree with it.

Um I'll come back to that as soon as I remember.

Um on the EOS slide, can we go to the EOS slide?

Um so on this one, if if if uh if a building is it if if we're kind of circumventing the need for a review, um, and the building hasn't been nominated by the HDC for um for designation.

How is the staff gonna be in a position to determine that there's potentially at least one criteria being met by a proposed property?

So we would still be requiring that an evaluation of significance application be filed, which provides a lot of background information on the property, and as staff, we would still be starting our research that we would do for any other staff report.

So we would be looking into that.

The change here would be whether or not it has to go before the historic district commission or if that's something that staff can go ahead and sign off on administratively.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for the clarification.

Um it was on the uh designation of uh the nomination or a designation of historic um significance.

The idea that a that silence from a property owner be considered uh consent in my mind is uh like I I don't think that's remotely the same thing.

Consent is consent, anything not that's not consent should be considered not consent.

Um property rights are incredibly important.

It's important to all of us, right?

All of us are here to advocate for the property rights that we have, right?

And the value of the property that we have spent our hardware money on, uh, just because someone doesn't get a piece of you know mail uh in their mailbox or somehow neglected it or just uh was too busy to reply, means that they don't get the same protections as everybody else, to me is not responsible.

Um so I am totally with that comment.

100%.

Um I think that's all I had.

Would I commissioner repeat the man?

Um I would say I agree with that as well.

That I would put lack of response in with uh uh dissent.

Um and I also agree that other good causes needs to be defined and less ambiguous.

And I'm also thinking that we're making it possible and easier and streamlined to delist your home.

We're simplifying a lot of these processes, which are is good.

Um I think this is overall something we can all get behind.

But I'm wondering how we would balance this with encouragement to maintain historic designation.

How do we encourage people?

We're kind of discouraging historic preservation through some of these things, uh, through some of these changes and processes.

So how would we encourage that?

So I would just that's the thought that's on my mind.

Thank you.

Commissioner, I have I have nothing to add that hasn't been already mentioned.

Thank you.

Um I just real quick take the other side of that argument real quick.

Yeah, I I think that uh I I don't take this change as discouragement.

I think this change gets to a spot where it's a little bit more reasonable and that there are sufficient um barriers involved to remove uh property rights or you know, um developability of a particular piece of land.

I think that um you know maybe we were just a little bit too lenient, and now we're coming back towards the middle.

So I I wouldn't necessarily go as far as say that we're discouraging it.

I think maybe from a comparative basis, yes, but I think in in in on on the scale of common sense to me, this is this makes more sense.

Just I would just just to clarify my thought.

Um, and to kind of help you, you know, the property rights argument, historic designation really limits people's property rights.

You're there's no not a lot of flexibility.

In fact, one of my questions for you all is what's actually allowed by right already, um, and how this affects by right um privileges or rights uh in a historic zone.

Um so when I say encourage historic preservation, if it's already onerous to own a historic home and expensive to own a historic home to go through the designation process to it makes delisting look real good, right?

I mean, it's very expensive to maintain these homes.

People do it because they love, they don't do it because they had nowhere else to live, they do it because they love historic homes.

So this really actually the the um what I'm really thinking of is how do we provide flexibility for people so that they can exercise full property rights on in these historic homes.

That's all thank you, Commissioner Piedman.

So I I think about this how do we encourage historic building to be maintained, and maybe there could be some tax incentive that we can yeah, encourage the owner to do so.

So we do currently have a 25% um tax credit incentive.

We are a partner with Montgomery County's program.

Um so for locally designated historic properties, if they're doing any routine exterior maintenance, um you're eligible to apply for a tax credit for up to 25% of the value of those maintenance activities that you did over the past year.

Um this is my plug.

We will be opening that application early February for work that has been done in calendar year of 2025.

So we do have an incentive program that already exists.

Um the state of Maryland has an incentive program.

Um the National Park Service has one for national register properties.

I'll note that the state and the federal one are a lot more restrictive than the Montgomery County one.

Um most exterior work qualifies for Montgomery counties.

Um for the state and federal, uh, it talks about some have to be commercial properties.

It's it's a lot more strict, um, but we do have that existing 25% tax credit.

But just to clarify, that's for maintaining a single family detached home that's designated historic locally.

It is for maintaining any locally designated structure, which can be a single family home, but it does not have to be.

So commercial properties would also qualify for that.

Thank you.

Any other more thoughts?

So for this, do we want to have some um stroll vote on the topic and what we suggest to recommend and what we suggest to change?

For example, the the point uh commissioner foot and point up the the consent, no consent opposition.

Do we have a recommendation on what kind of majority vote we want for we recommend for each category?

So if the body is open to it, we can go slide by slide um and kind of get a straw poll of commissioners' thoughts on each of these different topic areas.

Okay, that sounds good.

So the first here would be those changes to certificate of approvals, which would allow some um additional staff administrative approvals and then extending the expiration date for COEs from one year to five years.

So we start with uh I guess commissioner.

Maybe you should go if there's an objection, we talk about it to what they're proposing.

Anyone have objections, please raise your hand.

All right.

None that means recommend recommended.

Okay, the second one.

Local designation, our process and consent.

So the revisions here being we're limiting who can file that nomination application, and then the discussion that we've been having about um whether a majority or a unanimous vote is required.

So do we agree on this recommendation with the revision commission uh planning commission recommend?

I concede if the if the mayor and council wanted unanimous vote on this.

I concede.

I don't object.

So is this the same portion of it that speaks to the um the silence of the property owners versus consent?

Yep.

So that's the only thing that I would uh you know, I would say I I I would like to see that changed.

I would not recommend that silence be uh considered consent.

So silent means that requires unanimous vote.

Yes.

Okay.

Is the proposal by Commissioner Salhoudin?

Yeah, that's not currently how it's written, but that's a proposal, yes.

And I would go the other way.

That is a property owner's has an obligation, one of them is to respond if you have an objection.

So I would think that silence is just an action.

You don't know what it means.

I assume it means consent.

Any other thoughts we have six commissioners now?

So I'm just pointing that out.

This was much easier when we only had five.

All right.

So let's have a vote then the who is against oh commissioner Salah Houdin's recommendation, please raise your hand.

Yeah, you go.

I I sorry, just to clarify what we're we're taking the poll on here.

So we're taking a straw poll to take the uh lack of consent and move it into the uh the objection.

Or I'm sorry.

I think it would be how do we treat a silent property?

How do we treat asylum property?

Do we require a majority or do we require a unanimous vote?

So I I think my comment was I would prefer to treat a silence as requiring a unanimous vote.

Uh and I heard at least two other commissioners agree, and at least one other commissioner have questions about that.

So I'm with staff's proposal, I think, which is if there is silence, I'm fine with just a majority.

So can I get a clarification?

So the silence.

So the staff has tried every ways to reach how the the owner, so the owner must be reached.

Is that true?

Yeah, so per our code right now, we're required to provide written notification that an application for nomination has been submitted to your property.

So we provide that to the property address as well as to whatever the owner's mailing address is on our tax records.

In instances where we happen to know who the property owner is, oftentimes we can you know call them, email them, swing by in person.

Um sometimes we have properties that are not owned locally that are often owned by larger corporations.

Um this came up, this topic specifically came up in the designation of four Courthouse Square that was owned by a corporation.

Um we know that that property owner was aware of this because we had a conversations with MS staff and they decided that they did not want to take a stance one way or another, um, which left this body, the HDC and the mayor and council, um, a little bit scratching their heads of what do we do in this instance where they're not pro, they're not against how do we handle um, you know, what their opinion is.

Thank you.

So based on the staff recommendation, if there's no consent or silence, that means majority vote.

Um based on the commissioner Salah Hodin's recommendation, the silence requires unanimous vote.

So maybe for the record, originally Commissioner Fulton's recommendation.

I just co-signed it.

So we hear commissioner full time and the commissioner on that alternative.

So let's have a vote.

So the one in favor of the staff uh original recommendation, please raise your hand.

So since this really isn't well, since this isn't a motion that we're voting on, right?

It's just a report that's going to go to mayor and council.

We would write on it.

No, I mean, we don't.

I I would just recommend that the mayor and council be notified that the planning commission, you know, was split 3-3 on this.

That's I mean, that resolves this issue, I think.

I agree with the person who did not side with me on that struggle.

So there we go.

And that's how we do business.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's let it be known that Commissioner Espinoza didn't want to fight.

Well, it's the first time we have said coming from Earth.

Let's see how it goes.

So are we done with this topic?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Uh so the next is delisting.

Um creating a procedure whereby in certain circumstances we could remove property from the local historic district overlays on.

So for this one, we are taking uh coming from the uh pivot and the Zion's recommendation to add some language on not cough by the owner.

And uh need more considerations more specific of the other good cause.

So I did have a question for my commissioners who brought up this proposal.

What I don't understand is your the hypothetical of okay, homeowner or landowner, building owner causes a fire, right?

So through destruction of themselves by cut.

What is there left to preserve a lot of times you would preserve the site as as not only you know it could be a marker that says here was the building X or Y.

But you certainly don't want to leave an incentive for owners to destroy historic property.

Well, wouldn't that be something the staff would take into consideration rather than mandated before delisting?

We're writing law.

So if you want it in law, you write it in law.

No, I I see where you you're going with this, but if the site itself, right?

Not the building or the structure on the site, but if the land itself is such a historic nature that requires preservation.

I I don't know that it matters that the person burned it down themselves, right?

Because the staff is looking at is there anything left to preserve?

That's the question they're trying to answer.

Again, I'm just trying to not give incentives.

So I I'll leave it to staff on whether they want to designate specifically the site or not.

But again, I'm not looking to give incentives to demolish buildings.

No, I I think no, I understand.

I think I understand your point.

As long as staff, I mean, because this is just a mechanism for staff to not have to go through a more cumbersome process, right?

Is for them to be allowed to do that.

No, this isn't the cumbersome process routine.

This is the listing.

And I want to clarify that this is not something that staff would be doing.

This would be a full process.

Um, it would be a sectional map amendment because we would be changing the zoning of the property, we would be removing that historic overlay zone.

So this is not something that you would be giving authority to staff to make a determination on.

This would be, you know, if an application were received for this, staff would do our research in our staff report, but it would go before the historic district commission, they would have to agree to it before a sectional map amendment application would be filed, at which case it would go to you, and then ultimately to the mayor and council.

No, no, I appreciate that clarification.

Um I don't want us to be locked in.

Oh, hey, it this was caused by the homeowner, so we can't do anything.

It's a factor to consider in the historic preservation, right?

It's like I I guess I don't mind if it's a factor.

I just don't want to bind the decision making.

Right.

You you can you can split the processes a little bit and and say if the structure was the only thing historic and it is demolished, then you can delist.

But if the site is historic, you don't delist.

Right.

Okay.

No, I understand.

I appreciate it.

So Commissioner's just a point of clarification, and and I'd certainly welcome Commissioner Zions to disagree.

I I think that's the intention of the current language effectively.

So just to walk the commissioners through the way it would work.

If if somebody were to demolish a structure without receiving a certificate of approval, and as a result, also a demolition permit, they would be subject to multiple municipal citations with fines of up to $5,000 for each citation.

In addition to that penalty that they would incur, the criteria for removal does ask for the consideration of whether the site or structure on the site has lost the physical characteristics that justify placement.

So as Ms.

Gervis mentioned appropriately, it's a fairly lengthy process anyway to delist a structure, or excuse me, to delist a property.

And my suspicion, although we could provide additional language to that effect, is if the site itself retained characteristics that warranted the retention of the site in the historic district, the site wouldn't be delisted.

And further construction on the site would still be subject to a certificate of approval, ensuring that new structures on the site didn't in any way damage or detract from the historical setting.

So again, welcome disagreement, but I'm I'm not convinced this is if that's where the commission's at, I'm not convinced that any change to the current language would be required.

Um other thoughts on this?

Real quick, if but if if someone were to go down this scenario, right, where they burn their house down or the structure down, would that not be covered by the demolition by neglect section?

And if if it if it is, and we decide to go down the route of spelling out uh you know some some limitations on you know self-destruction here, and it ends up being in contradiction to the demolition by neglect portion, then do we end up causing some unintended consequences there, some loopholes, some ability to maybe finagle away through what we're trying to do in the first place.

Uh I don't believe so.

Um I mean the demolition by neglect designation would provide an additional ground for a municipal citation.

So again, the way citations often work is that they are cumulative.

There are a variety of approvals that you need in order to demolish a structure.

And let's assume somebody's not burning down their building, they just hire a contractor to come and demolish it and they don't get the permits for it, which would hopefully be the more likely scenario.

I think it would I mean, Commissioner, you're correct.

Like I think we could possibly cite them for demolition by neglect as well.

It would just add another $5,000 penalty.

Um something we have to look into.

I don't think the demolition by neglect provision would conflict with or or in in some way interfere with the process of determining whether to delist the structure or not.

Any other thoughts?

So maybe for this one, we can also have a stroll vote.

So based on the staff's explanation, the language in the draft already prevent from the owner cause its own demolition cost.

But I think Commissioner Zions's point is um it's the delisting process.

Should there be additional language in the delisting provisions to possibly prevent the delisting of a s of a site in the event that the a structure on the site was demolished illegally, or in some other way try to disincentivize somebody from considering the delisting process as an option if they were to demolish a structure on their property illegally.

I'm not comfortable with the other good cause.

I think that ambig and that that's a level of ambiguity that we've been fighting that this commission's been trying to get rid of, especially I'm thinking about the ADU uh process and there were and the the talk of ambiguous getting rid of ambiguous language.

And I I feel that's other good causes really I I'd like that defined.

So maybe we need to have tools draw vote on the tool is right.

First is adding the additional language, Commissioner Zines recommend for the delete.

So if anyone is in favor of that recommendation, please raise your hand.

Go ahead.

This is just gonna make a comment.

If we are going to task staff with defining for good cause and fleshing that out a little bit, um, you know, we're not going to come to the conclusion on this slide at this meeting.

Um I would be fine to kind of punt the other portion of that, and if staff wants to put a line or two that reflects existing portions of our code or the law and put it into uh this section as well uh to further discourage homeowners from violating the law and demolishing property or uh self-arson, uh I'd be fine with that.

So that since this is going to come back to us, I'd be fine to wait and and read that all at once.

So is this going to come back to us?

He runs the schedule.

I mean, we don't have it slotted on the work session, but ultimately you're making a recommendation on the entire document.

So to the degree that it would be included in your recommendation memo.

Um that's the decision point that you need to make.

So so yes.

So maybe we agree on to let staff draft auditional language, then we can't make a decision in the next point.

Okay.

Well, can I ask staff something?

Uh do you guys have a clear way on this proposal in that have we answered the threshold question of whether or not there should even be a process to remove properties?

Have we answered that sufficiently?

You see what I'm asking?

I'm getting the sense of yes, but we can do a comes down to her back.

And I'm asking because I don't know that we have.

I don't know that we've made it clear to you whether or not this body recommends that there even be a process.

Does that point make sense?

I think we all are just assuming, but uh I I understand uh delisting is very controversial within the area.

Uh I I think it's better to have a process than to handle it uh you know as it comes, you know.

I I I would prefer this to just ignoring historic preservation.

No, I'm I'm with there being a process.

I just want to make sure we're the body.

So the yeah, I I agree.

I think there should be a process.

I hope it's rarely or never used, but you know, what you're describing, Ms.

Kerbis, where there are structures that have been not been here that it were torn down decades ago.

We should take those off the if the site if to uh Commissioner Zyas' point, if the site itself is not historic, then let's let's clean up the manual, the guide.

Yeah, it like are are people right now on these historic sites that no longer exist but something else exists on that historic site and it's still designated as historic.

Are they getting the tax credits for doing their exterior maintenance because their brand new house sits on a historic piece of property?

That's a great question.

I don't know that we've received I live in Chestnut Lodge.

I'm about to do that.

Yeah, but as you would know then, Commissioner Salhoudin, you are still subject to certificate of approvals to have exterior weight.

25% is 25%.

I would have to look into that.

I'm not completely sure.

I don't think we've seen it happen, but that doesn't mean it couldn't.

Right.

And another notch in the uh, you know, on the side of delisting.

Yeah, for me, I think by changing the zoning wordiness, we make it more difficult to list uh uh historic destination, then we don't want to make it more easier to delist.

So I I'm in support of having a process.

Coming from that.

And how about having uh at least four votes to delist or unanimous vote?

I'll go let's try and unanimous votes to the list first.

Is there are there the votes on the commission for that?

Just so you know, because I I think we're gonna have these questions throughout.

I'm opposed to unanimity every requiring it on an electron body.

So I'm just throwing that out there.

That's okay.

That's okay.

How about supermajority?

Four.

I think to make it consistent, we should have that language in there.

Well, then it should be unanimity if you want to make it consistent.

I'll go there.

If we're going okay.

So if we're going to say that there are two paths to have a designation occur.

And the other is the homeowner either is silent or the property owner is silent or they say no.

Then what would be the what would be the bookend to that for delisting?

Because it's a different well, invariably, I think a delisting comes from the property owner.

Well, it's coming from property owner or mayor and council the way it's written right now.

Right.

So it's well, I guess the mayor may council can be persuaded to make the application.

But it would never be contrary, I don't think, to a homeowner's wish.

A homeowner says keep me on the list.

Yeah.

Doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

True.

Well.

So do we need a vote on this right now?

I don't think we're we want to know what kind of majorities require it to de-list.

If you're gonna, Mr.

Rosslack, you're bringing this back to us.

Can we just I I need more time to think about that, honestly, Commissioner?

I read it through that lens.

Yeah, I agree.

I I think now by leasting we have three scenarios, right?

But maybe the listing we also need three scenarios.

So yeah, two.

So maybe we all need to think about it.

Yeah, to be clear, there's only two scenarios here, right?

No third party can uh elect or nominated delisting, right?

It's just mayor and council or the property owner.

So there's only there really only needs to be two.

So can we get back giving the time of this?

Can we bring back this topic and uh proceed the next one?

We can do that.

All right, demolition by neglect.

Oh sure, happy with the buttons here.

Demolition by neglect is our next set of changes to get feedback from you all on.

So anyone has opposition on this uh uh again.

I I think we need to reflect as uh Nick uh outlined some process whereby uh if the owner cannot afford the change, it's not demolition by neglect.

So I would take the other side of that.

If the owner uh the owner may not make the money, but they've got a balance sheet item here, right?

I mean they they own a piece of property.

If they can't afford to maintain that piece of property, the best course of action for them is to sell it to someone who can.

So commissioners just to and I don't want to um shorten your discussion on this, uh I will be recommending that we add some additional language on financial hardship only because I I do view it as as Commissioner Zion's does as a matter of of uh it's as a legal requirement under the land use article, although I completely understand Commissioner Sal Houdin's point.

Um so that language will be presented to the mayor and council.

Um it may not be worth a commission spending an enormous amount of time discussing this because I don't I don't know that we have a lot of flexibility on this point.

Um I I think the city currently would have probably implemented those requirements of state law in any case, but it does probably make sense to include that language given the restrictions that were under under state law.

Okay, so I think we are okay with uh staff making some additional language.

Okay, Len, we can move to the next topic.

Yes, evaluation of significance is our next topic.

So this would be saying that if we've done an evaluation of significance within the past five years, we don't need to do another, as well as allowing um a mechanism whereby staff could sign off on the evaluation of significance in some instances.

Any thoughts?

Opposition?

Okay, great.

Next one.

And now we have our grab bag, I believe.

Um yeah, with a couple other minor updates.

Any opposition to the minor updates?

I oppose to Ms.

Scurbs' assertion that 1977 is really old.

Point taken.

Okay, so I think we uh finished this topic.

Great.

Thank you very much.

We appreciate the feedback.

Thank you.

Now we can move to the next one.

Thank you, madam chair and members of the commission.

Um these this topic has to do with the comprehensive map amendment and specifically the uh two recommended map amendments that are in the comprehensive plan that have received a large number of public feedback.

So the first one is planning area 12, which is Tower Oaks, actually abutting, as you have heard, the New Mark Commons community.

The comprehensive plan recommends the rezoning of this property from R90 to RMD 25.

So that you haven't heard that from in the testimony, but that's actually the case and has been the case since 2021.

So I've been trying to find out in the process of the comp plan whether the community was involved at that point, because that would have been the point to really make the case that you're making now.

But uh here we are.

The comp plan uh was adopted by the mayor and council at that point for this zone, and it's our understanding that this RMD 25 was recommended not only to provide for additional housing opportunities, which is a major thrust of the comprehensive plan, but to respond to the site conditions that are on this property.

Uh as you've heard, um, there are a number of reasons why there is no development on this site, and uh some of them are easily overcome and some are not access uh existing features that are on the site that really cannot be developed.

So I think the thought was that if RMD 25 is implemented here, rather than implementing R90, which it currently is, uh, and I think most of our prior school sites were in the R90 or R60 zone historically.

If you implement RMD 25, that will provide for more cluster ability for residential units to be built on this site.

And you can cluster away from the environmental features, not unlike the Newmark Commons community itself, which was an early uh example of cluster development.

Uh, if it would if Newmark or other communities were built strictly at R90, that's when you get the clear cut.

Um, but fortunately um the recommendation here is to allow for uh clustering of residential development on this site.

The other piece of this is of course the access.

The property is owned by Tower Dawson, has been for a number of decades, tower being the uh developer of the Tower Oaks community, which is immediately to the south.

So it's our understanding, and based on the testimony that we receive from their representative, that they would anticipate accessing this property through their property and not through Don Mills Court.

Um there are existing uh agreements in place that would preclude access from Don Mills Court for a specific amount of time, and um that is still in effect.

Uh, it is our understanding.

So our recommendation is that um RMD 25 be implemented on this site as per recommended and adopted in the comprehensive plan.

Wanted to talk about a couple of other things uh as to why we're making that recommendation.

One of which is what does 25 units to the acre really look like or what does it mean?

Um it's not really high rise.

Uh some may communicate uh may call it that, but that's actually not the case.

Um there are some developments in the city that are approximating that density.

So we wanted to bring those forward to you to let you know kind of what the market is producing now at that density.

Um the King Buick project, uh now known as the Farmstead, uh adjacent to the historically designated King Farm uh farmstead site is at 18.18 dwelling units per acre.

It is a mix of townhouses and two over twos.

So it's not, and they did not take full advantage of the potential 75-foot height limit, which uh exists on that site.

Another project that you're familiar with is 5906 Halpine Road, the uh Twinbrook Baptist Church site.

Um that is entirely two over twos.

There are 36 units on that site, and that density comes out to about 24 units to the acre, and those are four-story buildings.

Potomac Woods, uh, another yet another variation in the MXCD zone that has a 75-foot height limit.

Um, that is uh townhouses and multifamily.

There are three condo buildings associated with that.

It's a much larger site.

Um just wanted to um kind of illustrate what 25 units to the acre could look like.

So again, our our recommendation is the RMD 25.

Uh there is an alternate that perhaps the development standards associated with RMD 25 could be modified uh in a number of ways to address some of the concerns that we've heard.

So maybe there's potentially a way to limit access in certain circumstances that would respond to this particular the circumstances on this property.

Also, there may be a way to adjust the setbacks and the relationship among buildings to limit and address the concerns that the neighbors have expressed should development occur on this site.

So that is our recommendation for this site.

That uh when there's a comprehensive plan recommendation for a change in zone, that that recommendation is either implemented or is not implemented, and there's really not a lot of middle ground.

Not to say that there is some legal reason why that couldn't occur.

It just hasn't been our practice or our precedent uh in the city.

And with that, uh I will stop there and we can talk about the the planning area 10 uh after you've discussed planning area 12.

Thank you, Mr.

Wathlech now.

Uh that's open for discussion.

Yeah, coming from Puma.

Mr.

Oslack, I actually had in my notes from earlier to just get real clear on the law on this.

And so is it can't so it's not either or legally, it's either or from process and practice and precedent.

Right.

I mean, it really comes down to the, in my view, the integrity of the comprehensive plan.

And if if we say, well, no, you don't have to, you know, the mayor council doesn't have to make this zoning change, then what's to say that they don't have to make any of the other zoning change?

And it starts to erode you know the the extensive public process that that occurred as part of the comprehensive plan.

Okay, understood.

Thank you.

Any thoughts?

I'm not shy, if you uh please.

Um, I I did walk this site.

I've never been into Newmark Commons before.

I've lived in Rockville since uh 89 over by Frost uh middle school.

This is the first time I went in.

Interesting site.

Access is a real problem here to put that many units that far from Falls Road.

You have the uh a light that might be needed.

I don't know about capacity.

It's a very nice road, no friction with with um driveways, nobody fronts on the street, there's no parking on the street.

Uh so it's a nice 25-foot road, I think like that.

Be that as it may, it shouldn't be accessed for new develop major new development on this site, in my opinion.

So I would recommend being consistent with the master plan and recommending R25.

However, on vacant sites that uh require the access of a pre-existing secondary residential street, the density be limited to 10 units to the acre consistent with R10.

And staff can draft that if there's the votes for it.

Any thoughts on the comic and design recommendation?

Or other one thoughts?

Not specifically on that, but I do want to ask elaborate a little bit more on access, not just to the site, but also we heard in testament, or perhaps I heard in testimony, um, concerns that uh vehicle access roads could connect directly to roads within Newmar Commons.

And I guess can you one just generally elaborate?

Are the roads in Newmark Commons privately owned or maintained by Newmark?

Are they city streets?

No.

Um they are city streets?

Those are public streets within Newmark.

Okay, well, then you've elaborated, I guess, enough.

I was under the assumption some of them were private.

Are that commissions?

Can you expand a little bit on this agreement that exists between Tower Oaks and um Newmark Commons to not use existing roads to access this site?

Like if if they can't use those roads by way of agreement, when does that agreement expire?

Is that like binding?

Like that is that fact that if this ever gets uh if if this ever gets developed, uh will it necessarily not use Don Mills Court?

A couple of things.

Um we met with uh some residents of Don Mills Court who were concerned and are parties to the agreement with the property owner of this property, Tower Dawson, and uh that agreement extends uh during the time period that the original signers of the agreement, which I believe occurred in 1985 or thereabouts, and uh as long as those residents are are in residence on Don Mills Court plus five years, then no development or access through from Don Mills Court can occur to that property.

So uh we have copies of that agreement.

Um so that is uh in place between the among those parties and commissioners, just as a recommendation on that point, um, while it's certainly relevant uh that there might be an agreement out there, uh I would just advise the commission to make its decision and recommendation as if the agreement didn't occur.

In other words, uh you know, as a matter of planning and public policy, we should really operate in the under the assumption that it is our law and our our master plan that that governs the development of the site.

Um, because you know, again, the city's not a party to the agreement and and it's not it's not necessarily something that we should rely on to assume that there wouldn't be access, for example, from Don Mills court, um, even if that may actually be the case.

Thanks for that clarification.

That's exactly what I was getting at.

So I I like that.

Um you did mention earlier, Mr.

Wazlike, that um you know that you you staff believes that the rezoning to RMD25 um actually did consider uh or maybe uh the the intention was to utilize that zoning in order to encourage clustering um when the when and if it ever gets developed.

Is there anything that can be done or some alternative zoning that can be offered that might require that clustering rather than just encourage you said you know it hasn't been you know developed for a number of reasons, some of which are easily surmountable and some of which are not so easily surmountable.

Um but i is there a way for us to encourage the type of uh development that you know the that that staff is envisioning rather than you know require it rather than just encourage it.

Well, I think if you do um the zoning change that's recommended, that will in large part require the development if you leave it with um the R90 zone, then there may be some potential for clustering away from the the sensitive environmental features that are on the site.

Um but um you wouldn't be achieving kind of the additional housing that's kind of envisioned uh for this property.

It will be single family detached homes and nothing greater and just because this gets zoned to RMD25, just like your um examples showed, doesn't mean that in fact it'll be developed 25 units per property uh per acre, right?

That's that's an accurate statement.

Um there's nothing that when and if this does get developed, there's nothing that would prevent a developer to put single family homes there.

And there's nothing that has prevented that for the past 25 years that they've owned this piece of property, right?

Other than the private agreements, probably so, and you know, all of the other kind of environmental considerations that are on this site, and including of the access.

So thanks for that clarification.

Commissioner Sure, I just have uh a couple of questions of staff.

So the comprehensive master plan was adopted in August 2021.

From that point to today, right, which January 14th, has there been any um material changes to the lot we're talking about?

Not to our knowledge.

That's that's so my kind of view of the world is the comprehensive master plan, a lot of work went into it, right?

Previous mayor and council pass it, two sitting council members are there now who are there when the comprehensive master plan was passed.

One member of this body was here when the comprehensive master plan was passed.

The recommendation is very clear in the comprehensive master plan.

The comprehensive master plan says that all recommendations should be adopted as quickly as possible.

So I'm trying to see why this body would want to set a precedent that we don't follow the comprehensive master plan.

Commissioner Puma.

Since we're referring to the comprehensive master plan, Mr.

Rosslack, can you very briefly, and I don't mean to put you on the spot, but could you very briefly summarize the design guidelines that are in the comprehensive master plan or the guidance for this property that's in the comprehensive master plan?

And is it going to be Tower Oaks facing?

Or is it would it be Newmark Commons facing?

And I'm sorry, probably like part F of that.

I'm sorry I'm throwing this big word salad at you about the comprehensive master plan.

But the modifications that you mentioned, is that in any way contrary to what you would find in the CMP?

Are there other modifications?

Is there a precedent for saying, well, the CMP says this it should be RMD 25, and we're gonna take this one and we're gonna are and we're gonna do RMD 25 like the comprehensive master plan says, but we're gonna make some modifications to it.

Is that typical?

I think it's probably more typical than establishing a different zone that's recommended in the comp plan.

Um I think the community is correct.

There are other policies that address uh compatibility with existing neighborhoods.

And I think if you read the comp plan in that totality, I think there's the ability to um address all of that.

Um if you look at perhaps the design standards or the development standards for the RMD25 to render it compatible in this situation.

Yeah, commissioner.

The the thing about it is if you require access from Tower Oaks to get the density, it will be oriented toward Tower Oaks if if they want to develop that high.

That's why I left the zoning.

I would leave the zoning in place if the access is from the south and not from the north at all.

And it eliminates not all, I'll say there's some varietal concerns, there's a lot of other concerns that have been addressed in public testing mode, but it does address the pedestrian safety, the the school um uh uh bus capacity, the increase in traffic on Newmore Commons.

It it cures all of that, leaves the density and sort of mandates that you cannot go through Don Mill court.

Um I have this thought.

So I I think the comprehensive plan I printed out here.

Yeah, so it says the the the site can be only developed at the EV is a compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

So I think about you know, for our new um zoning recommendation, the density we want to um tailored towards Robbie Pike and Town Center, and that this is uh even a tall multifamily building is not really compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and it it is just a tall building, it's done your law.

And so I I think I I agree with uh Commission design's recommendation.

If we can keep it within the R RMFRMD 25, but with some uh adjusting language to keep it lower density.

So in that way, we keep the recommendation from the comprehensive plan, and then we also accommodate the residence voice.

Just to be clear, I wasn't recommending a lower density, only a lower density if they want to use Don Mill Court as the access point.

If they use Don Mill Court and people have to go through New York Commons, I suggest a maximum of 10 units to the acre.

If they go the other way, if they access from and only from, really Tower Oaks and UP, uh then they could be 25 units to the acres.

With regard to compatibility, there are a lot of impediments to developing right near Don Mills Court.

There's a storm water management uh, well, there's a storm drain that goes right into a stream, an active stream.

The stream has a stream buffer.

If you go toward the single family toward the east, it's steep slopes.

So there's a lot of reasons you would be away from those houses anyhow.

The entire site slopes down from Newmark Commons, not up.

It's not going to be predominant.

It would do more to uh hide the height than to accentuate it.

And I trust staff on compatibility and us when we get a site plan.

So I think that's a point that hasn't been brought up really yet, and that is anything that does get developed on this land would still be subject to a site plan and review and public testimony and public hearings in this body on any specific development that ever happens, right?

So assuming that development wouldn't be compatible is not really a good assumption.

You'll know, right?

I mean, you'll know exactly what the development is, and you'll get a chance to you know to have your voice heard on any development that happens there because that's the process that we have in the city, anyways.

Commissioner Flutter.

Any thoughts?

Yeah, I like this conversation, and I think I like generally where it's heading.

Um Commissioner Zions, I I like your idea and your thoughts in your proposal.

I would ask staff how we could word something so that maybe we could have more of a guarantee about the access, but I am I'm in favor of maintaining the integrity of the comprehensive plan, and I believe there are enough kind of mechanisms in place moving forward that we've ensure the character of uh the surrounding community and also identifying that it's two distinct planning areas of butting up against each other.

And I think we we have enough of those uh to Commissioner Sal Houdine's point in place checkpoints along the way when and if something comes in front of this body and also the mayor and council commenters uh comments are not asked about enough though.

You you have further points?

No, nothing else to add other than the one I did at the beginning.

Thank you.

Can we get a straw vote on my general proposal?

Because it's got to be wordsmith to again to make sure uh it's really clear on access uh to bigger road.

Can I ask staff before we spend a lot of time going back and forth on words?

You've heard our general discussion.

What are your thoughts on on what we're talking about?

No, I think it's a viable approach uh to this uh issue, and I think that's something that we can develop for your uh for your review.

Okay, so we agree that in the general direction uh no, let's have a stroll vote on the general direction commission at Zions give, and we kind of see let's uh see the revised language in the next time.

Do we agree on this direction?

Yes, agree, yes?

Yes, yes.

Okay.

Sounds good.

Thank you.

And we kind of move to the next.

All right.

The next uh proposed rezoning is within planning area 10, which is the Montrose and North Farm Planning Area, and you've heard uh some testimony from the uh prop subject property owner this evening.

Uh the original proposal was again from the comprehensive plan, although different than the situation with Tower Oaks and Newmar Commons.

The recommendation in the plan was that a new zone be developed.

Uh so there was not a specific zone that would accomplish the land use recommendation for this site that's in the comprehensive plan.

City does not have a residential high density zone, which was the recommendation here.

So the the original proposed rezoning uh coming out of the comprehensive plan was to rezone the property in its entirety that would include all the apartment properties as well as the um private community center that serves them, and also rezone the strip along East Jefferson Street to the MX CT zone, which is the quarter trans commercial transition zone uh that um also fronts on the east side of East Jefferson Street.

So our original proposal um as a result of that and meetings that we had with the residential community is was to uh develop an RHD zone, residential high density that had a max density of 50 units to the acre, uh, that actually doubled the density from the RMD 25 zone.

And uh we did put some things in place that would limit the height uh where those properties were adjacent to the single family neighborhood.

Um we did receive some testimony from the owners of this property, and uh gave us some good feedback that even though the density may be doubled, that wasn't enough to uh effectuate the comprehensive plan recommendation, which is to increase the residential on this site.

So uh we went back and kind of reconsidered uh another way to accomplish that.

And so our recommendation for this property now and for the RHD zone uh is to have a maximum density of 100 units to the acre uh with a maximum height of 150 feet.

Um I note that uh one thing has changed since the original staff consideration of this area, and that is that properties to the east of East Jefferson Street are now recommended to be rezoned uh to the TC uh MXTD.

Going way back, MXTD 200 zone by the mayor and council.

So you have a height of 200 feet on basically on Congressional Plaza and adjacent properties.

You have a kind of transition zone along East Jefferson Street, and then you have the residential high density, which uh if there was no increase in height from what existed really doesn't get at the residential high density recommendation in the plan.

So uh based on property owners' feedback and our kind of reconsideration, uh, we came up with this recommendation that the RHD zone have a max height of 150 feet and a density of 100 feet.

In particular for this rezoning, uh, we're also recommending that the community center property, which is uh kind of on the left side of this view uh in the R75 zone, which is the zone that the single family detached neighborhood is zoned, be retained uh at the R 75.

Uh in some of your testimony, you've heard that the property owners uh made a significant investment uh in what was their private pool and made it a more comprehensive community center.

And the community also has testified that they are appreciative of that and of that amenity, and so that kind of takes the potential for that to be eliminated off the table and uh eliminates the concern of residents on Martha Terrace, who potentially would be seeing high density uh across the street from them.

Uh similarly, along uh the block of Rollins Avenue, where this property abuts Rollins with the single family homes on the south, uh, we would recommend that that be retained in the RMD 25 so that there would be a max height of 75 feet uh as it currently exists, even though the structures that exist now don't hit that height, uh but it would not uh increase the potential height.

The uh testimony that we've heard from the property owner um would prefer to see kind of a strip of the RMD 25, if I understand it correctly, along Rollins Avenue, and then maintain the 75 foot height further into the site, but rezone it to the uh the new RHD zone.

Our proposal kind of anticipated that Halpine Road would be extended uh to the west across East Jefferson Street through this property, starting the kind of the grid that redevelopment would occur around.

But um potentially there's some some merit to the testimony that we've heard uh in that I guess the greatest thing would be that it would maintain the height of the existing zone.

So that is our recommendation uh for this property.

Be happy to answer questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Wethlack, and please tell me from the rest of some discussion.

Me again, first day.

Um I was unclear whether you were going to split zone the property on the southmost side.

Did you want to retain the heights outside of the R RMD 25 zone or leave it or RMD 25?

Our initial recommendation was to leave leave it RMD 25 as we've in the gray area that's shown along Rollins Avenue in this view.

And so the 75 foot height would apply there.

And then the zone boundary would be that extension of Halpine, although that does not exist on any on any plan uh of any sort at this time.

So perhaps the property owners recommendation that there be a fixed distance, which the uh RMD 25 would apply would kind of solve that issue.

Uh so you you'll adjust the line to do a fixed distance instead of your new proposed street.

Yes.

That's if the commission uh finds that acceptable, that's uh that's one solution to respond to the testimony that you've heard.

So to be clear, that is in fact the staff proposal, the fixed the fixed uh distance.

The staff proposal was the extension of of Halpine.

We've since received the test we've all received the testimony uh from the property owner.

I don't see any necessarily see any concerns about that uh on its face.

So can you clarify the the the owner's recommendation you have it on a map, right?

Can we just bring that up real quick?

Yeah, yeah, I think was the slide just before this, maybe to be clear.

I think that that makes sense.

I think it makes sense to have a fixed distance rather than following the uh you know the the line of a street that doesn't exist and may never exist if I may um so I hear the thoughts about the fixed distance.

Um and that could correspond to essentially what we're seeing on the screen in front of us as the alternate proposal that staff has developed, which I would say took into consideration an initial meeting that we had with the um the property owners and their representation that identified Halpine as something that they thought would be appropriate to extend and north of that have the increased density.

We also think that this responds um clearly to community members' concerns, um, and as you heard in testimony this evening, this is something that the community is in favor of.

So if we are to consider a fixed distance from Rollins Avenue, I'm sure that that would be perfectly appropriate.

Um, but the applicant is proposing or requesting, and we actually do not have this in our PowerPoint.

Um, but they are requesting for that line instead of being essentially 400 feet distance from Rollins Avenue, which apparently is um approximately what you're seeing in front of you.

I cannot verify that.

I have not measured it.

They would like for it to be instead 200 feet if I'm remembering their testimony um correctly, and that is something that you also heard from the representative from the um Montrose Community Association that that was news to them and they found it concerning.

So I think those are things um things to consider.

This is the alternate proposal that staff came up with.

I do see there's a little a little quirk in the line.

Um, and if the desire is to smooth that out and make it based on a fixed distance from Rollins Avenue, I'm sure I'm sure that would be fine.

And again, we're only talking about that portion that abuts Rollins Avenue, right?

That the portion on the left of the map that uh covers the community center, that's off the table now, right?

That that's settled.

That is our recommendation, and the um the property owner agrees as well.

Gotcha.

So just to clarify, the property owner recommended to reduce that green zone approximately by half.

You so the property owner's suggestion is increase the purple zone by half of that distance.

Yes, but also limit the height so that the the height that's recommended for the purple zone, which is the 150 feet, uh, would not apply in that area that's in the purple zone.

It would still be limited to the 75 feet for a distance of 400 feet from Rollins Avenue, is my understanding.

So what's the major difference between this tool?

Sounds like well, I think the biggest thing is that the density they could count the density that would apply to all the areas that are zoned RHD.

Um, but the height would be limited in that small portion of the RHD that's in the southern end.

So they would actually get be able to get more yield because of that.

I think it's tough for us to make a recommendation or uh take a vote or anything on this because uh this seems like it's still up the air, right?

And we don't we don't have a map of anything, we don't have a you know kind of a fully baked proposal here that maybe takes into account this most recent piece of information, right?

Well, this is a zoning map, so the zoning map shows the zones of the property.

So you're not gonna get a fully baked development proposal.

That's not what this is.

This is just a ch uh putting the zoning in place so that uh a different type of development could occur on the site.

Okay, so our options are that to recommend this proposal, right?

Which shows uh a border drawn along a hypothetical extension to help on road or not or there could be some other proposal in theory, but that's what's we've made our recommendation, and the and the property owner has uh responded to it with their recommendation.

Or there could be some other proposal in theory, but that's what's we've made our recommendation, and the and the property owner has uh responded to it with their recommendation.

Is there the ability to speak to clarify?

Mr.

Westlet, please.

Yeah, can we reopen the public testimony?

I think it's up to the commission.

Anyone on post?

Okay, then then we can do that, please, and uh come upstate your name and dress.

Thank you.

Pat Harris with Lurch Rally on behalf of the owners, I really appreciate it.

We had submitted a letter on January 12th that included an exhibit C that did present an image and it I have to clarify the question.

So staff is correct that it will what we're proposing is to move the line 200 feet further to the south, but nonetheless maintain the height limitation for the remainder of the 200 feet, and all that would do is generate the density that the additional density that would be generated by moving the line 200 feet south would then be able to be further distributed further to the north of the site.

I think the most important thing to emphasize is that the height of 75 feet is the same under either proposal, and I think that's the most sensitive issue as it relates to the adjacent property owners.

Um I would also say that we were encouraged by the testimony of the Montrose Civic Association, and we'd be happy to discuss with them and have a discussion with them in the next week or two, and then you tabled this specific issue until the the 28th, if you don't want to make a decision now.

Thank you for your testimony.

I'm I'm sorry, this this may be atypical, but I actually have a question for Ms.

Harris if that's appropriate.

Yes, please.

What is the additional density that would be generated off of those 200 feet?

That's a good question, and it's about 150 units.

Um, and one of the things we set forth in our letter is by agreeing to not rezone the civic community center.

That that was about 265 units.

So we're still, you know, that was one of the reasons to say, look, can we have a little flexibility in that 200 foot strip so that we could try to recoup a little bit of the density that is otherwise lost by agreeing as a community wanted to retain the community center.

So I have a question.

So like why the owner proposed this proposal right before the committee meeting, but without informing the community.

It sounds like it's a surprise to them.

You mean our sort of modification?

We weren't a hundred percent clear on what the proposal was going to be until the staff report was published on Friday, last Friday.

And so there would, and also actually, we didn't even know the contact person.

You may have noticed that the property owner actually gave the con the community a card to say, hey, let's have a discussion.

So it it was not, it was only because we didn't have a the timing of us finding out what the staff's alternative proposal was, and second of all, there were there had never been any communication previously.

But you know, our we're always open in communication.

I mean, that's why I suggested maybe delay a decision for two weeks so that we can in fact have a discussion with them and see if if they agree to what we're saying.

Thank you.

Uh so you you have finished any other questions toward the but again the what the other I think um Ms.

Simmons' point was important that all it does by moving the line a little bit further south is allow for approximately 150 additional units.

They those units given the height limit wouldn't be located in that that 200 foot area.

All it means is that it could potentially be allocated further north on the property.

All right, thank you.

Uh Commission North, any thoughts on this?

I think let them bring them back with the community's consent in two weeks.

I think the more controversial aspect is the uh 200 foot height limit that they want to you don't want 200 feet, no change in height.

Oh no, no change in height, and I think the community, again, the community was accepting of the alternative proposal that staff set forth.

What the community said is they they weren't aware of our recommendation to move the line a little 200 feet south.

The zoning line 200 feet south.

No change in the height proposal that staff is.

As long as staff can draft something that limits the height this way.

We actually propose language.

I think it's pretty easy.

The language is within 200 feet of the RMD 25 zone.

The heights limited to 75 feet.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other thoughts on this?

Okay.

I'm gonna say that I agree with an approach that if you can have a conversation with the community and come back in two weeks, I agree with that.

Yeah, I agree with that too.

Also agree.

Okay.

So we are said on this topic.

If I could just add a caveat there in the event that the community can't make the community connection in the next two weeks or the next week, because you have to have a brief book done for your meeting in two weeks.

That if we can have it the ability to come back at a subsequent work session, whatever that might be.

Yes.

I think we've already blown a hole in your timeline.

Mr.

Ross.

Let's just face that fact.

Right now.

Fair point.

Sorry.

Okay, we can move to the next.

So that concludes the um discussion on potential rezonings.

Now we'd like to move into a discussion on parking.

And we're pleased to have uh a member of our consultant team present this evening to um want to talk about parking 250 or no amendments to the the RMD 25 zone.

There is, but I think um in light of everything, let's bring that all back to you as a as a package.

Okay.

Comments on your your suggestion on the prior discussion is always right.

That zone, but I I would have comments on the side yard changes.

Okay.

Okay, please proceed.

Thank you, madam chair.

Uh the next discussion area is uh pedestrian is that right?

Okay.

Pedestrian and bicycle facilities division.

And Ms.

Simmons is going to uh kick us off with that discussion.

Thank you, Mr.

Wazlack, and good evening, Madam Chair and members of the commission.

Um so we will spend, I think it's three slides going over our new pedestrian and bicycle facilities division.

This is something that a member of the commission identified a desire to discuss a bit, just understanding that we do currently have pedestrian and bicycle requirements, but they are as you heard with the historic preservation requirements kind of dispersed throughout the code.

So we have in an effort to create a little bit more clarity and transparency and accessibility, consolidated them all into one area within the staff draft of the zoning ordinance.

And as Mr.

Wazlack mentioned, we do have with us a member of our consultant team, Michael Stein.

So he is going to be sitting here for the pedestrian and bicycle facilities division and jumping in to cover a couple of things in our next topic: the parking and loading um requirements.

So we do have just a small number of key changes when it comes to pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

The first um is kind of kind of a biggie, it's a significant one.

We are proposing to require bicycle parking for both principal and accessory uses.

We currently do require both short-term and long-term bicycle parking.

However, our zoning ordinance is very clear that you are only to calculate those requirements for the principal use on the site.

So if you have an accessory use that might generate, for example, vehicular parking requirements, there are no parking bicycle parking requirements generated for those accessory uses.

So we thought that is something to be corrected, even if there are accessory uses, um, they should have they should generate bicycle parking requirements as well.

We are also proposing to update and right size our minimum bicycle parking requirements for individual uses, similar to what you will hear in what you've heard previously with our vehicular parking requirements.

There is a table of bicycle parking requirements as I noted short-term, long-term, and it goes through our whole use table and identifies ratios for those um uses.

So we did ask our consultants to look at all of those requirements, and they went through and did a comprehensive review to update them for current best practices.

We also in the staff draft clarify our bicycle parking location requirements.

If you go and look at our bicycle parking location requirements in the current ordinance, you certainly will find them.

They take up probably the most the most real estate when it comes to bicycle parking requirements outside of those actual minimum parking ratios.

And we did not think that that made a whole lot of sense.

Currently, we divide them up based on many different development types.

If you have one main building entrance, if you have a building with two main building entrances, if you have a site with multiple buildings that have multiple entrances, if you have a campus, which I'm not sure how that's completely different, but if you have a campus setting, you have a different requirement.

And then we have um we have some graphics, which could be useful in our current ordinance, but it looks like someone kind of copied them on a ZeroCanner and pasted them into the ordinance.

So we did look at um a number of different zoning ordinances for examples of how to make those requirements clearer and more user-friendly and really um simplified them down to you need to have your bicycle parking within a certain distance of any main building entrance.

It's pretty pretty cut and dry and really simplifies and clarifies those requirements.

We are also adding new design standards for our short-term bicycle parking.

This includes that racks need to have two points of support for any bicycle.

They need to made out of certain materials securely attached to the ground.

Currently, we do have some of those requirements outlined in what I understand to be a quite outdated bicycle parking guideline.

Um, and we did a review of those and moved them into the zoning ordinance.

We are also proposing to ensure flexibility by allowing applicants to seek waivers from requirements.

We understand that sometimes there are extenuating circumstances or atypical situations, and in those circumstances, there should be a form of relief.

One thing to note, and you will not see this in the staff draft of the zoning ordinance through recent zoning inspections that we have started up again after a number of years of hiatus.

We recognize that some of our long-term bicycle parking requirements need to be adjusted and enhanced.

So that is something that we are going to be looking at.

For example, you should not be able to have your long-term bicycle parking down a set of stairs because no nobody's going to use it.

So it should either be accessible via an elevator or it should be located on the main floor.

Um, so things like that, we are going to take a good look at those.

And if we do propose any changes there, um, we do want to bring those back to you just for an update.

We have also, and this is this is the second slide in um in this section, and the last one.

We've also, as you can see, um, really worked particularly with our consultant team.

They generated a number of much more user-friendly graphics for the ordinance, including in this area.

We have identified some things that need a little bit of refining.

If you'll note in that bottom left-hand one, which frankly is one of my favorite in the staff draft of the zoning ordinance, where you can see that there's a requirement to allow the frame of the bicycle and one or both wheels to be locked with a ULOC.

We've got the bicycle, we've got the ULOC, we've got the rack, and it's only locked to the frame.

So we should, we should fix that so that it is actually conforming to our requirements.

There are some things like that that just weren't quite caught.

Um, but we are reviewing those and making sure that they actually do 100% reflect what the requirements are.

But I did want to give a shout out for um quite good uh work and um much more user-friendly graphics that we did receive in collaboration with our consultant team.

So with that, I will hand it back over to you all for any discussion.

Thank you for the presentation and any discussions, thoughts, commissioner footing that topic.

I was the commissioner who asked that that we brief this, so um I can you know.

Thank you.

First of all, um I think this codifying it all into a single section that makes so much sense.

Um it was easy for me to digest.

I hope it was easy for my fellow commissioners to digest, and I've shared it with some folks as well.

I I don't have any real pressing questions or concerns.

Um, I did read through it, and I understand um Ms.

Simmons and Mr.

Wazlik, you'll be joining the pedestrian advocacy committee next month.

We also be joining the bicycle advisory committee to review this section with them at some point.

Yes, we have meetings with the Transportation and Mobility Commission end of this month, and then both RBAC and RPAC next month.

Okay, awesome.

Yeah, because I uh I I shared the the section with the pedestrian advocacy committee uh in advance, uh, noting a couple of things, particularly the way the the section leads off with um you know clarifying sort of access pathways from sidewalks through parking lots to the main entrances of buildings is something I know that I personally and also the committee, the advocacy committee has been uh really big on.

So just big thumbs up, thank you.

I really enjoyed the section.

I like the graphics too, uh, but just having it all in in one place is great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And other fellows comment on Peterman?

Um I wanted to ask about the waivers.

Um, one of the biggest parts of our conversation around parking was parking waivers, and that that leads to can lead to a level of ambiguity.

Like we gave it, we gave a waiver for this, why not this, that kind of thing.

So how is this different?

And are we now?

I think the the one of the conversations we had with Mr.

G May was that waivers can sometimes put us in legal jeopardy.

Well, bicycle is kind of new territory here.

How is this different?

And in under what circumstances would we give a waiver?

And if we if that's something that needs to be fleshed out and policy after the regulation is written, that's fine, but that is what's on my mind when I read this.

And I agree with Commissioner Fulton.

I think it's very nice to have it all in one place.

Looks great.

Um, I'm glad there'll be more bicycle parking.

I actually had one instance where I rode my bike to Town Square and did not have a place to lock my bike.

I locked it to a sign.

And I'm glad I didn't get a ticket.

Just to provide a little bit of detail briefly on the waivers, you will find those.

Um, that's section section 25835.

Um, and it says that where an applicant desires a waiver of such requirements, and it covers the full um subsection that deals with pedestrian requirements and bicycle requirements.

So it is quite broad.

An applicant must be submitting, must must submit to the an application must be submitted to the approving authority with a statement of reasons for such request and such information as may reasonably be required by the approving authority, and then the approving authority must make some findings.

They may grant a waiver of such requirement.

If it finds that the alternative alternative design ensures adequate bicycle and pedestrian facilities are provided in a safe and efficient manner.

So I will defer to Mr.

Dumay regarding any um legal legal implications there, but that is the language that we currently have.

Um just to follow up on that, I think uh, if I'm remembering correctly, the concern about waivers was really a concern about open entirely open-ended waivers.

So if there are no findings or criteria that are to be applied in the application of a waiver, that's where there can be some legal concern because it invites just kind of complete arbitrary discretion on the part of the approving authority.

Um so as Ms.

Simmons noted here, we do have a waiver.

There is there would have to be a finding, an affirmative finding made that there's an alternative design that is providing safe and efficient um facilities.

Um certainly it's up to the commission to determine if they'd like to see that waiver bolstered in some way or if they think that I mean you you're the ones who really apply these types of things.

So if you find that there's there should be additional criteria there, you know, that's that's entirely within your purview to recommend.

Please I was just gonna say thank you for that.

Any other thoughts?

Okay, so do we have a consensus on recommending this chapter?

Yes.

Okay, that sounds good.

Then let's uh move on.

That's easy short but successful one.

Excellent.

Next up is parking and loading.

So we heard um from a number of commissioners that we did want to talk about parking and loading, specifically parking minimums and the kind of subset of the parking minimums discussion, any by-right adjustments, as well as the parking maximum.

So we will talk through our key changes related to parking minimums first.

Um at the end of the slide, I am going to hand it over to Mr.

Stein.

He will talk about the work that the consultant team did to kind of analyze our minimum parking requirements and then come up with their proposals for right sizing them.

And he will also lead into a discussion about parking maximums and then hand it back to me for the things that don't relate directly to minimums and maximums.

So when it comes to the parking minimums, the first key change is, as I'm sure you all are well aware, and as was recommended in the town center master plan and relatively consistent with the rest of the county, is eliminating parking minimum parking requirements within a half mile of metro and a quarter mile of bus rapid transit.

I know we discussed this back in August, I believe.

So I'll just rest on it for a moment there, but that is that is incorporated within the draft.

We're also more broadly proposing to update minimum requirements, including how and when the minimum requirements apply.

So you will see a specific applicability section within that parking minimum section.

It provides a bit of flexibility in instances where there is a moderate or minimal increase in gross floor area or where there's a change of use and no gross floor, no change in the gross floor area.

So it allows a little bit of flexibility there in interpreting how and when those minimum requirements apply.

It also, as you all noted and wanted to discuss, introduces by right adjustments, specifically for EV charging spaces, spaces associated with MPDU apartments, bicycle commuter facilities, and pickup drop-off spaces.

Specifically, any EV parking space is counted as two spaces, up to 10% of the parking spaces.

MPDU apartments, their parking requirements are able to be decreased by 50% when parking is provided in a common area.

And we were specific, we actually had quite a number of discussions about how to make that equitable for MPDU townhouses when they have dedicated spaces and they end up having fewer parking spaces than the non-MPDU townhouses in the same development.

So we really homed in on that common area as being the key factor.

It also introduces an adjustment of a decrease by 10% when additional bicycle parking facilities are provided in enclosed secure area and when shower and dressing areas are provided.

And then it would count pick up drop-off spaces as each one located near an entrance as two spaces.

We are also proposing through the staff draft to add a new process for requesting parking reductions.

We discussed this a bit back again in August, but if you'll recall, reduction up to 10% would be a de minimis reduction approved by the approving authority.

And any reduction over 10%, you could still seek as an applicant, but at that time you would have to furnish a parking demand analysis.

And we are also proposing that that would be approved by the approving authority.

So generally we have done that.

I think this is kind of an asterisk.

We have done that throughout the ordinance that any time relief is being sought, it really, unless it is something that specifically goes to a separate body, if it's something like this, a waiver, an alternative compliance modification, something of that nature, it would be approved as part of the parent application by the approving authority.

So sometimes with our parking reductions currently, you will see a one-off parking reduction where the rest of the application is an administrative decision, but our zoning ordinance says that parking reduction needs to come to the planning commission.

So you would no longer see those.

If it's an administrative decision, it would be approved by the chief of zoning through that administrative process.

You would still see the ones that were subject to an application that is approved by the planning commission.

We looked at a number of different examples and ultimately landed on Montgomery County's quite elegant solution of just deferring to the Urban Land Institute.

What is it?

Oh, their shared parking model.

So this is something it is a national national model for shared parking.

They update it regularly.

We did speak with folks at Montgomery County.

They said it's not difficult to implement.

We spoke with applicants who had used it recently on projects, and they said it was very user-friendly as well.

So we also proposed in that same bullet point to remove parking deferrals.

This is something that we currently do have.

The language in the section, we we we quickly identified that if we were to retain the portion of the zoning ordinance that would allow you to defer your required parking to some later date, the language was going to need a lot of cleanup.

There were a lot of issues with how exactly those deferrals worked.

And when we worked through all of these other things, the right sizing, the minimum parking requirements, the applicability of those minimum parking requirements, various by-right adjustments, easier process and more streamlined process for requesting reduction.

We said, you know what, this is very underutilized right now, and we really don't anticipate it's going to be well utilized in the future.

So that is something that we cut entirely from that staff draft.

Final bullet point, and I will hand it over to Mr.

Stein is uh right sizing our minimum parking requirements.

Hello, good evening.

Uh thank you for having me.

In our review of uh minimum parking requirements, we had two goals.

First was to allow the minimum parking calculation to be taken at the entitlement stage rather than when the use is established.

By this, I mean uh in the existing code, a daycare is regulated for parking by the number of children served, whereas in the staff draft, the number of parking spaces is regulated by the gross floor area.

This is something that can be easily determined during a site through a site plan.

Um the ease of use during a site plan makes it easier for the code to administer and also leads to more reliable and predictable development outcomes.

Our next step was to actually right size parking minimums by reducing the number of parking spaces required for each use.

Uh the process we uh undertook to do this was by reviewing what pure communities that had recently uh reduced their parking minimums required for parking for each use.

We looked at communities across the country.

Uh for example, we looked at Sacina, Michigan, Chesterfield County, Virginia, as well as Fairfax County, Virginia.

Um, that's a sample of use of uh communities we looked at more, and that allowed us to create a range of parking minimums that we could then use to place uh the new staff draft parking minimums within.

Um the benefits of reduced parking minimums include more land for development, improved stormwater management, and uh reduced dependency on cars.

Next slide, please.

Uh we also proposed instituting parking maximums or parking maximums are currently instituted in the COVID.

We proposed expanding parking maximums.

Um as you see in the table, parking maximums are currently uh required in the MX TD and MX CD, and those parking maximums are set at 100% of the parking minimum, effectively mandating a specific number of parking spaces for a given use.

The staff draft zoning ordinance uh expands parking maximums to all MX zones, all I zones, as well as the RMD 10, RMD 15, RMD 25, and RHD uh district.

And it also loosens the maximum to 125% of the minimum, creating a buffer from the minimum to the maximum, uh, allowing for more flexible development opportunities.

We developed the yes, we developed the 125% number in a similar manner as how we developed the minimum parking number, and that is by looking at other communities.

We were more local in this search, looking at really communities in the DMV.

We, as you will see, our proposal is most similar to Prince George's County.

Um, we opted not to follow the guidance in Montgomery County as we found that their parking section as a whole was more complicated than the intent of this project, and we preferred the simplicity of Prince George's County.

And if you look at the range of requirements in the table above, you'll see that we are proposing something in the middle of the minimum and the maximum of uh parking maximum requirements.

Parking maximums are useful because developers often come in with their own calculations for parking spaces, and those calculations might not be the same as a parking minimum requirement in the code.

So by instituting a parking maximum, uh the city can better ensure that developers meet the intent of reducing parking uh minimum citywide.

Yeah, back to Holly for the rest of the updates.

Thank you, Michael.

Um, so to close out before we get to see some some pretty pictures again.

Our additional changes in this section were to reintroduce compact parking spaces.

This is something that we did have in the zoning ordinance prior prior to the 2009 update.

Um, and they were they were removed in 2009, but we thought it would be useful to bring them back in as an option again for flexibility.

These spaces have um signage requirements and slightly reduced dimensional requirements, and they would be capped at 20% of the overall parking on site.

This is again something where we we made a determination.

We looked at a number of different ordinances that had different caps for the percentage of compact parking spaces on a site.

Some had 10, some had 50.

So we thought 2020 was a good place for us to rest, particularly understanding that we were going from having no flexibility in this area currently.

We're also proposing to introduce new minimum requirements for pickup and drop-off or poodo spaces and commercial loading spaces.

I'll talk to the PUDOs first.

This is something that was identified as a strong area of concern and need by our Department of Public Works.

Particularly with the increase in ride share and delivery services.

There are a lot of pickup drop-off uses.

They need short-term spaces, 15 minutes maximum, some locations cap it at five minutes maximum, spaces that are near the entrance to accommodate these types of services.

So we actually did quite a lot of research into this as well.

And it turns out that there is no consistent way that folks are dealing with it.

Some jurisdictions deal with PUDO entirely in the right of way.

Very few deal with it entirely on site.

Some places are a mixture between the two.

There are a lot of larger cities that are dealing with this through much more complex curbside management strategies than really seem feasible to introduce in the city.

So we came up with through the collaboration of the Department of Public Works, our Department of Housing and Community Development, and CPDS staff.

We workshopped a number of different alternatives and ultimately landed at a proposal that would have two requirements or have two different sets of requirements determined based on whether there is either no minimum parking provided, no minimum parking on site or parking that has been a parking requirement that has been reduced by greater than 50%.

Those developments, assuming they had 20 or more apartment units, would be required to provide one PUDO space per 75 units or fraction thereof with a maximum of six PUDO spaces.

This is slightly higher than developments that are providing more regular parking on site.

So in all other instances when there is a parking requirement and it's being met at 50 50.01% or greater than they would be required to have one PUDO space per 100 units or fraction thereof with a maximum of five spaces.

So that is a wholly new requirement in the zoning ordinance.

This is something that was identified as a need both by CPDS staff and DPW staff.

Currently we do have loading space requirements, but they are rather squishy and a lot of conversation, as I understand it can happen during the development review process between the developer and staff because we really don't have anything that's quite cut and dry to make it clear what the requirement is.

So we did introduce a table that outlines for different commercial uses what the loading space requirement would be based on the gross floor area of the proposed development.

We also clarified our existing requirements for stacking spaces.

These are in the ordinance, they are buried in the parking ratios.

I think we call them reservoir spaces now.

They're currently called reservoir spaces, which I did have to ask Mr.

Mr.

Wazilak, what is this?

What are we talking about here?

So we moved them out of the parking table into their own section within the parking and loading division.

And again, as with the parking parking minimum requirements, the bicycle parking minimum requirements, we also looked at those to make sure they were a bit more consistent with modern best practices.

We also introduced new standards for electric vehicle spaces and electric vehicle supply equipment.

You may recall, you may be aware that with the update to the building code a year or two back, electric vehicle space requirements were added into those requirements.

So these really complement the requirements that are in the building code.

A quirk, a quirk of the relationship between the building code and the zoning ordinance is that the quantitative requirements for electric vehicle spaces, those are located in the building code, and we did not move them out.

We're also introducing new requirements for pedestrian visibility where sidewalks intersect driveways.

I think arguably this could have been placed into the pedestrian and bicycle facilities division, but we did conceptualize it as kind of a like a sister requirement to another one that requires a safety zone in parking spaces, and I'll show you in just a moment the graphic that corresponds with both of those requirements.

But this was something that we did here in our stakeholder interviews way back in the fall of 2024.

There were a number of folks who brought this up as a concern.

And finally, we are we introduced provisions that would allow solar canopies over parking spaces.

Um really creating a regulatory framework for understanding how and when you can put solar canopies over parking spaces.

How can they encroach into parking spaces?

Where can they be located?

Um how do they intersect with our landscaping requirements, particularly within parking surface parking lots, et cetera.

So last slide in this section, you will see the top left hand um graphic is our loading space graphic.

I'm delighted by this graphic.

This is also one of my favorite in the ordinance because we really didn't change these more qualitative requirements for loading spaces.

But I will be honest with you, I couldn't make heads or tails of them until I saw the first iteration of this graphic.

Um so I think that one is is quite exciting.

And then you'll see over on the right hand side our safety zones graphic.

So it deals with um that requirement that opaque fences fences, dense vegetation and structures greater than three and a half feet tall would not be permitted within that kind of hatched um quarter circle area there when it where the driveway intersects a sidewalk.

That is the new requirement.

The one that is not new is at the driveway into a parking facility from a public right-of-way, a minimum safety zone of 10 feet must be provided behind the right-of-way line.

So that is that orange area there, and that really keeps those parking spaces themselves outside of that area.

So this also was one that required um a bit of coordination with our Department of Public Works to really understand okay, how do we represent this visually?

Um, because the language on its on its own is not 100% clear.

With that, I will hand it back over to you all for any um questions or discussion.

Thank you for the presentation.

And before we proceed, I just want to ask me to me or Mr.

West Lag about the time limit of our commission meeting.

Do we uh are we allowed to finish the agenda or your rules of procedure say that meetings should um and by 10 o'clock, but the commission can always extend that, so it's entirely up to you.

Okay, commissioners.

And also, I'm sorry, just to provide another clarification on that.

So the only requirement that you actually take an action to go beyond that is if is if you're planning on taking up a new item after 10 p.m., which you're you're not planning to do in this case, um, except for your regular agenda items.

And I don't think that necessarily requires a vote.

Um so just to throw that out there.

So you mean like since we're not introduced a new agenda, we can still continue?

Yes, this is the same agenda item since since obviously the meeting began at seven o'clock.

So you can go as long as you'd like um on this.

Commissioner is the first time.

So Mr.

Dumay, just to throw that out there.

I just want to Madam Chair, if we want to pull the commissioners, because in case one of those other agenda items, right, that are regularly commissioned might lead to a new agenda item.

We should probably pull anybody who might be raising something that could lead to that.

Does that point make sense?

Uh yes, I think it does.

Um, for agenda purposes, though, it probably would be easier to complete this item before you take on another one.

Right.

Um, no, fair enough.

Sure.

Fair enough.

So if we complete this one, we take an additional item that we like to talk in the subsequential meeting, is that allowed.

If the additional items that you're bringing up are within the scope of the work session on the zoning text amendment and comprehensive map amendment, then yes, you can continue to bring up new items.

I think the issue would be if you had a site plan review after this, for example, you would need to take a vote at that point to take up that item.

Otherwise, it would have to be postponed until the next agenda.

Okay, so it sounds like we don't have a problem.

Continue the agenda.

So, commissioners, do we have a no problem with this section?

Yeah, I think that's just we can finish.

I agree.

I agree, but I don't want to let this section pass without again kudos.

Um, I was particularly impressed with the work on the uh the Puto spaces.

I think that's really forward looking.

Um I just want to make sure that we're not glossing over it in the interest of time.

Um yeah, I'm I'm real happy with these changes.

And just one real quick question on the new parking minimum table for Mr.

Stein, I think it is.

Um you gave a great um background on how you got to that.

Is there ever any effort to do like just a real life quality check of facilities around the city to see how they're being used when you're um making and incorporating these tables?

There was not in the development of these standards.

Um that's something that we could look into if that's of interest to the uh commission.

I know that these come from best practices.

I'm just always curious about when things get put into uh into reality, and it seems like we do have an opportunity to uh to kind of do a gut check just by visiting some parking lots at different times of the day.

But um that was my only thought on that.

Not necessarily a direction.

Any other thoughts?

Yeah, I just want to clarify.

So you have uh you've eminated the the method of determining the parking based on population or the daycare, and so now you've fully um determined by the SWAR footage and by use.

That is the method.

To clarify, it yes, it is by use, um, but it's not always by square footage.

So in the case of daycares, it is by gross floor area.

In the case of dwelling units, it's usually by the number of dwelling units.

In the case of um assisted living facilities, it would be by the number of beds within the facility.

Uh daycare facilities were just an example that came to mind.

Okay, that makes sense.

Yeah.

Any other thoughts on this topic?

All right, so we have a consensus to recommend in this section, both bike facility and parking.

Okay.

That sounds good.

So without further ado, we can continue the next agenda, the amenity space, please.

Excellent.

So, as you said, next up, amenity space.

So, this is one that we also addressed, I think back in October, if you will recall.

Um, so just as uh I suppose a recap, our current zoning ordinance deals with some some semblance of amenity space by um requiring two separate things open area and in some certain circumstances what we call public use space, which is typically a subset of that open area and which is required to be publicly accessible.

Currently, both of these things are defined quite broadly.

And um, if if I am to understand the concerns of some of our reviewers and other staff, the public use space and open area that we get on the site is really not what we are desired, desiring.

It is not high quality.

Maybe there's uh a significant quantity of it.

Um, but the spaces really are not necessarily amenitized.

They're very frequently areas that are not something that even can really be utilized.

So our broad proposal is to transition from that um broadly defined public use space, an open area to a more constrained, tightly defined amenity space.

So with this, uh we would require the amenity space for residential and mixed-use projects in many different zones, the mixed-use zones, residential, medium density zones, and the new proposed residential high density zone, except in certain circumstances.

And those you see on the slide before you, the exceptions include developments that consist of five or fewer dwelling units.

Developments that are a non-residential use with a gross floor area of 20,000 square feet or less developments on a site of one acre or less in the MXTD 235, MXTD 200, and MXTD 85, or two 20,000 square feet in any other zone.

Those special exceptions for the MXTD zones that we have developed are really to recognize that those zones are intended to be the most high density transit-oriented zones where space is really more at a premium.

So there is a bit more flexibility for them.

An exception when the development is a 100% affordable residential development located within a quarter mile of a public park or publicly accessible amenity space.

This again is something that was developed in conversation with our Department of Housing and Community Development colleagues and our wreck and park colleagues.

We did have quite a lot of conversation around what would make sense as an exception here, what would be equitable, what would be responsive to the context that developments are located within.

I will note that currently our public use space provisions exempt all affordable housing projects and all housing for senior adults and persons with disabilities.

Those are two exceptions that we did not propose to continue because we thought they were they were too broad and they were not equitable enough.

So we also in the draft established certain design and configuration requirements for this amenity space, including continuing to require that the space be publicly accessible except in certain circumstances.

So those circumstances that we have carved out are when the project is located in one of the MXTD zones, then up to 50% of the requirement could be located in an area that is not publicly accessible.

For example, on a rooftop in some shared amenity area interior to a building, things of that nature that again allow a little bit more flexibility, understanding that land values are higher, and we do want denser development.

We also have accepted out the development where the development is predominantly office uses, and in those instances, the amenity area could be available only to employees.

We did not think that it would need to be publicly accessible.

And then if you are proposing a swimming pool with your development, we did think that that should count as amenity space, but you should not have to make it a public swimming facility, and that it could be accessible just to the residents of the development.

Another one of the design and configuration requirements is that in most instances, and again, we do have certain certain areas where we've carved out things where this wouldn't apply, but in most areas the amenity space would be required to be contiguous.

As I said previously, allowing flexibility in the MXTD for 50% of the required amenity space to be accessible only to residents of the development, such as on a rooftop.

And then finally, we did allow some flexibility again for this amenity space requirement to be met through dedication of land to the city, VNL, or alternative compliance.

And I will note if you look at that section, it is pulled directly from our public use space requirements right now, and you will see that because it still says public use space in there.

So that is something also that we will be cleaning up.

And I'll turn oh actually one more slide, more pretty pictures.

So we do have examples of amenity spaces.

This is something also that was developed in coordination with our consultant team, but we did think it would be helpful to even further clarify the types of things that we are really looking for when we're looking for amenity space.

And with that, I will hand it back over to you all.

Thank you.

And commissioners, any thoughts.

I just have one, and that's uh about the exception for 100% affordable housing.

Thank you for disallowing the other two that are currently in the plan.

But what why would we do that?

Why would we allow affordable housing to forgo amenity space?

What's what's the difference?

It's a great question, and something frankly, our Department of Housing and Community Development folks could speak to more eloquently than I could.

My understanding is that the concern really is around the financial feasibility of these projects.

It's incredibly expensive to develop a 100% affordable housing development and then to take even more of the land and carve it out and say, no, this town needs to be amenity space.

We didn't think it would be appropriate to say if you have a 100% affordable development, then you never have to meet this requirement.

But we did think that allowing for those developments to provide to not provide amenity space if they are within a very short walkable distance of a facility that the residents can use that that would strike a nice balance.

And in so many cases throughout this process, we really were weighing competing goods.

Our comprehensive plan identifies so many lofty values and really good policy goals.

And a lot of the times you're having to look for the middle ground.

And I think this was one of those areas.

I understand that.

We we had a project that we approved.

It's been quite a while, and it was for affordable housing, had a vital grocery store on the front of it.

I don't know where we are with that.

We've approved it quite some time ago.

But that one of the big sticking points were there were two big sticking points with that development.

And one was they didn't really want to provide much.

And the other was they didn't want to put in the lights, uh, the street lights for safety.

They thought the lights that are left on at night at the grocery store would be adequate safety lighting for people walking from the bus stop or from the metro to their apartment.

And what emerged during the those conversations was that they actually had grants for a lot of those things.

And we ended up passing giving them a pass on some stuff that we shouldn't have, in my opinion, um, especially safety and lighting and things like that.

Um, all for the sake of getting affordable housing.

So I understand the middle ground and I understand that sometimes we have to make um exceptions, but I I just I I think we're really getting into an equity issue, and I think we're really getting into allowing things, allowing developers to get away with things that they actually can't afford because there is money out there for those.

Maybe not, well, maybe not right now.

There isn't money out there for things like that.

But there could be.

And so I I just uh I just wanted to put that out there that we've seen this before, and I'm not sure we should give developers a pass.

They're gonna make money, right?

They're gonna make they're gonna get do a partnership like this developer did where they're bringing in the light old grocery store and some other things like that.

So just something to think about.

I don't know that it needs to, I mean, I think you guys have cleaned it up so well already, but just to put that out there.

Thank you.

Commissioner Tony.

Just some other things to think about.

The the amenity space requirement is a flat 10%.

Doesn't vary with the density, yet it's much more expensive for the less dense place to put in the amenities than than for more dense.

Did you consider having some variability on the amount of space?

Most of these things I can remember off the top of my head, and that one I I will tell you knowing the process that we went through, I am certain that we did consider other alternatives.

I am not recalling what they are.

Um, Mr.

Wazlack or Mr.

Dumay, do you all recall through our many conversations?

I think one of the things was to simplify the requirement.

We have public use space requirements now, and they vary by all the different zones that we have.

So I think you know, maybe we went too far on data consistently across the board.

But um, that was one of the things that I recall.

I mean, I guess I'm okay because I'm late to the process, but uh just an interesting way to do it.

Any other thoughts, Commissioner?

So I just want to echo on the Commissioner Piedman's uh point.

Like, so do we know if a developer has the luxury of having the grant?

Is that easy to get I would if this is something that's of particular interest to the commission, and I if I'm speaking out of turn, I absolutely defer to um Mr.

Wazlack, but I almost would say it would be useful to hear directly from our Department of Housing and Community Development colleagues.

Again, I'm kind of speaking second hand here.

So they would be much more informed than I would be.

Do we think that that's an appropriate?

I I'm suggesting perhaps that if this is a very if this is a very um like specific point where you want more information, I'm sure that we could coordinate that to bring back to you.

Commissioner Pittman?

Yeah, okay.

Then uh I I would like to uh maybe bring this back and give us more information.

And besides this point, any other points we want to discuss where we uh agree on amenities?

Yeah.

Okay, then then that's good.

Then let's bring that one item.

So I think we finished the agenda uh of the work session for today.

And so now maybe we we can open to the additional items, the commissioner wanted this cars in the subsequential meetings or today, and we can have some discussion and maybe on the agenda for the next meetings as well.

Since we're bringing back historic preservation for a couple of areas for further discussion, I um I would like to talk about what kind of flexibility is there in the historic designation um section for encouraging continuing to be designated or to have your home designated.

Um using it for non-single family home purposes.

For instance, can we talk about allowing small multifamily in an existing historic structure that has the square footage to accommodate it as a way to help the property owner pay for maintenance of that historic structure?

So not only would there be income, but there would might also be a tax credit or some sort of tax incentive to make your home into a small multifamily.

I I know and I know I'm sure everybody sitting in this room right now knows that most large historic homes were once apartments or boarding houses or some such, and that it was not until the 1960s when we started redlining things and making um our neighborhoods over into uh single family only zones.

Um, but we did have more diversity in housing in historic areas.

So could we have be flexible in this uh while we're working on it?

Could we add some flexibility to it?

And I don't I don't want to have too you know, I'd love to hear y'all's thoughts on this.

Commissioner you have thoughts on this suggestion?

I think Commissioner Pittman just made this a five-hour meeting.

Well, I am asking that we bring it back.

I'm asking that next meeting is five hours, not this one.

Is this a record?

Long meeting.

Uh I think I don't know.

I think during the CMP we went pretty late.

Yeah.

We've done we've done late before.

Okay.

No, no, I'd be open.

I'd be open to that discussion at a future meeting.

Yeah, absolutely.

Actually, the when you were talking it out, it reminds me of some of the homes in the hometown I grew up in, and now I'm all wistful.

So yeah, I like that idea.

Yeah, I mean support.

Yeah, I'm I'd be surprised.

I'd love to know if there's already something that exists because you know you see those houses right on West Montgomery Avenue that are clearly um old.

I don't know that they're historic, but they got the little plaques of the front door, and um and they're they're multifamily, you know, they they got apartment zone.

Uh so uh I I have a suspicion that maybe it already exists, but um maybe not in this thing.

Okay, there are some there are some existing properties that are nonconforming uses that uh at some point the city did allow the larger homes to be subdivided into apartments, and then some of them were continuing.

So we've kind of come full circle.

My initial reaction is that the RMD infill zone that we have.

Um this is the type of use that would fit very well into that zone.

Yeah, if we have something that we can leverage already that included in the historic district overlay, that'd be fantastic.

I'd like, but I'd like us to talk about it and not make probably not tonight.

Yeah, uh if I can raise some general topics, um one is I think uh I I'd like the uh commission to direct staff to edit the entire document to go toward pain plain English.

That is making it more concise, precise, and decisive.

Now I can go into the 20 aspects of that, but if there's a general understanding of what that would entail, it's it's a very big job.

It could mean 800 to a thousand changes to the existing code.

There are that many references that I can spot.

Uh but I think it's worth doing to make it more user-friendly.

So if I can get the agreement with the commissioners to direct staff to do that, I won't have to go through all the detail of it.

If I might jump in, I don't mean to preclude discussion here, but I did we we did intend to say in this meeting, and um we are remiss for overlooking it, but we are currently doing the work of um Mr.

Zion's did provide to us a red line of the zoning ordinance, and we are taking that um and responding to it very seriously with edits to the staff draft of the zoning ordinance currently.

So it's a point well taken, particularly in areas where we pulled a lot of language from the existing zoning ordinance.

There's certainly um great opportunity for additional clarity in those sections.

So that is work that we are currently undertaking.

So everybody okay with that?

Yeah, is everybody okay?

I am fine with that.

If there are any I'm assuming there's no substantive changes that, yeah, just we're just talking about the language choice.

Yes, the goal very much so is to keep um keep the policy exactly the same, not change the meaning of any of the language, but make it clearer.

I I could give you an example if you wanted it, but we don't have to go through the other thing is I have sort of uh things beyond um uh beyond plain English that aren't substantive changes that that I think we should do.

One is to make the digital map the official zoning map.

I mean, that's just uh a matter of consumer convenience, and it avoids all of the problems with maps on the edge of a property.

You know, a property could be split on four maps because it's pretty arbitrary on how that square comes down.

You do a digital map, it's there.

You can make it uh uh uh protected from uh hacking as well.

I think it's just a good thing to do.

Montgomery County is done, it Prince George's County is done.

Any problem?

So, one request I would have is I I don't know how long staff has had the recommendations your proposals do for some.

Oh, they've had them.

Okay, I just want to ensure that they've been able to, you know, put it through their processes internally.

That way they could give any feedback to us as we consider them.

I I just don't know the timing.

They can object if or if they have something to object to.

Well, I'll I'll just say that.

I I just got these today, right?

And so I I would like some time maybe to look at these and figure out if there's I mean, like some of these I'm looking at here, some of them are differences, but I don't see any distinction, right?

And I don't see any reason why we'd change a three-word phrase into a five-word phrase and calls that call that simpler or more efficient, right?

So all of these things I'm not sure that I'm I'm necessarily in agreement with, uh, but some of them I might be, right?

But I just haven't had a chance to look at them.

Um, and uh, you know, and there I'm not an expert on any of this stuff, and I know you used to do this for a living, I've never done this for a living, but you know, like things like keeping the digital map, right?

Anything connected to the internet or accessible to the internet is by definition not uh safe from hacking, right?

I mean it it it can be hacked.

Everyone at some point will likely experience something.

Right.

So then why would then be but why would then the hackable version be the one that is the official and not the hard copy that is not changeable.

If they detect interference, they go back to the last hard copy.

Yeah.

But I mean we're doing that on the county.

Right.

It doesn't necessarily mean that's a great idea.

Um and so I thought it was great.

So again, uh the you know, we're we're we're just seeing these today, so if we're gonna make these changes, um, you know, the the ones I suppose that the staff thinks are the right thing to do, then you know, we'll I guess we'll get another version we'll be able to see.

Um, but I I'm definitely not prepared to say, yeah, I'm I'm I'm with this.

I I definitely want this to happen.

I think one thing um with all deference to Mr.

Zions, we have taken the feedback that the language can be clearer.

It certainly can.

Um, and he put what I imagine is an extensive amount of effort into that markup, which we really appreciate.

Um, but to your point, Commissioner Salahuddin, we also do not agree with every single edit.

So the work that we I think we've taken the feedback of like this language needs to be reconsidered, and we are taking that feedback seriously, and we are going back through the draft and ensuring to the greatest extent possible.

And Mr.

Dumay could speak to this much more because he is boots on the ground doing this um day by day since he received Mr.

Zion's markup.

Ensuring that places where things were inaccurate, cross-references were wrong, those those are going to be corrected.

If there are other issues with things being incorrect that have been noted in there, those are certainly going to change.

But the goal really is retaining the meaning of the language that we currently have.

Certainly not just going through and accepting all edits and doing a critical the critical work of trying to ensure that it fits within the framework of what we've been trying to do with this ordinance all along.

So it is not as easy as just hitting review and accept.

That's, I think, so far from what I've seen, quite thoughtful to ensure that we are retaining the meaning, but getting to a better, what we really do think will be a better draft.

It's hard work.

You have to really understand the structure of the sentence and what it's trying to say.

And you know, just putting it with uh the subject of a sentence first and then the verb takes a lot.

And sometimes that doesn't make sense either.

All rules are there to be broken.

Um, you know, when you have a list of zones in these zones, then this happens.

It makes sense to have the in these zones is the first phrase, not the the council shall do X.

So the other thing that we go on is is trying to uh I I was trying to make the you the whole thing more user-friendly by not giving them projects to undertake.

Um there's a phrase in there that says um all definitions uh between this and the building permit code take the most restrictive definition between the two.

Well, we should know which definitions are in common, which definitions are more restrictive, and put the more restrictive definitions in this code if that's what you want.

But we just don't leave it to a research project to uh somebody who's reading this code.

So, Commissioners, if I if I may, and um, and I've known I've known Commissioner Zionce for about 13 years, and um he has been an extremely prominent um uh you know member of the Montgomery County land use community in all that time.

So my deference for him also is is is pretty extreme.

Candidly, that the example that Commissioner Zion gave you is maybe an example that I I have to think about a little bit, but I wouldn't necessarily agree with.

Um of the things that my job is in drafting this document is not only to make it accessible to the public, but also to make it legally defensible.

The example that Commissioner Zions gave, for example, sounds like a like a perfect example, right?

If we're dealing with two different code provisions and we're talking about a more restrictive provision, it should be a fairly simple process to determine where the most restrictive definition is.

The fact of the matter is, though, our building code adopts wholesale probably seven, eight different international building codes and and associated development codes that are not within the body of our document.

So that would lead you to then question well, whose job should it be to figure out who the where where the most restrictive definition lies?

And although I would love for us to be able to do that process, there are just going to be instances where we have to rely on other code provisions without necessarily being able to identify them in our in our code because ultimately it's incumbent on our development community to know the legal requirements that they that they're obligated to to adhere to.

So it's a long way of saying, although that might be an instance where we can go through the exercise and go through the many hundreds of pages of international building codes that the city has adopted, go through their definitions and try to figure out what we can add to our zoning ordinance.

There are going to be instances where I personally and city staff does disagree with Commissioner Zionce.

Umfortunately, based on our time constraints, we're just not in a position where we can with this commission go line by line through this document.

Um so if this commission does have particular feelings about about elements of plain language drafting that it feels very strongly about, a phrase that it doesn't like, or a way it prefers sentences to be to be structured, by all means the commission should comment on that.

Um but to what Ms.

Simmons had said, you know, the work that Commissioner Zions has done is enormously helpful in essentially getting a second set of eyes on the clarity of many of the provisions of our code, and we are looking line by line through his through his edits to determine kind of where we think we can make improvements.

Those improvements won't always match what Commissioner Zions had had put in the in the ordinance.

It's all okay.

And I know right, and we've talked about it.

All rules remain uh are to be broken, you know.

I uh I'd like more specificity on what law references there are.

Um, but I know that's difficult as well, and sometimes it might not work, but where you can you do it.

You know, you just you you go in the direction of clarity.

Right, and to that point, we assume that the commission would be in favor of essentially additional quality quality control and and and edits for clarity.

Um, and and so we are proactively engaging that process because it it's frankly going to take us a number of weeks to complete that process.

So I thought here that so the commission on science had this uh a theory of recommendation and staff already started to added the the version based on that.

So do we have uh agreement on the staff taking the suggestions and making uh uh a round of quality control?

Yeah, I would say I I trust in staff to find the right balance between plain language and um covering our legal books.

Um I think the plain language scrub is great.

Um I would say that the non-policy substantive changes, that these are things that um from a very learned place and I'm sure are absolutely worth looking at, but because they are substantive changes, my concern is that um, as Commissioner Saladin said, we just are seeing these from our fellow commissioner, and they've not been seen by the public.

So how do we manage that?

Like I'm not quibbling over the quality of these suggestions at all, but this does raise um that question, I think.

What?

Oh, I'm sorry, Jim.

Did you want to it kind of raises the issue of red line draft?

And I think I've said previously, and I'll reiterate that it's not our intention to provide a red line draft for the commission to act on.

Uh we just don't have the ability or the time to do it.

We have a very fixed schedule, uh, to my understanding, and we need to stay on it.

Um so we were, I think expecting that you would provide us the direction that to take another look at the draft, as Mr.

Zion's has, and um make the clear the clean language changes that are appropriate, realizing that there are other substantive changes that need to be made, and it that's kind of where we expect this body to come in and make those changes.

So if you can, we can add Commissioner Zion's um changes as part of the public record if we think that's appropriate.

But um by and large, uh this is we are reacting to more to the overall direction and not necessarily to each the specific change that's being recommended.

And we still look to you to go through all of this the substance and make recommend those changes as well.

So I guess my question is do yes, uh we need to go through these, but do we need to come back and address these directly?

How should we manage this that these were submitted to the staff and to us today, you know, in their substantive change?

Like how I are should we should we discuss all these?

I mean, I guess I what's the public process for this?

Well, I think you can include it, as I said, you can include it in the public record and give us the direction based on that if you're comfortable with it, and we'll proceed uh on that direction.

So should we should we discuss these?

Maybe not tonight, but should we I um some of them are very straightforward?

Should you have a definition of subordinate?

Uh you know, that's the same.

I think it's I think it's 10 30 at night.

And this is a lot to get through.

I mean, this is even if they're simple, there's seven with a couple of sub-items in here.

Uh and I personally don't have the reference material that's came from, which I'd need to go look at as well.

This is a an undertaking, so I'm not in favor of discussing it tonight.

Okay at all.

No, no, I I was not proposing we discuss it tonight.

I'm just do we need to discuss like legally, do we need to discuss this?

How's what's the public process for that?

And I think actually that's an excellent question for Commissioner Pittman.

Um this goes back to that point I was making earlier about the um the edits that Commissioner Zion suggested to the demolition by neglect provision.

Um that's a change that because I believe it is legally preferable.

That will that will be presented to the mayor and council regardless of the commission's position on on the issue, which is why it may not be worth spending time on it.

The commission is not under any legal obligation to provide comments on every change within the ordinance or every element of the ordin uh of the proposed ordinance.

Um, and that's a long way of saying you you you could also just take no position on this issue.

We have one commissioner who clearly favors it.

Staff is proactively in essentially engaging in the effort that we would engage in if you told us to do it.

We're already doing it.

Um, and so you know I I it's entirely up to the commission.

The commission is under no legal obligation to decide whether we should have a definition of subordinate, for example.

And I think it probably isn't the best use of the commission's very limited time.

Because we are doing it.

That's the thing.

Commissioner Zion's work is good enough that we've decided we think we need to do some additional quality control anyway.

Um, but it is up to the commission, you know, what you decide to do.

Okay, that was my only question.

The editorial changes, fantastic.

Knock yourselves out.

It was these substantive changes.

I didn't know if we were legally required to enter them in the public record and discuss them.

I apologize.

Okay.

Um if if the document has been shared among the entire commission, um, it is part of the record.

Okay.

So that's that's it's kind of a de facto thing.

Whether you discuss it, same points I just made apply to this as well.

You are you're not obligated to take a position on every every issue that is raised.

Um the individual commissioners can, but the body has full discretion to say, you know what, we just don't have a position on this issue.

How about Commissioner Futa and uh Commissioner Ponosa?

Have any opinion on this?

Just brief review of the substantive changes.

Uh I know you're using the word substantive.

I don't know if any of the changes would actually cause anyone to reject the you see where I'm going with this, right?

I don't know that they're substantive in that they're altering the ordinance.

They're not exposed to policy changes at all.

Right, right.

So I guess where I'm going with this, I trust staff to reconcile where there's differences and to follow state and you know law.

And so uh generally this body has been supportive of other commissioners' wordsmithing and changes, and so where staff can't because there's other uh precedent that prohibits them from doing it or their best judgment isn't in line with uh the city's historic uh policy in these matters, and just kind of defer to staff, right?

Like that's kind of my view.

Yeah, I'm fine with that.

If we're if uh if everyone's fine with that, um that's works with works for me.

Okay.

So I'm fine with that.

I would just ask uh Commissioner Zions would uh you provided hard copies here tonight.

Could you also uh just email a digital copy to the planning commission emails so we have that as a record too?

Thank you.

I have to mic please.

Sorry, wherever you are.

Um I have to mail it to Jim.

I don't know how to get to everybody myself, so I'll do that.

No, and you have it already.

Yeah, emailing it to Jim is always the preferable option, and then Jim will ensure that it's distributed to everybody.

I don't I don't know that we've seen the summary document yet, that's why I apologize.

I wasn't sure what the substance difference in the system is.

I think the summary document was then to meet.

And I forward to uh Jim.

So Jim should have that in my email.

True, right?

Yeah.

So then do we um do we have a confidence that's just trust the staff to have interpretation on the commission science recommendation?

It's fine.

I needed a way to get this out in public since I was doing the work and yeah, I agree with Commissioner Espinoza, and I I don't think any of these are substantive enough to really warrant a full discussion on all of them.

Okay.

Okay.

I'm good.

Any other additional topics that you want to see for the next meeting?

We agreed on we got that the flexibility and the historic district zone.

Did we finish that conversation?

I think we're all good on that.

Commissioner Zion, is that were you okay with that?

Okay, yeah.

Okay.

Um so I have some points.

Um, I look at the um the the terminologies used in in the zoning, there are a lot of like birth objective words.

For example, um in the page 67, it says um for the minor amendment.

So there is uh word using does not deviate substantially from the term, and there are some other places you're seeing substantial change.

So I I think there is should be a way to quantifying what is qualified as substantial.

So I have a couple examples I can email you, but that's just my general recommendation.

I feel like if it's up to the staff to determine what is substantial, then my least will be inequality issue.

Any thoughts on this?

Okay.

Yeah, for example, on page 69, there are like major relocation of public or private street.

What how to determine major, right?

Something like this.

So I I will send you the details.

And um another issue is for the variance required finding.

So I found all the uh finding listed is good.

And do shall we want to shall we add one that is the variance request is minimum necessary?

Uh just to clarify on that point, so the variance standards are kind of unusual in that they are set by state law.

There's case law that really establishes what variance findings are, and we just try to mirror that.

Okay, okay.

And then I have some other um miscellaneous small recommendations or thoughts.

So can I email you?

Yes, absolutely.

Okay.

And then so I guess for commissioners, also like if you have additional thoughts and topics you want to include, maybe uh minor changes or something, and we can always email Mr.

Westleg for this.

And so we talk about since there is a deadline for the draft, so we can set a deadline for before the next commission meeting, then we can give our thoughts and additional topics.

Ideally that would be before the we put out the brief book to you, so one week from today.

One week from today.

Yeah, but but you need it, you put out the brief book one week from today.

You really need it from us by like close the business Thursday, Friday.

Yeah.

Yes.

Yeah.

That's fair.

That's fair, Jen.

Just say that's what you need.

So that is close business this week or next week.

This week.

This week.

Tomorrow.

Okay.

Okay.

Friday.

That's true.

We are um, we think if we could get it by by next Tuesday, that would be fine.

We you wouldn't necessarily have that on your agenda for next time, but but we would have it for the following course session.

Right, that's true.

We still have one, two more or three more work sessions.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

All right, that's good.

So that concludes our agenda number two.

So let's move to our regular commission items.

Mr.

West, like, do we have a staff liaison report?

So my report is kind of looking forward to the next um meeting.

And uh we've kind of as I said earlier, we've kind of fleshed out where we think the topics should follow on the um on the uh work session calendar.

Sorry.

And I will say that um if there are going to be not too many more topics that you'd like us to discuss and bring information back to you, that's perfectly fine.

But the upshot of that is we're probably gonna have to add another meeting, as I mentioned earlier.

Um we think that perhaps February 4th uh might be the time for that meeting.

Um just kind of throwing that out there to suit our purposes and uh to to meet our schedule.

But uh, if that I think we can evaluate that once we you know get your topics uh that you'd like to discuss so Mr.

Westlack for February 4th, so that is uh uh additional commission meeting.

Yes, right.

So we have a regular February 11th meeting, right?

Okay, so is everybody okay with that potential meeting date?

You just need four.

You must need four.

Yeah, that's I can do that if we need to.

Yeah, I'm I'm free.

I can do it.

Okay, we can do it.

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate that.

So we may be uh kind of readjusting this calendar, but looking ahead to January 28th, which is your next meeting.

Uh we would anticipate bringing forward issues regarding fencing, including deer fencing, the um various aspects of use standards, including gross floor area, gross floor area restrictions, ADU standards, group home standards, front loaded townhouse standards, and uh other issues that the mayor and council has asked us to address, uh, including nonconformities.

One thing that is new is the Starter and Silver Homes Act of 2026.

It is something uh that we understand there is going to be state legislation that might preclude some of our uh standards in the zoning ordinance uh that might apply statewide.

So we want to get uh uh move forward on that and bring that to your um attention in case uh there's an opportunity for the city to weigh in uh as that least legislation moves through the session.

So um we'll have more information for you uh next time about that.

Thank you.

So do we have any old business?

Or uh hearing none.

Do we have any new business?

No, okay, and uh I think we have the minutes to approve.

Yes, the December 10th uh minutes were sent.

So commissioners, any comments for that minutes?

I did not have any.

I move to approve the minutes as provided to us.

Second, the meetings approved.

We still gotta vote.

Oh, they have to vote.

Sorry, sorry.

So okay.

So commissioners all in favor say aye.

I read your hand.

Okay, the meeting is approved.

And for the record, I abstained since I was not at that meeting.

I abstained since I wasn't on the commission.

All right.

So we have vote.

Yeah, okay.

Four votes in the case.

Okay, so the meeting is approved.

Okay, next agenda.

Do we have any um correspondence?

Only the correspondence you've been receiving as part of the ZOR and CMA.

Okay.

So that goes to our last agenda.

Do I have a motion to adjure?

Move to adjourn.

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

And the the meeting is adjured.

And I want to just say one last thing.

I want to thank uh Commissioner Espanosa for his leadership for last year's commissioner meeting since he was not here last meeting, so I want to say thank you for him.

I would like to um second that.

Commissioner Espinoza, you did a wonderful job as chair.

Very you did a you struck a nice balance between business and warmth and making people who come to speak to us feel very welcome.

I thought you did a wonderful job.