Good evening, Rockville.

Today is Wednesday, February 4th, 2026.

This is meeting number three-26 of the City of Rockville Planning Commission.

I am Mong Sun, Chair of the Planning Commission.

I'm joined in chamber by Commissioners Jeff Zines, Susan Pittman, Eric Foten, and Jamie Esponosa.

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

Tonight's agenda includes public hearing and working session number three on zoning tax amendment and comprehensive map amendment.

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

Does any commissioners have any thoughts before we proceed?

Hearing none, uh, let's proceed with our today's first agenda, which is public hearing and working work session on zoning tax amendment application TXT 2026-00271 for the zoning ordinance rewrite and the map amendment application, MAP 2026-00126 for the comprehensive map amendment.

Mayor and Council of Rockville are the applicants.

So Mr.

Wasleck, is there a staff presentation?

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the commission will give a brief introduction prior to the public hearing.

As you stated, this is the third in a series of public hearings and work sessions on the zoning ordinance rewrite and comprehensive map amendment process.

Tonight is also a public hearing prior to your work sessions.

I did want to note we would like to change the order of the topics for the work session and move the follow-up items for the rezonings for the Montrose and Newmark Commons areas and do those first since I think most of the speakers are present to uh to hear how that discussion goes.

And then we'll proceed with the um the order of the topics as it's shown on the screen.

So unless there are any questions, we'll transition into the public hearing.

Any questions?

Hearing none.

Before we start, so let me uh um let me talk about the rules of the time limits.

So if you intend to testify for any of the today's agenda items and has not signed in, please sign in on the sheets and at the back of the room.

And be and each individual will be allowed three minutes to provide comments on the application.

However, one representative of an organization, such as an HOA or community group will be allowed up to five minutes for a presentation.

There is a clock in front of you, and Mr.

Dumains will start the timer when you begin speaking.

At any time, clarification questions may be asked by members of the commission.

Please adhere to these time limits and they will be enforced by me.

And when you come forward, please state your name and address for the record.

With that, let's welcome our first speaker.

Madam Chair, the first speaker is Pat Reber, to be followed by Alex Bolita.

Welcome.

Good evening again.

Um my name is Pat Reber.

I live at 705 Newmark Esplanade, which partly and inside Newmark Commons, which partly surrounds the panel in question.

That's ZORID 17 in Area 12.

I also speak for neighboring Markwood.

Newmark Commons is recognized in the National Register of Historic Places for the pioneering mid-century approach by developer Edmund Bennett.

The parcel next to us also is historic as part of the footprint of the defunct Montgomery County Poor Farm and 200 years of unmarked human burials.

We appreciate efforts to accommodate our concerns.

What is being offered as a footnote, less density in exchange for more traffic through us is not acceptable.

We also note the difference between 10 units per acre suggested in the draft and RMD 10, which we ask be substituted for RMD 25 for the purpose of compatibility.

We insist that any development on this parcel be accessed from the landowner's southern panel.

It's disingenuous to suggest that we should be able to accept increased traffic because of an earlier expectation of vehicular use from what was once a school site.

Those plans were abandoned before anyone moved in to Moomark, Newmark.

As our Don Mills resident Mark Wetterhan notes in his written testimony, quote, no one has agreed to accept any level of noise or disruption by virtue of a government initiative that was abandoned at least 52 years ago.

End quote.

From 2015 to 2025, planning conversations that led to the RMD 25 designation did not include residents whose homes, traffic, safety, and quality of life would be most directly affected.

In 2011, Rockville had decided that direct notification was no longer needed if a change was part of a comprehensive plan effort to suggest that since the community offered no opposition for 10 years, RMD 25 must be accepted.

That is absurd.

Again, I'll let Mark Wetterhan speak.

It strains credulity that the city did not know that an entire segment of its constituency was not present for any of its deliberations.

We end with our puzzlement over the landowner's argument that denser taller building design will benefit the environment because the construction footprints would be smaller than for other homes.

We wonder where all the cars would be parked for 25 units per acre underground.

Thank you.

Thank you, Matt.

The next speaker is Alex Belita to be followed by Laurie Krug.

Good evening.

Again, I'm Alex Bolita.

I also live in Newmark Commons, which you've heard repeatedly is a nationally recognized historic property.

And I'm here again to address the same issue of Parcel Z O R I D 17 in Planning Area 12.

Let me first thank you and the staff for uh holding this additional hearing to respond to the December 1st call by the mayor and council to consider alternatives to the 9.7 acre parcel being rezoned, RMD 25.

Now we understand the staff has prepared a proposal designed to ease some of our concerns, and it would permit 10 unspecified units per acre if the sole access to the parcel was through Newmark Commons.

I'm afraid this is unacceptable to us, and probably not acceptable to Tower Dawson either, which is on record is planning to build 375 units on a 20-acre parcel that connects to this parcel.

They would surely want to connect the development there to this parcel.

So we would want to oppose any development with access through Newmark streets.

The increased traffic would endanger our children and overwhelm our amenities.

10 units per acre could mean hundreds of additional cars passing through.

And if the two Tower Oaks parcels are linked, this would inevitably become an alternate north-south thoroughfare.

And this would impact traffic on Potomac Valley Road and Maryland Avenue as well.

This isn't compatible with our neighborhood.

And compatibility is, of course, a keyword of the city's plan.

So here's a counter-proposal.

Rezone it specifically as RMD 10.

And allow the construction of only single unit detached homes, duplexes, and townhomes, no high rises, and only allow access from the south.

This, in my view, is a viable compromise that meets the city's desire for more housing, the property owners' desire to profitably develop the land, and our interest in preserving our community.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Next speaker is Laurie Krug, who is online to be followed by Mike Berman.

Can I get confirmation that you can hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Thank you.

My name is Laurie Krug, and I'm a resident at 322 Newmark Esplanade for the last three and a half years.

So rezoning has evidently been on the works for years, but people like myself who moved to Newmark recently had no idea about these plans.

Our community was not directly notified until a few months ago, and then hundreds of neighbors signed a petition against the rezoning of the parcel in Area 12.

I'm grateful that you're open to listening to our concerns tonight.

We are a nationally recognized historic neighborhood designed to embrace the topology of the land with our houses nestled within the trees.

We are a neighborhood of civil servants, teachers, artists, and retirees.

Our children bike and walk to school, their friends' houses, the playground, the pool.

Our roads are not a grid pattern built for traffic.

Our roads are meandering on purpose.

RD25 is simply not compatible as housing that abuts our neighborhood.

You have been shown drawings of lower density housing built under RMD 25 to make it point that rezoning does not guarantee high rises, but that is a false assurance.

Once the zoning is set, Tower Dawson can start at that upper level of density high rise residential buildings could be our neighbor new neighborhood view in place of trees.

The bank topology would not hide this from all of us.

The only way to protect our community and ensure compatibility is a lower density rezoning.

I was gratified to see in the agenda for this meeting a proposal for considering 10 units per acre I am supportive of this lower density alternative.

While it is higher than our current RMD 90, 10 units per acre supports townhomes and duplexes that are compatible with Newmark.

It seems that 10 units per acre has a string attached a road for vehicular access.

This may seem benign with a lower density zoning but Tower Dawson has made it clear that it intends parcel 12 to be part of the larger plan development.

They already have a road started from the south at dead ends and our neighborhood road such as Don Mills Court would be the perfect connection to turn this into a thoroughfare for the much higher density housing in the southern parcel.

Tower Oaks should be limited to their existing southern access connecting via Wooton Parkway and absolutely not connect to our neighborhood keep in mind that for 10 units per acre alone we might be approaching a hundred new homes for parcel 12.

And when Parcel 12 is connected to the process of the south plan for 375 units that could compound to hundreds of cars driving through our neighborhoods for desired connection to 270 or Rockville via Maryland Avenue.

Potomac Valley Road already has issues with ambulances and traffic associated with the senior center.

I urge you to re select rezoning such as RD 10 that leads to a development that is compatible with Newmark I urge you to make no exceptions for roads that would be used by residents in the new development of that parcel.

Tower Oaks traffic should stay to the south that is a win f win for us all I thank you for your service on this commission and providing the citizens of Rockville this opportunity to share our concerns.

Thank you.

The next speaker please next speaker is Mike Berman to be followed by Susan Knowles.

Good evening I'm Mike Berman I live at 821 Bowie Road in the Hungerford neighborhood and I want to talk this evening about deer fencing which was an item from last week's session.

And I was especially glad to hear that the commission recognizes the impact of deer not only on property but on personal health and I'm glad that the mayor and council had directed the commission to look at amending the ordinance with these two factors in mind.

Let's talk about health for a moment my wife Kate sitting in the back had Lyme disease for three years and it was a traumatic period for both my wife and the entire family I wouldn't wish that kind of suffering on anyone and Lyme is not like mumps and measles you can get Lyme disease again and again so if health is truly a concern here and what I mean by health in this context is keeping deer off a given property in order to reduce black legged tick presence on that property.

So if this is truly a concern then the current working recommendation of the commission of the commission does not address that.

The idea that allowing folks to put deer mesh in their backyards and perhaps in their side yards but not in their front yards the idea that this will have a positive health outcome reminds me of seeing people that were pulled down below their nose that's not going to be helpful.

The current recommendation is akin to telling a person with respiratory weakness that they can wear a COVID mask but they can't pull it over their noses it can only cover their mouths it makes no sense especially if you're going to be citing health as a reason for what you're doing.

Meanwhile the city of Rockville's deer task force has been dissolved for many years so it doesn't appear that the city is serious about actually fixing the problem so all we have is deer mesh.

The commission's current recommendations puts aesthetics squarely above health in fact health is not really addressed at all.

In fact, health is not really addressed at all.

Option three that you went over last week addresses it to the extent that we're able.

Options one and two are like the COVID mask pulled down below the nose.

Now let's talk about aesthetics for a moment.

Um the idea of aesthetics here is a red herring.

Um Jim said last week that certain scenarios, such as combining an existing split rail fence with deer fence.

Uh, in that situation, the deer fence is basically invisible.

So give us that option.

Give us a way to option three.

Um my three minutes is up.

Uh, that's all we're asking.

Give us provide some avenues where we can get to Avenue 3.

Thank you.

Avenue three.

Option three.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Susan Knowles, to be followed by Ken Becker.

Hi.

I'm Susan Knowles, and I'm a resident of Newmark Commons, and my yard abuts this uh parcel that we're talking about.

I want to thank you for holding this additional hearing, and I'd like to take a little time to recall for you some history about this parcel, Z O R I D17 in Planning Area 12.

In 1984, the city considered purchasing it to develop a park or public space, but the staff concluded, quoting now, the acquisition was not a viable alternative.

This group, by the way, included representatives of the Department of Planning, public works, recreation and parks, and community development and housing assistance.

Among the problems they noted was that one section of this so-called poor farm site contained an unrecorded number of unmarked graves.

The document explicitly stated that these graves must be relocated by any developer prior to construction.

They also noted a series of access issues, but specifically said, quoting now, under no circumstances should vehicular access be permitted via the residential neighborhoods to the north, i.e.

Newmark Commons and Markwood.

In addition, they said the stream crossing the parcel added environmental constraints to high density development.

Overall, they concluded that development of the site for residential purposes, quote, may be diff a difficult undertaking, considering its close proximity to I-270 and potential unsatisfactory living environment.

Please keep all of this in mind.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Next speaker.

Next speaker is Ken Becker to be followed by Laurent Sharon.

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

My name is Kenneth Becker, and I am speaking as a general partner of the ownership of the communities of Rollins Park, Congressional Towers, and Rollins Congressional Clubhouse, all making up approximately 51 acres at the Northwest Quadrant of East Jefferson Street and Rollins Avenue.

We believe our discussions with staff and members of the Montrose Civic Association throughout this process have been positive and productive.

All stakeholders continue, in our view, to demonstrate a desire to reach consensus while remaining faithful toward their core objectives.

And for that, we are grateful.

Also, in anticipation of these remarks, I provided staff an exhibit reflecting uh staff's alternative.

Our additional request presented at the January 14th Commission hearing, and now a significant revision to that request presenting tonight.

I'm hopeful you have seen this exhibit.

We remain appreciative of staff's uh alternative plan as it ensures that redevelopment may be planned on an economically viable basis.

Our concern, however, is with respect to the development of the MXCT zone strip intended for higher density under the comprehensive plan along East Jefferson Street, specifically where it extends south to the corner of Rollins Avenue.

Under current and likely future design objectives, mid-rise buildings often provide a parking core with apartment uh structure surrounding that and hiding that core.

While highly efficient in land use and expected in the marketplace, this design does generally create building dimensions that in this case would exceed that MXCT prescribed with, and thus a problem.

Under the staff alternative, any density created as part of the MXCT development at this corner that extends past those defined limits would spill into the RMD 25 zone, robbing that adjacent area of the lower density residential units otherwise prescribed along Rollins Avenue.

With this revised proposed modification, we are now suggesting a notch extension of that RHD area south, adjacent to the MXC don't uh MXCT zone, but still terminating 200 plus feet from Rollins Avenue.

With this notch in place, any portion of development density that exceeds the width of that MXCT zone would, with that adjacency, apply to the RHD zone, leaving the balance of the RMD 25 area in unimpacted.

This revised approach has also been discussed with staff and shared with the civic association.

We believe this approach maintains flexibility for development at the corner of East Jefferson and Rollins Avenue.

Uh, an intersection already improved with the Bethany House senior leader.

So the time you may please wrap up there and the remaining area.

In short, uh we think this revision provides a win-win-win for the neighbors, the staff, and the ownership, and we urge you to support it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Welcome, next speaker.

The next speaker is Lerone Sharon, to be followed by Mark Prasheila.

Uh good evening, uh Planning Commission members.

Thank you for uh for your time and your hard work.

My name is Leroan Sharon.

I reside uh on Rollins Avenue in the Montrose neighborhood.

And um we went through a few iterations in the past year plus uh since this whole rezoning uh thing started.

And um I I believe that the uh alternative plan that was uh proposed by the city staff uh strikes a reasonable balance between the needs to grow uh but also to protect the uh the neighborhood.

Uh we we already face multiple issues with uh traffic, mostly customer traffic from the pike uh to Montrose Road and vice versa.

Uh parking, uh crowded school buses, and um what we said all along is that we understand the need to uh to grow um, but the more significant uh development should happen in the northern side of this parcel.

And I think that the city's plan to have this buffer of not changing the zoning for the first 400 feet from uh our residences uh is you know striking a good balance between uh between the two.

Um nevertheless, obviously, uh once we'll actually get and see uh any plan, uh you know, studies will have to be done to determine if indeed that increased density and increased population can actually be supported with uh current infrastructure.

My personal opinion is currently not, but we'll we'll you know we'll see when we get there.

Um however, I think it's it's a good, it's a good frame to work with because again, it provides both opportunity for growth, opportunity for the landowners to profit, uh, but also provide the uh the the neighbors some some buffer between between you know the neighborhood and you know the main the main development.

Um however, I do object to the request to add that that area that was just mentioned at the corner of East Jefferson and Halpine to make it an RD zone will only just increase uh what is already uh proposed to be a very significant uh change to the density and the population in in the neighborhood, and it will uh literally put uh you know 150 tower directly facing uh some some of the residences.

I thank you for the time.

I thank the uh the city staff for their time as well.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Mark Prashewa, thank you, uh members of the planning commission.

Mark Prashela, 816 Fordham Street.

And um, I spoke to you once as a civic association president.

I spoke to you once on behalf of myself, and I'm gonna speak to you as a former council member.

And basically, I just don't get the rush that is on your schedule to get through this um this zoning ordinance.

And I was a civic association president during the last zoning ordinance.

I know what that took.

I went through several modifications as a council member.

I'm very familiar with zoning ordinances.

And the devil is in the details.

The map itself is not difficult to understand, and they have a nice tool where you have this little slider bar.

It's very good.

But you have to read the text.

And I'm kind of wondering why the planning commission isn't marching through that zoning ordinance from page one to page whatever it is to end it.

And uh especially since the whole thing has been reorganized.

You you need to ask the city staff, this commission, but also Mayor and Council need to ask the city staff for a crosswalk.

And you know, I'm estimating that if I do it myself, it's gonna be 20 to 30 hours, and I wouldn't do as good a job as city staff would do it.

But um whereas I think college gardens is going to be okay, you you really need to know how the text changes.

And you need to know uh when text is clarified or simplified.

Sometimes that has meaning, and sometimes these things go back to Supreme Court cases, for example, like the definition of a household.

Anyway, um that's it.

I I think you really need to demand more time and demand more materials on this.

And I want to address the deer issue because in my 12th total years as a council member, we took this up five or six times, and every time we took it up, it was on a different aspect of deer control.

And I think it would be helpful to the community at large if somebody on city staff would put together a summary of those five or six work sessions starting probably in 2010.

And it's not that the city doesn't want to do anything about deer.

We tried very, very, very hard.

In the end, we found one little corner of the city where we could call deer, and we could only call them with crossbows, and we did it for one year, took maybe 20 deer approximately, and we stopped it because the the calling method was inhumane.

So it's not that we haven't tried, but but there's a body of research that came to mayor and council on deer control that somebody ought to be summarizing on behalf of city staff.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, that concludes the list of speakers who have signed up.

Thank you for to sign up to speak.

And do we have any speakers that would like to speak?

Yes, yeah, please come up.

Thank you.

I apologize, I missed the list in the back.

Good evening, commissioners.

Um my name is Nancy Picard, I'm the executive director for Peerless Rockville.

And um tonight, on behalf of Peerless Rockville, I'd like to share just a little feedback for your discussion on the proposed changes to the historic preservation sections of the zoning ordinance.

Um we very much support streamlining some of the procedures and consolidating some of the um uh things that have been different in different disparate parts of the ordinance together.

Um, and we very much are in support of enforcement for demolition by neglect that has been very long needed by the city.

Um however, there are some other revert revisions that um will make it significantly harder to protect Rockville's historic resources, and we have some concerns about those.

Um, I just want to say that it doesn't always seem like this body feels this way, or and I'm not singling you out.

I think it happens at the mayor and council too.

But historic preservation, like all zoning, is done for the public good.

It is for the purpose of the public good, and it is um mandated from the state of Maryland in the same way that other aspects of land use and things are also for the public good.

And I think sometimes that um is not always discussed that way.

So I wanted to make that point.

Um Rockville's historic preservation program has long balanced respect for property rights with the public interest in protecting the city's heritage, and we support that, but we're concerned that some of the policies that are in the draft um go against things that have long protected underrepresented constituencies, and we fear that some of the proposed changes will bring obstacles that haven't been there before.

Um a few things that we'd like to say merit your attention would be third-party nominations, um, changes to who can review demolitions and evaluations of significance, and owner consent for historic designation.

Um third-party changes.

Uh right now, anyone can nominate a property.

That is a big change.

Um we are concerned that there's no merit for this change in the last 16 years.

There's only been two that have gone forward, both bought by Peerless, done after extensive research.

And we just wonder exactly what is bringing that proposal forward.

Changes to demolition shift a lot of that stuff, the review to staff, and we are concerned that this takes away the transparency and the accountability of a public HDC review.

So I just want to say this.

The need for a unanimous vote of both the HDC and the mayor and council is a very high bar that does not appear in other sections that we are aware of in the zoning ordinance.

And this is calling out a bar for historic preservation that does not exist in other areas.

And we really are concerned that this will negatively affect the program.

And I just want to say this.

This gives one individual on either of those bodies without respect for black history, women's history, or any other kind of underrepresented group, to basically squash anything going forward.

So I just that is a real concern that we have.

Thank you.

So uh Mr.

Westback, do we have any speakers that uh would like to speak online?

Uh no, madam chair, there is no one online.

Okay.

Uh so any uh commissioners, do we have any questions?

Or should we uh start the discussion for the agenda topics?

Yeah, maybe we can't do that.

So that uh concludes our public hearing.

Now we can start with our agenda discussion.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Wats, do we have a staff presentation?

Yes, we're gonna make uh brief presentations uh prior to each topic area as we've been doing in the past.

Okay.

And our first uh topic area is a follow-up uh to the January 14th work session on proposed rezonings.

And the first one is the rezoning in the mantras area.

Uh just to refresh you all, the um staff recommendation is for uh most of the area to be uh rezoned to a new zone, which is the RHD residential high density zone, which could be up to 100 units per acre.

Uh that would be the bulk of the uh current apartment complex leaving out uh two areas of concern that the community had expressed to us, and those are the area of the uh community center uh on Martha Terrace, and then also the area along the north side of Rollins Avenue between East Jefferson Street and Congressional Lane.

So those uh two areas would have their zones remain in place.

Uh so there would be R75 on Martha Terrace and the RMD 25 uh on Rollins Avenue in our discussions uh with the property owners as well as the community.

Um we have felt that this recommendation kind of balances a number of the goals that were expressed in the comprehensive plan to develop this new zone and allow for redevelopment of this property and providing more housing opportunities in the city.

Um it does significantly increase the development capacity in this area uh and also provides for transparent and predictable development standards uh that are very clear.

While at the same time ensuring the hype transitions are consistent.

So you may recall at the last session that uh you asked us to talk with the community members, uh, and we're able to do that uh subsequent to issuing the um brief book for this meeting.

Um so we broached um the staff recommendation and also a number of a couple of other alternatives similar to that to gauge uh kind of community interest in the those are not these.

Um we talked about the 400-foot uh line for MD25 and perhaps reducing that either to 300 or 200.

Um I will say we met with a core group of of the community.

Uh we there was not necessarily consensus among that group.

Uh some members supported the 400, as you've heard testimony.

Uh some were okay with a reduced uh number uh for that, I guess, depth of the RMD 25 along Rollins Avenue.

And so I just wanted to express that there was not necessarily consensus among the community members, which is not necessarily surprising either.

I did want to um sorry.

I did want to talk about the um recommendations from the property owners, which are on the next slide.

And then the next 200 feet would be RHD, but limited to a height of 75 feet, uh getting to that 400 foot level.

And then more recently, uh, as you heard testimony this evening, uh there is a different option that uh provides a little bit more detail and would extend the RHD parallel to the East Jefferson Street MX CT zone area.

So in the end, uh we feel we are all very close among the kind of the three parties of interest uh, but we're not really quite there yet.

We're very close.

And so um I'd be curious to hear uh your take on some of these options.

Again, our our option as staff is uh still the initial recommendation that we had.

There was some consensus among the community, and you heard testimony on the 14th uh that the community did support that.

Um, and as I said, when we talked about um that with the community more recently, uh there were still some concerns there, although I think most community members could probably live with the 400 feet.

So with that, uh be happy to uh answer questions that you have on this particular topic.

Thank you, Mr.

Westlack.

Just before we open for discussion, just to clarify the plans to the right of the page, that's the staff new recommendation or no, that is both of these are property owner recommendations uh brought forward at different times.

This is the staff recommendation that we brought forward to you on January 14th, and that continues to be the staff recommendation.

Okay.

All right.

So that's open for the discussion.

Commissioner, I'm okay with the what is now clearly the staff recommendations.

It wasn't clear from the memo that you still had a recommendations given your discussion.

But if this is your staff recommendation, I I think we should support it.

Any other thoughts?

I just want some further clarification based on what was in our brief book.

There was a staff proposal, then there was a staff alternate proposal, and then an owner proposal.

And I'm not quite sure what I'm looking at on the slides aligns with what I thought I was looking at in the brief book.

Right.

This whole thing has been an iterative process, so uh fair point.

Um, what you're looking at right now is I guess the staff's alternate proposal.

There was an initial proposal when we had met with the community uh upwards of a year ago and developed the recommendation that's in the staff um draft of the uh comprehensive map amendment.

This is the alternate alternative to that recommendation.

Okay, so I feel slightly more sane for you having clarified that.

Um I think when we first saw this, at least I was was in favor of this.

I like um hearing kind of where the community is and where the consensus is, I think that this is uh this is probably I think the most balanced option in my mind.

And you're saying though just to be the staff proposal, which was formerly the staff alternative.

So the alternative can we refer to the original and the alternative just for our discussion, I think it'll make it easier.

I think so.

So you're in support of the alternative.

I'm in favor of the alternative, yes.

Commissioner F the Little.

So I'm just curious for staff to just summarize briefly why they're sticking with their original proposal as their actual recommendation rather than the alternative that they devised.

Well, we we feel this is our the staff alternative.

Um we, if you recall the or if you read the staff draft of the zoning ordinance, the the maximum density of the R HD zone is 50 units to the acre.

Um this alternative bumps that up to 100 units to the acre, but takes out some land area that had formerly been included as part of the rezoning, namely the uh fitness center on Martha Terrace, and then the area parallel to Rollins Avenue uh on the east side.

So uh if we were kind of maintaining some of the concerns that we heard from the community in that uh the single family neighborhood is concerned about the very high density that might occur on the site and providing for a transition in height uh between that area and the area that will be receiving the residential high density zone.

So what we're looking at now on the screen is the alternative recommendation, and it's the one you're now recommending.

Yes, we were recommending this on January 14th as well.

Um I'm sorry if that wasn't clear, but uh yes, this is our staff recommendation.

We may all be clear.

Are we clear now?

No, no, no.

So staff is recommending the alternative proposal, not okay.

I was confused by comments that were made.

Okay.

So do we have Commissioner Sonosa?

Do you have a preference?

No, with that clarity and taking the community's feedback, and you know, there's always a tension because you can't do everything.

I I think I'm happy where staff landed with their alternative proposal.

I agree.

Yeah, to summarize, I also agree.

I think this proposal, we got the consensus from the community, and it has a clear um implementation on the standards.

So I think we have a consensus, we can support the staff's alternative proposal for this.

All right.

Great, thank you.

Um I think you may, yes.

So we need to reopen the public hearing.

Yes.

Yes, please.

My understanding from the civic association was that there was not a consensus.

Um in the individuals I had met with, uh, there was a diversity of views.

So Mr.

Wells Alex's view that there was a consensus, and I think even the the testimony you heard does not demonstrate a consensus.

Uh, we felt there were a fair number of representatives of that civic association that were okay with either the first offer that we had made, which was to drop it down somewhat in terms or expand that R R H D set uh section a little bit, or the second, which was simply a notch to make that that corner of Rockville uh uh Rollins Avenue and East Jefferson Street uh more practical for development.

The benefit the the objective of the comp was to enhance the ability to build higher density in this area.

Um the MXCT zone, uh, while very attractive, is not entirely practicable in as I identified the kind of housing you have to build these days that is mid-rise housing and how you have to configure it.

And to the extent that that housing then impacts that RMD 25 and sucks that density out, so we really can't build that residential.

It becomes a mission without likely success.

And that's that's the point I want to make.

Thank you.

I just have a clarification question.

So for for the you you have two proposals.

Do you all have uh processing?

Well, we we are prepared to uh relinquish the first proposal in lieu of the second, thinking that the second would be even more acceptable to the community and to the city.

Uh that is just that uh one strip that would extend the uh the RHD down so that it has adjacency to any um uh construction in the MXCT zone to allow the extra density that the comprehensive plan calls for.

Uh without that, uh and with adjacency simply to the RMD 25, any additional density in that will um render the RMD 25 really undevelopable because we are trying to increase the density in that MXCT zone.

The two fight each other.

Uh and that that's the only point that I would make uh that that it was our effort, and certainly from my discussions, there was some unanimity in uh that being an improvement over our first proposal, and so we would be withdrawing that first proposal of change in lieu of this, which we thought was a greater step towards consensus among the parties.

So uh I just wanted to make that point for the commission to consider.

Thank you for the clarification.

So before we we start, so uh Mr.

Westlack, can you clarify?

Does the community have a consensus with the staff's alternative proposal?

Well, our our reaction to the community is based on a couple of things.

The testimony you heard on the January 14th meeting uh when this subject was first brought out.

Uh, you heard from uh one individual who essentially has been kind of our point of contact for this community uh who spoke in support of the staff recommendation.

Uh we contacted that individual again.

We met with about six or seven uh members of the community uh this past week.

Um they are still supportive of the 400.

Uh others are consideration of perhaps reducing that.

Um I didn't hear anyone from that community necessarily that we talked to that were supportive of the alternative that the um property owner has brought forward.

Do you mind?

Yeah, go ahead.

Um just to add to that, I think that you know there are many members of the Montrose community, and we are not able to speak to every single one of them.

However, the individual who Mr.

Wazlac referenced our primary point of contact is a representative of the Montrose Civic Association, and she has confirmed to us that they do that.

The group that she has been in coordination with, which includes the six or seven that we were able to speak to on late notice about both the 400 feet and perhaps reducing it down to 300.

They were able to confirm that of the members that they've spoken with, they have consensus with the staff proposal.

So I caveat that you know, certainly probably not able to speak with every single person residing in the Montrose um neighborhood, but from what they've reported to us, there is consensus around that.

And then I think a diversity of opinions around perhaps um the property owner's original requested modification and then potentially moving that 400-foot line down to 300 feet.

They there was no agreement there.

Um, and when we after the property owner, I understand might have circulated the most recent proposal to the community members, and just today, um, again, in quite short order, we received public comment from four members of the community that they strongly oppose that alternative that the property owner has requested.

Thank you for the clarification.

And would you still like to speak?

Um Ms.

Simmons just to summarize that.

Oh, sorry.

Okay, you can please come up.

Thank you.

Um has just perfectly summarized what I wanted to say that um uh the neighbors uh as a whole uh see the alternative plan as uh a very good uh way to both provide for growth and and also uh potential profitability for the landowners, as well as addressing our our issues.

Uh I can say, based on uh the discussions that we had uh I'm part of that group of you know few people that have been involved, uh we are supporting that alternative plan um and not you know um changing it again to add more um you know uh zones that can be uh built on within those 400 feet.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So commissioners maybe we can have a vote on this or any other thoughts before we start.

I thought we did.

Okay.

I thought we had consensus on the staff alternative plan.

So nobody after hearing this, nobody has changed their mind on this.

Okay, thank you.

I think uh we we we finished this topic with support the staff's alternative.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

So the next uh rezoning that we wanted to discuss and revisit with you is the proposed rezoning for the property adjacent to Tower Oaks.

Um that property, as you recall, is currently zone R90 and is recommended in the comprehensive plan for rezoning to RMD 25.

Um the commission uh gave us direction on January 14th to look at uh an alternative that would limit the density on that parcel uh based on access from an existing uh residential street.

And so uh we put together a recommendation uh that would accomplish that.

And uh actually got some feedback uh from some others.

So the proposed text uh that is in your brief book would limit the density on this property to 10 units per acre if vehicular access to the property is provided from a secondary residential street that abuts single unit detached dwellings, essentially um describing uh Don Mills court to uh further address some of the current concerns and limit applicability.

Uh there are some other suggested considerations that have brought been brought forward, uh, including perhaps uh limit uh limiting it to streets that end in a cul de sac, uh excluding a subject property, just so that it is not confused with properties that are uh containing single family detached homes, and I think most significantly a potential modification that would read if any vehicular access uh is provided, then that density would be limited to 10 units to the acre.

So these suggestions were brought forward.

Um staff, I think is in support of these uh if you would be inclined to include these in the text.

Thank you, Mr.

Watlack.

Uh Commissioner, any thoughts on this?

Um I I thought the staff proposal was a little bit more generous than I had proposed.

It does not protect the neighborhood sufficiently from the traffic that I was trying to avoid.

Uh to that end, I'd propose alternative language.

And and I'd like from staff to know whether there is an absolute need for emergency vehicle access.

Uh if the principal vehicular access is from the site, that's there need to be uh emergency access, or is that just a desire?

I'm not positive about that.

It might depend on kind of the configuration and the number of units ultimately that would be on the property.

Um I'd have to check with our fire marshal to it would be 250 units.

10 acres at 20%.

Yeah, that's it.

If there's a reduced density uh that was a project that wasn't maxed out, perhaps maybe they wouldn't need one.

I just need to check with our fire marshal.

It's not something that's in the zoning ordinance.

All right.

Well without knowing whether the hack vehicle uh emergency access is essential, I would propose the following.

If any vehicle access to the property is provided from a secondary residential street existing on today, whatever date, uh, that abut single family detached units, then the maximum density is limited to 10 units to the acre.

So therefore, the sole access needs to be in this case from the south.

Right.

And uh bullet number three in the suggested was intended to bring that recommendation forward.

So that's that's my proposal to the main.

The other question I have is we keep on seeing dead bodies.

I saw that movie once, I forgot what it was.

But but as far as I know, in 1987, there was a survey of this site done by the National Park Service.

They found a cemetery on the east side of, I think I think it's Monroe Street, uh, and they actually removed and reburied 36 bodies.

I didn't see the entire report from that.

Did they survey the entire property at that time?

Still trying to track down that information.

I know when um I can tell you this during my tenure here at the city, and a building was being built in Tower Oaks, they also found some that had not been removed from that earlier removal.

So, you know, that's something that would happen prior to any construction.

So they they would have to survey the site and remove uh bodies as appropriate.

Absolutely.

They can join the others at Parkland Cemetery if you're interested to visit them.

But but we we we needed to put a period on the end of that sentence.

But in any event, uh I propose the uh if any vehicular access is from the secondary street.

It's 10 units to the acre.

So just for my clarification, because I couldn't get this from the emails that were going back and forth the last couple days.

Is the any vehicle access language is that actually staff's recommendation, or is it something for consideration for you guys to see our feedback on?

We brought it forward, it came forward from Commissioner Zion's, and so I wanted to make sure that you all saw that and and let you know that we did not have any particular concerns about that.

I think it it probably does address an issue that was more aligned with the the intent of the discussion last time.

Okay, with that, I I support changing the language to any vehicle.

Ask one clarifying question for the record.

Um what we are looking at and the decision we are making is specific to this parcel of land, or is it specific to all RMD 25 zoning within the city?

This would be text that would be inserted into the zoning ordinance uh as a footnote applying to all RMD property in the city.

And one of the reasons why we're we're comfortable with limiting the applicability is there are some other there are a number of other RMD sites that we wouldn't want to impact them similarly.

But just for as a zoning change, this is general app ability applicability if there are other applicable sites or other applicable sites are created.

Can I ask a question?

Uh yes, you you can come up and please now I'm just trying to get clarification.

So you're preparing to accept this as uh as a footnote on the RMD zone uh language, is that right?

Do I understand that right?

RMD 25, yes.

As as it was presented in the agenda, right?

In the briefing agenda, right?

Yes.

Do I understand that?

I just you know want to make sure that when this comes to development, you know, we have we have a say about accessibility and and density.

Uh you know, the the development So for us for us the access of any development back there to our neighborhood is really very problematic, even for an another 100 or 200 extra cars coming through Don Mills Court, you know, it's a really big problem for us.

Just you know, so we wanted to know is it not possible to just simply designate this prop this parcel as RMD 10 instead of RMD 25?

Is that a possibility?

That was it's possible, it's legally possible.

It's not the recommendation that I have.

It's not the recommendation of the master plan to be consistent with the master plan.

Right.

Okay.

Thank you, ma'am.

Any other thoughts?

Um I I am in agreement if any vehicular access with that bullet number three.

Yeah, so I just want to clarify.

So for there are some existing um stormwater management facilities on the site.

So one, this is to be developed.

How will the developer deal with the existing stormwater management?

It seems like it's a big challenge for the site.

That's true.

There are a number of challenges on the site.

And uh, you know, should someone endeavor to develop on the site, they would have to solve all of those issues.

Yeah, yes, please come.

So are you prepared to adopt RMD 25 for the parcel, but add this footnote, which might potentially affect development if they attempt to access it from Don Mills Court?

So there's no restriction on access only from South.

Correct.

We want access only from South.

Okay.

So if they only access from the South, it'll be RMD 25.

Correct.

Thank you for the clarification.

Thank you.

So but with this language, there is still a possibility that development might access from the Dominical court.

That is true, yes.

And and if they do that, then the density is 10 units to the across.

Of course, they're not going to do it.

Um I am supportive of what's in front of us and what we've been talking about.

Um the RMD 25 zone with the language and the footnote.

Um I have been just balancing and weighing in my head the um RMD 25 zoning throughout the city and this specific site.

Um and so that's what I'm trying to come to what I feel is is the best conclusion.

And I agree with the comprehensive plan.

I agree with the reasoning why that parcel of land is designated as such to address housing issues and for more density.

And we can see if the developers have met all of the traffic requirements through our CTR, if they have properly addressed the stormwater management.

So I am in favor of the 25 RMD 25, bumping it down to RMD 10 with what I see in front of us, uh generally speaking for that zone.

And I certainly look forward to uh fine-tooth comb review of any proposed project uh for this property.

Thank you.

And uh so far I hear we're all uh supportive of this, and my opinion I'm also in support of this uh proposal.

I think it's it's it's a balance and compromise between the original proposal and uh the concerns of the nearby uh community.

And um I think I want to add the compatibility findings that we might discuss in the next portion, because I think to divide this this site with next to a historical site, the compatibility is a critical issue.

So if we can add that and that will in our site plan review process, we will make a judgment there if it meets the requirement.

Yes.

So hearing this, I think we um we have a consensus, we are in support of the staff's proposal for this tax phenomenon.

No, with with the change for if any access.

With the modification of the any access.

Do you like all of the the bullets of the three suggested changes?

Do you like all of those?

Or just the third one?

Do we do we really need that?

Yeah, uh as a legal matter or not.

So can you explain the first one why the suggested leaning the applicability to street ending your call de sac?

Because Don Mills Court is a call-de-sac, and it's just to make sure that uh there was not any inadvertent applicability of this to other sites, which it could have a negative impact on.

In this second one.

So I would not have that.

Uh I mean, I would rather see this as more general applicability.

Again, if you get this same circumstances where a new development is trying to use an existing secondary residential street, then the density should be restricted.

That's would be my opinion.

So if we're adding the limb uh limit ability to code sac, does that prohibit access from Domio Court?

No, it would not prohibit it.

So what does this limit it doesn't prohibit it?

It gives you an alternative.

If you if you use the secondary street, you get a density of 10 units to the acre.

If you don't use that secondary street and use a new street to access the property, then it's 25 units to the acre.

But if any access comes from the uh to the secondary residential street, then it's the lower density.

But it doesn't prohibit access.

But then why adding this bullet?

The only bullet I want, I would recommend is the last bullet.

So Mr.

Wesler, can you explain?

Again, these were suggestions that were brought forward to limit the applicability to other properties kind of inadvertently.

It's really meant to tailor this footnote to the situation at hand.

There's a situation in in Prince George's County where the council got a little too specific on exactly how it was tailoring a zone to the extent that the courts said this is special legislation, this is spot zoning, you can't do it.

So I'm trying to avoid that situation.

Um if I can provide a little bit of clarity and and also mate, by way of providing and also asked Mr.

Waslick a question.

So as I understand it, for example, with the first bullet, the language would read if any vehicular access to a property is provided from a secondary residential street ending in a cul de sac that only abuts single unit detached dwellings, then the maximum development density is limited to 10 units per acre.

What that would mean would be that it would allow staff the certainty that there wouldn't be some other RMD 25 property where sole access is provided from a secondary residential street where we would inadvertently lower the density from RMD 25 to RMD 10.

Um I will say that Maryland law, particularly current Maryland case law, uh does make clear that we have the ability to provide that degree of specificity in our zoning ordinance, uh, contrary to what Councilmember Zion said.

Um, I think the question should be for staff is whether we need to include that or not.

Candidly, I'm not convinced that that's something that the planning commission needs to weigh, because ultimately it's up to staff to determine if the language is as Commissioner Zion recommended and as the rest of the commission supported, would that affect any other properties in the city?

And if so, do we need to provide some clarity?

Um without that information, I don't see how the planning commission could provide any useful feedback on that point.

Um that's just my two cents.

And again, if Mr.

Wasilek has anything else to add, I would certainly welcome that.

At this point, I don't think I do.

These were brought forward by someone else, and uh I just brought forward for your information because you received testimony on it.

I I th I thought staff had had looked at other RMD 25 and said that it is general applicability, but it wouldn't have any adverse consequences.

Yeah, I did look at that uh before receiving the testimony about about CODISEX and was pretty comfortable that uh the applicability would be limited, but this is just kind of a kind of belts and suspenders uh scenario.

Well, if you like, if if you don't, that's fine also.

Just to clarify with staff, so the three bulleted items here, it's not an inclusive recommendation, right?

Earlier I asked if the any vehicle access was staff's recommendation, and I just was using that as an exclusive item.

You see what I'm asking?

It's not all inclusive.

Right?

So we can piecemeal.

Okay, I just wanted to clarify that.

Yes, maybe yeah, maybe we can have a vote on each item so that will be clear.

Well, well, I uh I mean I'm sticking to my earlier discussion, which was I support the any vehicle access, and then just kind of leave it there.

So you don't support the other two items.

Well, if I understand correctly, any vehicle access automatically assumes the first bullet.

Right.

Third the third applies to any secondary road.

The first bullet applies only to cul-de-sac streets, if I'm understanding this correctly, right.

My read of it is just leaving it with any vehicle access is more limiting.

Um if you add the cul-de-sac, you're being very specific and uh uh and it's not as limiting, it would only apply to ones with cul-de-sac.

I think I will feel comfortable leave the two points to the staff to determine that our intention is to give this, and then the language, whether we add or not, is up to staff to clarify our intention.

No, it's up to the commission to make a recommendation to staff.

If we think that the first two bullet bullets should not be incorporated in text, we should say that.

And I think we should say that.

I am comfortable with the last bullet, and that's fine.

Yeah, that's what I mean.

Sorry.

I mean, for the first two bullets, we don't need to recommend.

And uh it's up to the staff to final finalize the tax.

We don't need to recommend the two bullets today.

Well, if you don't recommend them, then we would not include them in your recommendation that that you make to the mayor council.

Right.

I'm fine with that, yeah.

Me too.

I'm fine with just the third bullet.

I would not recommend the top two.

Okay.

And I think we have a consensus.

We will support the staff tax with a third bullet modification.

Right, thank you very much.

All right.

Thank you.

So that concludes the discussion on the two rezonings.

And I'm going to turn it over to my colleague, Holly Simmons, to walk through the other topics for it this evening.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Wazilak.

All right.

So we did want to provide an update on the language used in the staff draft of the zoning ordinance.

We've talked about this a bit before.

There was robust conversation at the end of the January 28th planning commission work session.

But just to recap, we did have one of the goals of the overarching ZOR project as ensuring that the ordinance is clearly written, well organized, and easy to use.

So that really was one of our guiding principles in drafting new provisions and also redrafting existing provisions.

With that said, some commissioners, two commissioners did raise concerns regarding specifically plain language and some amount of subjectivity in the staff draft of the zoning ordinance.

So when it comes to the plain language, one commissioner expressed a desire to see greater use of plain language.

And just for clarity, that is drafting that emphasizes the use of familiar, straightforward wording that can be readily understood by a general audience.

And then subjectivity, there are some subjective words still retained within the ordinance, but we really did endeavor to remove things like visually appealing, high quality, neighborhood compatibility, things of that nature that lend an air of uncertainty, particularly when it comes to our regulatory standards.

So we aimed to be as objective and clear as possible.

There is some caveat to that.

We're going to address purpose statements next, and there will be more discussion of some of the terminology used there where we were a little bit more comfortable with some subjective terms.

Did provide to us a full markup of the staff draft.

And just for clarity, um, we are doing, we are putting a critical eye to the entire draft, taking those comments into consideration, but ultimately kind of taking it as an umbrella critique, if you will, of the language used there, and then going through and using our judgment to amend and update the language in the draft with that in mind.

So we really are through this review looking to continue improving clarity, specificity, and accuracy, while also, and I cannot emphasize this enough, endeavoring to the greatest extent possible not to alter the policies within the draft, but really just enhance the understanding of the provisions.

So I do intend that as an update and a reassurance that we are taking this critique in hand and responding to it effectively.

I'm sure again that my colleague Mr.

Dumay could tell you much more about the actual process of updating the language than I could at this point, but it is something that we will as a group of staff come back together and all put eyes on before it ends up with the Mayor and Council.

So that is my update on language in the staff draft if you all have any questions.

Thank you for that.

I I think the language for plain language is plain English, and that's the common term used in other manuals.

So you might try to use plain English instead of plain language as a reference.

But aside from that, do I have it correct that you will eliminate the words aesthetic and high quality, except for what is in the purpose clause?

We are working to eliminate high quality and aesthetic where it seems meaningful and appropriate.

The purpose statements is an area where we think that it's perfectly acceptable, and I'll I'll get into this a little bit more in the next couple of slides.

Perfectly acceptable to have kind of aspirational language.

Those purpose statements are really intended to guide policy and not to um impact, like not to create, they're not the regulations themselves.

So we did have a little bit more leniency there because we think it's consistent and typical to include language of that nature in purpose statements.

I know also another area where high quality shows up is in our wireless communications section.

It shows up there a couple of times, and I will be frank with you.

That is a section of the zoning ordinance that we said we know there are issues here, and this is this is saved for a future date.

So really in that section, we cleaned it up just a hair, um, but didn't really touch the language at this point.

Um so that is that is off the top of my head, another place where you do see high quality, I'll defer to Mr.

Dumay if if that language has been changed or not in that section.

Um yeah, I think Ms.

Simmons is illustrating a good point and and also illustrating the the care that we're trying to take with the language review that we're conducting.

Um so the the word in particular that we're concerned about or that that uh commissioner Zions pulled out in the um in the small cell wireless provision was the word aesthetics.

Um and as I understand Commissioner Zion's concern is that you know that word is you know, aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder, it's not really appropriate as a regulatory tool in our zoning ordinance.

Um we are retaining the word aesthetics in our small cells provision, particularly because so small cell wireless facilities are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission.

Um, and federal law expressly allows local jurisdictions to have aesthetic standards to regulate small cell facilities.

So we are allowed to we are allowed to regulate them and regulate their appearance.

Uh, we are not allowed to prohibit them entirely.

So we're retaining the word aesthetics in that section because federal law allows us to.

It's not sort of some arbitrary term, it specifically authorizes us to create aesthetic standards.

Um so again, it it's it's to point out that most of Commissioner Zion's identifications of that term were very helpful for us, and we could eliminate that term.

We are retaining it in certain cases, but we're doing so thoughtfully because it makes sense.

Um, and then also, of course, in cases where it appears in a purpose statement and really expresses the goals of our ordinance rather than a particular, like a discretionary finding that the mayor and counselor planning commission would have to meet.

Yeah, I want to thank staff to take the commissioner's recommendation and take another path of eyes to look through everything, and I I will attract staff's judgment on using the plain language.

I just want to jump on a comment and uh agree in cosign um I trust in staff to go through and do a comprehensive sort of plain language review.

Um I did hear my colleague use the phrase plain English.

Uh plain language as I've always understood it uh personally and professionally refers to more than just the words.

Um it's about presentation, it's about when to use bullets, when to use a table, uh, when to use illustrations with the proper context.

Uh we've seen some of those already.

So I did want to make that point that it's not just about making things, it's not just about the words, it's about the presentation, uh, plain language versus plain English.

Thank you.

Before the um plain English language draft goes to Mayor and Council, will we see that?

Will we see the updated language before we give a final approval on this?

So it will not be um it will not be produced by the by February 25th when you all will make your recommendation.

So we are absolutely taking the recommendations.

Um we are taking your recommendations now and will produce a memo um or something of that nature, a write-up to attend the markup of the staff draft that will go to Mayor and Council, but we are not we are not um intending to produce a red line for the planning commission to review before that time.

So to be very clear, we you're going to ask us to approve and send to Mayor and Council a draft that we haven't seen.

Well, we're asking you to make a recommendation.

That's your role uh under the zoning ordinance.

So we're intending on producing a recommendation memo as we do for other ZTAs uh for your approval.

But the but the final draft recommendation will not be ready when we're asked to approve it with the with the cleaned up language and etc.

Again, we're not um we're not gonna ask you to approve a document that you haven't seen.

Uh we are just going to produce the memo that that contains all of your recommendations uh through these work sessions.

But for example, we just went through uh a the staff's interpretation of our meaning for the RD 25 zone.

And this particular language uh was very different than at least I had in my head.

And I'm for one looking at language itself as to what I recommend to the council.

But but that's just me.

I wouldn't make a recommendation to the council that where I haven't seen the draft.

Well, I think we've been very clear from the beginning of this process that that would not be produced for you.

It's just not possible.

So in the needs of the commissioners needs, so in the memo, can you provide the more detailed portion of the language?

For example, in the particular portion, can you provide the detailed language that needs to be?

Absolutely.

I think it's you know the discussion that you just had, I think that would be very critical, so we can include that in the memo.

Absolutely.

In similar situations like that.

Any other thoughts?

Just to clarify with staff.

So from this draft staff ordinance provided to us in December, the only substantive changes that we're making are the ones we're discussing over the course of the work sessions.

And then any of the plain English, plain language changes aren't making substantive changes to the ordinance, right?

So if we're not discussing it, it's just being viewed through a very limited lens.

So what we have provided to us in December is the meat of the ordinance and the recommendation and what our recommendation will be based on to Mayor and Council.

Right.

I'm capturing that.

Yes.

Okay.

So with that, I'm comfortable making a recommendation to Mayor and Council, knowing the recommendations we make throughout these work sessions and understanding that uh Mr.

Dumay, along with uh uh the planning staff are just making minor plain English plain language changes to the ordinance.

So I am comfortable making that recommendation.

Yeah, so I think after uh December 1st, the mayor council um draft uh release the draft and all our commissioners were received a full copy of the tone ordinance draft, and then we have been reading it and given all those topics that uh the content agenda of all those working sessions.

So I'm comfortable with getting the recommendation with the staff's memo.

That is the substance content.

Let's proceed to proceed.

Okay.

So I think we we have a consensus on this one.

We will for the critical ones, please include in the memo and others will address the staff judgment.

Absolutely.

All right, moving on to purpose statements.

So keeping in mind some of the discussion about language, um, we did, as I said, go through and have the goal of increasing clarity and objectivity in the regulations of the staff draft of the zoning ordinance, but there is some level of subjectivity and again broad aspirational language in our purpose statements.

So we've really broken these out, and we're addressing this because this was raised to attention by one of the planning commissioners.

Um we have a general purpose statement in Article One that connects the zoning regulations contained with the entire within the entirety of the zoning ordinance to a legitimate public interest.

It clarifies the ordinances broad and aspirational policy goals, often derived from the comprehensive plan itself.

Um and on that note, we did work with our comprehensive planning team to lightly update that general purpose statement from our existing ordinance to the staff draft of the ordinance to ensure that it is consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan.

And following some concerns about um or questions, I suppose, about whether or not it is tied or I actually don't know how to frame this, um, whether there are any concerns from a legal perspective based in state law, I believe we did confer again with our city attorney to ensure that the general purpose statement included in Article 1 passes legal scrutiny.

So our recommendation here before we move on to some of the purpose statements that are contained within other articles or divisions within the ordinance is to retain the staff draft general purpose statement as written.

Thank you.

Please make these questions.

Well, first I thank the staff for going through the other purpose statements in Article 8 and eliminating those that didn't have any significance.

I th I thank you for that.

And and look, the the purpose, there is a purpose to purpose statements.

Generally, you're called upon to reflect on a variance or waiver on whether that waiver is in keeping with the purpose statements.

To that end, the purpose statement in the draft zoning ordinance is uh a legislative item to that end both both variance findings and administrative adjust uh adjustments point back to the purpose statement.

Now for the purpose statement for historic preservation, uh the staff's draft exactly follows the purpose statement in state law, word for word.

So I can't argue one thing.

There is also a purpose statement for zoning in the land use article, uh, which is much simpler than the purpose statements that you have in the first draft.

I can read them, but I don't think I'm gonna have the votes to change it anyhow.

My my two concerns really are for the words aesthetic, which I think is an arbitrary word, because I don't know two people who agree on whether the uh uh executive office building is a beautiful building or not.

Um it's just in the eyes of the beholder.

And the other is high quality.

And by the way, high quality is only used once in the entire uh code.

And uh now I forgot where that was.

Uh uh aesthetics was used uh uh in the cell tower stuff.

Um but public utility structures, and here's the phrase the the use must incorporate high quality materials like brick stone, decorative panels, wood, or precast.

You could say incorporate um uh durable materials instead of high quality.

Uh I suggest the removal of those two phrases because they are arbitrary and they're not needed to explain what you want to explain.

Um aesthetics, um uh it says uh protects and enhances the aesthetic and visual character of the city and its residential neighborhoods.

If I deleted that word, aesthetics, protects and enhances the visual character of the city and its neighborhood.

I don't think it would change anything that you would include or not include is meeting the purpose statement, but it adds an arbitrary word that's unnecessary.

The the same is true for um uh high quality, provides and attracts high quality development.

Now there you can argue that high quality means expensive, and I don't know that that's a a goal of the county.

What does high quality uh development mean?

Uh and I would rather not answer that question.

Uh uh I would rather just say attractive development.

So in both cases, I'd recommend eliminating the word from the purpose clause.

And it may be as you go through this, you replace words of durable.

That's really descriptive.

So things like that, and rather than just take them out, not to drag this conversation on any longer.

But as you're working on it, you know, aesthetic, maybe it is or high quality, I'm sorry.

High quality, maybe it is um durable amenity rich, you know, uh add some adjectives rather than take it out entirely.

I appreciate that.

Just one thing to to point out, um most, if not, I mean I think essentially almost all of the language in the purpose section in our draft is is pulled from the purpose section of our current ordinance.

Um and obviously it's appropriate for you to comment on any aspect of the zoning ordinance in front of you.

Um but I think in particular, as sort of the guardians of the city's comprehensive plan, you know, uh I can't speak on behalf of staff, but certainly from my perspective, it's entirely appropriate for you all to revise the purpose statement if you think it's more appropriate.

I mean, this is sort of this this was sort of uh in a previous enunciation of what we thought the zoning ordinance would accomplish.

So as Ms.

Simmons said, I don't have concerns about our purpose statement extending beyond the strict language in the land use article for a couple of reasons.

I I won't get into them unless you'd like me to.

Yeah, I mean, if the if the commission thinks that we should slim these down, or and we could eliminate them entirely.

We could just say you're or or or or or or you know boil it down to a single sentence.

Um it's a long way of saying, like, I think you're gonna find that staff is is perfectly you know willing to accept whatever comments you have on this issue.

This is very much within your area.

Let the word smithing continue.

Um uh I I agree with the general statements of less subjectivity, more specificity.

Um, and on the subject of more specificity in the general purpose statement, uh, I guess it's A4, the one that begins promote alternative modes of transportation.

Um wondering if alternative modes of transportation was a deliberate thing, or if it would be more appropriate and inclusive to say all modes of transportation.

I mean, that's a general statement.

I my my my opinion, unless there's a reason it says alternative modes, is that it would say all modes so that we're not uh othering being a pedestrian bicyclist.

I agree with that.

Uh and then my other two sense, and this this came up, and I surprised uh Commissioner Zionist, you didn't do this.

Uh in 14 of that general purpose statement, we're on the hook for the happiness of the people of Rockville uh beyond the welfare.

I can't even control my own happiness.

So I don't know uh I don't know how I feel about including happiness or how we would mandate that.

I think that would be just included under welfare.

Yeah, um to echo you, I think I I brow the happiness you might suggest on two step.

I feel maybe that is maybe we can replace the word like well needs for something like a city you can achieve now the in the individual level.

Quality of life might be a good one.

That's that's measurable.

Um and and final thing, we can get back to this, but I heard Commissioner Zion and I think Mr.

Dumay both talk about the land use article.

Um I absolutely have some changes I'd like to see made to that.

So when it's appropriate to talk about that, Commissioner Zion's weekend.

I I have nothing to add that hasn't already been said in this discussion.

Yeah, I think I agree with uh the commissioners and but I don't agree to remove them totally, but changing the words to kind of the more um meaningful marable uh meaning, that would be good.

So I think we we get to a consensus for this for staff director.

We did on all of those changes, everybody.

I I'm okay with all of the changes suggested.

Everybody else's?

Yeah, I'm okay.

Yeah, I think we're okay with all those.

Just for my clarity, so I I'm tracking three, replacing alternative modes of transportation with all modes, replacing happiness with welfare, and replacing high quality with durable.

And eliminating aesthetics and eliminating high quality.

What would you like aesthetics replaced with?

Uh all you have to all you need to do is eliminate the words.

Here's the sentence it's protects and enhances the visual character uh character of the city and its residential neighborhoods.

That's sufficient.

That that's uh a number eight on the purposes.

With regard to high quality number 13, you provides attractive development and design.

You don't need high quality development.

Okay.

Okay, so in eight, we like visual character, but we don't like aesthetic.

And in 13, we like attractive, but removing high quality.

So attractive design that enhances the community's quality of life.

Is that right?

Yeah, it it was a stretch for me to go for attractive since I don't know what that is either.

Remember, I grew up in New Jersey.

Never mind.

It was no way they left commissioners for the for those suggestions.

Do we have a consensus?

Yeah.

I think yeah, we have a consensus tool, turn to those commissioner science recommend.

Great.

Thank you.

Um so moving on to another portion of the zoning ordinance that does have purpose statements.

Um, we also see them in Article 8.

Um, but for these, the aspirational framework is already established through our the purpose statement in Article 1.

So the question becomes as Mr.

Zion's indicated, are these kind of doing regulatory legwork?

And upon further review, we determined that the parking and loading purpose statement and the bicycle and pedestrian facilities purpose statements in those two divisions in Article 8, in fact, are not accomplishing much, if anything, in terms of regulations.

Whereas with the division that deals with amenity space and the division that deals with landscaping and screening, these are in fact referenced in connection with waiver provisions.

So in those instances for amenity space and landscaping and screening, we do think that these should remain in the staff draft of the zoning ordinance, but we are recommending removing the purpose statements from division 8.2 and 8.3, which are parking loading and bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any um polls on this.

Thank you.

All right.

Next up is development review processes, and my colleague, Mr.

John Foreman is online with us, and I will hand it over to him.

Hi, good evening.

Thank you, Ms.

Simmons.

And I apologize I'm not able to be there in person.

I've had some car issues today, unfortunately.

So I have a couple of topics.

The first is uh notice requirements, and this was a question from one of the commissioners.

So we have in the current zoning ordinance notice requirements that are I'll say very similar to what's currently proposed in the zoning ordinance rewrite.

There's various different uh types of notice required.

The first is a mailed notice to all residents or prop and property owners, and it's both uh within a radius that's defined by the type of project.

And I believe you have the full list in your brief book.

Um I'll note, and this is not in the brief book, that we did discuss this with the mayor and council previously as part of our FAST two initiative.

Um we've heard feedback from the development community that our area for notice is much larger than other jurisdictions.

And we confirmed this looking at both EC Montgomery County and Gaithersburg's uh requirements for notification, which are much smaller.

Um we proposed to mayor and council uh through the zoning ordinance rewrite to reconsider some of these large radiuses because uh the for several reasons.

Um, in addition to the developers telling us that the mailing was cumbersome and and expensive.

Uh, we also found that those who are really distant from a project are less likely to be impacted by it.

So 1500 feet is a pretty good distance away, and we weren't really seeing people come to hearings and meetings and things that far out from receiving those notices.

However, so we took that as part of a recommendation to mayor and council as part of FAST 2.

And I'll note that mayor and council directed staff not to pursue changing any of these areas.

Um they specifically requested that those notification areas be left alone.

So it's a long way of saying that what's in the zoning ordinance rewrite for those areas is the same as what's in uh the zoning ordinance now, which is uh done at the direction of mayor and council.

So moving on from the mailed notice, the next requirement is for application signs to be posted on the subject property of a development application.

Um also as part of FAST two.

You may have seen these uh on various projects, you all may be familiar.

Um I'll say there's opportunity to improve the way we do this currently, and we are currently evaluating other jurisdictions' best practices to make the signs more clear, legible, uh understandable, and uh just overall better.

Um so that's something that's not a part of the zoning ordinance rewrite.

That's a uh staff level initiative that we're we're currently working on.

Uh the next type of notice that's required in the zoning ordinance rewrite is to notify parties of record on decisions.

Uh so a party of record is applicants and anyone who's testified or requested be a party of record through uh through the process.

Uh so that's uh notice of the decision of the um of the approving authority.

And then finally, the uh code requires and would require under the zoning ordinance rewrite electronic notice.

Uh, this is specific to project plans and site plans.

Everything else I mentioned is applicable more generally to other application types.

Um, but just for project plans and site plans, uh, the the groups you see there on the screen are required to receive an electronic email notice.

So that's what's required in the zoning ordinance rewrite.

In addition to that, uh we've developed over the last few years some practices that we do as a matter of course for development projects and will continue and um potentially add on to as new techniques, methods, and and ideas become available.

The first is our development watch newsletter and map, or sorry, development watch website and map.

This is a portion of the city's website that uh lists projects that are in process and shows them on a map.

And the great thing about this is you can find information such as plans, upcoming meeting dates, information about who the case planner is and more things like that on the project pages.

In addition to that web resource, we also have an email newsletter that we've really committed to and I think it's a great resource for folks.

We only send emails once a month.

What we focus on are several things in that.

We provide information about new applications that have been received over the prior month.

We provide information about upcoming over the next month, uh area meetings or meetings such as this or this body that do that review uh development projects.

Um and then we provide general updates about the department or things of general interest.

Um I always plug this.

If you're interested in the newsletter, you can email me directly, or there's a button to sign up on the development watch website.

I promise we don't spam you.

It's not a bunch of emails, it's just once a month, but we do it consistently and it is good information.

Um so other places on the city website.

This is another fast initiative.

Um you can go to the website and find meeting agendas and use the city calendar to find information about meetings such as this or uh area meetings.

Um what we've noticed though is that there's not really a central location.

You can go to development watch and go to the project page and find this information.

But what doesn't exist is a more centralized location for you know, I want to see what's coming up for meetings for development over the next couple months.

Um so we're putting together as part of our new website um and the FAST 2 initiative uh an improvement to kind of centralize and to the extent we're able to under the framework of the website, provide some improvements to how people can uh keep informed about upcoming meetings.

In addition to all those online things, we also publish twice a year a full development update and rockful reports.

Uh so this lists um large projects like level two site plans and project plans, both in the print and the online version.

Uh we use social media uh particularly for area meetings.

So those are the meetings at the beginning of a beginning of a project that are um meant for and focused on the uh properties in the immediate area of the project.

Uh we work with our communication staff to post updates to next door uh in addition to everything else I mentioned on those meetings.

Uh finally, the last thing I'll mention on notice is we um we can we are proposing um and have included in the zoning ordinance rewrite that um there are additional level two administrative site plans.

So we went through this with you all in a work session quite a while back, and um we are proceeding with that direction both from you and the mayor and council to um to expand the list of things that are eligible for these level one site plans.

As part of that, we committed in both those work sessions and are continuing to commit to um putting an online posting um of all decisions of level one site plans for transparency.

And this would be in addition to uh sending the decision to the parties of record.

This would just be on the website um uh a posting of of the formal decision on the website for transparency.

Um so I think uh Ms.

Simmons, is this an appropriate place to stop for discussion, or should I continue through the other two slides?

Do you think?

Um I think it's it's perfectly acceptable for if you would like to pause here.

I think that would be totally appropriate.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Foreman, for the presentation.

And I think I brought up this topic, and I really appreciate that.

Give us a full list of the platforms that we can give notification.

So I understand is the first page is the mandatory requirement, and then this page is the additional practice that is not mentored, but these staff have been doing.

And so I guess that's correct.

Yes, okay.

Appreciate that.

And I'm in support of the online posting for the decisions on level one set plan.

Since during the process, we have given a lot of the uh plans um from commissioning uh commissioner tool, commission tool staff to make decisions.

I think this uh adds a transparency for that portion of the set plan.

And uh so my question is um how to become the party of records.

So it's not automatic, you'll have to initiate something.

Right now, it's not automatic, and I don't have the definition right in front of me.

If other staff do, feel free to jump in.

But generally it's it's people involved in the application, such as the applicant, as well as um members who uh members of the public or community who have uh given testimony through the process.

And if I'm missing anything or restating anything, others please correct me.

That's correct.

Thank you.

And any uh comments thoughts.

Uh Ms.

Foreman, I just have a quick question.

Um I think this is great, very comprehensive supportive.

We've gone over this.

Can you just talk a little bit about um communicating in languages other than English, in which media you do and how you make that determination?

Is there guidance you follow, or is it specific to a project or a neighborhood?

Um the notices that we require and send are generally in English, and for anything that the city provides, uh, there are services that we uh can provide to broad translation services.

Uh the city's website does have ability to be translated into different languages as well.

Um, and we work with uh we work with uh a service that assists us providing language assistance when requested.

All right, thank you.

All right, I think uh we're hearing no other comments and the way support staff's recommendation on this portion.

Thank you.

We can move to the next.

Thank you.

Um the next topic is our development review manual.

And uh this is I'll say it's a fairly technical manual that's intended for um applicants as well as resident staff and other stakeholders to do a couple things.

Uh for applicants, it's really primarily intended to provide uh guidance on preparing applications, what to include, uh what's required on plans, that type of thing, um, as well as providing logistical information on items that they're responsible for, such as the notices that they prepare, as well as uh agenda for agendas for area meetings which they're required to host.

Um we also use the opportunity in the development review manual to provide um clarification on regulations as well as certain internal procedures like our development review committee.

Um to be clear what what the the manual does not do is establish any recommendation or uh any regulations outside of the zoning ordinance rewrite, any standards, anything such as that.

It's uh really intended to be a supplement and to support the implementation of the zoning ordinance.

Um for those reasons, the manual is maintained and updated by city staff.

Um that's been a practice for many years, and I'll say speaking of many years, it's been many years since it's been updated.

Um so one of our fast initiatives, another one is to update the development review manual.

So coming up next, we have on the next slide, please.

Um we have approach this in a two-phased way.

Um we have an initial phase of updating the manual that's nearly complete.

And I'll say this is a very kind of um minor, intend to be a very minor uh superficial update.

Uh we have a new city brand that was launched recently.

We wanted to incorporate last year.

We moved all our applications from paper to online.

You can imagine if one of the main intents of the manual is to guide applications, that was all out of date.

Um so we updated all, we've updated all that to reflect the online application process.

Uh other editorial things like staff titles were were no longer correct, including I believe Mr.

Waselick's title was was listed incorrectly, which is fairly important, and so we wanted to update those and other other minor edits.

Umstantive edit that we made is that um we did um an update to in addition to the code required uh items that are um mandatory for mail notice that I mentioned earlier.

Um the development review manual also lays out some additional things that have to be included.

And what what we found is that some cases have multiple rounds of notification.

Uh, there may be a mailed notice at the beginning of the project for uh an area meeting.

Then later on for a briefing, there may be another round of notice that's sent.

Uh then at public hearings of planning commission and mayor and council, there could be one or two more rounds of mailing.

Um, and with each of those rounds of mailing, the same packet of information is required.

And um, that includes not only basic information about the project, but also supplemental things such as uh a written justification from the applicant.

Uh the city has a document called the Citizen's Guide to Development.

That's a great document, but it's you know one more piece of the contents that has to be included as well as a uh site plan and um along that's all in addition to the general required information about when meetings are.

We found that that those multiple rounds of sending all that stuff is very expensive, and and frankly, for people who are receiving it, a lot of information that's probably very hard to track.

Uh so we changed in the development review manual to um requiring all those things at the initial round of notice, and then following that subsequent notices can be much more uh direct and short and contain specifics about uh basic information about the project and basic meeting information, just the code required things, not all the extra supplemental things that were in the manual previously.

Um that's that's all included in phase one of the update.

It's nearly complete, it's not launched yet.

We plan on wrapping that up this month.

Uh phase two will be a much more substantive update of uh the zoning ordinance, or I'm sorry, the development review manual to implement the zoning ordinance re-write.

So any processes that have changed because of the zoning ordinance rewrite, those processes as described in the manual will have to get updated.

Um submittal requirements that have changed because of change standards or things like that will have to get updated.

In addition to one of the changes to the ordinance part of the zoning ordinance rewrite is to remove specific submittal requirements from some things, um, is very uneven.

There were only a few items that contain specific submittal requirements in the code.

But when they did, they were very specific and mentioned things like uh CD ROMs and things like that that are really outdated.

Um we're recommending to move that from the zoning ordinance rewrite and into the manual along with all the other seminal requirements.

Um last thing I'll mention on the manual is um in the zoning ordinance rewrite.

We are proposing a change to the staff draft to add a provision that clarifies that the um the manuals to be published by the city manager.

Um this is not in the code currently.

This has been a practice, uh, but there's nowhere really where the manual is established or uh recommended in any way.

It's just something that's exists.

Um adding this provision to the zoning ordinance reroute, we think is an improvement for a couple of reasons.

Um it establishes the manual first, but then it also is transparent and showing who's responsible for maintaining and updating it, which is city staff, and it's really just um formalizing our current practice.

Um so with that, happy to answer answer any other questions you all have about the development review manual.

Thank you, Mr.

Fommy.

Very uh comprehensive.

Any thoughts on this?

Just I agree with the recommendation to amend the staff draft to include the existence of the manual and who does it.

I can current yeah, so so just uh my question is where will this manual be available on the website?

On the engaged rock view, or where can the city that access this?

It is currently on our um development and zoning website.

Uh it's I think in several places, it's on the same pace you would go and apply, uh, make a make a development application.

Uh I think it's also on the page that just has a general description of our development review process.

Um it's also if you search in our uh search feature on the website, just development review manual, it will come up.

Thank you.

And just um concur with uh commission of point.

So will this manual be have like a function to be translated into a different language on the website?

That's a great question.

We will let us look into that and pursue that.

Um I'll need to check with some of our uh some of our technical folks on that.

I do appreciate the feedback and we'll look into that.

Thank you.

I trust our technology can make this really easy.

Thank you.

Any other thoughts on this?

Okay, now we support uh staff's recommendation on this topic.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is approval findings.

So this is really a recap of information that the planning commission received on October um 8th, and the mayor and council also discussed on October 6th, which was supported by both bodies at this at the that time.

Um, so this is an area that really was impacted again by staff's prioritization in the reworking of regulations and standards to be more objective and clearer.

So we again did really emphasize objectivity and accessibility.

The accessibility really kind of broke down to reframing the actual findings themselves.

If you look at the current draft of this or the current zoning ordinance, you will see different different findings for site plans, whether they're level one or level two, project plans, and preliminary plans of subdivision.

Perhaps they intend to accomplish the same thing.

For example, if you have a project plan level one or level two site plan, one of the existing findings is that the application will not be in conflict with the plan.

But then if you have a preliminary plan of subdivision, the language is the application will not violate or adversely affect the plan.

So in that instance, we've taken the intent of both of those findings and reframed them as the application is consistent with the plan.

We really did want for all of these findings to be consistent across application types, again for clarity and accessibility, and strongly tied to the comprehensive plan as well as strongly tied to city regulations.

So you will see in your brief book on pages nine and 10, a full breakdown of all of the existing findings, the application type that they apply apply to, the proposed replacement finding for those, I think it's 12 different potential findings that we're working with, and then a specific rationale for each one of those revisions.

And we came up with three findings, which would be the application is consistent with the plan again.

The application is supported by adequate existing and programmed public facilities as set forth in a reference to the APF section of the staff draft of the zoning ordinance, and as provided in the adopted adequate public facility standards.

And finally, the application conforms to the requirements of this chapter and other applicable law governing health, safety, natural resources, and the environment.

I know that there were questions about why include and call out the APF finding.

And we did think that just because that can be such a significant hurdle or impact project so specifically, and it is directly tied to our current findings.

That one did make sense to call out separately.

And yes, happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Miss Siemens.

Please call it.

We had testimony the other night that said we should uh awomen APFO, and we haven't talked about that yet, but maybe we would uh at a future session.

But it seems odd to call that one out when all of the other provisions in Article 8 are not called out, parking and all of that stuff.

Uh it seems unparalleled, if you will.

Uh and and the other thing that's that completely floors me is that there's no specific finding of compatibility.

Now there are other embedded compatibility findings in various subsections and all that stuff, but there's not a general requirement for finding the thing compatible, and that's what we've we hear most of the testimony on.

So why eliminate that?

There were various forms of it before you could put it in one form, but it it seems to be pretty sensual, even though I don't like arbitrary decisions.

Um, compatibility, at least you say it's compatible at least to X or Y.

There's some standard you say it's compatible too.

Um, you know, um, but you eliminated it.

Is there a reason?

Yeah, I'm I'm glad you're asking the question.

Um, so that is one of the ones that we did think um, you know, the general thrust of the current findings are already covered in the regulations within the zoning ordinance.

For example, the suitability or compatibility finding is really tied to the assignment of zones and uses within the zones, in addition to, as you pointed out, it is quite subjective.

Um, and in talking with staff, um, and this is this is included in the staff report as well, but because it is not tied to a really clear and objective standard, they it's not typically determinative in staff's recommendations of whether or not an application should be approved or denied.

So that was an instance along with many of these others, that we thought it could be the clarity and objectivity could be increased while really having minimal to no impact on the final outcome of um future applications.

I may be very confused here, but it says in the staff report approval findings, and it says, oh gosh, I lost my place.

I'm sorry.

These findings are highly discretionary.

Uh strongly tied to the city's comprehensive plan and regulations governing life safety, natural features, public facilities, and the like.

And then in the chart, it says the application is consistent with the plan.

Isn't I mean consistent, compatible?

I mean, is that what we're talking about?

Like is that it's still here, it just doesn't say compatible.

I think that that's correct.

And Commissioner Zion's so I actually do think we're talking about two separate things.

You're absolutely correct that we are intending and recommending to retain a finding of the application is consistent with the plan.

Um and Mr.

Zion, I'm sure can correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe what he is indicating is that there's no finding that an application needs to be consistent, for example, with the surrounding or compatible with the surrounding neighborhood or the visual character of the surrounding area.

There are, and I'm gonna have to search for a moment to be okay.

So if you look at um number 12 on page 10, for example, for our level one and level two site plans, we currently have an applicate or uh a finding that says the application will not be incompatible with the surrounding uses or properties.

Um, but we really believe that that is already covered by the assignment of land uses zones and the standards that apply to those land uses and zones, including um design standards and the mixed use and higher intensity zones, transition height assignment, and simply where the zones are placed themselves.

And if um if Mr.

Wazlac or Mr.

Dumay have anything to add to that, I'm happy to cede to them.

Yeah, I'll just note because we you know I participated in the conversation as well candidly, if the commission decided to recommend for a compatibility with surrounding the surrounding neighborhood or surrounding development, you know, there's nothing wrong with that from a legal perspective.

Um, but that was exactly as as just as Ms.

Simmons noted, that was our intent here.

We thought, well, both based on our past precedent and also just looking into the future, if a development goes through the relatively discretionary process of determining whether it's consistent with the comprehensive plan.

So it's a lot of discretion there for you to look into everything that we've envisioned for this site, and it meets all of the objective standards of the code.

What we didn't want was to have an additional compatibility finding that would essentially allow a body to say, well, yeah, it complies with the comp plan and it meets all of our discretionary standards, but for some unknown reason, unknown as of right now, we don't think this particular project is compatible with the neighboring development.

Number one is that you know, to my knowledge, that's not something that's really happened in recent memory.

Um, and number two, our thought was again, to the extent you're looking at compatibility, you know, are we have a comprehensive plan that really looked at at visioning out this site?

Um, but to be clear, there's nothing wrong if the commission says, you know what, we're not comfortable with that, we'd like a compatibility with with surrounding uh property finding.

Thank you for explaining that out.

That makes a lot of sense to me.

Um and the way that that we spoke it out here, I I prefer consistent.

I think the word compatible in in this instance could be too subjective, and it's dangerously close to quote character of a community.

So I I'm supportive of what uh staff has recommended here in the use of the word consistent.

So I'm supportive of uh adding the compatibility, and I think the tar oaks case is a perfect example.

Like even though uh so the zone is not higher density, but it's natural historical site, right?

In this case, there are many situations the the the development that in the zone are not uh existing development.

So the development not fully utilize the zone intensity.

So the RES uh discretionary uh if we can add this layer in the in our review, so we can make sure that the development is compatible with a existing neighborhood rather than the compatible with what the zone zone to be just to be very clear in the comprehensive master plan, if I remember correctly, it refers to compatibility when we're talking about different neighborhoods and compatibility of architecture and massing and all that.

It's been a while since we looked at it, um, other than looking at it in relation to the COR.

But just to be very clear, it's in it's in there.

And so if we're deciding, if one of the decision points is is this consistent with the comprehensive master plan, the compatibility is built into the comprehensive master plan.

Am I correct in that or no?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay.

So it's baked in to this consistency language.

I I think that it is.

It's just the question would be would you want every development to not only look at the plan but also you know do this independent, consistent with the neighborhood exercise?

Would staff always have to do that or not?

Um in other words, you're absolutely correct, Commissioner Pittman.

I just wouldn't want to give you the impression that every single time staff reviews a project, if we didn't have a you know, is it compatible with the neighborhood finding that staff would necessarily do an independent review of compatibility with the neighborhood?

Um but there are certainly provisions in the comprehensive plan or certain areas that really emphasize that, and that would probably form a part of the comprehensive plan analysis that staff would conduct.

Adding compatibility as a separate finding is just like having the uh adequate public facilities ordinance point it out, even though it's included in all of the other standards in the zone, which is a separate finding.

So it's just giving it some emphasis and some attention.

That's all it is.

Both are you, you know, you could just say uh um uh consistent with this with the zoning code, and the zoning code already points back to the plan and not say anything but that, but that's not very helpful to what is being asked of the deciding authority, in my opinion.

So I understand the staff's intention is to simplify making uh the findings more objective, but I think this is important for individual side plan reveal that we reveal the site the development to its particular surrounding because the surrounding might not fully utilize the what is zoned for, it is compatible with the existing surroundings.

So I I'm in support of adding this compatibility call-offs.

Commissioner No, listening to the discussion, I I think I fall in line with staff's uh recommendation.

I understand um Madam Chairwoman, your comments and Commissioner Zion's comments on this, but I think I fall in line with uh Commissioner Pittman and Fulton's view with uh removing the finding so maybe we can have a strove on this.

So the who in favor of the adding the compatibility language, please.

If I if I might add one thing, just in doing a quick quick review of the 12 discrete existing findings that we have.

Um I'm really only seeing the one that I referenced previously that the application will not be incompatible with the surrounding uses or properties, which applies only to level one and level two site plans currently and not to project plans or preliminary plans of subdivision as kind of the existing compatibility or prohib, you know, not incompatible um finding.

So I did want to make that clarification that if we're talking about all four of these application types, currently only two of them have an equivalent um finding.

The next closest is for a preliminary plan number five, the application will not be unsuitable for the type of development, the use contemplated, and public utilities and serve available public utilities and services, but I think that's actually quite substantively different.

So I can propose so since the current compatibility language only applies to level one level two set plan, can we also just take that only apply to level one level two coming from our chind thoughts?

I'm okay with that.

I'm I'm still in favor of the staff proposal.

So seems like same.

I'm still in favor of the staff proposal.

All right, three to two.

Okay.

Well, madam chairman, in our recommendations to mayor and council, we can say that you know, we we we had a divided view of this.

Okay.

Yeah, given this, um please uh include our discussion on this compatibility.

Absolutely.

The one thing I I'll note that wasn't in the staff report on findings was that there are no findings required for zoning changes.

Zero, not shouldn't we rectify that?

We will be addressing that next week.

We are.

Okay.

Okay.

So I think we conclude this portion.

Yes, final one in the development review processes.

We did have a request also from members of the mayor and council to discuss our appeals timelines specifically for administrative decisions.

This one I think will be quite a quick one, um, really just an update.

There are currently in the staff draft two separate time frames for effectively the same process.

So we have our 30 days to formally appeal an administrative decision which was carried for and forward and retained from the existing zoning ordinance.

And then we also have a timeline of 15 days to request a public hearing, which was a new addition to the staff draft.

And it honestly was introduced quite early in when we were trying to configure okay, how would we transition some of these approvals that are currently done by you all to an administrative approval?

And this was introduced as a way to um kind of ensure that there could be an opportunity for a public hearing.

But if you look at the process that would apply, it is exactly the same in effect as someone requesting or appealing a decision.

It still would basically undo the administrative decision and take it up to you all, which is exactly what an appeal does.

So there's different terminology used, it seems like a different process, but it's the same procedural outcome.

And we, after questions were raised, determined that yes, this creates some internal inconsistency.

So our recommendation here is to eliminate that 15 day timeline and apply the uniform 30-day appeal period, which currently exists within the zoning ordinance.

Thank you.

Any okay, well, all you in favor?

All right, thank you.

All right, final big section of the evening.

We have a bit more follow-up, so we're bookending it here.

Um follow-up from the January 14th work session specifically on amenity space and kind of a subset of amenity space, and then some follow-up questions on historic preservation as well.

So starting off with amenity space, um, particularly the exception for 100% affordable units, which is based on the location of the development.

As a reminder, our current zoning ordinance exempts all affordable housing projects from public use space requirements.

The staff draft proposes to constrain that a bit, exempting projects that are one 100% affordable, and two located within a quarter mile, which is about a five-minute walking distance of a public park or publicly accessible amenity space.

So we did have a chance to confer with our Department of Housing and Community Development colleagues and framed out uh a bit more of information on the rationale here.

So this really would work to improve project feasibility.

As was mentioned during our January 14th work session, um, 100% affordable projects are very difficult to finance.

So this works toward some of the affordable housing goals that the city has in improving that feasibility.

It focuses limited resources on delivering housing units and also maintains resident access to recreational amenities.

So this is not to say that residents won't have access to recreational amenities, they just might be provided a bit differently, but still within a reasonable distance of a development.

And finally, we do anticipate that this could encourage affordable housing within locations that are walkable and amenity rich by providing almost an incentive to develop in those areas.

So maybe you're locating an affordable housing project in a closer distance to an existing park than you otherwise would if you had those amenity space requirements required on site.

Thank you.

Any discussion on this topic.

I appreciate the additional rationale.

I still think we're letting developers off easy.

I I still they they have access to grants and public-private partnerships, but I'm not going to hold up affordable housing.

So just put putting that out there.

Thank you.

Any other thoughts?

Yeah, I think uh hearing of staff rationales on this.

I think if this rationale will encourage affordable housing to be developed in your existing amenity space like a park, I think it is a good idea.

Given the the space, I think it's a largely usable park, might be uh also a good amenity, the uh privately smaller scale amenities for the residents.

So I'm in support of this.

Any other thoughts?

No.

Okay.

Now we are in support of this recommendation.

Thank you.

All right.

Next up is historic preservation, and I will turn it over to our colleague uh Ms.

Katie Gerbis, who is online with us.

Thank you, Ms.

Simmons.

Um, so we have just a handful of items that we discussed at the January 14th meeting um that you all had either asked for more information from staff or just simply wanted some more time to kind of contemplate.

Um so we have, I believe it's three slides here that will kind of quickly go through related to those three outstanding items.

Um the first has to do with delisting.

So if you recall the way that the staff draft language for delisting was written, said that delisting could happen in two instances.

Um the first instance would be if the site or structure lost the physical characteristics that justified its designation, the second being other good cause.

And the discussion amongst this body was that the clause other good cause um was pretty vague, it was open-ended.

We wanted to kind of refine that language a little bit more.

Um so based on that feedback, and after having some discussions internally as staff, um, we're actually proposing a revision to that line of the ordinance.

So this would be 25113A.

Um, to revise that to read the mayor and council may remove a property from the historic district overlay zone if the majority finds that the site or structure has lost the characteristics for which it was originally placed in the zone, but only by unanimous vote for other good cause.

So there are kind of two main changes here.

Um the first is in the original staff draft, it only talked about the physical characteristics.

But as we discussed on January 14th, we designate structures oftentimes because of those physical characteristics, but that's not the only reason a site or a structure could be designated.

It could be designated because it has cultural significance.

Maybe there was an important event that took place there.

Um maybe the site was affiliated with a significant person in Rockville's history.

So we changed the language here to eliminate just the physical characteristics to talk about whatever, whatever characteristic um kind of warranted its nomination and its designation.

The other thing that we did here is you'll see we still have other good cause in here, but we're kind of changing the bar for that a little bit.

We didn't want to eliminate it because we want to allow some flexibility in case there is an unanticipated reason that delisting did make sense, but we heard you loud and clear um that we don't just want any old reason to be sufficient.

We don't want this to be a tool that's used frequently.

Um so by adding in this unanimous vote, we were hoping that retains some flexibility and truly exceptional circumstances where we can't predict today what that rationale might be, but it does make it a little bit harder in order to go through that delisting process and to trigger that process.

So I'd like to pause here and get any feedback or thoughts from the commission on staff's proposed um revision to that section.

Thank you, Miss Gurbus.

Commissioners.

So I as I understand it, you're proposing a two-tiered system.

Uh it's a little bit unclear by the sentence, but on the first one, if a majority finds the site as lost characteristics, it can remove, or if it's unanimous for other good causes.

I I would just say that this is not parallel to the requirements for the unanimous vote to designate a site against the uh opinion of the owner.

I would think that it would be more parallel if we required it to be anonymous vote for either reason to delist a site.

Okay, any other thoughts who reviews the other good cause versus just any cause?

Would that be a court council?

Could be the mayor and council.

They would interpret good cause because for for my perspective, why put in the word good if it's a unanimous vote?

It's a unanimous vote.

I mean, with the plain language, plain English, just like we're good for any other cause, it's unanimous.

It's unanimous.

And then the mayor and council reviews.

Um Steph, can you pull on the thread a little bit on the two-tiered system and the rationale for setting up that way?

I'm trying to recall our discussion from last time, but I just specifically talk about the two-tier system.

The discussion that we had last time was really around this other good cause.

Should we have that in there at all?

If we do keep it in there, do we want to change it to make it either a little bit more descriptive and prescriptive or prevent it from basically being used of, you know, I don't like that.

That's other good cause, which is certainly not the intent of this section of the code.

Um, so we went back as a group and kind of talked about, you know, what are things that we could anticipate and then what are things that we potentially couldn't anticipate and really concerned if we have removed this term all together.

Um, that that puts us perhaps in a bit of the same situation that we're currently finding ourselves in, where we have a register that's not been up to date that doesn't accurately reflect what's on the ground because we don't have the ability to remove something.

So specifically, Commissioner, your question about the two-tier system, we did not specifically talk about that last week.

Um, you know, this is one way to move forward.

The other option potentially, as Commissioner Zion's mentioned, um, is we could make you know a unanimous decision for any delisting of the mayor and council.

I believe how we have it right now is it would follow because a delisting would be a sectional map amendment, so it would follow the same process as our other sectional map amendments to designate a structure or to you know do other zoning changes, which is simply a majority.

No, I appreciate that.

Ms.

Garbus, you refer to uh, and this came up last time as well.

There are properties on in the register that are no longer here, no longer deemed significant, and there is no way to get those off the register without rewriting the the zone, the zoning overlay code.

It there's no way to handle that administratively and then not have a delisting mechanism that is seemed pretty accessible in the uh zoning code.

Not that we have identified, um, because really them being on the register is they have been rezoned to that overlay zone.

So if we wanted to remove them from the register, they would need to be removed from the overlay zone.

And really the only way I believe in Mr.

Dumay, please speak up if you're thinking of something that I'm not to do that is to change the zoning through a map amendment of sorts.

No, Ms.

Gervis is correct.

I mean, it was essentially a legislative act that creates the that lists the process, which is another way of saying that place the process in the historic district overlay zone.

So the only act that can then remove it from that zone would also be a legislative act by the mayor and council.

So unfortunately, there really isn't another process.

It has to be an action on the part of the mayor and council.

But you could have an alternative process for historic area work permits on sites where the where the primary uh building has been demolished if you wanted to.

But I'm not I'm not advocating that, but you could have an alternative process within the zone.

It just seems like you're trying to accomplish two things here.

One is to clean up the existing register, and two is to allow people to delist potentially viable historic properties for good cause.

And I realize you know, there's some rules that go with that.

But it just seems like we're trying to do two things with this one um just this one bullet point.

Yeah, I wouldn't want the planning commission to read too much into the other good cause provision.

I mean, I think again, from staff having been involved in the discussion from staff's perspective, it's just we recognize the mayor and council as a legislative body.

We recognize that under the land use article, they are tasked with preserving historical properties within the city, but there's not a requirement that a property that is, you know, once preserved is always going to be preserved.

Um, I mean, I'm spitballing, but for an example might be if a property is listed as uh as an example of uh architecture indicative of the 1960s, for example.

Um, and you know, the the register starts to include many more of those properties, some of which perhaps were better examples of that sort of architecture.

So the city also suddenly has you know more properties on the register than it necessarily believes is necessary to preserve that that period of of Rockville's history.

What we'd want the mayor and council to be able to do is say, well, you know, this property X was listed for these characteristics.

It has retained these characteristics, but we have five other properties that have now been listed, all of which are better examples of that form of architecture, and we believe that there's a good public purpose behind delisting that first structure so that we can do whatever, you know, develop it into higher density housing, uh, put a road there.

I mean, what what whatever public purpose is necessary?

And again, I'm I've completely made that up.

I mean, that wasn't part of our discussion, but but the point I'm trying to make is that there may be reasons in the future why a property that was once listed and deemed to be important and important characteristic of the of the city's historic architecture is no no longer meets that that you know balancing test.

Um but we could also cut it.

I mean, the commission can recommend that we cut other good cause and leave it at, you know, it's lost the physical characteristics that made it um that made it worth preserving.

But Chris Pittman, you are right.

We are trying to accomplish two different things.

You know, one is one is to clean up you know the the currently listed properties that may not be worthy of listing anymore because they've lost their characteristics, and the other is to preserve some degree of autonomy on the part of the mayor and council.

All right, last thing I'll say about that.

You have five property owners who have an example of mid-century modern architecture.

You allow the first four to de-list because you have this one that's and then what do you tell property owner number five?

Then you're setting the city setting itself up for you know a fight, right?

Because you let the other ones do it.

So how come I cannot do that?

I think that's fair.

Yep.

That's if that's a that's a fair concern.

So what I hear is one opinion is to not include this other good cause language, but maintain the fourth portion, the lost characters we can delete.

That's what I hear.

No, I'm supportive of staff's recommendation with the two tiers, because it I would want the mayor and council to have the flexibility.

Um I don't necessarily see the need to have the word good in the other cause, but you know, that now I'm nitpicking, because if it's unanimous, I can pretty much guarantee they probably have a good cause, right?

Um I think the issue is on the first part, the majority finding, which I am supportive of staff's recommendation on on a majority rather than unanimous, because I see a difference between listing a historic property versus the delisting and why we'd want that to be a majority finding.

So I think we got to take this in steps, right?

So I'm completely supportive of staff's recommendation, but I'm not sure that everyone's going to agree on that.

And there'll be disagreements on different parts.

Commissioner Futun, you um Yeah, I'm I'm going back and forth in my head on this one to be perfectly honest with you, because I looking at uh the spitball example, um that could fit into other good cause, or that could also say that you know one of those homes has lost the characteristic of what made a case storic because now there's several other examples.

So I'm comfortable moving this forward as is as a recommendation to mayor and council so that they have this to work with given our comments on this topic.

Okay, then uh maybe we can vote on the two items.

One, I hear you for the fourth portion of the recommendation.

The evil infrastructure has a lot of character, do we require a majority vote or unanimous vote on this topic?

If if you support the staff recommendation on the majority vote, please raise your hand.

That's the majority.

Okay, we're gather more majority.

Okay, and let's move to the second item.

Do we want to include the unanimous vote for other good costs?

So if you support staff's recommendation, please raise your hand.

I I think I have to support this.

I I've been involved in this on the county basis.

Uh we had something called the uh Silver Spring Armory, which was a historic site, which um the HBC allowed to be demolished because of economic development.

And that was the good cause that everybody was touting at the time.

It's a tough routine, but as long as it's unanimous, uh, I guess that is parallel to how we uh designate so against an owner's uh uh opposition.

So I'm okay as long as good cause as long as it's unanimous.

Okay, so I I see all of us raised for that.

Okay, then we support staff recommendation to keep the unanimous vote for other good costs.

And if you could please note that um for the majority finds that the site or structure has lost the characteristics, if that was not unanimous.

Okay.

Got it.

Thank you.

So we'll move on to our next slide, which is also about delisting, but a different component of it.

This stemmed from our conversation about um a circumstance where perhaps a property owner um self-inflicted harm on their site in an attempt to delist the property.

Um so we talked about that quite a bit on the 14th of January when we met.

Um, again, following that meeting, staff kind of debriefed.

We did some digging ourselves.

Um, and we're actually proposing that we not make any changes to the staff draft of the ordinance because we believe that the existing language that exists within chapter 25, as well as other elements of the city code um is adequate to not only disincentivize someone from doing harm to their own structure for this purpose, but also to penalize that behavior in the form of municipal fractions and other things of that nature that we can levy.

The other thing that I really want to um strike home here that we did talk about a bit on our last slide, as well as um at our last meeting is just because there is damage to a structure does not automatically mean that that property is going to be delisted, right?

We just talked about how it has to lose certain characteristics.

We talked about what the bar for that is.

Um, so in theory, someone may want to inflict harm to their own structure, um, but that doesn't mean that they're going to automatically get it.

Um and then those other penalties would come into effect um at that point in time.

So we'd like to pause here as well to get the commission's thoughts.

Thank you, Ms.

Gorbus.

Uh commissioners, any thoughts on staff's recommendation on this one?

I'm good.

I'm trying to remember the language, and I apologize.

Um I think I may have been in the minority here, thinking that if the harm inflicted has caused the property to lose the characteristics, right?

Under our first recommendation, the mayor and council can vote by majority vote to remove it, right?

This wouldn't prevent the mayor and council from acting.

Correct.

It it's a factor, but it's not an automatic thing.

So just because I took a hatchet to my historic shed doesn't automatically mean it's going to be delisted.

It would be one of many considerations.

Right, right.

And it doesn't mean it can't be delisted either.

Right.

Okay.

Yep.

All right.

Okay.

Uh, based on this discussion, I I can be supportive of uh staff's recommendation.

I'm also supportive of staff's recommendation.

I recall the conversation from two weeks ago, I think.

Thank you.

I'm also in support of thinking we have a consensus to support the staff recommendation.

Thank you.

Fantastic.

And then this is our last slide of the night.

This wasn't something that was discussed much at um our meeting on the 14th, but there were some follow-up emails and discussions about it.

Um, so there was an idea thrown out to incentivize the conversion of historic structures, largely um thinking of large single-family detached homes to incentivize the turning of those into multifamily housing units.

Um at this point, staff are not recommending any making any changes during this process to address that for two reasons.

Um, the first is ultimately there's a policy decision that needs to be made here.

Do we want our large single family detached historic homes to be able to accommodate multifamily housing?

Um, and if we do, then there's some zoning changes that need to take place in order to allow that change of land use to happen.

Right now, most of our single family detached historic sites um are in residential zones, not all of them, but the vast majority are in those kind of um lower density residential zones.

So because the 2040 plan does not call for this policy, and as this body knows, um, really what staff are hoping to do through this project is implement the recommendations, the policy recommendations of the 2040 plan.

Um, we don't believe we currently have the policy direction to go ahead and do that.

Um, second, when it comes to incentives of any sort, um, those aren't handled through the zoning ordinance.

Those are handled outside of that process, typically through our annual operating budget development, um, which as you all know is a pretty long process that we're in the middle of right now.

Uh so for that reason, staff don't believe it's appropriate to make any changes or recommendations at this point in time.

Um, however, the appropriate point in time in staff's perspective um would be when we do our next update to the 2040 comprehensive plan, um, which feels like it's far away, but it's really not that far away.

We'll probably be getting that process um in the next two to three years here.

Thank you, Ms.

Gurbus open for discussion.

Um everything in the staff report is accurate.

But one thing that's left out is that there was a discussion point last time that we talked about this that was a surrounded uh delisting.

And if you're going to make it possible to delist a property, there should be another path forward for preservation.

It right now you can either have an expensive historic property, and yes, you get a tax credit to help maintain it, but I bet many historic property owners would say it's not enough.

Or now you can figure out how to delist it for good cause.

Like Commissioner Zion's just said Silver Spring uh delisted an important building for economic development, and that was considered good cause.

So the tax credit or not, and I understand that's part of a bigger policy conversation.

There should be a third way for people to maintain between these two extremes between delisting and maintaining a single family property or a um you know a large single-use property.

Um, and by being able to create small multifamily within the historic frame or footprint of a building so that it's preserved, seems uh a better option than delisting.

So that's that's my only quibble with this.

I totally get that the way the tax credit has to be part of the comprehensive master plan uh discussion.

But is there not something in between these two extremes so that property historic properties are preserved?

If I may, there's a way to do it just by allowing more dwelling units within that structure.

Right now, within this code, there's a provision that says you can only have one dwelling unit on a lot.

Well, because this is a separate zone, you can have an alternative for historical preservation zone property that are residentially zone.

I hadn't considered the commercial uh side.

But uh all you have to do is say there's the limit uh on the number of units in that structure is determined by its ability to have parking for the units.

Uh and that would be sufficient.

It's just uh gives historic preservation properties more flexibility.

But uh, you know, it's uh it's up to the proponents here to to push this.

Um, I I I agree with I agreed with Commissioner Pittman when this she brought this up a couple of weeks ago, and and I agree with her statement here that everything in the in the staff report is accurate.

But I believe that you know, to borrow a phrase, we have good cause to pursue this um as a policy for the city.

Um, and if you know, I if it's not supported in this particular avenue at this moment, so be that.

But I I I'm really supportive of this.

I think it's a very good idea uh both philosophically for financially for for homeowners and uh for housing supply, returning historic properties to their original use.

So, you know, if there's a path forward that we can forge, I'd like to be supportive of that.

I'm supportive it.

And uh as the mayor and council, as the policy making body, they could act now, right?

Nothing prevents them if they think it's in line with uh the general intent of the comprehensive plan.

So can we make a note in our recommendations to Mayor and Council to consider um tax credits in this instance?

I don't know if we have a majority, uh, or it sounds like we have a majority.

I don't know if we have a unanimous uh on this body here tonight, but we can make a note, right?

That a majority would recommend the mayor council consider.

What do you think of the of the allowing more dwelling units in the structure idea?

I mean, in support of this strategy in general to encourage the historical structures to maintain historic character.

For those, I think it needs for the individual um tax credits or the units.

For those, I think it needs for the individual um tax credits or the units, it might need a little bit additional research on the language we'll propose.

I'm in support of this general direction, but the individual language.

So I think there is historic precedent for allowing more than one individual dwelling inside a footprint.

Yeah, I've done research in the past, uh, and the mayor council in the 1940s and 1950s actually did allow for um homes to be subdivided into um multifamily dwellings, and some of those still persist uh as nonconforming uses uh based on our current zone.

Uh apparently back then you just had to make application to the mayor and council, and they would uh approve it or not.

Uh I did find some that were not approved, um, but there are some that still exist that were approved and still exist as multifamily dwellings.

Um I guess I it might be helpful to confirm whether you want to look at a zoning mechanism to achieve this, in addition to a recommendation on tax credits.

You know, I had been thinking.

I mean, you could amend the the residential zones, which most of our historic districts are in the R zones, or uh perhaps those become uh the RD infill become the infill zone.

Uh if they were zoned infill, then that wouldn't be an issue, and you could have uh up to four units within the footprint of a single family home.

So that's another way to get there.

It doesn't address necessarily the historic district aspect of it.

The the goal here is another pathway to preservation.

And and I I think all of you here know I used to be a history teacher in another life, and history is a common language.

It doesn't matter if you've been here your whole life or if you got here two weeks ago, our community history is a common touch point for all of us, and it's a real community builder, and it's important that we preserve our history.

And I'll tell you this whole story since we're running so late anyway.

I'll just slip in a little story.

Uh, around 2009 or 10, I was sitting in a graduate seminar at UT Austin, and the city of Rockville was brought up as an anti-example of historic preservation.

It was an urban geography classroom, and I was like, wow, what a bunch of dumdums knocking down all our history right after World War II, and then again in the 70s, and then you know, a few years later, here I am.

And so we have this history of not honoring this important community language that we are all part of.

So that is why I and frankly, we need more of all kinds of housing.

So if we can give people another way to afford to preserve their historic home or their historic structure, why wouldn't we do it?

And I I hope the mayor and council would consider tax credits, and it gets us, you know, it gets us a little more housing.

So I hear Mr.

Waslack um recommend a potential avenue to do this is to put the historical site under instead of single family zone, put them into RMB in field zone.

Well, no, they're already in a historic preservation zone.

You don't have to create new zones for this.

They're already distinguished by every other property within their zone.

So all you have to do is write text that allows the historic properties to have more units in their structure.

I would just say that you know, right now the historic district is an overlay zone, it does not confer any kind of use permissions for the district.

It just basically requires that the historic district commission approve any physical improvements to the site.

Um, not to say that that avenue couldn't be pursued, but that's not what the historic district is now, does not involve use permissions.

So for me, I'd like to see staff do maybe additional um research on the potential avenues to achieve this goal, either putting the different zone or uh activate some special um language for the historical zone and get back to us, maybe.

Yeah, I would not want to see the historic overlay.

The whole point is that it's another avenue for preservation.

So I don't want to see the historic overlay taken off.

But if there is something simple that can be done.

Um just to avoid and it's certainly up to the commission unnecessarily having to bring the issue back.

I think it might be sufficient just for the commission to decide if it wants to recommend that we allow you know additional dwelling units on historic properties within the historic district zone.

The mechanism ultimately that we use to do that is probably not as important because to your point, Commissioner Pittman.

I don't think there's and nobody's proposing to lift the properties out of the historic district overlay zone.

The question would just be would we put that use permission into the overlay zone as Commissioner Zion suggests?

Would we follow another strategy?

But in any case, the strategy would accomplish that goal of allowing additional housing within within historic structures.

Um but again, I know we have a tight tight agenda, so if we can avoid bringing it back, um it would, I'm sure it would be good.

I'd be happy if it was a recommendation to Mayor and Council.

Would that work for everybody?

Yeah, that works for me.

Yes.

Okay.

And uh so commissioner uh commissioner Monosa also has a tax credit recommendation.

Well, I mean that's what we're talking about.

This all included.

Okay.

Now I think we are in support of this actual item.

So just thank you.

Commissioners, thank you.

So I think that's the last item for the work session.

Thank you so much for staff and the commissioner's discussion.

So let's move to our regular commissioner commission items.

Thank you, madam chair.

Uh, your next meeting is next week, uh, February 11th.

Uh, this will be uh another hybrid meeting of uh public hearings and work sessions.

I know at last week's sessions you thought uh that you would make that call uh at this meeting, uh, but in I had a discussion with the chair because we were sending out some notices through engage Rockville that we thought we needed to make the call sooner than that, just to give people some time.

So uh we have advertised the 11th meeting as um people can provide testimony at that meeting as well.

Um and we anticipate that that would be the final meeting where in person or um online testimony could be provided because at your at your um meeting on the 25th, which would be a recommendation.

That's when you really need to get into uh you know what you want your recommendation to say to the mayor and council.

So we have a number number of topics uh coming forward uh on the 11th, including uh zoning map amendments and their findings and consent, floating zones, uh more on some certain development standards, uh transitional provisions for uh applications that are kind of midstream and of the old versus the new code, adequate public facilities ordinance signs, and also some general updates.

So we should have a uh fairly robust discussion next week as well.

Thank you.

Any questions for the agenda?

No, okay.

So any old business hearing that any new business and uh it's not really business, but I did want to note that um we will be having a new uh director of community planning and development services uh joining in just about a month from now.

You probably saw the email.

Um so Evan Johnson will be joining us from uh Tampa, Florida.

So we look forward to working with them.

Thank you.

We're looking forward to work with him too.

And so I know we have no minutes to approve today, right?

Okay, so that so any uh IFAI and correspondence.

You have received all the correspondence that we received for you.

So thank you.

And do I have a motion to adjure?

Move to adjourn.

Seconded.

All you in favor say aye.

Aye.

The meetings adjured.

Good night, Rockville.