Good evening, Rockville.

Today is Wednesday, February 11th, 2026.

This is meeting number 4-26 of the City of Rockville Planning Commission.

I am Mong Sun, Chair of the Planning Commission, and joined in chamber by Commissioners Jeff Zainz, Cheyenne Salahing, Sulan Piedman, Eric Futen, and Jamie Esponosa.

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

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

This will be followed by our regular scheduled commission agendas.

Does any commissioners have any thoughts about today's agenda before we proceed?

Hearing none, okay.

So let's uh proceed with our today's agenda.

So the first one is public hearing and work session number four on zoning tax amendment TXT 2026, dash 00271, the draft the zoning ordinance and the map amendment, MAP2026, dash 00126, the comprehensive map amendment.

Mayor and council of Rockville are the applicants.

So Mr.

Westlack, is there a presentation from staff?

Uh yes, madam chair, just very briefly.

I want to take take the time to thank you all for the work that you've done to date on the zoning ordinance review.

I know it's been uh more meetings than you're used to and longer meetings than you're used to.

And um, we have one more uh public hearing and work session scheduled for you.

So um what we'd like to achieve this evening is uh have you provide all the direction that you feel you need to to us so that we can prepare your recommendation memo for presentation to you next time.

So that's what that's our goal.

And um so we look forward to that.

But um we have a number of topics to discuss, but before that we also have a public hearing.

And uh if there are no questions, um I would suggest that you move to the public hearing at this time.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Westlet.

So uh before we proceed with public hearing, if you intend to testify tonight and has not signed in, please sign you on the sheet at the back of the room and uh uh you will be registered.

And also before we proceed, I like I like to remind folks the time limits.

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

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

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

Um Mr.

Dumains will start the timer when you begin speaking.

And at any time, clarification questions may be asked by members of the commission, and please adhere to these time limits.

They will be enforced by me.

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

With that, let's welcome the first speaker of tonight.

Madam Chair, the first speaker is Alex Belita, to be followed by Kenny Paskin.

Good evening, Commissioners.

I'm Alex Belita.

I live in Newmark Commons, and I too want to join in thanking you for having all this extra work that these sessions uh consist of.

And again, I'm here tonight on behalf of 700 or so residents of Newmark Commons and Markwood to ask a simple question.

Why haven't you considered options to RMD 25 for the 9.75-acre tower oaks parcel next to Newmark, as the mayor and council asked you to do in December?

Because unless you've been having private talks amongst yourselves or with staff, these public work sessions have been repeatedly seeing you stick to RMD 25.

There's been no open discussion of rezoning that plot RMD 10 or RMD Infill.

There was some tweaking last week that I recognize that would limit development on this plot, depending on vehicle access.

But you made clear that limited development would still be under the provisions of RMD 25, which would enable construction of high-rise structures, something RMD 10 wouldn't do.

We've argued in front of you and the mayor and council that this kind of development is not compatible with our neighborhoods, as the comprehensive plan asks.

But then again, um, we heard you discussing late in last session.

Eliminating the word compatible is a determinative consideration.

And all I can say to that is wow.

Um, as I recall, there was some frustration here when we first brought up the mayor and council's call for a review of RMD 25 on the grounds that this was decided years ago.

We know the attorney representing the property owner has said no one objected to it back when it was first brought up.

That's true, but very disingenuous because this plot is Tower Oaks, zone 12.

We live in Area 3, our neighborhoods.

And we didn't learn of this proposed upzoning until last year, and then only because a couple of our neighbors got a letter.

Our HOA president, and I checked, says the HOA was never told.

And we think you ought to consider reconsider your notification requirements to ensure meaningful citizen engagement at an early date.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Kenny Peskin to be followed by Anna Astrid Molina.

Hello, my name is Kenny Peskin, and I'm speaking on behalf of the International Sign Association from Alexandria, Virginia.

Um I submitted written comments last week.

Um I hope that you all received uh at least an email copy uh in advance of tonight's meeting.

ISA broadly supports the revisions to Rockville Zoning Ordinance and many of the highlighted changes to the sign regulations.

However, we do have several specific concerns, and I'd like to raise those tonight.

Um the most significant change deals with the rules for freestanding signs.

Under the draft proposal, Section 25.10.3.4B4 prohibits all internally illuminated freestanding signs.

Now, this is new language that will have a significant impact on existing businesses in Rockville and on property owners seeking new tenants.

Now, to be clear, under the existing sign ordinance, internally illuminated freestanding signs are prohibited in planned development zones, in mixed-use transit zones, and the low intensity MXC and MXT zones.

But these signs are allowed in medium intensity and moderate intensity zones, including the MXCD zone.

And MXCD is the zone that applies to most of the businesses along Rockville Pike.

There are many dozens of businesses lining the primary commercial corridor of this community that will have their current signs declared nonconforming.

And this has two significant effects.

First, while Rockville plans to tweak the language for nonconforming signs, one continuing rule is that non-conforming signs must be removed eight years after the adoption of a new ordinance.

So businesses will lose their existing illuminated signs or will have to turn off their lights.

And turning off their signs means that they will lose between 15 to 30 percent of their current legibility just from losing the illumination.

Second, the nonconforming language triggers immediate removal if repairs or maintenance include repainting or refacing that result in a change of copy.

Numerous shopping centers have panels for individual tenants located within that plaza.

If they want to remove a tenant that left or add a tenant that arrived, that is a change of copy, and the existing sign must be modified to bring it into conformance.

The impact of a prohibition on internally illuminated freestanding signs will be significant and will adversely affect businesses in Rocco.

Now, because my time to speak is brief and coming to an end, I urge you to reread my written comments.

Um the proposed changes for comprehensive sign plans.

Uh oh.

Uh the comprehensive proposed changes for comprehensive sign plans that I discuss in the letter in my comments, could greatly expand the number of businesses required to submit a plan for approval, and the prohibition on electronic message centers as written would affect the ability of gas stations to display pricing information and drive-through restaurants to use digital menu boards.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Anna Astrid Molina, to be followed by Mark Brisheila.

Good evening.

My name is Anastate Molina, and I'm gonna um also thank you for all your work and thank the staff.

But at the same time, I want to avoid my deep frustration with the process.

Uh, as it says, it seems to me that the staff recommendation of Parsle SOR ID 17 reflects only the input from the owner and the developer.

Our community, specifically Markwood neighborhood, is ignored because we don't have a homeowners association.

So we were effectively excluded from the conversations that are deciding the fate of our doorsteps.

I am particularly troubled by the inconsistent inconsistency logic regarding the traffic.

I have heard from the planning commission that it's physically and logistically possible to beat a primary access road through Tower Road, connecting to major arteries.

But we have also heard that the lower density RD infill or RMD 10 designation will require access through the residential streets, Donsmill Court and therefore Potomac Valley Road, creating an adverse impact.

I have photos which I will submit for the record showing fire drugs stationed in front of the Potomac Valley nursing home.

It is not a rare occurrence.

It's three or four times daily.

This road is already a high friction zone, both emergency vehicles.

We deal with a constant stream of heavy delivery drops for food, medical supplies, and thrash removal, but three ships of medical personnel and visitors.

The road road is already at capacity.

Adding traffic is a recipe for gridlock.

Adding 200 plus private vehicles to a specific bottleneck is a trafficking, it's not just a trafficking inconvenient.

It's a public safety hazard.

Every second counts in an emergency vehicle.

Parcel SOR ID 17 is uniquely uniquely unsuitable for such high density.

A 1984 City of Rockville in-depth study of this particular lot, explicitly stated that under no circumstances should vehicle access be permitted through the residential neighborhoods to the north.

Yet that is exactly what the rezoning will do.

Additionally, this parcel contains unmarked graves that require relocation.

This is a sensitive site that demands cautious low impact approach, not a high density apartment complex.

The 2040 plans promises compatibility.

Yes, this proposal places a 75 foot dry rise building, effectively a seven-story store high story tower in the middle of R90 single family home.

The city is determined to increase density.

It must do so with respect to the existing neighborhood scale.

A designation like RD infield will allow the growth while maintaining the look and feel of Markwood and Newmark Commons neighborhood.

We would love to contact you so we can show you our neighborhood.

We don't know how to do it.

But also just want to let you know that don't let the lack of uh homeowners' associations be an excuse to ignore any neighborhood.

We are your constituents.

We're telling you that RD 25 is an overreach.

We ask you to reject this recommendation and seek a compatible lower density solution that prioritize safety over the development process.

Profits, thank you very much.

Thank you, ma'am.

The next speaker is Mark Prushela.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission, and also thank you for your work on the Planning Commission.

I know it's not an easy job.

I'm speaking tonight on my behalf as president of the College Garden Civic Association representing the Civic Association.

And earlier today, I sent you an email of a resolution that was passed by the board of the College Garden Civic Association.

So this is dated February 10th, 2026.

The board of the College Garden Civic Association, CGCA, resolves and asks for the following process improvements for the approval of the city's new zoning ordinance.

That the Rockville Planning Commission and the Rockville Mayor and Council extend the approval timeline of Rockville's proposed zoning ordinance as follows.

One, the approval date for the Planning Commission should be set at earliest for April 2026.

Two, the approval date for the mayor and council should be set at earliest for September 2026.

Further, in order that stakeholders, including neighborhood associations, are able to better understand the many changes.

Three, the planning commission and mayor and council should instruct city staff to provide an annotated red line crosswalk between the current zoning ordinance and the new zoning ordinance, and this crosswalk should be timely released to the public to allow stakeholders to effectively advocate the planning commission and mayor and council in their revised approval timelines.

The CGCA board finds the proposed zoning ordinance materials as currently presented to be so daunting in their breath and so vastly different in their structures that it is difficult for the College Garden Civic Association to effectively review and make substantive comments on the proposed zoning ordinance.

And that's the end of the resolution.

So I went online and I found the uh chapter 25, which is the zoning chapter, and I'm reading uh in part from section 25.04.02, which is the section that establishes the planning commission.

And I'm reading under B powers and duties under one, generally under B.

Uh, and this is um something that re relates to your duties, providing analysis and recommendations to the mayor and council on matters related to amendments to this chapter, that is chapter 25 of zoning, and the zoning map.

So I I just don't see how without a crosswalk, an annotated crosswalk that you can claim to have analyze the entire revised zoning ordinance.

So uh the board of the College Garden Civic Association felt that it was in our power to make a resolution on process, but in order to you know further uh test apply for this commission or before mayor and council, we actually have to have a general membership meeting, and we usually have two a year in May and November, but we are going to establish one in March.

And that uh will either be the second or third week in March, and it's just gonna take an awful lot of work to prepare materials first so that I and others understand them and can present them adequately to the membership, but but secondly, so that the membership can review materials as they want ahead of time and be able to understand um you know the changes to the zoning ordinance.

Now it's fairly easy to go and see that yes, uh College Gardens is going to maintain uh it's our 90 zone and it's going to uh you know, we can see what changes, if any, to zones around us are, but I just know from having been through this process before as a civic association president from College Gardens in 2005 through 2007 that the devil is in the details as the text really matters.

It's not just a matter of us inspecting the zones and the zones around us, it's a matter of are there changes to the zoning definitions in the text.

But it's not just how uh a zone is defined in the text.

In the over 200 pages of a zoning ordinance, there are all sorts of things that apply to residential and commercial zones that would not be obvious unless you read every last word.

And in order to effectively know how the differences between what is currently in place and what is going to be in place, that's why you need an annotated red line crosswalk, and this planning commission should be amongst the two bodies that actually instruct city staff for that uh that crosswalk, which take them a long time, would take me longer.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

So, Mr.

Waffle, do we have any um individual registered online?

Uh no, madam chair, there is not anyone online, and that concludes the list of speakers uh that have signed up.

Okay, thank you for for whom uh uh pro testimony uh in person.

I appreciate your time to participate.

So commissioners, do we have any um thoughts regarding their testimony?

Yes, first I turned it off instead of on.

Um but I'd like to hear from staff on the advisability of of doing a crosswalk that's been requested.

Well, I think we've been clear from the very beginning that our timeline has been dictated to us.

And uh the mayor and council would like this draft uh to them, and they would like to adopt it uh on June 1st.

So I don't see any opportunity for us to provide a crosswalk.

Um that was the can I finish, please?

That was the intent of the highlights document that was provided, has been provided uh since the draft was provided to help people read the draft zoning ordinance and outline changes between the current code and the proposed code.

So that was what we did in lieu of any sort of crosswalk or red line version.

Uh how are we going to handle all of the uh the recent testimony that we've received?

We've gotten some on uh some particular zones, so we've gotten some on the grandfathering provision.

We have signs which we'll deal with with tonight.

Um there was uh something on how townhouses were effective.

Is staff going to comment on those?

Yeah, we we hope to get direction from you on all of those issues this evening.

Okay, I all right.

I I I mean I I've said before that I don't intend to recommend to the uh to the mayor and council that they adopt anything that I haven't seen.

So I am after uh uh a red line version before going forward.

And I have said we're not gonna produce that uh for the planning commission for action.

We wouldn't ask you to adopt a document that you haven't seen.

So I will ask the commission later on whether they want to proceed.

Any other thoughts?

I just want I wanted to ask about the word compatible.

I thought we were it after the last meeting, I thought it was words like attractive that can be interpreted in every way, but compatible is a standard planning word.

So I I did not intend when we talked about subjective language to take out the word compatible because that is I mean, that's just planning word.

That's the planning vocabulary.

So I want to uh just that was brought up, and I want to make sure that that was clear from my perspective.

Right.

We we were talking about adding it in as a finding.

And I don't know that we had a majority from West.

We we did not have a majority to include the word uh compatible in one of the findings for project plan, site plan, and I forgot whatever.

Um but we had that discussion to include it, and it was Yeah, I so that's all I I just I was surprised to hear that because that was not my intention when I spoke about subjective language.

Uh yeah, I think that that was brought in the required findings, not the subject language discussion.

But as I recall, our discussion was the compatibility was already embedded in the comprehensive plan.

But I I'm in favor of adding the compatibility finding it.

I mean, if I may, um, we do think the compatibility is still a standard that would be applied for any development application that you would act on because it is referenced in the comprehensive plan, uh, as you've heard testimony about.

So you there would still be a finding that the uh development would be consistent with the comprehensive plan, and then you get to compatibility from there.

Okay.

So just I I think what we were trying to do was not put a level of subjectivity in the zoning that would be in conflict with a comprehensive master plan, so that they are very seamless.

So I think maybe we did that.

And I'm not sure that we did.

Uh but but you know, I I'm after sort of uh parallel treatment, and here we we point out specifically the um uh the adequate public facilities ordinance, which is another section within section eight of the code, but we don't raise the word compatibility, and and I think that is a failing uh uh for somebody to have to dig that up instead of it being a specific finding.

I know I know that wasn't a question, but I do want to reassure you that we are planning on putting um for any of the votes that were split.

We did hear the direction in the planning commission's recommendation memo to include that information.

So that will be in there that that was not a unanimous vote.

So what I just heard was there would be a finding.

What I got from the, and I did I wasn't here during the last meeting, but I did watch the replay.

And what I got from that conversation was the only reason we were talking about compatibility, whether or not it belonged where it was in that particular recommendation was because it would be redundant, right?

That it was already in the master plan, so it didn't need to be here as well, and that as a result of it being the master plan, there would be a finding around compatibility when presented with a project plan or a site plan.

Is that correct?

So if I can provide a little bit of clarity because I spoke on the issue at the last meeting, um that's sort of correct.

And if I can I can provide a little bit of context, and I think the example that I gave is is probably a little bit helpful.

One of the things that we wanted to avoid was a situation with in which a development could be found to be consistent with the text of the zoning ordinance, consistent with the recommendations of the comprehensive plan, and then still found to be incompatible with surrounding developments.

One of the reasons for that is because the comprehensive plan considers compatibility as one of its key elements.

Um the other problem with that is that as it exists in our current ordinance, I believe, a compatibility is typically a finding that's applied at site plan, not project plan.

One of the problems with that is that by including compatibility at that stage, it's never been used this way, to my knowledge, but it would essentially give either the chief of zoning or the planning commission the ability to define that, notwithstanding the fact that a project plan has been approved, right?

The the project is still incompatible with the surrounding development.

So the goal in drafting it was to was to ensure that an applicant moving forward, arguably, and I mean they have the ability anyway, would be able to look at our code, would be able to look at the comprehensive plan, and would be able to say, okay, these are the standards under which I am applying for a development, and those are the standards that will be applied by the approving authority.

Having an independent compatibility finding outside of the comprehensive plan arguably gives the reviewing body the ability to say there are these extraneous standards that I'm going to apply to this particular development based on the unique circumstances of the development.

What I also wanted to make clear was it's not illegal to have that as an extra finding.

If that's what the planning commission would like to recommend, they can certainly do that.

But we in in, I mean, one of our chief goals, and this was this was you know given to us by uh the former director of the department, but it was an appropriate goal was we want to make as much certainty as possible in the development approval process.

And this was a finding that again, outside of the comprehensive plan really left a lot of that out.

And so the last thing isn't, and I'll let staff talk about what their findings might look like, but you know, from a legal perspective, if you do not include a separate compatibility finding, I can't guarantee that every staff report will include a separate compatibility section.

Certain elements or certain portions of the comprehensive plan may make a bigger emphasis on compatibility on neighborhood compatibility.

And in that case, I would imagine compatibility would be an element of staff's review.

But the only way to guarantee that there will be a separate compatibility analysis would be to put that as a finding in your in the development approval section.

Um so I hope that provides a little bit of clarity.

And again, you can recommend either way as a body.

There's no no problem with that.

But that was our goal in drafting the ordinance.

Thank you for the explanation.

And since last time, last meeting, commissioner um Salah Hadim was not present.

So can we do a redo the straw vote for this topic?

So procedurally, because it was a straw vote, it's it's at the body's discretion.

Um and candidly, you could show choose to have a vote of the body to see if it would like to reopen the issue, but this is an informal process, and the votes that you're taking are are really not recorded as as actions of the commission.

So it's up to you as a body if you'd like to do that.

I'd like to invite commissioner.

I could just go on record and just say what I think about it because I didn't get a chance to do it last week if it makes a difference at all.

Um to me, it doesn't sound like it's redundant.

It sounds like it's an advisable thing to do to have uh a compatibility um uh have compatibility specifically in the um uh right, the the site plan process as well as in the project plan process.

Um so it would be my uh preference to have it in both places, not just rely on the fact that compatibility is in the um in the uh master plan.

So if I hear correctly, so you are in favor of adding a separate compatibility finding.

Uh I think there was already a separate compatibility finding.

We were talking about whether or not it still belonged there, right?

And so if it's not there, I would recommend it be there, and if it is there, I would recommend that it stay there.

How about that?

Yes, one thing, and uh I will I will say we did not do kind of a specific deep dive in either the staff report or the presentation last week about compatibility specifically.

Um so this is information that I would not have provided previously, and for that, um for that I apologize.

But one of the um kind of historic issues with including neighborhood compatibility is that it can have disequitable outcomes.

Um with things like that, where we're really looking at the existing development pattern and determining does this new development that responds to the policy and the needs of um the current community and incorporates consistency with the master plan and conforms to our regulations, adding a compatibility, specifically a neighborhood compatibility finding to that can um perpetuate historic inequities in um in zoning.

So that is not to say that you need to do one thing or the other.

I think both arguments and arguments in both directions are valid, but that is information that I did not provide previously, so I did want to make sure that you have that um as a point of consideration.

It's it's been my experience that compatibility goes to whether it's too close, too high, uh too reflective uh something on that, or whether the the rather than the question of should the thing exist at all in its land use as proposed in the master plan and the zoning.

So it really goes to those kinds of design issues more than anything else.

And I'm in favor of adding compatibility as a finding I would just like to go on the record as I hear what Commissioner Zion is saying.

Uh I agree, and I also disagree.

Um I agree that that is part of what compatibility is, but the way that I have seen compatibility discussed goes well beyond that.

Um I stand by, I think that I think we had a great robust discussion about this last week.

I think we could continue to do so this week.

Uh I don't think we will come to a unanimous conclusion.

In fact, I know that for sure.

Um so we have a big agenda uh ahead of us.

My recommendation would be that we allow staff to kind of recap our discussion.

Um we did not come to a unanimous conclusion, and that the mayor and council should seriously consider this when they have their conversations, but um willing to let others jump in with the conversation.

Thank you.

I think, yeah, last time you got all our vote result, and uh this meeting commissioner uh Sal Handina has his opinion.

So I think staff have enough information to transmit this to mayor and council.

I think me and uh Madam Chair, can I recommend taking another straw poll for staff just so they're clear?

Because from the discussion from last time and this time, I'm actually unclear myself as to who supports what.

Okay.

So I would just recommend taking a quick straw vote for staffs.

Okay, I think that makes the uh process clear.

So currently there is no compati the in the staff recommendation, there is no compatibility finding in the finding, but uh who in favor of adding the compatibility as an independent finding, please with your high one one quick clarifying.

This this was in the conversation that we had about staff with the table of findings and clearing up the language.

I just want to make sure that I'm remembering correctly.

Okay.

So who in favor of adding a separate compatibility finding, please raise your hand?

Okay.

So we have a pretty clear result.

Thank you.

And I have one other question from the public hearing, and that is uh, you know, with regard to the uh tower oak site, the lower density if they use uh um newmark commons boulevard as an access point would be uh 10 units to the acre.

In the staff's experience, does that result in high rises or townhouses?

Actually, uh that would result in townhouses.

That's our actually the RMD 10 zone, which was our townhouse zone has a max density of 10 units to the acre.

And it would be unlikely because there's less higher cost and less value to putting it as an apartment.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Yes.

Um point of clarification on the straw poll that was just the vote that was just taken.

So in our current zoning ordinance, we have a compatibility finding for level one and level two site plans, as um Mr.

Dumay said, we do not currently have one for project plans or preliminary plans of subdivision.

I'm not I understand the vote, but I'm not sure which types of applications it should be applied to.

Madam Chair, if I can make just a recommendation, I'm I'm very familiar with that section.

Um this is just a recommendation, you certainly don't have to take it, but it would probably, if you're going to add that finding, it would probably make most sense to add it to project plans and level two site plans only.

And the reason for that is um that those are those are essentially the larger big plans that are approved by either the planning commission or the mayor and council.

Level one site plans are approved administratively under our current ordinance and probably aren't appropriate for a separate in you know, a separate compatibility finding, um, in large part because they they primarily would be implementing project plans where that finding has already been made.

So it would be project plan and level two site plan would be my recommendation if you're if you're gonna provide comments on that.

Yeah, I'm comfortable with apply to the two type.

Yes.

All right.

We will take that.

Thank you.

All right, I think that concludes our public session.

Thank you.

And so let's uh proceed with the work session for today's agenda.

Uh thank you, madam chair.

Uh we would like to proceed as we have with the prior work sessions with uh a staff introduction to a topic area, and then that would open it up to uh planning commission discussion and direction.

And uh my colleague Ms.

Simmons is going to uh lead you through uh the initial set of topic areas.

All right, good evening, madam chair, members of the commission.

So first up is a brief discussion on zones, specifically our floating zones.

So this was uh uh brought to the fore by one of our commissioners.

Um the background on these zones is that we do have a set of comprehensive plan floating zones that were adopted in 2023.

This was following the adoption of the comprehensive plan as one might imagine, and they were intended to allow for plan consistent rezonings in the time between the adoption of the comprehensive plan and the adoption of this zoning ordinance um rewrite and comprehensive map or map map amendment.

So these have been applied.

I think we've had only one actually used um ad hoc through our optional map amendment process, which was established with those floating zones.

So that process um entails both the rezoning and the concurrent project plan application.

So because our comprehensive map amendment will implement the comp comprehensive plans, land use and zoning recommendations, the floating zones are not retained in the staff draft.

If I may, there's another reason for maintaining floating zones, and that's to allow zoning uh changes due to unexpected circumstances or not envisioned circumstances.

For example, if I were to buy, and I can't, um an entire block of of single family houses along a major boulevard.

We might think of trying to get townhouses in there, but you couldn't do that under the change mistake rule because nothing has changed the character of the community, and it wasn't a mistake when it was rezoned.

So you offer a floating zone as an opportunity for that unexpected circumstances, and you name the circumstances under which you you would entertain zoning.

It's just add some flexibility for things that you do not anticipate when you when you did the master plan.

Do I have any interest in the planning board in the planning commission for that?

Could that not be addressed through an appeals process or something?

No, you can't.

It's gotta be you it's a zone.

You you have to it's a zone that exists in concept and lands where all of the circumstances apply to that area at the application of a of a landowner.

So it's um it's something very specific as a zone.

And we don't have anything in our current code that would handle some sort of unexpected circumstance I mean I c I think currently the closest thing would be um a local map amendment that would take advantage of either a change or mistake.

Uh but that would not address the situation that uh Commissioner Science discussed.

Wouldn't that the situation be handled by the other good cause portion of that discussion that happened last week?

Other good cause doesn't apply to a zoning change.

So what was the other good cause?

Oh, that was in regard to um historical historical okay.

Right.

So can you clarify a little bit a difference between the floating zone and the zoning map amendment?

So a floating zone is something it's as we have it, we've established potential floating zones that can be used in certain circumstances.

And a a property owner or an applicant can request that that zone essentially not be floating and be placed on a particular property by action of the mayor and council, separate from any comprehensive map amendment or sectional map amendment or local map amendment that might occur.

So it kind of sets up that procedure to occur.

And we implemented it in the city because our comprehensive plan, we knew there was going to be delay between the comp plan and the uh zoning ordinance adoption.

So for those property owners who wanted to move forward and develop under the comprehensive plan recommendations, uh they had that opportunity to to implement the floating zone.

And as Ms.

Simmons noted, there was has been one property owner that did that.

Um I'm kind of wrapping my mind around this specific the floating zones that we did for the town center master plan between then and or the comp plan then and now and what Commissioner Zionz is proposing.

Uh using your example of a lot of single family houses, would then the whole city be under a floating zone?

And then if a uh property owner wanted to, for whatever reason switch the zoning, take advantage of the floating zone and file the appropriate information in hopes that they would pull down whatever zone they desired from the floating zone.

There's nothing easy about a zoning change, whether it's flowing zone or by change mistake, but it would be circumstances which you you had restricted to application if you wanted to.

You could say only along major boulevards that these things can occur.

But but it's a generic that you do not map at the time that you create the zone.

It it's applied for by individual property owners who meet the circumstances that you describe.

Commissioners, if I could provide a little extra context.

So uh Commissioner Zion's entirely accurately described what floating zones are and and the way that they can be used.

Um one of the other reasons that we didn't include them in the current ordinance is because they're not called for in the comprehensive plan, which doesn't necessarily, you know, they don't need to be expressly called for in the plan in order for us to include them.

Um but I think what the situation Commissioner Zions is describing, and and Commissioner Fulton's questions are helpful in in illustrating this.

I mean, it really is a separate and pretty pretty thorough planning exercise to determine whether to have a floating zone, where to include it, or what sort of additional heights, densities, or uses that you're going to be allowing.

Um you know, candidly, at this part of the process where we are, it's it's probably not something that we can effectively create.

In other words, I don't want to leave the commission in my professional opinion with the idea that it would be easy for us to just go ahead and throw a floating zone into the ordinance.

It's not just a matter of textual drafting.

There's also a pretty thorough comprehensive planning exercise to it as well to determine as what you know ultimately most importantly, is the end result consistent with recommendations in the plan in the plan, recommending that our uh recognizing that our comprehensive plan does not call for this degree of flexibility.

So, you know, if the planning commission would like to see this degree of flexibility, it would be my recommendation that it would happen after the adoption of the zoning ordinance as part of a separate zoning text amendment, in the same way that we created floating zones for a very particular purpose when we created the comprehensive plan floating zones.

So again, you you all can recommend whatever you'd like, but I'd pretty strongly recommend against including this at this stage of the process in the zoning ordinance rewrite.

I think I think the amount of effort necessary would would really uh be hard to meet.

Thank you for the clarification.

So based on what I hear, a floating zone, if we are ought to apply one, so that means we will not give a designated zoning designation for that zone, rather leaving uh it's called a floating zone.

Yes, and there's a lot of flexibility.

So just as Commissioner Zion said, you can put all sorts of criteria into the zone.

You can say, for example, that uh properties within an existing what is what's referred to as Euclidean zone, the zones that are permanently affixed to the property, you know, let's say properties in the R90 zone that are located uh next to a uh a thoroughfare or an arterial street or higher, for example, are eligible for a you know heightened density or uh we can call it like a middle housing floating zone that gives that that could be pulled down onto those properties after an application is made that would allow for additional density, for example.

But all of that starts with a policy with a policy goal, which we do not have right now.

Um, in other words, you create a floating zone to accomplish a particular policy purpose, and and we don't have that.

But we easily can.

I mean, just because we're doing the zoning ordinance now doesn't mean that we can't add zones in the future, particularly if we're seeing a need for that, um, which is again why I'd recommend doing it afterwards if if that's something that the planning commission and mayor and council would like to do.

I think this could be highly aspirational and really encourage some interesting things, but I do I take your point, Mr.

Dumay, that this may be best suited for a separate process where we can really devote energy and time to it, uh, especially coming up on uh I know it feels like a long way or a long time away, but we will be opening the master plan process sooner than we think.

So we we used to have floating zones, now we don't have floating zones anymore, right?

And so that was a deliberate uh action that was taken.

Um is the thought here that the reason we're getting rid of this is because we've put so much time and effort and thought into uh our our our new map, right?

Our our new zoning ordinance, that we would like to maintain the integrity of that zoning ordinance so that that that map, and that that's why we don't need the floating zone anymore, or is it something else?

Like we what I've noticed so far in this whole process is that we are getting a little bit more specific than we used to be.

We're getting maybe a little bit more um granular than we used to be, we're making it a little bit easier to develop in Rockville than it used to be.

This seems to fit, not that mold.

So that's why I'm asking this question.

Well, the way our floating zone procedure was set up was to allow for the master plan land use to be implemented sooner rather than waiting for the comprehensive zoning map amendment, which we're doing now.

So the need for the floating zone procedure that we set up really will go away because we're we are making those zoning changes as part of the comprehensive map amendment.

So no one would need to implement a floating zone because we're we're doing it as part of this the map amendment.

Now, if it would be something different, uh you know, that would be an entirely different type of floating zone or um, you know, that could be created separately, but the ones that we have now in place were to implement the comprehensive plan and the town center master plan, which we are doing.

Understood, thank you.

If if I might add as well, um I think something that we've seen both with the comprehensive plan and the town center master plan is adopting land use and zoning recommendations, and then there's a lag with the implementation.

Um in many places that is not the case.

You'll adopt a master plan, and at the same time you have a concurrent sectional map amendment.

That's pretty typical in Prince George's County and Montgomery County, and that is something that having gone through this process where these very specific land use and zoning recommendations were made five years ago now under a prior mayor and council, under a prior planning commission, with engagement with folks who were part of that process, may not be engaged with this process.

Now we have folks who are engaged with this process who may not have been engaged with that process.

Um I think the disjuncture between the adoption of the policy and the implementation of the zoning recommendations has caused some interesting circumstances.

Um something that we've taken away from this process is recommending that moving forward, and I do believe you'll see this with our two upcoming master plans, that we adopt the policy and adopt a sectional map amendment at the same time.

So you don't need to have a comprehensive plan adopted in 2021 and then a zoning text amendment that allows implementation of the comprehensive plans recommendations in 2023, and then finally the comprehensive map amendment in 2026.

It should be a more seamless process from the beginning.

Look, I agree this is this is a big deal kind of idea.

Um, but it's one of those things a lot of jurisdictions take advantage of.

And just because you used it one way doesn't mean you can't use it the way everybody else does.

I would be content if just flagging this for the council to say you might want to consider a floating zone in the in the future to have some flexibility.

Thank you.

I think what I hear is that um commissioner, we might want to send the method to mayor and council.

We we want to might consider this in the next process.

And at this process at this stage, we might uh support the stab recommendation by not adding this at this stage.

Other commissioners agree.

Yeah, I I agree with what the three of you have said.

Okay.

That's conclude this topic.

Thank you.

All right.

On to zoning map amendments.

So our zoning ordinance, as we've discussed a bit here this evening, does include processes to change the zones shown on our zoning map.

We have three types of map amendments local zoning map amendments, sectional zoning map amendments, and comprehensive zoning map amendments.

A local map amendment really deals with a single contiguous site.

It is generally can uh requested by the property owner.

And as referenced, um you need to demonstrate that there's been a change or a mistake.

With the sectional map amendments and the comprehensive map amendments, these are really um policy driven and they are initiated by the mayor and council.

So we had a question again from a commissioner saying why are there no findings associated with these map amendments?

And when we looked into this a bit, we did see while our current zoning ordinance does not require findings for any of our map amendments, it is quite typical to require findings specifically for local map amendments.

Those are the ones that are requested by the property owner.

So our recommendation is to um revise the staff draft to require two findings that you see before you on your screens specifically for local map amendments.

Just a little history.

The change mistake idea is court-made law, which is unique to Maryland, and it's really very onerous.

In in some court findings, um if the change was anticipated by the master plan, it's not a change sufficient for zoning.

For example, if all of a sudden that that commercial building appears in front of your lot, that was anticipated by the master plan.

A lot of courts will not find that to be a change.

So it's really onerous uh to get this type of change.

And I'm I'm happy with the with the findings that you're proposing.

Any other thoughts?

Everyone is fine with this.

Okay, great.

Next up, we have a good handful of development standards.

So I think I will can we go back a second.

One of the one of the things was owner consent uh for local map amendments.

And what was in your staff report, you said that uh zoning is a policy decision made by the council for the benefit of the community.

Can I say the same thing for historic preservation designations?

For anything historic preservation, I will have to defer to my colleagues.

Uh you certainly could.

Um just to provide use your words, Commissioner Zions to provide a little history.

Um, owner consent has been a recurring theme when the listing of historic properties has been proposed uh within just the last maybe two or three years before both the planning commission and the mayor and council.

So by adding owner consent as a consideration for historic listing of property as historic, we really were trying to be responsive to feedback we've heard, not just as part of this process, but again, going back several years.

Um it's not a legal requirement.

It doesn't need to be there for historic preservation.

Um I'd invite you to look at the proposed findings here for a local map amendment.

Um there are reasons why a planning commission, or excuse me, why the mayor and council may want to rezone a property through a local map amendment, um, including if a mistake was made when the existing zoning was applied.

From our perspective, we see no benefit to the city, and particularly to the mayor and council's ability to control the zoning to it uh of it of property if it's if it's inhibited from effectively correcting mistakes it possibly made in originally zoning property because an owner, for example, may have benefited from zoning that it wasn't entirely that that he shouldn't have been entitled to uh originally.

Um again, I'm I you know I just I don't see any benefit to owner consent as part of a uh local map amendment process.

And and I will also point out is I don't believe it's a requirement in Montgomery County either.

It is not either way for historic preservation or for local map amendments.

But since we have it for historic preservation, shouldn't we have it for local map amendments?

And sectional map amendments for that ex really, because if you want to protect property owners, uh maybe they should object to downzoning, and maybe you should have a unanimous vote.

I'll just say what I'm hearing, Commissioner Zions, is that you oppose owner consent as part of historic designation, not necessarily uh in favor of owner consent or the local map amendment process.

So if you're trying to make a point, I suppose the the point is made, but um, we don't we don't think that's necessarily a necessary component in any of the rezoning processes uh under our ordinance.

So just to clarify for this local map amendments, only the property owners can file, or the mayor can also file.

The mayor and council can also file.

Any other thoughts on Commissioner Zions?

That was my one question.

And I had my other question in refreshing my own memory on the historic um I believe that owner consent is not required as a condition in their avenues to move forward.

Um without it.

And so I will give you a second.

Um so are you saying that it should be an absolute condition?

Are you saying it should be subject to the same type of voting?

I I don't know what the next step that the commissioner is proposing is.

Same same type of situation, unanimous vote would overcome the lack of consent.

So currently it doesn't require the consent.

No, right.

And that's that's really typical.

Typical owner consent is not required for zoning up.

Any other thoughts?

Or we can have a straw vote on this.

So anyone, so we can see the two points recommended by the staff and the commissioner science recommend to adding uh owner's consent.

Well, owner's consent triggering a unanimous vote, yeah, unanimous vote.

So who is in favor of that, please raise your hand?

But madam, can I just be clear what do you mean by that?

Yeah, Commissioner Zions, can you can I make a suggestion?

If you're going to take the straw poll, you want to first ask like support of staff.

Who's in support of staff's recommendation being the first?

And then we can you see what I'm saying?

Yeah, so let's do the two step.

So who is in support of the staff's recommendation as it is?

Okay.

So that's unanimous vote.

And those commissioner Zions recommend to adding an uh just you voted in favor.

You voted.

I voted in in favor, but in addition to that, it's it's owner consent.

Lack of owner's consent would require you.

But that's not here.

We're asking do you recommend this?

Oh, I'm fine with those three, but there's another thing.

So you want to do this plus something else?

So you don't want to do this.

No, I want to do something other than this.

I'm the third thing doesn't exist here.

So you're saying you want to add something to this.

Yes.

So can we take a step back?

Because staff's recommendation is to not add owner's consent.

And that's what I was going at.

Is who's in favor of staff's recommendation, which is to not add owner's consent?

Does it that wasn't explicit in the findings that they're making, but right?

But in the staff staff does not want owners' consent in this rule.

Right.

So you see what I'm saying, madam chair.

Staff saying, hey, uh no owner's consent.

So I recommend taking a straw bottom of that.

Who supports staff's recommendation of no owner's consent?

So giving that, maybe we we first need to clarify uh commissioner Zions recommendation first, then we can choose one or the other.

So Commissioner Zions recommend.

Right, owner's consent lack of owner's consent requires unanimous vote.

That's my recommendation.

So he recommends at a third point of the recommendation.

Yeah, it's not really a finding.

These are findings.

So if he's not a finding um, it's just a procedural requirement.

If I may, can we, as we've done with many other um conversations that were not unanimous, can this just be reflected in the memo that we transmit to mayor and council?

Do we as I don't think we really, as Mr.

Dumay said at the top of the meeting, we don't really require vote.

This is informal, we don't require votes on these things.

It certainly can be, but it's up to the commission.

I just don't know if on this discussion staff has any idea where anybody stands.

Right.

On the issue of owner's consent, um, because it's not required, right?

Staff saying, hey, there's no need to require it.

As I understand, Commissioner Zion is saying, well, let's require owner's consent, and if we do require it to overcome it, we need to have a unanimous vote by the mayor and council.

Am I restating that right?

So I think the first step is to for uh staff is to for them to know how many of us would like to keep it the way it is, which is no owners consent, end of discussion.

Yeah, I think basically we have two options.

One, you the staff recommendation and two is the commission's recommendation.

Can we have a vote on that?

Yeah, so we can just vote on who is in support of the staff recommendation as is written now.

Okay, so that's pretty clear.

So the uh we can the staff can summarize commissioner Zion's recommendation to mayor and council.

Could I ask um just a point of clarification for Commissioner Zion's is your desire to see owner consent with unanimous approval by mayor and council?

Like is that contingent upon that recommendation remaining for the historic preservation, the historic district zone as well.

So this is just kind of a vote of principle, if I'm to understand correctly.

It's a vote to be parallel on two zoning requirements.

Excellent.

Thank you.

So to be clear, we vote the owner consent requires the unanimous vote on historic designation.

Right.

We already vote on that ESO.

So today we're voting only on this ETO.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

I think no more discussion on this topic, we can proceed.

All right.

So we have a number of development standards to go over here.

Um I will be pausing after each one of these because they're kind of meaty in each one.

I don't want to run through eight or nine slides and then make you all go back to the top.

The first one we have up is transition heights.

You all may recall that it has been actually quite a bit of time since you've seen this graphic before you.

We discussed this with um mayor and council back on May 5th of 2025, and you all on May 28th of 2025.

So we do currently have within our zoning ordinance a number of different ways that transitions are handled when you're going from a lower intensity to a higher intensity zone, typically single unit detached development to something a bit a bit taller.

Um we are proposing, as directed by Mayor and Council back in May to incorporate a modern proposal which transitions from lower to higher intensity buildings and facilit facilitates um the achievement of our plan policies and goals.

Um so we really do think that this would allow developments to reach our allowable heights while mitigating impact, although we've heard testimony um from some folks who think this goes a little bit too far.

We've heard questions from folks who thinks it uh who think it doesn't go uh far enough.

I understand including one of our commissioners.

Um, but with that, the staff draft as directed does include that buildings of 50 feet or greater must step back after 10 feet at the second story, and then also at 85 feet when they abut single unit residential zones, um, which I actually don't believe I have the slide that lays out exactly what those zones are, but it is included in attachment number one to your brief book, and it is as discussed um back in May of last year.

I do want to emphasize that this would impact actually very few zones or very few properties within the city.

Any thoughts?

These questions well, I I was concerned about this.

First of all, I didn't see that that the setback is after the second story.

I thought it was a 50 foot and then a setback.

Okay, so if it's second story, plus what makes this a decent thing to do is the fact that you're going back and putting in the setbacks from residential zones, right?

You're now recommending 25 foot setbacks in the RHD zone specifically.

I think it might be a simple few slides ahead of the yeah.

There were a whole slew of zones in which you were putting back setbacks when it's next to a single family residential.

In our mixed use zones, um, I I would have to double check, but I believe in our mixed use zones, those still apply.

I think you might be referencing was it in the staff report?

It's specifically for the RHD zone.

And we will we will get to that, but yes, that is a proposed change.

But the setback is only from from the RHD 25.

Oh, I forgot which one.

No, I'm sorry, I'm probably not being clear.

Um in our mixed use zones, the setbacks, I believe to the side and to the rear kind of bifurcated into are you a budding residential residential or a butting non-residential?

And that already exists.

And the additional setback, that 25 foot setback does apply when you're abutting residential.

In the RHD zone, which, as you all are well aware, is a new zone that we created when we first structured that, and actually, what you will see in the staff draft, it doesn't incorporate those same setbacks.

So thanks to Chair Soon who asked questions about the RHD zone, we did go back and reassess those um setbacks, and you'll see that a couple of slides from now.

But with that kind of understanding that our intention was to make that zone rather consistent in its bulk standards with the mixed use zones, but we did not hit that mark.

We just didn't go back and review it for consistency with those zones after our first initial pass.

And so that is something that we are proposing to do at this time.

So you will see those additional setbacks from residential for both the most the majority of the mixed use zones that are higher intensity and also the residential high density zone.

And what is the neighboring zones to the four properties that you highlighted on May 28th or whatever it is where you illustrated uh some sites uh near the town center that couldn't possibly uh use the uh heights.

Um what were those zones?

Well, do they now have this setback bear with me for a moment?

So if I recall correctly, at that point in time, we were considering configuring this in two different ways.

Um, and take this with a slight grain of salt uh because I don't have all of my notes from that May 28th meeting with me.

Um, but we were considering the zones that it should apply from.

And we had two different graphics showing the town center, um, town center master plan planning area, planning area one.

And one of them showed what it would look like to apply this step back requirement only from residential uses, and then another that showed applying it from our mixed use transition zone, which we were not recommending at that time, but there was some interest in seeing what would that look like to have that um to have the stepback apply also from the mixed use transition zone.

So, Mr.

Wazilak, I'm sure could tell you that that transition zone, the MXT has existed as a transition zone for many years, and we did not perceive a need to create a further transition from that zone.

So ultimately, based on the guidance of Mayor and Council, we did not include that as a zone that this transition height would need to apply from.

And I I am hopeful that I am answering the question that was asked, but if I'm not, please um please feel free.

I'm referring to the table starting on nine of the staff report that says you're adding in setback requirements for MXT D family, MXCD, MXCT.

And are those the zones that you were illustrating before in the town center.

Could you could you restate your question?

On May 28th, were those that so I will be clear.

The the table that you're seeing on page nine is not um material that is related to this particular particular topic.

It is actually reference material for the discussion about the setbacks for the residential high density zone.

So if we would like to transition to that and kind of talk about these two at the same time, I am happy to do that.

It seems to me they're related because distance makes the height grow fonder.

And and if I'm further away, it's better off.

It's less onerous.

I do not at all disagree with you.

Um it's okay.

No, no, it's it's possible that the rest of the commissioners don't have all of the information at the ready that you have.

So, Commissioner or Chair Soon, if you would like for me to go to the slide that talks about the residential high density zone and the setbacks from that, I am happy to do that if we want to kind of consider the two at the same time.

Yeah, I think that would be uh better because that discussion was back in May.

And yeah, it's better.

Maybe we can discard this two together.

Absolutely.

So as with the information, we incorporated the information related to the transition heights into the staff draft.

We have no further recommendations there.

But when it comes to the residential high density zone, um, Chair Soon did ask questions about the setback, the front and the frontage and setback requirements.

So our recommendation, and I have the table that um Commissioner Zion's is referencing on the next page.

But our recommendation is to revise the residential high density side and rear setbacks to better align with those in the mixed use zones.

And again, you'll see that on the next slide.

We are also recommending to revise the residential high density front setback requirement for clarity and accuracy.

So what that looks like, um, and if I can kind of walk through this table, I think it might be useful.

What that looks like is the column all the way to the right on your screen.

So that's what we're proposing to be the updated residential high density standards when it comes to front set front setbacks or setbacks from the public right of way, side setbacks, and rear setbacks.

The column that you see staff draft zoning ordinance across the top of two columns, and there you see what we have proposed in the residential high density zone.

That's the full text of what's there right now, and then the full text of our mixed use transist use transit district family of zones as well as the MXCD and the MXCT.

And I will say, for those, we really did not propose substantial changes from what is in our current ordinance.

So where the colors come in is anything in red is what we're proposing to inform that updated residential high density recommendation.

So we're not it and I this may be a little bit visually confusing because a lot of the time when I put red in a table, it has it has indicated a change.

This is not a change.

It's saying these are the things that we're carrying forward and that correspond to that column all the way to the right.

So we really are um at its core trying to make that front setback clearer and more consistent with other zones, and also to make the side setback and the rear setback more consistent with a mixed-use transit district zones and the mixed use core uh corridor district and corridor transition zones, which are higher intensity and have more similar um height requirements and anticipated development patterns.

Thank you.

And commentary science.

No, now I understand at least.

I I thought you were adding it in.

Um I'm still concerned about a single family house having a setback of like 10 feet, and then a building that starts at uh at 25 feet and goes up to 50 feet real quick.

Um so what is the setback from the zones that abut single family houses?

Perfect.

So that would be in the bottom right two columns.

If you have a side or a rear setback where you're in the RHD zone or the MXTD, the MXCD, the MXCT, I believe even a couple of our other um, a couple of our other mixed use zones as well, though they're not all shown on this slide.

Um, if you are a butting a residential property to your side or to your rear, it would be a 25-foot setback with that transition that we saw on the on the other slide.

Um then if you're abutting a non-residential property, that's where you get to the point that you have no setback required, but 10 foot minimum if provided.

And I would put caveats on that that very frequently um the setback is provided regardless because it's necessary to um to address other site elements.

I'm good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I appreciate the staff re considering this and adding the different setbacks for non-residential and residential, and I'm okay with stab recommendation.

Any other thoughts on this?

Okay with both.

Do we take care of two with one?

Yeah, maybe it would do that.

So any uh commissioner all good with the transition height and the the setback ECO for IRH D zone.

All right.

Hearing the no opposition, I think we are good for two topic.

Thank you.

Excellent.

Uh working backward after we've taken care of some forward.

Um, so on to bonus heights.

This is again something that you all addressed back in May of 2025, but I do.

It has been a good while.

So to review the materials that we went over then, and which we did get direction on, and that's what we saw incorporated into the staff draft.

We do have two different ways generally that bonus height can be can be gotten through development.

So in our MX T D 85, 200, and 235, there are base heights of 85 feet, 200 feet, and 235 feet.

As recommended in the town center master plan, there is developments would also be eligible for bonus height over and above that base height based on the provision of affordable housing over the minimum that is required per R code.

So if you were to provide affordable housing over the minimum required, in the MXTD 85, you would be eligible for a bonus height of 50 feet.

In the MXTD 200 and 235, you would be eligible for a bonus height of 100 feet.

I would also say, and uh, and if there are questions about the champion projects, I will be deferring to my colleague Mr.

Wazilak.

But this would also apply for the bonus height that pro champion projects would be eligible for, would be eligible in these increments.

Oh, we do have one more slide on this.

The other way that you can be afforded bonus height is by being a qualified project under the Maryland Housing Expansion and Affordability Act, which went into effect on January 1st of 2025.

So this is something, as we discussed previously, but again, been a long time.

Um if a project came in today and was a qualified project as defined in accordance with the Maryland Housing Expansion and Affordability Act, they would already be eligible for the bonus or the benefit under that HEAA.

Um we did want for transparency's sake to incorporate it into our zoning ordinance, and this is something that the mayor and council has expressed a strong desire to see in our ordinance as well.

So there are three ways to be a qualified project.

One of them does not apply to any property within the city of Rockville, so we'll focus on the two that do.

You can be a qualified project if you're located within three quarters of a mile of a passenger rail station, and if you provide 20% of your housing units that are deed restricted affordable for a minimum of 40 years, or you can be a qualified project if the property is controlled by a nonprofit or located on land owned by a nonprofit, and they provide slightly more affordable housing units.

So that's set at 25% of housing units being deed restricted affordable for a minimum of 40 years.

And in both cases, those projects would be eligible for 30% height bonus.

Thank you.

And any uh thoughts, discussion on this.

I'd I would like to step to clarify the what the champion projects would include.

It seems like this is a very special project that has been got a lot of privilege.

That's a fairly accurate assessment.

Uh champion projects were created for projects in the what's the area known as the South Pike, uh, which is basically around the Twinbrook Metro station, and uh as a way of not only allowing for higher density, but achieving more of an urban development pattern.

And so that was um put into the code as a result of the Rockville Pike Plan in 2016.

And so uh we have carried that forward um to apply still uh in the South Pike area.

Is that correct?

Yeah, that's sounds great.

So my question is are there uh going to be future champion projects or other type of project might be eligible for this kind of bonus?

It seems like this champion program is very particular to the particular site.

It is, it's intended for large projects which have a you know years, if not decades long build-out uh multiple blocks, um, kind of building out the urban pattern that we'd like to see at Twinbrook.

So I would imagine like in the future, maybe there might be champion projects around Shady Growth Metro Station.

It's possible.

So we can also include that as a champion project if we want it to be.

But yes.

Okay.

All right.

Okay.

Any other thoughts on this?

No opposed.

All right.

I think we are uh supports that recommendation.

Thank you.

Excellent.

Next up is our RMD infill zone.

So we again had questions from Chair Soon, which led us to giving another critical eye to the RMD infill zone.

In the staff draft, we have a density of one dwelling unit per 2,000 square feet.

And no distinction in terms of density or lot area between different uses and forms.

So we did go and do a bit of research into other jurisdictions, whether they regulate these zones through density or minimum lot area.

And ultimately recommend to revise the RMD infill density standard to a minimum lot area standard.

So that would look like instead of one dwelling unit per 2,000 square feet, it would be one dwelling unit or a minimum lot area of 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit, and also to cap the number of dwelling units based on per lot based on form.

This is something that we adopted from Salt Lake City, Utah.

And I I will admit this is something that we struggled with a little bit in coming up with the standards.

We did see in other ordinances, it's quite typical for infill zones like this that allow um middle housing types to actually allow one dwelling unit per 2,000 square feet of lot area.

Um that's that we do think that that's calibrated about correctly.

Um and sometimes we do see it as a density standard, more frequently as a minimum lot area standard, but then allowing variability based on the form that is being proposed or the use that is being proposed seemed like a very elegant way to ensure that the development in this zone would be more consistent with the development pattern that we already see um in surrounding residential zones.

Pardon me, you completely lost me.

Um if I have a 2,000 square foot lot, can I do a uh cottage court and eight units?

Can I do a townhouse of six units?

I I don't know what these apply to it's a both and so if you have a cottage court development with eight units, you would need 16,000 square feet minimum lot area.

So it so it's it multiple unit per per 2,000 square feet.

So it is based on lot area.

Correct.

Do we know if this zone applies to that problem site in Twinbrook that we got the other day where they were complaining that they weren't infill or they should be infill or whatever they were complaining about?

Um Mr.

Wazilak is nodding his head, yes.

I'm I'm not I'm tent, I'm like, do I want to characterize it that way?

Um this would apply to the property that you're you're speaking about.

We did receive testimony for I believe it's 5946 Halpine Road, um, with the property owner requesting a different zone than is recommended or proposed through our comprehensive map amendment, and honestly, than is recommended by the comprehensive plan.

Um there were some comments about it needing to be the comprehensive plan, I I will say does recommend a new zone for that property, but the RMD infill had not been created at the time that the comprehensive plan was adopted, and in fact was created to respond directly to the language that is um recommending um what is it a new zone that allows for a diversity of housing types, including duplexes, triplexes, and sometimes quadplexes.

There are a number of recommendations throughout our comprehensive plan that have that exact language, and those are all of the areas that have been assigned the RMD infill zone, and that is what that is the purpose and the recommendation that the RMD's infill zone was implemented to address very very shortly after the comprehensive plan, but it it is a new zone in terms of the comprehensive plan.

All right, so the core is that it's it's a density of one unit per 2,000 square feet, have added if you have more than 2,000 square feet on what type of unit you want.

Okay.

Yeah, I appreciate staff to do the further research on clarifying this.

So it's I think it's more literally expressing our goal is to we we uh encourage this kind of meet meat meat housing, meeting middle housing type, and this gives a more clear um uh regulations on that.

So I I'm in support of staff's recommendation.

Any other thoughts?

Okay, well, I'll go down this.

Thank you.

If I may, there's one thing I've noticed about the whole zoning code is that you uh there's never an FAR limit.

There are there are side setbacks, there's height, there's some things you can't really do FARs, but in uh in a residential zone, it's per unit.

So the incentive you're giving everybody is to make the biggest unit that they can do within that form of the zone, as opposed to putting a maximum FAR for the number of units you want to enable smaller units.

So if you put an FAR that gave you one unit for every thousand square foot of floor area, and and said, here's your FAR, go do it.

There would be the incentive to create more units that are smaller.

But you don't want to do that.

I think one thing that we've heard consistently is that we have a lot of small units, and we need units that are larger that can accommodate families.

And uh, you know, at a typical high-rise, you're getting sing uh studios in one and two bedrooms.

So um this potentially is a way to achieve some some larger type of of residential units.

Okay.

Okay, so Commissioner Zines, are you okay with the recommendation?

Okay.

All right.

So we can move to the next one.

All right.

So next up is sign regulations, and I will pass it off to my colleague, Mr.

Bozelak.

Thank you, Ms.

Simmons.

So one thing uh to preface the sign discussion on the sign ordinance.

The sign ordinance was uh rewritten in 2018 and 2019.

Uh so it has a had a fairly recent update.

Um we did notice some things that needed to be modified, and in using that updated code, and we've tried to incorporate those uh in our recommendations uh for key changes uh in the sign ordinance.

Probably the biggest thing is uh reorganizing it for ease of use, as we've done with with most of the code.

Uh we've exempted certain signs, including directional signs and signs that are regulated by chapter 121 of the code, which is the city's road code, if you will.

So those are kind of road and street-oriented signs.

Um it further ensures that regulations are content neutral.

Uh, that is uh the primary driver for the rewrite of the sign ordinance the last time, and we're kind of doubling down on that uh in this rewrite.

We've introduced some new sign types and regulations associated with them, including A-frame signs, um, window signs, which you do not currently regulate, and also building mounted banner signs.

We are uh recommending prohibiting certain signs, including feather flags.

Um probably see many of those around the city.

Um they're actually in my view, prohibited under the current code, but we don't call them that, and so we feel that it would uh behoove us to be more specific about those types of signs.

Uh also electronic message centers.

Um the current code does not permit those, and we are continuing that um policy uh unless they are more pedestrian-oriented.

So we realize uh you've received some testimony um this evening, also by um, I think I forward testimony from the uh chamber of commerce um referencing those same recommendations.

Um but I just want to note that uh we are essentially continuing the the existing prohibition on those under the current code.

Other aspects of the sign ordinance is that it expands uh the scope of repairs allowed for non-conforming signs, much like uh non-conforming uses and development nonconformities for the rest of the code.

Uh eliminates uh one thing that I believe uh as has observed that the um sign plan regulations or requirements that we have have kind of stifled creativity in terms of signs, and that was something that we've had uh in effect for a number of decades to address issues that occurred way back then.

Eliminates uh one thing that I believe as has observed that the um sign plan regulations or requirements that we have have kind of stifled creativity in terms of signs, and that was something that we've had um in effect for a number of decades to address issues that occurred way back then, and uh so now we have sign plans for certain properties that have been in effect for for decades and require that all signs on a shopping center, it'd be red channel letters and you know so many of those have been in place, as I said, for uh for a number of years, and uh but we continually get requests for um flexibility in those uh sign plans uh to allow for logos and allow for additional colors.

Um so trying to kind of swing things back to where there's a little bit more flexibility than um kind of the the rigidity of the sign plans that we currently have.

Also um optional sign packages were something that we added to the code this last rewrite to allow for for some flexibility for larger projects that uh would be looking at how their signage works throughout their site.

Twin recorder uh is a good example of that.

They have an optional sign package, uh they receive some variances uh along with their optional sign package, but we've got a plan in place, and we know how they're gonna sign uh that whole uh development as it builds out.

So we'd like to replace the decades old sign plans and the optional sign packages with a new comprehensive sign plan uh that would be submitted uh prior to any signed permits being issued for a new development.

Um so we kind of uh are in between the um the regulations that we have in place now, so that we're looking at an applicant kind of defining where their signs would go and what type of signs they might have, um, but not limiting them to you have to pick this color and this font and all of that.

So um that is our recommendation, and the the code includes that.

And uh we do allow for sign variances, and uh I will say since 2019 we've probably adopted or approved maybe three of those.

So um in uh in granting those, and I was the one that that did that, uh I found that the findings that we had included were not really appropriate and somewhat duplicative.

Uh so we revised those to make them more meaningful and uh achievable.

So um those are the key changes uh that I wanted to highlight for you.

Um we um, as I said, we have received uh testimony about internal illumination of signs, and um the current code actually allows that in many of our zones, uh except for certain zones like the MXT and MXC zones, which are more neighborhood oriented, and also freestanding signs in the MXTD.

Uh we feel that uh although the current code the current draft does not recommend um internal illuminated signs that we should bring that back into the code.

And uh it was really wasn't the intent to make all the ones that we do have uh and that are uh conforming currently were not intended to make them non-conforming.

So our recommendation is to bring back um the internal illuminated signs uh in all of our zones except the the ones that are um listed here under our current code.

So that would be MXCD, which uh you know is the Rockville Pike Corridor and other kind of mixed use areas and all of our other mixed use zones and our uh industrial zones, with the exceptions of the MXT, MXC, and MXTD uh freestanding signs.

Thank you, Mr.

Westlack commissioner.

Will I be able to tell the price of my gas with this new sign or uh under what provision would that be?

Isn't that an electronic message board?

Actually, there are some state regulations that come into play so that you so anyone can see what their uh their gas prices are.

So um, and we can't go below those.

So there is kind of a minimum threshold.

But it's an electronic sign that changes.

So how is it still legal?

But it's not, it wouldn't be changing consistently so that it's such it's a distraction or something like that.

We have allowed those in the past, uh recognizing if the state does have some regulatory authority there, and also um it makes them more visible, but they're not changing such that it's gonna distract drivers.

Well, well, that's a requirement for any sign, anyhow, that are not destroyed drivers.

But uh aren't we better off putting in that particular exclusion to the message board routine that says all message boards are illegal?

We certainly can do that.

The current, and maybe it's an interpretation that I that I have made under the current code that uh the gasoline prices are essentially an exception to electric the electronic message centers.

Um but the real prohibition for electronic message centers, which we again were carrying forward from our current code, is so we wouldn't have crawlers and uh you know flags waving and things like that that that would be distracted for for drivers.

Uh I mean I would be up for adding to the definition to exclude such things as gas station signs.

If you're doing it anyhow, it's sure not clear to me under what provision of the ordinance you would be doing it under.

So let's change the definition a little bit of message board signs.

So the staff recommend to basically adhere to the corner zone you can call it.

Right.

Um essentially, you know, gas stations, I think we're probably just consider those to be electronic signs and not message centers that you know have the ability to change frequently.

Yeah, I will sort of.

But if there's some clarity that can be added, that's that's perfectly fine.

Yeah, I support that.

Yeah.

Yeah, because uh I mean, it sure seemed like to me that you were saying that those signs were illegal.

And if that's not your intent, let's make sure we get your attention.

Right, it was not intended to make gas station signs illegal.

All right, regardless of their illumination.

And and the major routine of prohibiting message centers is already in the current code.

Yes.

Okay.

And then you are now changing and allowing uh internally illuminated signs.

Right.

We allow them now.

We think they should continue to be allowed.

And they were not in the staff draft.

Right.

That's correct.

Okay, so that's a change too.

I I will say we view that to be a technical correction.

The intention that we had with the internally illuminated signs was to retain existing policy, and that did not carry through in the staff draft.

Um, so that is we really we were not intending to recommend a change in policy when it came to those internally illuminated signs.

So we're really just kind of cleaning up what the draft says is the recommendation.

Uh some clarifications, but first and thanks.

One, uh thank you for prompting me to go back and listen to Tesla's song signs uh while I was listening to this.

Great song, highly recommend.

Two.

Um I was glad to see the uh introduction or acknowledgement of the A frames and the window signs.

Umce you acknowledge something, then you can regulate it.

So um I look forward to seeing all of the very properly placed A-frame signs out of the pedestrian walkways.

Um to the kind of electronic message center.

I don't want to ask what is a sign, but that's kind of what I'm getting at.

We're seeing in society a lot of it internally illuminated kiosks.

Um you order in restaurants, uh particularly fast food, they don't have many people at the counter, they have large illuminated kiosks that you order from.

Um I don't do much drive-thru.

I saw some conversation that this would impact drive-thru signs.

So as I understand this, this the EMCs we're talking about are the ones that are kind of more continuously moving, but I could foresee in the very near future a higher increase in the use of internally illuminated signs or put them on the outside of buildings suddenly they're kiosks, they're movable, they're touchable.

Does this kind of address that?

Does it allow it?

Are we thinking about that?

Like wall-mounted exterior menus that you can manipulate and they move.

I might be making this up.

No, I think that's a good point.

Um, I don't again, I don't think that was ever our intent to um prohibit electronic mess uh menu boards.

I mean, I've seen ones that change uh in drive-throughs and other areas, and you know, that's certainly the future, I would expect.

So I don't think we would uh have an issue if if those would be an exception to this as well.

Excuse me, I don't think it's an exception.

I think it's part of what you allow as a pedestrian-oriented sign.

You're prohibiting it only when it reflects back to the right-of-way.

So if it's pedestrian order, it's allowed, isn't it?

Did I read that correctly?

Well, I don't know if a drive-thru is pedestrian-oriented, but um we could internal.

I think the intent is what you what you just stated.

But that was your word that that a pedestrian oriented sign is illegal.

If pedestrian isn't the right word, please change the word.

Yeah.

I think do you mind?

Thank you.

Um I think what it seems like we are wanting some level of perhaps increased flexibility over what our current ordinance allows, which the intention with the electronic message centers was to take the prohibition in our current ordinance, which does prohibit signs which use it has a long list of things all about illumination.

Um signs which use illumination, which varies in color or intensity, or which create the appearance or illusion of writing or printing, which basically describes all of these LED signs, which at their core and electronic message center is as I understand it, a sign that uses LED lights.

Um so it doesn't necessarily need to be flashing or blinking or moving, it's just an LED sign.

Um intention in lieu of strict policy guidance to really do anything to change that was simply to make it very clear and transparent that this is prohibited under our current ordinance and we are prohibiting it still under the new zoning ordinance.

We did propose loosening the restrictions, um, as Mr.

Wazlak said for pedestrian-oriented electronic message centers.

But I do think that there is if if instead of trying to think of all of the different types of signs that we might want accepted when it comes to electronic message centers, as was suggested by some of the testimony that we've seen, there are um there are ordinances that allow electronic message centers, but with regulations that determine you know the length that a message can be displayed so that it is not strobing or flashing or moving too quickly.

So I think that is one thing to consider.

Um that if we if we don't want to dream up all of the possible exceptions, maybe we can come up with some regulations that would allow electronic message centers, but with restrictions on them.

Does that is okay?

So is this something that we will see if we we proceed to this direction next meeting you will provide the restriction language to us?

I am going to be honest with you.

We can do our best, but we will be producing the brief book for your recommendation memo next Thursday.

Um we have very limited time.

So I can commit that if that is something that you wanted to see, we can reflect that in the memo.

We can try our darndest to get you some language, but we are in the next um four business days.

We will be producing a whole lot of um material for that meeting.

So I know that we have said in in instances where you do want to see a change, we are going to do our absolute best to get you the specific language.

This one might be a little bit more of a robust lift where we need to do some analysis, comparing different jurisdictions language.

So I would not want to commit to getting that to you.

Um just in all honesty.

Um, but we certainly will do our best, if that is the direction that we receive to incorporate that into um the red line that gets to Mayor and Council.

Commissioners, any thoughts on this?

I I don't want to commit to a regulatory regime without seeing the regime.

So you know, I don't want to just say, gee, go off and write some restrictions on variable message signs, and we're okay.

Um if it's an important enough issue, we should wait for the staff to get it to us and decide on it.

If it's not next if you know, um the staff has their obligations, and we have the obligation to make our best recommendations to the mayor and council.

And if we're not ready to do it, we're not ready to do it.

I I agree with you, Commissioner Zions.

I'd almost rather transmit a memo to Mayor and Council uh to Merit Council next time saying, I'm sorry, we need more time.

And I understand that you've been given this deadline by them, and you feel a lot of pressure on that.

And I I think if if we need more time, we should take it and we should let them know that it's coming from us, not from you.

And I I would have a really hard time putting my name on a document when I haven't seen the final version that's gonna go to Mayor and Council.

So I'd like us to consider that as we close out the night about pushing pause and taking the time we need and giving the staff the time and the breathing space.

They mean the timeline you just described, um Holly, is uh not fair to, yeah, exactly, not fair to you either.

So I'm happy to take the heat from Mayor and Council for not following their timeline.

Um I I just think I'd like to see all the changes we've made in the text.

Um, and I I understand the crosswalk request.

Uh to me, the most valuable crosswalk would have been how does this comport with the master plan?

Not necessarily what came before because it's quite different, but how does it match up with the master plan?

What I would really want to see is that draft that we got before the holidays, how that's changed through the public hearing process.

Um any other thoughts, commissioners?

I think we're we're straying a little further away from signs.

Um that's okay because I I agree with I agree with both of my fellow commissioners that I would want to see something I I'm in favor of exploring regulations and I'd like to see what they are before I put my name on it.

Um there are some things I might be a little more lax about personally, but this this isn't one of them.

Um I align with some of what uh Commissioner Pittman just said, so we'll probably have a conversation about that.

Uh and just for the record, because I know people at home are watching, um, I know Tesla is not the original performer of that song.

It is the superior version, it's a cover.

Just save me your emails.

All right.

No, just a quick comment.

Uh I think I'm in the minority here.

I think we can provide general intent to staff, I think, in our recommendation memorandum, we can outline things that we've seen, things that we haven't seen in the general intent and direction we've given the staff so they can meet and we can meet the mayor and council's explicit uh deadlines here.

So again, it sounds like I'm in the minority.

So yeah, I think we can discuss this either after we wrap up today's agenda, then at the end we can have a feeling of all that.

And since today's our last work session, so we should have a good idea, like if we still need more time or not.

We can't leave that question, but for now, for the sign, do we want to um direct the staff to give us um language next meeting to decide on, or we leave the general direction to staff.

I I think you can ask for that.

It will interfere with our schedule, but that's okay.

I think we've already asked for that.

We've gotten a response to to that question, and I think what has been reflected by staff is that we can have uh our concerns in the memo.

Right.

So that's that's the alternative, right?

That either we uh we can ask for the language, we may or may not get the language, but what we will get is a reflection of our concern in the memo.

We have one main job, and that is to review things for mayor and council and send a recommendation.

I have a hard time recommending language I have not seen.

And that that's really my bottom line is that I don't want to put my name on there if I haven't seen it.

And I understand what you're saying that we can just say in the memo we didn't see this and we recommended this change.

But we don't always see to be fair, Ms.

Rosslack, we don't always see the memos that go out to Mayor and Council before they go to take a look at those.

So I I really am in favor of and I I'm sorry we're got so far away from science, but um really in favor of hitting the pause button and taking an extra week.

I don't think we need a lot of time, uh, but a little more time to see final language.

So I think my what I'm hearing is the reflection of the concern in the memo would be in lieu of our recommendation, right?

We can't possibly be expected to recommend something that we haven't seen.

So this would be a point at where we would not offer a recommendation instead of a recommendation.

What would be what would be in there is a description of this discussion.

I would I'm interested to hear what Mr.

Walsilexa would have to say about this, but I think you would have two options.

You could provide us with a recommendation to add language to the revised staff draft that would address electronic message centers with some general um, you know, doing best practices research and updating it from there.

Right now, what we have is a whole stop prohibition.

You could also just direct us to provide general notes on your conversation, and then we could from there use um use our staff judgment to update to produce that next update to the staff draft.

Um so you could, in theory, give us direction and we'll go and implement it, or say this was discussed and um and leave it at that with the contents of the discussion.

And and I will say we have every intention of providing the memo the draft recommendation memo from planning commission for you all to look at and approve at the meeting on the 25th.

Um I will note when it comes to moving the schedule out even just a week, that seems like not that much time, but I will note that that would then put us in a position of having very little time to produce the materials for Mayor and Council's brief book for their briefing on March 23rd.

Um and if we miss that meeting, it kind of is a cascading effect with budget season and trying to get on their calendar.

So that is that is one thing that I want to raise just with the schedule is that all of the meeting dates are quite contingent or are quite um tight in their timing.

So thanks for the clarification on the background.

I feel comfortable for the sign.

We give a general direction to staff to do some research and uh give the reasonable regulations on the sign for this topic.

Maybe can we if on this topic first, then we can talk about the schedule, ISU?

Yeah, I would uh so my thought on this is specifically on signs.

Uh, is that if we're gonna make a recommendation, I would like to see the language that staff comes up with short of that.

If that's logistically not possible, then I think a reflection of sort of the tone and tenor of this conversation should be what goes to to Mayor and Council.

Any other thoughts?

Uh I want to see the recommendation.

What staff is recommending on this issue for proceeding.

Okay, so maybe we can have a vote uh on this.

So on Commissioner Design and the Commissioner Swissman and Pietman would like to see the actual language for the I I think this is a bigger question of seeing the entire like seeing all of the changes that have been made over the public hearing process, not just the sign language, not just the the language on the signs.

So I think why don't we continue and finish out the agenda and then we can have finish this conversation about what we're actually going to see at our next meeting.

If that's okay.

I think that's reasonable.

Yeah, it seems this sign language is related to the bigger picture.

So maybe we can continue the to the next topic.

Then we can come back to this one.

That's certainly up to you.

Um I don't feel that we've gotten direction on science just yet.

Right.

So we haven't got the sign, but since this is related to the bigger picture, whether we need more time.

So maybe we can leave the sign at the end, and then we can discuss with that.

Well, I I think I heard it taking it one step at a time, but a majority of commissioners are interested in exploring regulations on EMCs rather to rather than the outright restriction.

So that's one.

Um so that would be my proposed direction taken in a bottle.

Um, and then beyond that, there's the greater issue of seeing those specific recommendations and reg for regulations versus trusting staff to do so without us seeing it and putting our name on a memo.

And then there's the greater issue of the entire document.

So in the micro of uh directing staff to look into potential regulations on EMCs, I think there's consensus on that.

I I actually like the staff draft as it is, but I'm in the minority, so you guys continue with with with your request.

Maybe we can have a vote on this topic on the sign.

But before you do, or one thing that I can offer is potentially um since we were producing your recommendation memo for the next meeting, and it'll go out in your brief book, um, that it would include that general direction in the memo, and then we could work on some text to bring to you uh for the meeting, maybe get it to you.

I don't know, Monday before the Wednesday meeting to give us a little bit more time to to generate some specific language.

Um, if that's what you'd like to see.

I'm not sure that's what your staff would like to see.

Um, Ms.

Simmons, you were shaking your head.

If I was, that was a technical error.

Oh, okay.

Commissioners, if if I you all may not need to hear this, or it may not be helpful.

Um I do want to just point out from a legal perspective what you are actually expected to do under our zoning ordinance, not necessarily what you may want to do.

Um there's there's nothing wrong with the planning commission deciding that it would like, for example, to see an entire draft or would like to go through the red lines and ensure they reflect your comments.

Um but you as a body under our code, and this is very much in contrast to master plans and annexation plans.

You don't have the ability to push pause.

Um, practically you might be able to, but legally you don't.

In other words, all the zoning ordinance allows you to do is it affords you an opportunity to make a recommendation.

You may make a recommendation is the language in the zoning ordinance.

Um it sounds like the majority of the commission would like that recommendation to be in the form of almost a planning commission draft of the zoning ordinance.

That's what you do for master plans.

That's not what the law calls for for zoning text amendments.

And again, I'm not saying you're prohibited from doing that or even prohibited from telling the mayor and council we are not ready yet.

But I do want you to understand the mayor and council could say, well, that's fine, but we need to stay on this schedule, so we're gonna move forward without a planning commission recommendation for the time being.

I'm not saying they will do that.

In fact, they probably wouldn't.

But I just wanted to I want you to understand that the legal context here under our zoning ordinance is different than a master plan, which is something that the planning commission really does own.

You know, you own your copy of the master plan.

The code does not necessarily envision that you would own a copy, like there would be a planning commission draft of every ZTA that comes forward.

So the last thing I'll say about it is you know, a recommendation could simply be that you think that electronic message centers should be permitted, but they should be subject to specific regulations.

It sounds like that's not sufficient, but that is a recommendation that would be sufficient for the zoning ordinance.

So again, I I understand you may not want that, but that that's the legal legal universe that you're operating under right now under our zoning ordinance.

So it seems like for the sign topic, we have three options.

One is take to stick to staff recommendation as it is, and the two is to give some recommendations on adding some language to restrictions of the uh pedestrian oriented sign.

And the third opinion is to hear to see the exactly language that regulating the sign.

So I think we can have a straw vote on this issue.

So who is in favor of staff recommendation as it is, please raise your hand.

Okay.

And who is in favor of option two that gives staff some general directions and adding some general recommendations to the regulations of the sign?

Please raise your hand.

What was option three again?

So sorry.

Option three is give the we need to see the specific language on the sign regulation and then make a decision.

Option two is to give a general direction for the staff to create some language that is reasonable for the sign regulation.

So who is in favor of option two, please raise your hand.

I give one up.

Okay.

So who is favor in favor of option three, please raise your hand?

Okay.

I think we have staff have a clear direction on this issue.

Come on.

I can find that to be clear.

I'm sorry.

Oh, sorry.

Okay, sorry.

I don't yeah.

I I we're again I like the if we're only talking about EMCs, I'm fine with the staff draft as it is.

But if we're talking about looking at all the language, and again, it's not like this is going to be separate from the rest of the plan.

This is part of the plan, that's a whole other topic.

So I think we would serve this meeting would be best served if we moved on and finished it out and then had the discussion about finished out the discussion about what we're going to actually see next week.

So coming to repeatment for the just the vote, we were only voting on the sign language, not on the entire documents.

So I I'm in favor of what the staff has here.

Okay.

So I think for the sign user, we have a clear direction.

Then for the bigger future commission.

I thought it was split.

Yeah, yeah, we have a split.

I think that's a clear direction.

I think the staff will transmit our vote.

I think I think we need to move on.

That's my vote.

That we move on.

Yeah.

So we can move on to other topics, and we can at the end we can discuss a bigger topic of the agenda.

Thank you.

Next up is extensions of expiration dates specifically for plan development, adequate public facilities determination.

So our current ordinance allows that plan developments, adequate public facilities determinations remain valid until the time stated in the original approval or as it states in the ordinance 25 years from November 1st, 2025, if not stated explicitly in the approval documents.

They were introduced into our zoning regime with the 2009 update to the zoning ordinance, and they really were kind of memorializing approvals that happen under a variety of different bespoke approval processes, all of which were phased out with that 2009 update.

So generally, we have retained the policy where it comes to plan developments.

But with this one, specifically the APF expirations, we have proposed a slight modification.

So our current ordinance allows for mayor and council to extend approvals and all of our PDAPF determinations are eligible for an absolute maximum of one five-year extension.

So if you do the math, that would get you to from back in 2005 all the way to 2035.

There are transportation adequacy determinations that are quite old at this point in time.

But because that is an existing approval, we did not think that it was appropriate to kind of pull that back through this zoning ordinance update.

The staff draft also, though, and this is this is the change, revises the extensions to align with our broader policy within the zoning ordinance.

So the staff draft really looks at extensions and aligns how they are to be sought and approved and the time frames in which they can be.

Thank you.

Any thoughts on this.

What's the criteria for granting an extension?

Just because they want it, because they haven't acted before.

Because their plan might expire because they haven't acted.

For in the staff draft, it's good cause.

Any um oppose on staff recommendation?

No.

And I think we are in support of this.

Thank you.

Next up is our transitional provisions.

So these um basically frame out how we would transition from our current zoning ordinance to the new zoning ordinance after adoption, particularly when it comes to pending approvals.

So it would ensure it's intended to ensure an orderly and fair transition from the current to the new and would provide a limited option for those pending applications to proceed under the current zoning ordinance, even after the adoption of the new ordinance.

There are certain eligibility criteria that are outlined in the staff draft.

For example, you would need to have completed a site plan, level one or level two application within one year prior to adoption.

You would need to request uh provide a written request to the chief of zoning within two months of adoption of the new ordinance and receive approval of your application within one year following adoption.

We are recommending to widen the eligibility criteria to include not only site plans but also project plans to extend that submission window to 18 months prior to adoption, which would really capture all of the ongoing project and site plans that we have that are currently proceeding toward approval, and then extend the approval deadline to two years following the adoption of the new zoning ordinance.

So we think that this does um two things.

One, it does provide a path for approval under the old ordinance, but it also does really encourage transitioning to the new ordinance.

And in all fairness, we are anticipating that most applicants will want to proceed under the new ordinance.

The processes and the standards generally are much more favorable to applicants than we what than what we have in our current ordinance.

Thank you.

Do you plan on waiving fees if they go for the new ordinance versus the the old ordinance?

I have a submitted plan.

And I want to change to be considered under the new ordinance.

Do I have to apply again?

No, I think you can just amend your existing plan.

I am my to the findings of the new zoning ordinance.

Yes.

So I don't have to follow.

You you everybody should be aware of that the law on vesting is really onerous in in Maryland.

It's a building permit issued with footings poured in conformance to that code.

We are this is so in front of that vesting provision.

I mean you're gonna have to have two code books on your desk to implement this for uh at least three years.

Uh you you you really think this is a good thing?

We think it's a fair thing.

Might not be easy for me or or those of us who are interpreting the code, but uh we think it's a the best way to treat applications.

As I've pointed out in the past, we're nicer in Rockwell.

Mr.

Waselec, does this impact a whole bunch of projects or is this a just a few?

No, we think it's fairly limited.

Okay.

Good.

Thank you.

The eligibility criteria that's listed here, is this an and thing, or is it any of these three things?

It's it's all of the things.

So what happens if staff gets backed up and can't get around to uh does staff have a SLA in place that says they will absolutely get to you within a year?

If staff gets backed up and can't get an approval out in a year by no fault of the applicant, they don't they don't get this.

They can't they they can't be eligible.

Are we talking about um the date prior to adoption or the date following?

It says receive approval within one year following adoption, right?

So the approval portion is outside the hands of the applicant, right?

That is in staff's hands.

Um I don't know that we perceive it to be exactly the same.

I think it's kind of a joint a joint effort.

Um I will say that I believe our project plan approvals, which are probably the more complex when you're comparing comparing site plans versus project plans, those are typically processed within nine to twelve months, I think.

Yeah, the current process is is about that, but as you've heard from uh when John Foreman has spoken to you that we're looking to reduce that processing time for project plans and site plans.

So we do feel that of course it's not entirely up to staff as to how fast things go because the applicants do have to turn around their application and address the comments that they receive.

So it is kind of a joint thing.

Um, but you know, that's the whole um rationale for the fast two processes, so things could go go faster for all concerned.

So I don't think anyone would get caught up, you know, purposefully or not uh in this.

So it's not it's just not the long poll intent.

You're just not concerned about that being the issue.

Okay, that's fine.

That's fair.

Yeah, so I think the staff has recommended to extend that one year to two years.

No, this was the first one.

Oh, you are talking about fourth one year.

No, I was talking about I was talking about the second one year, right?

The approval.

What the staff was was uh entertaining was the application going to 18 months, not one year.

I so you are both correct, I believe.

Um so it it is we're actually looking at kind of the third thing here with the recommendation currently in the staff draft, we do have it outlined that you would need to receive approval within one year.

But as um Chair Soon has pointed out, we are now recommending that it be two years following adoption that you would need to receive the approval within.

So it's basically doubling that timeline.

And I will say, uh Mr.

Wazilak was correct.

This is a very small number of projects.

I think we've counted a total of three that are in a circumstance where they might fall into these um into this category with these transitional provisions.

And one of those I think we're even anticipating is going to come before I I don't remember it's a project plan or a site plan, um, but it will become it will be coming before the approving body within probably one to two months of the ordinance being adopted.

So some of them are quite um quite quick on the timeline or on the horizon.

Okay, then I think I'm feel comfortable with that's recommendation.

We all go down this.

Yep.

It's staff's burden, and if you guys are willing to accept it, it's okay.

Staff you're okay?

We are.

All right, thank you.

All right.

Um getting toward the end here, we do have some follow-up from our January 28th work session.

You all had requested additional information on our use-based gross floor area restrictions.

Um, as you will recall, we do have a number of uses within the zoning ordinance that have specific restrictions on the area that can be dedicated to the use based on the zone that it's located within.

Um at that point in time, we provided five examples, but you wanted, and this is understandable, um, kind of a comprehensive overview of what are all of the uses that have these gross floor area restrictions, how are they treated in the current ordinance, and how are they proposed to be treated in the staff draft?

So all of that information um was provided in attachment three, I believe, to the brief book.

And since that time, we have gone a step further and um have a recommendation to present to you.

So this is new information that you are are seeing just now.

We have separated these out into kind of two tranches.

One is to retain restrictions and one is to consider eliminating restrictions.

So this first slide is showing the um uses that we think the restrictions in the staff draft should be retained for.

You will see that these are primarily ones um applied for residential uses, specifically our accessory dwelling units, both attached and detached, cottage courts, which are proposed to be capped at a certain um square footage in alignment with Gaithersburg's CAP, home-based businesses in order to ensure that the homes um remain retain their residential um use while also being able to um conduct business and accessory structures.

Um three uses in our light industrial zone office retail establishment and eating and drinking establishment, these are all capped at a percentage of the gross floor area of the principal use.

So we do want to allow some flexibility, for example, if you have an industrial use, but you want to have a small retail store frontage in that use.

Um that is something that we heard would be useful for those uses, but we don't we don't want all of our industrial zones to become retail and restaurants.

We also thought it would be appropriate to retain the restriction in the mixed mixed-use neighborhood commercial district on hospitals.

This is still quite a large area that the staff draft proposes to allow for a hospital.

It's 50,000 square feet, so small for a hospital, I would say, but perhaps quite large for the MXNC zone.

And then single tenant commercial uses in our mixed use zones.

And Mr.

Wazilak would be able to tell you quite a bit more about the history of this restriction.

Um it basically says that the ground floor of any um single tenant commercial use cannot exceed 65,000 square feet in any of our mixed use zones, um, or for a champion project, 100,000 square feet.

And we are proposing just because that is something that a policy that has been developed over time, that that and and intentionally that that be retained.

And then when we consider eliminating restrictions, you'll see this before you instructional facilities, wholesale establishments, alcoholic beverage, retail establishments, health and fitness establishments, event spaces, clubs, and lodges, hotels, medical or dental laboratories, veterinary services, and charitable or philanthropic institutions in the MXB.

All of these we thought you all could consider eliminating the restriction for these.

Thank you.

Any thoughts on this new information?

If you want to be permissive, you want to eliminate these restrictions and allow the market to do what the market would do.

So that this sounds good and proper to me.

One of the things just structurally, it was hard to identify where these restrictions were.

If you put it like footnotes in the you in the use table, that in this zone, uh hospital is allowed, footnote one limited in whatever.

So you can do it by footnote.

So I know that when I woke up the use that I know that I have a limitation.

That's just a structural thing.

But I'm okay with with eliminating the uses.

I I agree with the the limitations on the residential type of uh things.

Um I'm pretty good on this.

Any other thoughts?

Uh yeah, do you mind uh going back to the previous slide, please?

Yes, okay.

Uh looking specifically in the industrial zone, uh, we have retail establishment eating and drinking establishment.

Um would eating and drinking established what would a facility uh that is a manufacturer and producer of uh certain kind of adult beverage that also has a tap room.

Would that qualify as a drinking uh establishment, or would that be more of a production facility?

And I just to be transparent where I'm coming from, there are instances of a couple of these establishments just outside the city limits.

Uh and my understanding is they're just outside the city limits because they can't exist inside the city limits.

Um, and I think that's a missed opportunity for the city.

Um certainly there's there's other efforts to bring those areas inside the city, but if this is restricting having um like a beer production facility that but that brews in bottles and wholesales its own goods, but also has a significant size tap room, I'd like to adjust that.

I believe that that use would actually be covered under our alcoholic beverage production um use.

So it it's not quite this.

Okay.

Yeah.

So what do the restriction on that use?

So the way our code is written, it uh relates back to the state licensing.

So if there's a production facility and a tap room which is permitted under the state license that they are granted, then they can uh go into certain of our zones.

So the city does not have any additional restrictions on the square footage of tap room versus like uh brewing facilities within the overall growth square footage.

I mean, we have two different categories of production um large and small.

Um I'm trying to think um I know some of those facilities, and uh I think they have existed.

I think they probably existed before our text amendment for alcoholic beverage production was put in place.

So, yeah, we probably did have to default to other regulations when those were kind of getting started.

But but now I think we have a lot more flexibility, and that was the intent of that text amendment back then.

Okay, then then I I am satisfied on my very specific question.

Thank you.

Any other thoughts?

I forgot two things.

Um what is our policy on detention centers and data centers?

Data centers currently are not addressed in our zoning ordinance, but we have added them as a new use in this update in the staff draft, and they are not uh they are proposed to be not permitted in any zone within the city.

Both of those uses the data centers, data centers specifically.

Um, and that was based on the recommendation of our our friends over at the Rockville Economic Development Umporated.

So detention centers, I I would probably defer on that question.

Yeah, they are they are not a listed use in any of our zones, so they would not be permitted.

Okay.

Okay, and now there are results.

No, I think we're okay with DAV recommendation on this one.

Thank you.

All right.

I believe last up, we did want to provide an update on some technical corrections.

One we have already mentioned, so it hasn't been included in this slide, so that was related to the internally illuminated signs.

But you do have information in your brief book, just brief write-ups on pipe stem lots, bicycle parking, driveways, and drive aisles, and cluster subdivision overlay zones.

We did receive direction back in probably October to reintroduce the ability to create pipe stem lots into the zoning ordinance.

However, we didn't go the next step to ensure that all of our development standards also address that unique type of lot.

So we are going back and adding, and I think it's just the front setback requirement for pipe stem lots has a little bit of a nuance to it.

We also, and I mentioned this weeks ago, had some experiences in some of our zoning enforcement that led us to reconsider our bicycle parking standards, specifically ensuring distances from a curb or like a bicycle parking space distance from a curb or a wall, and also ensuring that long-term bicycle parking is accessible either on the same level as a parking garage that it may be inside or is accessible via an elevator, things of that nature.

We are taking a look back at our driveways and drive aisles requirements because the intention was to retain existing policy there.

Um when it comes to narrowing down from the width required of a driveway at the entrance to the driveway versus once you're kind of inside of the driveway, it can be a little bit narrower, but we did not manage to retain that in the staff draft, so we're going back and adding that in.

We do have some standards related to our cluster subdivisions, but they really relate more so to the creation of cluster subdivisions with kind of a minor note about how to interpret the setbacks and minimum lot area moving forward.

We took those out because they're they're currently not a zone, and we said, okay, if this is not a zone, it doesn't belong on the zoning map.

But in thinking about an understanding that we do need some record for posterity and to understand how to interpret those specific standards for cluster subdivisions, we are proposing to create a new cluster subdivision overlay zone in order to retain our current standards and make it clear that those cluster subdivisions do exist.

So those are corrections that we plan to make to the next update to the staff draft along with a couple of other minor corrections.

So that is the end of the presentation.

Thank you very much.

On pipes 10 lots, I think you gotta watch out for a prohibition on somebody's front yard looking onto somebody's backyard.

That that was something we had a figure out to do that.

And what are you doing with drive with the driveway sidewalks?

Are you reducing the them to a consistent dimension?

Our current ordinance um has honestly a fair amount of confusion between driveways and drive aisles.

It also further splits driveways out into interior driveways and then entrance slash exit driveways and doesn't define any of those terms.

Um so we did review the terminology with our development review staff and our colleagues in the Department of Public Works to ensure that we are using driveway versus drive aisle consistently to ensure that the terms were accurate, and also intending to retain our existing policy by and large.

One area where in rereading the draft, we did not manage to do that, is that currently our ordinance says your entrance or exit driveways.

Um you can have one of two configurations.

You can have two one-way driveways that are 15 feet wide, or you can have one two-way entrance or exit driveway that is 25 feet wide.

And we still have that.

But then it says your interior driveways can be uh down to 14 feet wide for one direction circulation or 18 feet wide for two direction circulation.

That was carried forward with our drive aisle regulations.

But if it's a driveway, what we have now in the staff draft is simply that you need to have it be either 25 feet wide for two direction driveways or 15 feet wide for one direction driveways, which which captures what our current ordinance is doing for entrance and exit driveways, but it doesn't allow for that neck down that our current ordinance does, which was not the intention.

We didn't intend to get rid of that allowance for reduced width of the driveway as you get interior to the site.

So we need to introduce that back in, but with the current language that we're using, a little bit more clarity.

So it's 15 feet for one way.

No, that's too at the entrance to the site.

But now you just said you're going to continue that and allow that interior to the site.

We so currently the staff draft does apply that interior to the site, which is not what we want.

So we need to go back and ensure that our current policy of allowing those interior driveways to be either 14 feet wide for one direction travel or 18 feet wide for two direction travel is still in the staff draft because right now, exactly as you're saying, um, it would require them to be 15 or 25 feet based on the number of travel lanes, and that was not the intention.

So what how narrow can I be interior to the site?

14 feet for one direction traveler, 18 feet for two, but not in the staff draft, you can't.

In our current ordinance, that is what is written, and we are going back to ensure that that makes its way into the staff draft.

Okay.

No.

Well, just other subjects.

Um I was interested in the testimony we got on how we're making it difficult to do townhouses.

Uh I think that was uh by Pat Harris.

And I'd like to see staff's response to that.

I mean, she had like at least four different different things.

One was was parking.

I think that one's easy.

Uh you know, you have a parking requirement of 1.5 per unit.

It's hard to do half a half a parking space on a lot, but I think you would understand that you can do it in the common area anyhow without a prohibition.

But you had some other things that that looked like they were more substantial than that.

So I really would like to see staff review that and come back with something.

Is this something better maybe safe for old business rather than the portion of the uh agenda that is supposed to be devoted to questions on this on the presentation?

I I think I I think that that would be more appropriate.

Well, it's it's it's new, right?

I mean, this is new testimony.

We received a lot of testimony today.

A lot.

That one was last week.

That's that one was last week.

Okay.

So over besides today, we've gotten a lot of testimony, and it might be a good idea.

Are you guys going to catch so a lot of times when we have large documents, you guys will capture all of the comments and um not kind of like that by topic?

You guys have made matrices for us before for Mayor and Council before that capture the comments.

There's been a lot of testimony that we've received through email, especially today, even though that one was older.

So that might be a helpful thing to do because it's come in fast and furious.

Absolutely.

We are planning with the brief book for the meeting on the 25th to update our um public comment digest, which you saw probably over a month ago at this point with your first briefing.

We provided an update at that point in time, and we wanted to provide you the timely comments, but absolutely understand that um receiving them through email probably is not the best way or the easiest way for you all to track them.

So we are going to be updating that public comment digest with the index of all of all of the commenters and the date received, and then also the full um the full set of public comments.

And oftentimes there'll be a column for a staff response.

Will you all be handling that that way for this?

So we have been incorporating updates and information to you all in some instances based on testimony.

When it comes to actually providing written responses, we have been intending and are planning to follow the template of the town center master plan, which was to provide the full digestive comments, but not individually respond to them.

So I think we have finished the public agenda.

Maybe this is the right time to discuss the issue of whether we need additional meeting or what kind of format we want to see for the staff's memo.

Thoughts.

Yeah, can I can I ask staff?

Um I'm aware of the timeline, but what are the tangible transmittable things that we are going to receive for our next meeting?

And that the mayor and council will receive whatever is after that.

And then I think we can kind of talk through that after that.

We'll get a memo, but what what else will be updated or presented to us and then to mayor and council.

For next week, our intention is to provide in the brief book the planning commission memo and then also the public comment digest.

And then after that, we will be taking that information.

Um, and Mr.

Dumay has been updating the staff draft to a certain extent as uh to address language considerations to this point.

And in some instances, we have been revising it as discussions have been had to update it with policy.

But once we have your final recommendation, we'll be going and doing a comprehensive update to that so that when we have mayor and council's briefing, they will have planning commission's memo, they will have a staff report, they will have also another update to the public comment digest, and then they will have um the red line version of the staff draft.

So it'll be an update to the staff draft.

And I know that there's also a highlights document that's helpful for people who in the public or elsewhere might not be reading the whole staff draft.

Is that will that also be updated in any way?

I am really glad you're asking that.

That's actually something that we had not considered, but I think that that should be feasible to update that as well.

The final question.

And then so then the mayor and council would receive those documents that you just listed, including the updated redlined uh staff draft or on the 23rd of March.

Is that correct?

The brief book is published 10 days prior to the meeting, so they would receive it and the public would receive it on the 13th, but it would be for that March um 23rd meeting.

Yes.

So for next meeting, before our next meeting, we will receive a memo of uh planning commission's recommendation and a highlight, uh the summary of the highlight changes.

You will receive a draft of the planning commission recommendation and an update to the digestive public comments for both the ZOR and for the CMA.

So the Commissioner Footman just suggests the the highlight version of all the changes.

Will that be available to us?

For the mayor and council meeting, yes.

Not for our meeting.

That is not our intention, no.

So in the memo, uh, we are going to reveal.

Does that include specific language that we have been discussed in the substance topic?

You all have requested that, and yes, I think that that is feasible for the vast majority of things.

Um, where it comes to electronic message centers specifically, understanding that that will require additional research and analysis coordination and actual drafting of regulations.

That is the one area where I do not believe that that would be feasible.

Okay.

Any other thoughts?

So is this memo gonna say something along the lines of the Planning Commission makes the following recommendations on the entirety of the ZOR and the ZTA, or is it gonna go through and do um sort of a play by play, the way that we've actually experienced it here that says these are the things that we went to the uh the the planning commission for recommendation on, and these are the the recommendations they made in its current form, what it will do is um go through kind of on the articles where you have touched things, it will section it out by article and say these are the topics that were discussed.

This is the direction or the recommendation that was provided in areas where it's quite straightforward, everyone said we're all good with that.

Um it'll just be a general note that this was discussed and there were no concerns in areas where there was disagreement or more conversation.

Our intention is to reflect that in the memo without kind of overburdening the you know, striking a nice balance of getting the getting the information across, but also reflecting think the tone and tenor of some of the conversations.

And I will say if there is anything, I think we want to provide it to you all for your review to ensure that it is consistent um with the recommendations that you have made.

So if there are things in there that need to be corrected, or you don't um you don't think that they accurately capture what occurred or the recommendation that you all are making, that is information that we would be very glad to hear.

I appreciate the clarification.

So we're not being asked to make a recommendation on the entirety of the ZOR and the ZTA, right?

So saying that we can't affix our name to something that we're not being asked to affix our name to is not a not a really uh a concern.

Okay.

No, I just have old business, yeah, uh according to my friend here.

You know, uh and I don't know when to really raise it.

I would like to see if whether we should make some of those changes for townhouses.

That's number one.

Number two, a really old piece of business is whether uh the zoning map that could be the electronic version of the map instead of making paper the version.

We never uh took any uh vote on that.

I I think that's a substantial change that I would recommend.

So for next meeting.

So the plan is for us to give a recommendation where we still have time, uh, have a chance to revise some of the language in the memo.

Yeah, that's what you would be doing at the meeting is is going over your memo, making edits as you see fit as a commission.

Okay, so when is the meeting uh we uh obligated to adopt our recommendation it would be the next meeting on the 25th?

So once you've gone through it and made the suggested edits that you are comfortable with, that's what we would move forward with.

Yeah, we're gonna edit it in real time.

Next meeting.

So the next meeting is in two weeks, right?

Are you comfortable with this?

No, but I think I've beat that horse good enough for one night.

Exactly.

Me too.

I'm not comfortable.

I'll I'll right now I'll take a vote on whether the zoning map should be electronic or not, so we can move forward on something.

Uh with all due respect, Commissioner Zions, I don't have nearly enough recall at this moment on what we discussed on that issue to give a vote on that right now.

We didn't discuss it much at all.

Well, then that might be why I don't recall.

Um it was in the staff of question for staff.

Is staff prepared at this moment to talk about paper versus electronic map, or is this something that's best reviewed and researched?

In our view, it's not really paper versus electronic.

I mean, the current zoning map is is a PDF.

So it's it's static, um, which is to be distinguished from say a more online interactive version of the zoning map, which you know, we are we are comfortable with either either one or both.

So to as a follow-up, so staff has no specific recommendation one way or the other between the PDF and the interactive map.

No.

Need to consult with our technical staff who would be producing the interactive map, but they've already done it essentially uh for this process.

So but we would have to talk to them about transitioning that into the making of the official zoning map on the interactive map we're talking about.

The interactive map we're talking about, is that the one that you get the with with the slider?

But once we adopt this, the slider is no longer relevant, right?

Correct.

So why why do we need an interactive map after that?

You can zoom in, it doesn't have edges.

But that's a that's a that would be a different map, right?

Not this one.

The one they have right now is the one with the slider.

So we don't need that one anymore.

That's correct.

Right.

But but right now the official zoning maps are the PDFs.

There are three paragraphs on how to uh do split parcels uh on the PDFs between the pages of the maps, uh, which would become unnecessary if you did it by electronic map.

So we're talking about the format of the map, right?

Either it's by a sheets or it can be a zombie zoom out.

It it's yeah, it's what you adopt as the official zoning map.

Um I I apologize.

Commissioner Zions, if I could just ask a clarifying question.

Um do you recall which provisions of the current zoning ordinance or the proposed zoning ordinance you think would need to be changed in order for there to be an electronic map?

I and I asked the question part because I'm looking at it, I'm not entirely sure.

And it seems to me like it it the mayor and council could adopt whatever format they wanted under the current language, but I'm I may be missing the provision that you're most concerned about.

There are provisions dealing with the map that deal with the intersection of pages of the map, and uh I don't have the code section memorized, but I'll try to find it.

Yeah, because I'm in and it's it's a long document, and I I'm the three of us are as familiar with it as as anybody, and and yet I'm I'm still sure we could miss something, but I did a word search for page.

Um I'm just not seeing anything describing the zoning map.

For map.

No, I mean I mean I'm looking at our zoning map section, but I'm just not seeing anything in that section that would preclude the mayor and council.

Give me the section number.

It is uh division five point two, so it's 2552 one.

If I may, while while Commissioner Zionce is looking, um one thing that I would note is while we do have PDF maps adopted or PDFs adopted as our formal zoning map of the city of Rockville.

Um we also have an interactive map that shows all of the zoning in the city.

So it's not as if um we would be transitioning from we have PDFs loaded on our web page um to it's it's not an either or there's nothing that says that if you have a PDF set of maps adopted as your official zoning map, you cannot also have an interactive map, and in fact we do have both.

Um the difference is that the interactive map that we do provide for folks to use and to understand the zoning throughout our city to zoom in, zoom out, click on properties, get additional information.

That is not technically our officially adopted zoning map, but it still provides a lot of information.

It's probably the thing that folks interact interact with, you know, 99 times out of a hundred, and then maybe someone stumbles upon our PDF um zoning maps.

So I I did just want to offer that that even if we stick with the PDF maps, we will still have an interactive map.

Yeah, wait, I did I just hear you, Ms.

Himmons and also previously Mr.

Wazog say both is an answer to this question I I think technically probably not.

Um because the formally I know the formally adopted map that we have right now is the PDF set of maps, which you could print out if you wanted to.

Um and then we also have a tool that shows you the zoning in the city of Rockville that matches what you see on the PDFs.

Um I believe that Mr.

Zion is familiar um and has referenced previously that Montgomery County took their interactive online map and said this is the formal and official zoning map of um Montgomery County, and they have issued their PDFs.

Whether or not it is technically possible to adopt both, I would have to, as the formal and official zoning map of the city of Rockville, I would have to defer to our city attorney.

No, I mean I would agree with Ms.

Simmons that that there is there would be one zoning map that would be adopted.

Um the only point I'm trying to make is this is actually maybe is not a question that the planning commission needs to resolve as part of the zoning ordinance.

If at some point, like I I mean, as I'm looking at the language right now, it seems to me.

It looks like Commissioner Zion is gonna point that point point out where I'm wrong here.

Uh I mean if if you have an electronic map, you don't have to say where zoning boundaries are indicated as approximate following lot lines that are not more than 10 feet this.

Um this is uh 255 to I'm I'm looking at it.

I don't think that okay.

My opinion to the body is that there is nothing in division 5.2 that would prohibit the mayor and council from adopting any form of electronic map that it chose to adopt.

And I do not believe there is any change to this language that would be necessary if the mayor and council chose to follow Montgomery County's example.

It just wouldn't be necessary.

So would I suggest that we can include Commissioner Zion's concern and recommendation in our memo to raise this issue since um Mr.

Dumain says the current language doesn't prohibit any form of adoption.

Absolutely.

Commissioner Science, you're okay with this.

If that's what I can get, I'll take it.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

And on the townhouse issue.

There were there were four specifics in there.

I don't and I didn't recall them to memory, but uh it's something that'll take us 10 minutes to go through uh next meeting if if we have it out in front of us.

Uh I think the big thing was um that if the regulation went into place the way it was, basically makes I think it was the front loading garage townhomes impossible to make in the case.

We cured the front loading garage one.

That that was that was an easy one.

That was that was done.

Right, that was solved.

Okay, yeah.

All right, that's we we did good on that one.

So which one do we uh again?

He complained about parking requirements.

It says one one and a half spaces per lot.

Well, you can't do a half space on a lot.

That half space has to be within the the common area of the of the routine, and he didn't think the language uh did that.

There were there were other things that I don't recall.

Uh you know, memory only serves me so well.

Yeah, I believe Ms.

Harris also had some issues regarding setbacks, but um if that if that's something we want to discuss briefly at the beginning of next meeting, and can we add it to the memo, I would be okay with that.

Is it possible to add to the next meeting?

Or is that are the staff ready prepared to have some detail for us to know?

We can do our best to put something into the in the staff report that you could ultimately if you agree with it, you can ultimately include it in your in your memo.

Okay.

So now you'd come to our east uh the discussion that are we comfortable with staff memo to be discussed next week.

Or do we want to see uh red cross the line version of the exactly tax?

You you have two people who want to see the red line version.

Commissioner Zions, if you could just sorry, turn on your microphone.

Thank you.

Genuine I hear the voice from afar, but um uh yeah, two people who uh supported that.

I didn't hear any other support for it unless somebody wants to speak up now.

I'm still seeing blank faces.

So what I hear is in the memo for specific topics or exactly language is necessary, staff will include that in our memo, right?

Just not all the technical changes and everything.

Yeah, where you have discussed and agreed to a certain language, yes, that would be included.

Otherwise, it would be more general direction that you've given us.

Yeah, I just to state and clarify my position, um, because I've thought a lot about this.

I I did say in the beginning of this process, um, I think the conversation was about plain language, um, that that I trusted staff to do the review and update.

Um I said in the course of this meeting I'm uncomfortable with the sign regulations without seeing them and putting my name on it.

Um that is a small thing compared to the big things that we're doing.

Uh after being consistent with my previous position and Mr.

Dumay, when he explained our role earlier, cemented it for me.

I am okay with a comprehensive review of the memo, which I'm sure will will be very thorough at our next meeting, um, and transmitting that to mayor and council absent seeing an updated red line version.

So I just wanted to give kind of the justification for my opinion on that.

So commissioner Espanosa, you you are okay with the Yeah, I think I've made my position very clear over the last couple meetings.

Commissioner Yeah, I think I've been clear too.

Uh the memo, I think is what we're signing off on.

Uh we're gonna get a ample time to see it and review it and make changes to it.

Um, and that I think is appropriate for us to do.

I think uh recommending something other than that when that's not what we're being asked for is uh is is that that's out of scope.

Yeah, so I I think I'm also in favor of reading the the staff memo and um I'm prepared to have a thorough review in the next meeting to go through every line and then the make a recommendation.

Any other thoughts, Madam Chair?

That does bring us to the electronic signs.

I don't know that staff has actually gotten a clear direction from us as to what we would like to see in the memo regarding that issue.

Uh correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe that what I understood from the vote taken, and I'm I'm ready and prepared to be wrong on this if this is wrong.

Um, is that we were given direction to um reflect the general direction to staff um regarding providing additional regulations for electronic message centers and also reflecting um trying to the general tone and tenor of the conversation.

Can I ask a quick one?

I'm sorry, I should have asked this earlier.

Um can I get an example?

Like are are there any of these signs in Rockville right now?

I I I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around exactly what this looks like.

There's one on Montgomery College on 355.

That's a very well know how big it is, but it's uh says Montgomery College on it.

It's got my change right.

It's got like uh, you know, this play is coming on this day or something like that.

This that's a very good thing.

So that would be that would be outlawed.

That sign.

Well, except that's on government's not city of Rockville.

The high schools and Montgomery College have those on their properties.

We we can't regulate their signs.

Right.

So that's an example of of what those are.

But what about like the ones that are um in the 711 that uh tells you what the Powerball is up to?

Is that uh that's not an EMC.

No, not unless it's shining outward uh at the window.

Well, it's I mean it's in the window shining towards the street.

Is that not that doesn't count?

No.

I'd have to go back and look at our because we are proposing window sign regulations.

But we don't so we we don't have any in Rockville right now.

We don't have any that are legal because we prove it.

Okay.

You have gas station signs.

Well, we've already closed so in our next meeting.

We're not going to see uh some language, but we will just the recommendation will be we'll build some general regulations based upon research.

Yes.

And not to say that at a subsequent meeting you can't look at some more specific language and and make a supplemental recommendation to Mayor Council, but the you know the memo is what's re what you're required or given the opportunity to do.

Yeah, I I think I agree.

If you in SNAF can provide some futures or examples that help us to understand the regulations, my impact on that, that would be very helpful.

I'm gonna join timer this.

Mr.

Westleck, you've been working on the sign language for many years, many years, and I think it's good the way it is.

And I just wanted to say that that I know what you have done.

I see you, I have seen the work you have done over the years on this, and I appreciate it.

And I I think it's good, and I think you've done a great job on it.

Thank you.

Okay, I think we have uh we have concluded our direction for next meeting.

I have one additional question for staff.

Um the memo will be included in our brief book for us to review ahead of time, correct?

Yes.

Is there a way for the memo to be transmitted to us in a non-PDF format that we could put into Word or preferably Google Docs?

Those of us who don't operate on uh paper, uh, can go through and kind of electronically comment on our own in advance of the meeting.

It's much difficult to extract it from a PDF.

Sure, just let us know what what format works for you.

Google Doc.

Oh, and I heard someone say word.

So let's take a struggle real quick.

Uh uh if you if you send it as word, I it can be uploaded as a Google Doc.

That's fine as well.

Yeah, and Commissioners, just direct, and I know you all know this, but uh if you do do it in Google Docs, we you can't uh share it with other commissioners and do kind of a live review.

So maybe uh not share the version of Google Doc what word might work.

Word document.

Whatever your easiest word processing format is, and then the the onus will be on us to put it in our preferred format.

We'll send the word for me that's Google Doc.

Yeah, we're doing the work in Word, so we can send that.

Okay.

Thank you so much for staff accommodating our request, and uh looking forward to the next adoption meeting.

So do we have other questions or thoughts for this work session?

Last thoughts.

Hearing that, I think we conclude this public hearing and work session.

Thank you so much.

All right, so let's move to our third agenda, the commission items.

And uh Mr.

Wazlack, do we have a stablet liaison report?

Uh just very briefly.

Um you know what your next meeting is going to be.

That will be on February twenty-fifth.

And uh the meetings in March.

Um I think there's one item lining up, which is the uh annexation of the property, sometimes known as the Winx property, uh that has been um filed.

You'll be looking at that uh preliminary annexation plan on March twenty-fifth.

So that is that'll be kind of the next thing that's coming forward.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Any uh questions for for the agenda?

Okay.

So any old business.

I thought that was concluding our work session.

I move to adjourn.

So no no no uh new business or meeting.

Okay.

Let's do I have a second.

A second.

Oh, you in favor say aye.

Aye.

The meeting is adjourned.

Good night.