Good evening, Rockville.

Today is Wednesday, February 25th, 2026.

This is meeting number 5-26 of the City of Rockville Planning Commission.

I am Monsan, Chair of the Planning Commission.

I am joined in chamber by Commissioner Jeff Zines, Sudan Pitman, Eric Futen, and uh uh Jamie Athonoza.

Commissioner uh Shay Halata Sal Hadin will join us shortly.

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

Tonight's agenda includes recommendation on zoning text amendment and a comprehensive map amendment.

This will be followed by our regular scheduled commission items.

So before we proceed, does any commissioners have any thoughts and questions for tonight's agenda?

Okay, with that, let's proceed.

And uh so we have well agenda today is recommendation to the mayor and council on zoning text amendment application TXT 2026-00271 for the zoning ordinance rewrite and the map amendment application MAP2026-00126 for the comprehensive map amendment.

Mayor and Council of Rockview are the applicants.

So Mr.

West like your presentation from staff.

Uh yes, thank you, madam chair and members of the commission.

Uh very glad to be with you this evening.

This is an important milestone in the zoning ordinance uh rewrite and map amendment process, as you know.

Um ultimately this evening we would like to uh be able to uh have the final recommendation uh from the commission uh to the mayor and council on both the zoning text amendment and the map amendment so that can be transmitted uh to the mayor and council.

So just by way of introduction, uh what we'd like to do for you this evening, uh once again review the timeline and uh then get into the review of the recommendation memos that were distributed to you last week, and then we also uh have teed up some recommendations on the zoning text amendment for townhouses and what's the other mixed use standards and mixed use standards um and also the um landscaping recommendations uh that came in last evening.

So we are prepared to to talk about those issues as well.

They are not in your memo, as you know, but uh those uh we are prepared to discuss those this evening at the end.

So just to review the timeline.

Um it looks like we're right in the middle, but uh actually not uh more toward the end.

Uh there's been a significant amount of process as you know.

Uh but this shows the timeline since December 1st of 2015.

Um culminating in the four work sessions and public hearings that you held and uh on this uh session this evening, which is for the recommendation memos.

Um as you know, the mayor and council will be discussing your recommendation at their meeting on March 23rd, uh, prior to their public hearings and work sessions, which will continue through April and May, uh, leading to adoption on June 1st.

And unless there are any questions from the commission, uh what we would like to do for you is bring up the draft memos on the screen, and uh we can edit uh hopefully in real time and uh move through both of those uh this evening.

And my colleague uh Ms.

Simmons is going to facilitate that.

Thank you.

Good evening, madam chair, members of the commission.

Bear with me for just a moment while I transition over to the memo.

All right.

So what you see on your screen before you is the draft of the planning commission recommendation memo specifically for the zoning text amendment that addresses the zoning ordinance rewrite.

This is as was transmitted to you last week.

So I know that we did hear from some commissioners that there are changes that we would like to see made.

So if it is um acceptable to the chair, we can make those edits um through discussion in real time.

I think that's a good idea.

Yes, please.

And we can discuss as we we move.

Yeah.

Excellent.

Um, so I think we can probably take it section by section, starting at the top with the summary of the planning commission recommendations.

I just had some editorial changes to two lines in there.

Do you want to go through every word that I want changed?

Or except the what I've sent.

Well, I think the commission needs to agree that those edits should be made.

So yeah, if you could bring those up.

Okay.

Yes, please.

So you want me to go through everyone?

Um some of these are word choice grammars.

Do you want to go through that?

But here we go.

I well, I'll do whatever the commissioners want.

Can I make a recommendation?

I think we all have laptops here.

We can all put on Commissioner Zines edits that he forwarded.

And then you can just go paragraph by paragraph.

And if we have any changes to your proposed edits or comments, we can comment on it.

And my understanding is staff already has it.

So you see what I'm saying?

So I think that might be the most efficient way.

Instead of you go in word.

I'm trying to be efficient.

So for the staff said will staff have the commentary and science red line copies or we do have access to that, yes.

So maybe we can show that version.

So we would not recommend working off of that version.

Um it was taken out of the original format and then kind of reformatted.

So we do just for transparency and consistency's sake, want to work off of the copy that was transmitted as part of the planning commission's packet.

Okay, well, the first paragraph, I have two editorial changes with this committee.

Real quick before we dive in.

I one, I support this, too.

Uh is it the same or a new WebEx link?

And if it's a new one, can someone send it to me?

I'm having trouble logging in.

Um three, just my point of view on this.

Um, and we can go through, I agree with the structure.

Um I don't necessarily know that it's a judicious use of the commission's time to debate wordsmithing um and copy editing, but I do have some comments along the way, and I will chime in.

But you know, when it comes to word choice and things like that, I'd probably gonna remain silent.

Yeah, I think given that may the commissioner that you'll kind of go one by one the paragraph that you we agree then.

Okay, no substantive changes in in paragraph one to editorial put changes.

Um personally, I never endeavored to do anything.

Either I do it or I don't do it.

Um so I would strike those words.

Um I think it's redundant to say has not reviewed and is not making recommendations on the forthcoming revised draft.

It's sufficient to say the commission has not reviewed the revised staff draft.

Those are the changes in the first paragraph.

Everybody okay.

I'm okay, yeah.

Yes.

All right.

Everybody's gonna have to say okay all the time.

Okay.

Uh uh just uh second paragraph, just deleting uh the phrase during the uh the project's drafting stage is sufficient to say staff drafted new provisions.

Uh that's the first uh sentence in the last sentence of that paragraph on plain English.

Uh I think there are more things in there that were uh being discussed.

One is deleting superfluous provisions, putting re and putting requirements and active voice, and then uh eliminating the use of certain terms.

So those are the changes in that paragraph.

The the next one, again, no substantive uh changes here.

Oh I I think it's easier to just read the paragraph that I think should work unless everybody's okay with it.

You you want me to read everything so it's uh disclosed to everybody?

Uh I don't think that's necessary.

It's you know, this is public information that's been published.

Okay.

Uh I don't there's no substantive changes to the next paragraph.

Okay, just that we're expecting substantive changes to be within the um uh the staff second draft of this of the zoning text amendment.

Um let's see, the purpose statement.

Um sorry, Commissioner Zions, could you review what you were just discussing?

I don't think we caught that.

Well, it's the uh it's the paragraph before Article One.

It's just um editorial changes that everybody's okay with.

Everybody's away.

Okay, yeah, we have all right, general provisions purpose statements, um just uh changing a compact making the first sentence into two sentences.

Um the one sentence I'd add is the commissioners noted that the purpose statement is different than the proposed zoning than then the purpose of zoning stated in state law.

That's a substantive addition to what was there.

Everybody okay?

Okay.

Okay.

Um transitional provisions, second uh second paragraph under that.

Um I didn't think we needed to say after further evaluation, actively advancing under the current zone ordinance.

I think that sentence could just start staff recommended expanding the uh eligibility criteria in the staff draft.

That's it was sufficient for me.

Everybody okay?

Okay.

All right.

Uh Article Three Administration.

Um I didn't think the first sentence was was needed at all.

Um the second sentence uh is just split into two sentences and that's it.

No no subset of changes other than that.

Everybody okay?

Development review guidelines.

Um I'm all okay with development review guidelines.

Um again, editorial changes uh making the first sentence into two sentences.

Um instead of conciding coinciding with the adoption of the new ordinance when the new ordinance is adopted is sufficient for me.

Um again, just editorial things otherwise in that paragraph.

Okay.

Uh so commissioner, I just want to clarify.

So you strike the worth and clarity and clarifying, so that is your suggestion tool.

Uh yes, I I didn't uh I didn't think that putting in the manual was clarifying, it was just making it transparent.

Okay.

If we were there before, we might be clarifying, but then nothing was there before.

Uh notice provisions, uh just saying the staff providing the commissioners with an overview of internal policies.

Otherwise, no substantive changes there.

Okay.

If we could pause for just a moment.

Excuse me.

Could we pause for just a moment?

I am through the development review manual section, and then you had a note on the notice requirements, and everyone is in agreement with that.

Is that correct?

Note on the notice requirements.

This commission It's further down in the notice requirements.

It's um That's it, right?

Is that what was just discussed?

Adding that commit staff provided commissioners with an overview.

Uh-huh.

Thank you.

So no, we can move to Article 4.

All right.

Article 4, approved finding.

I didn't know uh this is uh a couple of paragraphs down, starting with the commission discussed approval findings during the work session.

I don't know what entitlement risks were referring to in the last sentence of that paragraph.

Can you help me out?

Sure.

That was a reference to um Mr.

Dumay's comment that if we were to introduce a compatibility finding, it might be best suited to the project plan or level two site plan phase because if it's applied at the level one site plan, it would be at the very end of the entitlement process.

So to address it earlier would reduce risk.

Now I get it.

Thank you.

Yeah, absolutely.

I'm new to this game.

What can I tell you?

Um after the next by a four to two vote, the planning board recommended.

I'm at the majority of the commission supported separate compatibility finding, and just making that sentence, two sentences for a district analysis, period, it would.

Again, just going away from a compound sentence.

Okay.

Okay, everybody, uh administrative decisions and timelines, again, splitting the second sentence into two sentences.

That's all.

Okay.

Are you up to me?

We're still good.

I have to check in.

I'm catching up.

Okay.

Thank you.

I I appreciate it.

Okay, so what you just went over was in the administrative decision, appeals timelines, making the compound sentence two sentences so that it conflicts right here.

Yes.

Oops.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Okay, and here's where I have some substantive change that are signaled by the first sentence in Article 5 zones and zoning map.

The planning commit should address the following topics floating zones, zoning map amendments, comma, and the official zoning map.

Again, one of the things that I've changed in this draft was to move everything that is text of the code into this memo instead of splitting the text of the code to the map, which is a separate adoption.

But that's what's going on here.

Can I ask staff on this point?

Um, the intent of the two memos versus the one.

I feel like just whole still saying, yeah, wrap it all into one.

I I need a little more context before nodding my head on that.

So the reason for the two memos is that they are two separate legislative items.

We have the zoning text amendment for the zoning ordinance rewrite, which addresses the text, and then the zoning or the comprehensive map amendment, which addresses the map itself.

Commissioner Zion's I agree with you technically, they probably should be all of the things related to the text technically should be in the memo for the um the text amendment and everything for the map should be in the one for the map amendment.

Frankly, I drafted them both ways, and ultimately preferred for the purposes of messaging to put the things related to the text where we have something specifically the rezoning for the Tower Oaks property, where the proposal for that rezoning really hinges on the changes to the text.

I thought it did not quite make as much sense from like a narrative and messaging standpoint to have that information in the memo for the zoning text amendment.

I agree with you technically, it should be there.

It was a stylistic um decision and a messaging decision.

Um certainly subjective, probably technically incorrect, but I thought to be able to kind of paint the picture of the decision making.

It made more sense in that memo with cross-references between the two.

I have a solution for you.

Put the text in the text memo and repeat the text uh information on those two sites in the map memo, because there it doesn't matter that that you're just telling the story.

And I think it's worth telling the story, a whole story in the map memo, but it doesn't adopt the text.

So put the text with the text memo.

Repeat it if you'd like.

You know, we're not burning paper here.

It's all computer, so it's all okay.

But you see what I mean?

I understand the story needs to be told with the map because you're right, it doesn't make sense to do it without the story, but you you need to put keep the text with the text.

You everybody okay with me?

Yes.

Tell more story, not less.

Okay.

All right.

So we're adding those two things to this list of things we're doing.

Now I'm gonna have a voice at the end of this.

Um one of my pet peeves prior to is before, and that's okay.

Uh uh, I delete the word before, before the citywide uh rezoning uh is uh is at the end of the first sentence, and then because the comprehensive map amendment implements the comprehensive plan uh uh and land use recommendations the comprehensive floating zones were no longer necessary, and uh uh staff did not include them in the staff drug zoning ones.

So just a little bit of change there, not real substantive.

Um again splitting the the first sentence into two sentences, uh uh striking with multiple, putting a period, and then saying several commissioners noted that da da da da.

Um staff recommended uh uh I'm now at the last sentence, yes, it's the last sentence, uh, and just having that instead of the continuing and advise considering putting a period at comprehensive plan and said staff recommended considering new floating zones through a separate effort.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah.

All right.

Um just to clear, we're we're talking about the recommendation on floating zones, and you add it in in addition to the comprehensive plan, adding in it could be done through a zoning text amendment, right?

Is that where we are right now?

I think that's right.

Okay, I agree with that.

Um that the zoning uh recommend the making council consider established zoning policies guidance, that guidance may come from a zoning text amendment introduced by the council or through a comprehensive plan.

That's a substantive difference from what the staff had.

Uh I I would say if the um if the mayor and council wants more flexibility, it shouldn't have to wait for the comprehensive plan.

Everybody okay?

That's that's substantive there.

Oh, oh, there's one more thing I'd say on text amendment that I didn't include in the memo.

We've we've been informed by staff that that it's been the practice that uh and as a matter of our review authority under the current zoning code, that the planning commission does not review the full text of what it's proposing to the to the mayor and council, yet it does that with um uh master plan amendments.

I would recommend changing our review authority within this zoning text amendment to say that the the planning commission should recommend specific language.

I would go with whatever language exists with the master plan to say that we're reviewing text.

I didn't look it up before, but I I think we should have that authority ourselves that's new.

Uh I didn't give that for anybody's consideration before I started talking here.

So I have a question.

The whole uh give the authority tool commission.

Well, the the statute itself gives the authority, and we're rewriting the statute right now.

So Commissioner Zions is correct.

The um it is state law that uh sets aside your responsibilities regarding comprehensive plans.

Um goes back to what I had said before.

Under state law, really the planning commissions of various jurisdictions are recognized as being experts on the comprehensive plan.

Um that's not necessarily the case for legislation, and so although state law does have language involving changes to subdivision regulations that do require certain procedures before the planning commission, what gives you the authority to review zoning text amendments is our local law, and what the law says currently and what is proposed to say is essentially you the commission are referred proposed zoning text amendments, and you may offer comments.

That's it.

I think what Commissioner Zion is suggesting is that it includes language that would uh in some way obligate you to recommend particular language.

And you know, candidly, I I would recommend against that for a couple of reasons.

One is that, again, going back through all of the zoning text amendments that I've seen in the past, it is not common, nor is it necessary for the planning commission to draft its own set of of uh zoning ordinances or or zoning laws.

The way the process works is that zoning tax amendments are reviewed initially by the mayor and council.

So this is very different than a comprehensive plan.

They're reviewed initially by the mayor and council in like the particular language is reviewed by the mayor and council.

That language is sometimes changed by the mayor and council, and then ultimately it's authorized for filing.

So there's no need for the planning commission to draft its own version of the zoning text amendment.

Um it's already drafted.

What is necessary and what uh under the current law is for the planning commission, particularly in the light of its expertise in the master plan and comprehensive planning process to review the zoning text amendment and provide recommendations, which candidly almost always takes the form of we recommend approval or we recommend approval with these modifications.

It's not necessary for this body, nor does this body have the expertise, barring of course Commissioner Zion's to draft its own legislation, which candidly is sort of a different exercise than drafting a comprehensive plan because there are legal considerations in at play.

So you all can recommend certainly whatever you'd like.

I would strongly recommend against Commissioner Zion's recommendation.

I don't think it's necessary, and I don't think it's desirable.

I will say, by the way, there's nothing in the law that prohibits you from recommending your own version of a particular zoning text amendment today.

The issue we're having right now is a matter of a timeline.

And it's a timeline that is not being set by the planning commission or by staff, is being set largely by the mayor and council because this project has obviously been pending for quite a long time.

Um in the future, if we didn't have similar time constraints, if the planning commission was so dissatisfied with a version of uh zoning text amendment that was authorized by the mayor and council, its recommendation could take the form of a new ordinance.

Um that's pretty unlikely.

It hasn't happened, and certainly in my recommendations.

So that's all I have to say on it.

Certainly, the planning commission can recommend whatever it would like.

Thank you for the clarification.

So my question is you um Mr.

Domain said that the local law authorize the commissioner's certain um obligation, but that's the law is not in the zoning awardiness.

Yes, it is.

The the local law is the zoning ordinance.

It's the zoning ordinance.

Okay, then it was some discussion, Commissioners.

But for Commissioner Zion being here, I don't know that this body would be having this discussion.

I'm just saying, and and and I we can't plan that that level of expertise will exist on this commission in the future.

So I don't see the need to change it.

Um and adopt Commissioner Zion's recommendation.

So I'd stick with staff's recommendal recommendation here.

Yeah, I agree with Commissioner Espinosa for the reasons he cited as well as Mr.

Nick.

I also agree with Commissioners Espinoza and Fulton.

We have Commissioner Sarjandin and Junior.

Okay, well, we're done here with that.

Well, perfect, right in time.

Uh maybe I'm two minutes early.

Yeah.

I I just proposed uh amending the the provision on text amendments to say that the planning commission should recommend particular language of a text amendment, as opposed to just making comments on a text amendment.

There are now four votes against me, but you're entitled to uh whatever Benin you want.

And before you you came and the Mr.

Domain explained the to us is uh not the common practice were uh necessary from staff's point.

Yeah, and I think that's in line with what the point that I was making last time as well, right?

And we we've talked through some things, some ideas, some concepts, some specific areas, um, and I think that is um I think it's appropriate for us to make recommendations on that, not on the entire thing.

So I'm um I'm with that.

Okay.

I just want to say, since the theme of the night is parsing semantics, my vote wasn't against you.

I like you.

Oh thank you.

Thank you.

Uh I I hope people do after after I've invaded you guys.

Um what can I tell you?

I'm retired, I have lots of time.

Well, I I think I agree with uh my commissioners.

I think the commissioner science has uh a lot of expertise, but in the body of commission, we we cannot always have that kind of level of expertise.

So I would uh le uh leave with a staff's recommendation.

Okay, and what uh uh let's proceed.

Uh everybody was okay with um with allowing the mayor and council guiding the mayor and council to say if they want to go forward with a text amendment uh on floating zones before the next comprehensive plan, that's okay with us.

Uh so commissioner science, maybe I give uh commissioner Saladin some background.

So currently we are editing the published the staff draft live, and we are referencing the uh commission of science red line version.

So he is explaining to his proposed attendance paragraph by paragraph, and we will, if we agree, and we will proceed, and if we have discussion point that we can discuss.

Okay.

Yeah, okay.

Everybody okay with giving the mayor and council a little bit more flexibility in our recommendation for floating zones.

Okay.

Sure.

Um zoning map amendments.

Um second sentence, I wouldn't start with however additional research, I would just sort this sentence with research.

Um and then at the last sentence, um just to say that uh it's really not because other people are are looking at this, it's it's because it's based on certain common law required findings of of change mistake, and just uh putting in that we understand it's state required common law.

Any thoughts?

Uh yeah, I just wonder I would be in favor of keeping the the change in mistake language in.

I I, as a general lay person understand mistakes and changes, but not necessarily the common law.

I think it uh you explaining that we understand that as a body makes sense, but I think that it's uh it helps color the the purpose and the reason why we would initiate this to say that we're writing wrong, so to speak.

Uh right.

I'm just uh change mistake is noted in the actual conditions just below this sentence.

So it says staff recommends uh local map amendments require uh substantive change in the character of the neighbor since the original zoning or comprehensive rezoning or a mistake made at the existing.

So it always already gives uh what is common state law.

But uh I I just thought the acknowledgement that it is state law and common law, I should say court made it.

No, I don't have a problem with adding the the the common law.

I just was in favor of keeping the existing language as well.

I don't think it's redundant.

So it seems the the actual language is including the mistake and all the changes in the bullet one and two.

So the paragraph uh commission science recommended trend is the description.

Yeah, right.

How about we just keep the where I struck and results from a change of uh our mistaken zoning, keep that language uh within the parens and say to be based on certain common law required findings.

Yeah, I'm good with that.

Okay.

See what I mean?

Okay.

Yeah, okay.

Got that.

Who's making these changes right now?

Oh, goodness.

She is making the added thing.

Subject to everyone's.

As I'm looking at this, it's changing.

Are you doing it?

Yeah.

Oh, okay.

There's so many mysteries in this place.

See, I'm not even looking at that.

Looking at uh different version.

I'm looking at two squares.

Okay.

I I had uh we're on to uh owner's consent and then a paragraph that says a five to one commission vote.

Um I would change that last sentence uh to just not uh in the same manner deleting historic district in the same manner as a map amendment to place the property in a historic preservation overlay zone.

Uh I don't know that we designate things in a district.

I think that's the proper tone as we put it in the overlay zone.

Is that correct?

It is.

Um I could be wrong.

I think we had we had maybe considered using like actually defining the term designate because it's used so commonly in the historic district commission process, but but you are right, that's the technical language of what we're doing.

All right, so that so that will just make it technically correct.

Umer's consent in those instances we require a unanimous vote by the mayor and council to make the change, period.

And then I added a whole paragraph on the official zoning map because again what what is the social what is the zoning map is within the text of the zoning ordinance.

Um so uh again we had the discussion on whether uh the zoning map should be the PDF version or the GIS version umline, and I think I tried to reflect the commission's decisions here.

Current zoning is code and the staff designated PDF designates PDF maps as the city's official zoning maps.

This creates property split between two or more PDF sheets.

Other jurisdictions have adopted the geographic information online map as their official map.

The planning commission would like to bring this to the uh mayor and council's consideration.

Any thoughts on this?

If I may, this is addressed in uh Commissioner Zion.

I take your point that this most likely should be addressed in this memo as opposed to the comprehensive map amendment memo, but there is draft language in the CMA recommendation memo related to this.

And um, specifically relating to the last sentence, I would note that while this was discussed at the end of two the meeting two weeks ago, the commission did not provide a recommendation on this one way or the other, and that is reflected in the comprehensive map amendment memo.

So I might suggest um looking at the language in that memo and perhaps pulling some of that over, understanding that it is staff's best attempt to reflect the conversation that occurred two weeks ago based on recordings.

I mean, all I was trying to do was bring it to their attention.

I didn't come down on you should do this, you should do that.

Uh so you said something substantively different.

I don't recall, but I do know that it's in that memo.

Maybe we can keep this content if that is in the memo, then we can't maybe add the that language commission science.

Yeah, I I did not steal the language from from the other memo in this case.

In other cases, I did.

Quite liberally.

Um, but okay, yeah, I'm okay with with whatever language you had before, um, reflecting that they should at least think about it.

Okay.

So I think we have a chance when we look at the other memo to read this.

Okay, we can proceed.

All right.

Now here's where I I just had an open discussion because we had testimony on constraints to townhouses in uh in a memo in a testimony that we got.

In particular, it had four different things that it was concerned about.

And if staff can address this, that would be fine.

Um the first was uh parking spaces of 1.5 space per unit.

Uh they were there was a concern that that might be uh interpreted as per lot, and it is hard to park half a car per lot.

Whereas it's easy to get to that number if you deal with the whole subdivision or project plan or whatever um lot size total lot size that that townhouse is on.

Um does the staff think they need to change to clarify that uh yes, Commissioner, yeah.

I'm sorry.

So I think uh staff mentioned they have some recommended language for this topic toward the end of this.

We do we're prepared to discuss these topics at the end of the meeting.

However, Madam Chair, if you would like to pause at this moment and discuss them, that's certainly up to your discretion.

Um I do we we were we do have slides um and had prepared to present them at the end, but certainly up to you.

Your choice um up to me, I think we can leave this toward the end because there are two other topics we need to discuss.

I feel like maybe you would just group them together toward the end.

It's fine.

I'm just raising uh uh you know an unknown topic.

I didn't have text in to put in.

Um we'll definitely include that before the end.

Yeah, okay, thank you.

All right.

Um a couple of paragraphs down, let's see.

Adult oriented establishments, uh I think third paragraph.

I would just split the second sentence into two sentences, and in the in the sentence after that, also split that into uh uh another sentences.

So all I'm doing is uh making sentences shorter.

Everybody okay with that?

Okay.

All right.

Um I'm in electronic uh EV parking spaces.

Uh uh I I just changed the sentence, the last sentence of the first paragraph to say staff draft would allow charging stations as all zones.

I think it just makes it simpler.

Okay.

Um and again in the in the paragraph after the two bullets in response to concerns expressed by members, and mayor council staff recommended revising the staff draft to allow you don't need the use permissions there.

Okay.

Second paragraph, my favorite prior to replaced with before, and then that sentence uh instead of a long width, I use the word and just editorial.

Okay.

All right.

Moving real quick while we're in the uh gross floor area section.

Um I know we're going through Mr.

I just shout out to staff for uh accurately capturing my desire in the bottom here.

I do appreciate that.

That was noticed.

I think staff did a real good job at trying to get desires and impressions and other things really generally.

Uh I was impressed.

Although, you know, I cannot stop my red pen.

Uh Article 7 zoning standards.

Um perpetuates established setbacks.

However, the the the front the established building line perpetuate can perpetuate past inequities.

Could you explain that?

Yes.

The idea is that by basing new development on the established patterns from yesteryear, any of those inequities in space, whether it's um pushing development past or pushing development further from um the street or making basically creating a need for larger lots, it perpetuates that need.

I mean, I just don't know if there's evidence that that actually occurred that that the setback was increased for an equity reason.

If you would like to strike the language, we certainly can.

I mean, I don't know how the board thinks, but uh I just don't want to suggest it exists without evidence.

Everybody okay with striking I'm hesitant to remove the word inequities um on a general sense, and I don't feel it needs much backup to that.

I think the mayor and council are very attuned to that subject, and I'm fine sending it forward with that word.

I'm fine with just keep staff's version.

Okay.

I think this is an old city, and there's a lot of places that uh maybe weren't designed with inequity in mind, but invariably have inequitable designs.

Um so I prefer to keep this language the way the way it is.

Okay.

All right.

So let's read that sentence going forward.

However, they can perpetuate past inequities, and I would delete create less predictability for homeowners and builders because I would just say and are more difficult to calculate than the fixed numerical standards.

I'm that just makes it simpler.

Okay.

Commissioner Penn.

Okay.

Everybody okay.

Next next sentence.

Uh again, we don't need further consideration, just delete that and just say staff recommended removing established building lines.

Okay.

Uh the same is true in where it's in the next sentence where it says upon further considerations, I would just say staff recommended.

Okay.

Okay, transition heights.

My wife would shoot me if I ever was expressive.

So instead of expressing, I've noted.

Um just a personal preference there.

Uh the Commissioner Zion's noted that the transition heights are.

Thank you for that shout-out, though.

It was very nice.

All right.

Here is we're now in uh RMD infill.

And and this is where I was confused in the text on how the table related to the requirement that every dwelling unit needed 2,000 square feet.

Uh this it's I just added it in the table with a separate line, not because I couldn't get I couldn't change your table in my own editing to add to the top line maximum dwelling unit per lot with 2,000 square foot of land per unit.

I mean, I've I was confused by it without that.

I don't know if anybody else in the world is confused by that without it.

Commissioner Zainz, what's your edit on this?

Uh you see the line, it's uh it wasn't in red in the version because I couldn't figure it out within a table.

I the the right heading says maximum dwelling unit per lot.

Uh and I would add with 2,000 square feet of land per unit.

She wouldn't uh is it just me?

I mean I I don't see the need to do that.

I feel like this is pretty expressive.

I got what this meant just by looking at the text.

I didn't even need frankly the the table at all.

You need the the table to allow particular other unit types.

So the first bullet says add a minimum lot area standard of one drawing unit for two thousand square feet.

That I think is clear yes, from staff's perspective, that bullet point was intended to cover what Commissioner Zion has added in his red line into the first line of the table.

I will say from my perspective, and this is subjective.

I think if the body wanted to add that language into the table, it probably would need to go somewhere somewhere else to kind of clearly state what it what its intent is.

But Chair Soon, you are correct.

That information is covered in the first bullet point.

Other commenters?

Well, the the other thing would have so if I wanted to do eight multiplexes, I just have to do it in two lots as long as I had 16,000 square feet.

Based on the standards that we are proposing, you would not need to do it in two lots.

You would need 16,000 square feet of space, but you could do it on.

Oh, oh, I understand what you're saying.

You're saying okay.

Yes.

So if you wanted to do eight multiplexes, yes, you would need to do it on two lots.

That's correct.

Right.

And and I will note there as well, and we didn't discuss this much, if at all, during the commission's meeting where we discussed this item.

In many locations where the RMD infill zone is proposed to be applied as recommended by the comprehensive plan.

The comprehensive plan also states that four units are only appropriate on corner lots.

So that is part of the reason that you're seeing the parenthetical there unless recommended otherwise by the plan.

There are few instances in that zone where you would be able to achieve four units to the lot in large part because of the comprehensive plan's recommendations.

All right, but what let's try the next one.

Townhouses says six units.

Does that mean I put couldn't put six units on one lot that is what this would that is the standard that would be established here, yes.

So it would be one lot that's at least 12,000 square feet.

Correct.

But I can do more than one lot if I have this area, correct?

Correct.

All right.

As long as everybody else understands that, I'll forego my the that I suggested.

Any other thoughts, Commissioners, on this?

So we just keep staff's recommendation for this.

Commissioner Zion, you're comfortable.

Okay.

As long as everybody else understands that.

Yes, we understand.

Okay.

RMD 25.

Um, I I stole language from the other memo on the map.

Uh, you will find uh after the first sentence, it says detail related to the pros rezoning and associated revisions to RMD 25 density are addressed in the memorandum on the zoning map.

I just repeated all the stuff that you said in the zoning map.

Now in there was a cover memo that said the staff was concerned about non-conformities and unintended consequences.

And do you want to flesh that out for us?

Certainly.

So in the staff memo or the staff report that was provided with the comprehensive map amendment memo, or actually I believe it was it was a cover.

It was for the the zoning text amendment memo.

It was in the staff report, you're correct.

We described that we follow it following the meeting where the language amending the RMD 25 zone in order to apply it to the Tower Oaks site, when that was discussed, we went back afterward and looked at all of the properties throughout the city that are already zoned RMD 25 to ensure that the proposed language would not inadvertently create nonconformities for those RMD 25 properties.

By which I mean to say it would not reduce them to 10 dwelling units per acre on accident.

So we did amend the language that you all discussed at that meeting to include a reference to cul-de-sac.

And with that, and we also removed something else.

Um regardless, the language that is in the recommendation memo is the language that would achieve the intended end of the commission.

So it would allow for 25 dwelling units to the acre if the access is not off of Don Mills Court for that one specific property.

But if it were to be off of Don Mills Court, then it would be 10 dwelling units to the acre.

And that would not apply to any of our other existing RMD 25 properties in the city.

Well, it certainly wouldn't apply because they wouldn't have their access after the date of adoption.

This could never create non-conforming situations, because it's a prospective access.

It reads in this uh if the sole vehicular access to a property is provided from a secondary residential street that only abuts single family drawing in existing on before this effective date, before the effective date of the uh Yes, and we do have properties, and perhaps we're talking past one another, but we do have properties within the city that are zoned RMD 25 and which gain access from streets currently in existence.

And that's all okay with this because it didn't occur after the date of adoption.

I think the way, at least the way I read read the provision was that it was a street existing after the date of adoption.

Excuse me?

The the street existed after the before existing as of the date of adoption.

Then I agree that it might have some problems, but why not just saying if access is provided after the date of adoption?

It's got to exist if you're gonna provide it.

Well, would the provided include the situation that a call is that is created the new?

I'm indifferent to this cul-de-sac issue because I just say if if you invade an existing secondary street with a fairly high density um 25 units to the acre, then you shouldn't be 25 units to the acre, you should be 10 units to the acre.

So that's but it's prospective.

It applies if I'm making that access from today.

And if that's not clear from this, then we should change the process.

So can we what's your thoughts?

Yeah, I'm I'm going through this, and I my read on this was more aligned with staff than but now I'm understanding what Commissioner Zion is saying, and it it speaks to something that there's a sentence or two missing in this whole section that that I think is really important.

Like this came to us because of a specific property, but the change that we are proposing impacts all RMD 25s, and I want to reduce unintended consequences as as much as possible.

Um if that language isn't clear, we we can make gains to clarify it.

I I my reading of it was kind of aligned with staff.

So if we need to make additional tweaks to make it further uh further understandable, then I'm open to some suggestions.

Um it's a simple suggestion.

Just say it if the sole vehicular access to a property is provided after the effective date of the adoption of the zoning ordinance from a second, you see what I mean?

It's an active verb to provide access that occurs after the date of adoption of the zoning tax.

My concern there would be that we might preclude redevelopment of our existing RMD 25 properties.

If new access is provided to those properties following adoption of this ordinance, I think then perhaps we have an issue.

Then just say if new access.

Yeah, I will say, I mean, perfectly candidly, just reading these two provisions.

I I think the staff provision is far clearer in identifying really a situation that would only exist on this particular property.

Um I mean, you all can certainly recommend different languages as well, but I just think it's it's much harder to read the staff recommended language in a way that would possibly implicate newly developed RMD 25 properties elsewhere in the city.

Again, uh from my own perspective, if this situation again occurs that in RMD 25 development uses a pre existing secondary street, then it should have the lower density.

But I I never want to create nonconformity.

Can you put up the uh the staff version of this?

Because I I copied this straight from the from the map amendment memo.

I would be happy to I will note as well while I'm pulling this up, um, some of the language, and I I understand, Commissioner Zionce, that you did pull quite a lot of the language.

Um, so I will defer to you on that.

Um, but I am noting that there are some items that were characterized differently than our recommend the staff's recommended language, for example, the quiet enjoyment of the community would be disrupted, um, things of that nature.

I I do not believe that that is in the staff um staff version of the planning commission's memo.

So I would I think I might have added one sentence or something.

I would certainly defer to the commission as to how to characterize these things, but I did want to note that it is not exactly the language that is um in the map amendment memo.

Ms.

Simmons, you are correct, and I far prefer the staff's version than uh Commissioner Zion's I I see it.

It's ultimately no, that that is the point.

I have a question.

So for the staff's version, the tax amendment only have one paragraph regarding the RMD 25.

And the all those details are in the map amendment tax.

And is this necessary tool for us to duplicate the tax in both documents?

Well, I I prefer in the staff's version, you just refer to the detail in the map amendment tax instead of having two locations and not exactly the same language.

I think that might create some confusion.

In all honesty, that was part of part of the thinking in structuring it this way, that it is in my subjective opinion, cleaner to just address it in one location.

However, I understand Commissioner Zion's preferences to state it in both locations.

So I don't I don't think there's an issue with either one.

Certainly, if Mr.

Dumay thinks there's a legal issue, I would defer to him.

But from my perspective, you you could leave it.

And it was proposed that you would have the majority of the substance in the one memo with a reference in the first.

So from my perspective, that would be completely sufficient.

However, if the commission desires to state it in both locations, I would defer to the body.

So Commissioners, do you have a preference on those?

I would just see uh one place of all the subtons and then the other text just as a reference.

Since if they are the exactly the same language, why do we do it twice?

Because it's two memos.

And at some point somebody might want to go back to one memo and and instead of needing two memos, you need one memo.

Any preference?

I thought we talked about this like 30 minutes ago.

Right?

Maybe I got it wrong.

We did.

I thought okay.

So and and we're just going through the the narrative part now because we're at that point in the document that we're looking at, but the kind of background y narrative part is going into the second memo, which we decided to keep.

Is that correct?

Or am I wrong?

Because I might be lost.

Okay.

Both memos are necessary.

I structured it in a way so that all of the substance of the changes to the RMD 25 zone that relate to the map amendment are in the map amendment memo.

Commissioner Zions would prefer that for them to be in both locations.

But neither memo is going away.

We need both of them.

It's just up to the body what you all would like to see in one memo or the other or both.

I think my unsaid assumption was that we would lift this information out and put it into that second memo.

Right.

Right.

So you would like to see in both memo.

I would like to see just the zoning text itself in the zoning text area that we're talking about, uh, but then take kind of the the background and narrative and put it into the comprehensive map amendment memo.

I thought that was my assumption.

So can I ask one clarifying question?

So would you be in favor of taking out everything except for the very last paragraph that Commissioner Zion has on here, which is the bit about um you know the sole access coming from a secondary uh an existing secondary street?

Is that what you're getting at?

Or are you saying take all of this and leave it where it was and not put it here?

Now I'm confusing myself, to be honest with you.

Um Commissioner Zion's appended uh four paragraphs.

Yeah, right.

The first three paragraphs are perhaps a little bit of background, apparently a bit of editorial as well, and then at the very end, it's the punchline.

Yeah, right.

So the statement that you just made, are you saying that keep that punchline in there, keep everything that Commissioner Zionce added, or go back to the staff's recommendation and have this information only in the more comprehensive map amendment memo.

I mean, I honestly I was fine with having the the two memos and putting it all in there.

I thought we had agreed to just keep a small bit in this one in all of the other background stuff in the second one.

Right.

So then just keep the existing RMD25 zone language that staff is recommending.

Yeah, everything else goes into the other document.

Okay.

I think I agree with that recommendation.

I agree with that recommendation as well.

I think that there is a uh I think there might maybe is an opportunity to add just that little piece of information that says, you know, just kind of gives a heads up here that as it relates to Don Mills court, this doesn't actually apply exactly.

Uh if there's an a way to easily slip that in here very briefly and leave everything else like I I don't want this to end up being two memos that are pretty much exactly the same thing, saying the exact same thing.

And if in the end a change needs to be made to one, then that means that we have to go back and find every place that we copied and pasted and make a change to the other one, and something could get lost, and you know, we have version control issues.

That's a great way to ensure that you'll have version control issues.

So then that might so I think if there's if there's a way for us to do that, I could get behind that.

But short of that, I think doing it the way that the staff is recommending is is is an effective way for in in my mind.

Right.

And and just noting again, what staff is recommending is a change from what the commissioners had recommended before.

I too am okay with that language that you put in there.

Uh I think that's a simpler way to express it.

And it really is okay, even though I don't care much whether it's a cul de sac or not, I'll go with it for the sake of the majority.

You know, so I I'm okay with the staff substantive recommendation here.

Okay, so Commissioner Zions, you agree that we can add the last paragraph into the text amendment and leave the rest in the map amount map amendment text.

The rest of the okay.

So everyone is okay with this.

Okay, then that's great.

I have some comments on this content, but I can leave it to the map amendment tax.

Okay.

That sounds great.

Um, just for a point of clarification.

On the text amendment memo, I understand that we're adding another paragraph, and it is coming from the map amendment memo.

Is it just the recommended language?

Is it the everything in italics here?

Can you show us?

Yes, it is on your screen.

Right.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

So let me just make that change right now, just so I make sure that I am on the same page.

Is that the figure two thing, right?

Minus the figure two.

Yeah, one of the two bullet points you're setting refers back to a figure that was only in the other document.

Does that get us there?

Everyone is um in agreement with this for the tax amendment portion.

Okay.

And I think we're good.

We can proceed, Commissioner Science.

Yeah.

And again, here what are we done with that section?

Yeah.

Uh are you uh satisfied with the changes we just made?

I have no problem.

Okay, no, we can go with the next topic.

Um high residential density zone.

Again, all I did was steal language from the from the map amendment and put it here.

Uh then I think I I um in the same way of thinking, we just keep it in one location.

Well then then again, you want at least to know the text changes here.

Yes.

Can we do that?

So it's the okay.

Right.

Right.

Yes.

Okay.

We are going to agree on that, yes.

General development standards.

Fencing.

Uh it's just uh I'm at parking and loading.

I didn't have changes before that.

Uh the staff said uh for the purpose clause and and this applies both for uh parking and loading and pedestrian biking.

The purpose clause is uh not necessary, not that it's not strictly necessary, period.

It does not perform a regulatory function, period.

In any event the aspirational framework for this division is established in Article One, and I would do that both for the pedestrian well, both for parking and loading and pedestrian biking, they're exactly parallel.

Okay.

Okay, and then in the paragraph before Article 9, non-conformities.

Uh I I strike following the discussion, just say the planning commission supported amenities based.

Okay.

Second paragraph under nonconformities.

I replace prior two with the word before.

Um third paragraph down the last sentence.

Um that reads those uh opposed express the policies are miss misaligned with the general zoning doctrine, which intends for non-conformities to expire over time, period.

The intent is for you just don't need the compound sentence.

Okay.

Um staff say that the city and that's okay.

I don't see a change that that the city doesn't not have.

Oh, I just struck the word currently, really.

I think it's okay.

All right.

Signs.

Okay.

Here we had the discussion on electronic signs.

Uh I deleted the last sentence of the first paragraph.

Testimony indicated the staff draft would go so far as to prohibit.

Uh no, I want that sentence.

That should be underlined.

Testimony indicated that the staff driver would go so far as to prohibit electronic signs as gas stations current going uh stating current prices.

We got that in testimony.

So like that sentence there.

So that is a new added sentence.

Yeah.

Right.

Okay.

Okay.

Now here's where staff wanted more time to start with to state language.

We went through whether we're happy with that or not.

I I just put in what the Montgomery County code has for electronic signs, and that is uh a sign that has characters or images, the images uh is not in the county code, but it needs to be uh that are changed electronics, it must not be changed more than once every 30 seconds.

This change must be for the entire sign change, not fade or uh pixelate in and out.

This includes a sign that gives the appearance or illusion of movement for a written or printed message, a sign that displays the number of available parking spaces exempt from this requirement.

I will note that other jurisdictions have uh illumination standards or size standards.

That is, they say of the sign area that you're ordinarily allowed, only 20% of them can be electronic signs or something like that.

The other provisions that you see is I I deal in lumens, but uh a lot of the codes deal with nits, whatever that I don't know what a knit is, but but it's a light illumination standard that that most people have between 100 or 300.

So Commissioner Signs, uh Futo, you have some thoughts on this added language?

Um, a couple of thoughts on on signs.

Um which again, banger song, didn't get to it last time.

Underrated movie.

Um I left last meeting one wanting to learn more about EMCs.

Um thank you to staff for the presentation in that um and I'm looking at where we landed, and I have evolved my opinion to align with Commissioner Pittman's um on signs on EMCs.

I am comfortable retaining the current like prohibition with the limited um, I think we have some limited exceptions in there, but I uh so you can capture that in here as you want that I went uh from one to the other.

And I do appreciate um my colleague putting in Montgomery County's regulations because I certainly still feel like I'd want to see anything before this commission put its name on it.

Um but I feel at this point where we are, we may just wish to um advise mayor and council that if they want to explore this, they begin with the Montgomery County regulation and consider regulations of other jurisdictions and trade associations and not necessarily have to have all this language in here.

I think I'm comfortable with adding one sentence, just recommend uh to explore uh other jurisdictions language instead of inserting the specific language.

Other commissioners I think it's reasonable.

I agree, I agree with uh Commissioner Clinton's recommendation.

Just to note, for the again for those who are satisfied with the staff draft, we had testimony that it would, as written, black letter, uh, not allow gas stations to show variable message uh pricing that changes.

Are you okay with that?

I um Mr.

Rosslack, maybe you can refresh my memory.

I thought that there was a technical error in the staff draft, and that's one of the reasons we got so much testimony the lat when we did the sign thing.

There was something that was left out or something.

There was something that was the um internal illumination of uh monument signs.

Which And didn't you so uh I want to say, if I remember correctly, that it is state law that gas station signs have to be changeable and that it was going to we would comply with that.

Yeah, there are regulations uh promulgated by the state that for gas station pricing signs.

So that will be clarified and taken care of in the final draft.

Okay, thank you.

And just to remind you, you did receive testimony uh from the International Sign Association.

So that's a useful um piece of information that we are considering as we move forward with this.

Right.

But uh so what you're saying is there'll at least be a note that that says uh uh filling station signs are governed by X or something like that.

I again as it's written, there isn't their exemption.

What you had said is, well, I've I've interpreted XYZ because of that.

Well, let's put in how the reason you're interpreting it because of state legislation.

So you'll do that.

That's fine with me, yeah.

Okay.

Okay, so I think we agreed we can just add uh sentence here for the sign section.

Maybe Commissioner Science, you all you okay with this?

Yeah.

Okay, then we can move on.

I mean, uh I was just trying to move the needle forward.

That's all.

I'm not an advocate here.

Except that I think we should have regulations for electronic signs.

Um if I may pause on that point, I think I am gathering.

So what our straw poll now says is that three commissioners supported including regulations and voted to provide general direction.

One commissioner generally supported including regulations, but was not comfortable making a recommendation, and now we have two who voted to retain the prohibition.

Commissioner Zion, I think that I am now hearing that you may have moved into the category of the three commissioners who wanted to provide general recommendations that the mayor and council explore the regulations of other jurisdictions.

So all of that to say I'm wondering if it would make sense to delete the language that I have highlighted, actually all of this language, and structure the recommendation here similar to the way that we have structured other split votes to say that by a four-to vote, including Commissioner Zionce in the four, Commissioners Fulton and Pittman in the two, that the planning commission recommended the mayor and council explore the regul we can clean up this language, but explore the regulations of other jurisdictions to allow electronic message centers.

Um, and then clarify what the two voting in opposition recommend.

Uh I think go ahead.

Piedman I I recommended the staff draft as you had written it.

Other thoughts.

You want to stay in the case.

Can I just clarify one thing real quick?

So last week when we got the testimony that said gas stations can't have signs under this prohibition.

We established, right, a clarification that said that is in fact not correct, that this prohibition exists, and simultaneously, every gas station in Rockville has a sign.

So that that that while the testimony was offered, that testimony was in fact inaccurate, correct?

Yes.

So the fact that there was testimony means nothing, right?

Truthfully.

I think the testimony was correct on the black letter of the code, but not how the code, the staff's recommendation for the code didn't change.

And that and under that code, under the existing code, those signs are allowed and exist.

So it could not be accurate.

It could not be accurate that his that that piece of testimony was correct.

Again, black letter, it appears to prohibit gas station signs.

What we heard was the staff has developed an exception outside of the black letter to allow them.

So that's not what I said.

What I said was it was we we got a clarification last week that that was an inaccurate statement, and that the current laws that exist allow those signs to exist at gas stations in Rockville.

Can we just get a clarification on exactly what we're talking about here?

Yes.

Um the state code does regulate gas station signs.

Um we have historically interpreted the code to allow electronic gas station signs when those came into being 15, 20 years ago.

Um they're not changing, and so they're not violating the code in terms of becoming a distraction, etc.

And moving um in violation of the code.

So so we have made the interpretation that electronic gas station signs are permitted under the code.

So I think staff is in support of the commissioner Salahadin's statement.

Yes.

And are we clear on this topic on this?

I think the staff and the commissioners are in the same page on this.

So the sign, the gas station signs is allowed, right?

And so, in terms of the stroll polls that recommend we simplify the the summary, because now we have a four-to-two vote, and then we can just describe those two opinions in one paragraph.

Is that okay with every commissioners?

Just a point of clarification for for myself.

It seems like we might be talking about two separate things.

Commissioner Salahudin, perhaps you're having an alternate, an alternate uh thought about the language that's highlighted on our screen, which Commissioner Zionce wanted to add the testimony indicated that the staff draft would go so far as to prohibit electronic signs at gas stations source prices.

And then also we have the question of maybe cleaning up and revising the commission's recommendation.

Is that correct?

No, so my I'm sorry, but uh I should draw the line and logic there.

Mine are it's uh so the the testimony that's factual, right?

That that testimony did in fact happen, right?

Um I would probably qualify the testimony saying that you know the staff believes that that maybe was was inaccurate, right?

That that the under the current prohibition, those signs are allowed, so this testimony needs to, I mean that's something if we're gonna add if we're gonna include the fact that that testimony was made, we need to add the fact that it was in fact inaccurate, and under that pretense, I'm probably with um Commissioners Fulton and and uh and Pittman, so make it three three.

So no other electronic signs.

Right.

I think that the the staff's recommendation of retaining the current um prohibition.

I'm comfortable with that.

So is everybody clear on this three versus three opinion?

Well clear.

Okay, then I think we we can just summarize summarize this opinion with a new paragraph, maybe bear with me.

Sure.

That should help them.

Okay, so we have commissioners Fulton, Pittman, and Salah Huddin against and all others in support.

Okay, I've got a tool paragraph.

I am using an this is going to be a little bit confusing for probably the next 30 seconds.

I copied and pasted.

I'm sorry, I copied and pasted some language from further down in the memo just to see how we treated split votes previously for consistency, so it will look quite confusing for 30 more seconds.

Sure, we will wait.

All right, that should be it.

Okay, so maybe uh we can read loud this one so everyone is on the same page.

So the planning commission was split three to three on this provision.

Chair Sang, Commissioner Espinosa and the Zions supported the mayor and council exploring the resolutions of other jurisdictions to allow electronic message centers.

Commissioner Futan, Pitman and the Salaho Din supported retaining the prohib um prohibition on electronic message centers as presented in the staff report, staff draft.

So is everybody on the same page on this?

Good?

Okay, great.

I think we we got it.

Okay, now let's get to a topic that's complicated.

Um historic preservation.

Um I was just reviewing my own history and change the second paragraph to read as follows.

The planning commission supported the provisions related to certificate of approval uh evaluations of significance as presented in the staff draft, period.

Generally, the commission was satisfied with the demolition by neglect provisions, but noted that the state law did not allow the regulations of all demolitions to be re relitated under the historic preservation provisions.

Staff indicated that necessary changes would be made.

So this is the new language Commissioner Zainz added to this.

Any opinion, thoughts on this?

I'm okay with this.

Okay.

Yeah.

Delisting.

Um just uh instead of uh the second.

I apologize, Commissioner Zions, it might be worth waiting just uh just a second.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

I'm looking at a different item.

It was too much technology.

Um we're on delisting, yes, delisting uh second sentence instead of additional clarifications.

I said additional limitations on de-listing for other good cause to prevent frequent delistings, and then we go on to explain that.

Well, okay with this.

All right.

And this is where uh Commissioner Pittman had some additions.

Yeah, you can add just a little context, our proposed a little bit of context that um we talked about that I talked about extensively in prior meetings.

Uh the under adaptive reuse of historic buildings and tax credits.

I'm suggesting about halfway down or third of the way down in that paragraph.

Commissioner Pittman stated, and then an addition, a proposed addition, that another pathway to preservation is needed to balance the new delisting process, citing that historic properties are difficult and expensive to maintain by allowing small multifamily units within the historic footprint.

Property owners would have a means of affording to maintain the property rather than pursue delisting.

Anybody agree on this?

I'm okay?

I'm good.

Yes, thank you.

Non Commissioner Zines, you have going down.

If we could pause for just a moment.

Sure.

Thank you.

We're almost there.

For the tax amendment.

Well, the to me the other one's easier.

All right.

Commissioner Pittman, could you confirm that what I have just written here is accurate?

Ms.

Simmons, yes, thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Zines, you can proceed.

Okay.

Um after the sentence that reads, staff noted the tax credits are not codified in the zoning ordinance or outside.

Uh I change that next paragraph.

Uh I deleted staff's statement, the first sentence, and replace it with the commission finds that Rockville, that the Rockville uh 2040 plan does specifically encourage adaptive reuse.

Parenthesis, action 4.5, encourage the adaptive reuse of historic properties when the original use is no longer practical.

To that end, the commission recommends revising the staff draft to allow multifamily uh structures located in the historic preservation overlay zone that has uh a residential Euclidean zone.

That's a substantive change.

Uh what staff said was uh they couldn't find anything in the Rockville 2040 plan that uh promoted this idea, and that it we should basically wait to the next plan.

Um and I don't think that's necessary.

I would recommend going forward with uh an idea that might help uh historic preservation uh and help those owners.

I think it's great that uh commissioner science find the code um the the master plan citation on this.

I agree with the the text.

And do we want to include the staff will not incorporate this into the staff draft?

Is this language will be included in the memo to clearly indicate that?

Well, if we recommend it and the the next draft staff draft reflects the recommendations of the commission, I expect the the staff draft to re to find the changes necessary to accomplish this.

I I thought I read in the staff um agenda that staff uh clearly indicate they will not incorporate this in the changes.

Can you clarify candidly?

That is our current position.

That that you're going to ignore a recommendation of the planning commission.

Certainly we would not ignore it.

Um there is a potential for us to recommend against it.

Oh, sure.

You could recommend against it.

Sure.

But it would certainly be in your memo that's transmitted to the council.

So would that be included in this the next paragraph of staff's position?

I think that is needed to indicate this.

In other locations, we have not responded.

So this is your memo.

Um and certainly it is intended to reflect the conversations and the recommendations that you have made over the course of the past, I think, five now work sessions, including some recommendations from this evening.

So we have not generally put if there's a staff response to something, which I think this is the highest candidate for their to be a staff response.

Um we haven't been incorporating that into this memo.

This is your recommendation memo.

So when this does get to the mayor and council, we will also have a staff report to go along with it.

So I wouldn't, I don't see a need for you all to try and reflect staff's position on this particular item, or frankly, on any item if we were to differ from you all.

This is really your recommendation.

And Mr.

Wazilak, if anything I've said is inconsistent.

Okay, excellent.

I'm in favor of this language.

Okay, so as I hear that this is a commission, commission's memo, and the staff's memo will point out which recommendations staff's uh draft will not reflect.

Okay, then I'm okay with this language.

If I if I could, I would on, I think most of these other items there has been a straw poll.

So I would be interested if there's anyone who differs from this, and if not, that's perfectly fine as well.

But I would want to accurately reflect that.

Um do all the commissioners agree with this direction will so the the our memo will not reflect the staff's position.

Correct.

Our memo is our memo.

Okay, then I think we are in uh the same page.

My one final question on this would be if you so this action 4.5, I've not gone and confirmed.

I I trust Commissioner Science that that is in our in our comprehensive plan, but I've not confirmed it.

Would it be all right with the commission if the language differs at all there if I update it to the exact language from the comprehensive plan?

That's fine.

Yeah, okay, yes.

Thank you.

I majored in cutting and pasting for this uh tax amendment.

Do we need to make a motion for this document right now?

I think uh well you can do it now, or you can do it later, but I think you should make a motion for both clarification question as we follow along in Ms.

Simmons, who clearly majored in tracking changes.

Um is there a next step?

Does the chair or someone from the body or someone just proofread the memo if we make the motion subject to a proofread or whatnot, just to make sure that we caught any little things.

Yeah, that has been your practice that the chair reviews the recommendation memos, so that's certainly appropriate.

Okay, I can take that to responsibility.

The one can oh, I'm sorry.

The one consideration that I would say is this does not yet reflect any of your decisions related to um Ms.

Harris's testimony.

I know that is something that you wanted to take up.

So I might if if you're going to make a motion on this, I might consider whether you want to incorporate any information from that conversation, assuming that it does occur this evening.

Thank you for reminding us that maybe we can leave the motion at the end.

Yes.

Okay, then maybe uh now we can move to the map amendment memo.

Commissioners while Miss Simmons is bringing that up.

Um the the motion that you'll be making when you do finally uh approve the memo uh the memos can can mirror the line at the end of the memo.

Um but I would also recommend that the motion maker add um and authorize the chair to to sign on behalf of the commission.

Okay.

Commissioner Science, so I don't see you'll have a red line version for the map amendment memo.

That's because I took the the issues that I thought were real issues uh into the other memo, so I didn't I basically I copied from this memo.

Okay.

So maybe Miss Siemens, you you can uh go ahead.

Certainly.

So I think the first thing that the Commissioner Zion's referenced and pulled into the zoning text amendment memo as related to the official zoning map.

So we had kind of flagged that for consideration under this memo.

If you all would like to move this information into the zoning text amendment memo right here, so it's under general.

It is this language that is highlighted.

You certainly could make that change.

But but that's just me.

I just want to clarify for this is describing the official zoning map is not a zoning map itself, right?

So I I I think I agree with Commissioner Zainz to move this to the text uh amendment.

Any other thoughts?

I'm fine with that.

Okay, I think uh we are good on this change.

Thank you.

And we can move to the next one.

The proposed raids only.

So this is where we discuss the proposed rezonings, going over the discussion related both to Montrose and North Farm in planning area 10, and then also in planning area twelve, Tower Oaks.

We did, as you'll recall, pull forward the general recommendations, SANS references to figures one and two.

But otherwise, I'd say this uh this text is up for discussion.

Commissioners, any comments on the text regarding the planning area 10, the Montrose site.

All right.

Hearing that we can move to the Planning Area 12, the Tar Oaks side.

So I can I can start.

So I think uh in describing the test testimonies, I think the uh I I like to add the language of the concerns that we hear from the testimony, also including safety, school crowding, and the compatibility to historical district, and also not involving the original comprehensive plan process.

The citizens in Newmark were not involved in the original comprehensive plan process in designating this site.

I think they they they mentioned due to they don't have a HOA association.

Right.

If if I may on your point, and I think that a distinction is they were not notified of this particular aspect.

Um it was their choice whether or not to be involved in the overall comprehensive plan.

Um but I think the issue that I heard in testimony was that they were not notified of this because it is next door to them but in a different planning area.

So I would make that that slight differentiation.

I agree with the Commissioner Futen's addition.

If I may, we did go back, um, and we have not discussed this before, but we did go back and confirm the times when we reached out to the Newmark Commons Homes Association and residents within 100 feet and then within 500 feet, and that occurred exactly as it did with all other impacted communities in the city.

We reached out originally to the homes association in October of 2024 when we reached out to other neighborhood and community associations.

We did not receive a response at that time.

We also at that time when we did our first physical mailer for all properties, either proposed to be rezoned or within 100 feet of a proposed rezoning.

We sent mailers to those folks in the community as well.

Um, and then in the spring, I believe in February or March, we reached out again to resident associations at that point.

We received a bounce back from the email that we had received that we had emailed back in the fall.

So we went ahead and tracked down the correct contact for the association at that point in time and were able to make contact.

We also in gosh, I'm forgetting now, April, I think, sent out another mailer to folks within 500 feet of properties proposed to be rezoned, which captured a number more of the residents, and then quite a number of those folks showed up to our specific engagement in the summertime that was directed at those property owners.

So understanding that we had quite a number from Newmark Commons who showed up to those summertime meetings.

We did um engage again more directly with the homes association and ended up on attending and presenting at a board meeting in September of 2025, and that was when I think a number of folks who had attended those earlier proper property owner meetings also attended that meeting, so we were able to converse with them at that point in time.

I think we had 52 attendees from the just the general group of residents.

We kind of took over their board meeting inadvertently, um, and they were very gracious to accommodate us.

Thanks for the provide the background information.

I think what I heard was they were not involved in the original comprehensive plan process.

I think they definitely involved in this process.

Was I hearing correctly from their testimony?

Yes, my apologies.

I actually was I was going to say that part of the testimony.

I do believe is accurate.

Yes, that they were not as actively engaged in the comprehensive plan process, which did recommend this rezoning originally.

I just have to say everybody has to read the first chapter of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

It deals with notice.

The notice was placed on a different planet.

But there was an intergalactic highway going through when they were ordered to evacuate.

Just how you provide the notice is all.

So I think I agree with Commissioner Futin's edit on this point.

And maybe we uh I think we also should include the staff.

I mean Siemens just told us that the city is trying to actively reach out to the Newmar Commons residents.

Reading Ms.

Simmons' uh statement here, I think it's a very accurate statement to say that the residents were not engaged in the comprehensive plan process.

Uh and there are multiple ways to interpret the word engaged.

So I'm fine with that.

There's also um I imagine, and you can confirm this, a volume of letters testimony that we saw that the mayor and council will also receive that can clearly articulate uh the residents of Newmark Commons position on this, correct?

Yes, that is correct.

And don't you you usually put um a paragraph in about uh staff staff outreach to neighborhoods in any kind of this kind of thing?

If there'll be a whole section at uh the final draft, I'll have a section on outreach to communities.

Is that yes, that is correct?

Okay, thank you.

Um so Miss Siemens, I'm okay with this sentence, and I also want to add the uh the issues we're here uh include the compatibility to historic neighborhood.

Yeah, thank you.

Any other thoughts on this?

Um and then I want to add on during our session.

So I remember Commissioner Pinman does asked the whether we could uh is uh common practice for the commission, plan commission to recommend a different zone instead of RMD 25.

And we were told it's not a common practice, and I think it's good to mention that we do explore that possibility complete the sentence.

It's not common practice, but it is permissible to zone different than the master plan.

I think I was asking about the like was it legal or practic in practice?

So yeah.

So do we agree to use the word common practice?

Would you rather have permissible in there?

Commissioner Pittman.

I think yeah, I guess I was asking the difference between legal and permissible.

So I think that might be more accurate if that's what we're talking about, is the question I asked.

So do staff advise that it's not or the staff advised was that it was permissible, it wasn't common practice.

Right, leave it.

Right.

The question was legal permissibility.

The answer was permissible but not common practice.

Exactly.

Okay.

And just to provide clarity, I I would say it may be permissible.

I think it really is circumstantial whether it's permissible or not.

And that's not something, I mean, specifically that was something that the city attorney's office was not going to get into with the planning commission in this particular case.

I remember you gave a thorough and easy to understand answer, and that made it very clear.

So I think my impression is it's not a common practice in in Rockville.

That's why we we choose not to go that route.

Other thoughts on this.

I'm okay with the language.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

Mr.

Dumay, you are also okay with this language.

Okay, and we can move on.

Actually, I apologize.

Ms.

Simmons, could you go back to it very quickly?

This is the one one area where I might want to suggest a minor change.

Um I would only propose adding after staff advise that it may be permissible just to be particularly clear to the mayor and council because I don't want them to feel as if they're getting different guidance from the planning commission and what guidance we might ultimately give.

Is that uh adding staff advise that it may be permissible under certain circumstances, uh but it is not common practice.

And I know Commissioner Zion's particularly likes that addition.

Right.

I mean, this is so clear under um the abilities of a uh prior uh of a jurisdiction within a priority uh funding area uh that uh density and land use are not required to be in compliance with the master plan.

So with respect, Commissioner Zionce, this is stating staff's advice to you.

So this is staff's advice to you.

I'm just stating state law.

Understood.

I'm just trying to be clear here about what I what I the advice that I gave to you as a body.

Uh I think it's clear that this language the stated was that recommendation, right?

And then we took this recommendation.

I think it's clear.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

We we can proceed to the next.

So this is what we recommend for the RMD 25 language.

That is the same language as in the tax amendment.

Yeah, well, okay with that.

Yes, okay.

Yes, with the addition to the reference uh to figure two.

Figure two.

Okay.

So in the tax amendment, it doesn't have the figure two language.

Okay.

Correct.

Okay.

Okay, we can.

So that that's it.

For this recommendation memo, it is.

Yes.

Okay.

So the things still on the docket are discussing the townhouse mixed use and umscaping requirements that you all hoped to discuss this evening.

Would you like to move on to that?

Yes.

Excellent.

So we are okay with both tax amendments as they are right now.

Yeah, thank you.

Please move to the next topic.

So the body received testimony regarding townhouse and multiplex design standards.

And I will admit in this presentation, we are providing information specifically on the things in the testimony, or the written comment from Ms.

Harris and from a couple of gentlemen yesterday, I believe, regarding landscaping.

We are we are providing rec or we are providing slides only on things that we recommend to change.

So I am happy to discuss any other elements of that testimony that you would like to, but we have not included slides on the things that we are not making recommendations related to.

So just for some context there.

One of the things that Ms.

Harris raised is that our townhouse and multiplex design standards differ, specifically creating a scenario in which our multiplex standards are more restrictive than our townhouse standards.

The reason that this happened was because we have a number of design standards that apply currently to the RMD infill zone in our ordinance, and we took those and said, okay, these really should just apply to multiplexes.

Based on her testimony, though, and for the review, we are planning to remove those standards from the multiplex use and reapply them to the RMD infill zone.

We don't perceive a need for additional design standards for multiplexes if they're located in other zones.

Really, the intention of these standards is to ensure that the form and the design is more consistent with what you would see in single unit residential neighborhoods.

So we are we are going to make that change.

We do perceive that to be a technical correction.

We are recommending additionally that we take those design standards, which are currently applied to multiplexes and which are based off of the language in the current ordinance and reduce them to only what is necessary.

So that would mean that in the RMD infill zone, we would continue to retain a standard that facades along street frontages other than alleys must include elements that provide interaction with the street, such as stoops, porches, terraces, balconies, and bay windows.

This is recognizing that in some instances you may have designs where the side of a building is facing the street, but we still want there to be interaction with the street.

We are proposing to eliminate the three standards that you see below that, that a single plane of a facade must be no more, must be not greater than 40 feet in width.

That is a that is a copy paste error.

Must be no more than 40 feet in width.

Monotonous, unarticulated blank wall surfaces are prohibited, and attached garages or carports where permitted must be recessed a minimum of five feet behind the front facade of the main building.

When not facing a street, we don't perceive that that single plane language is necessary, or it's it's overly restrictive for the zone.

And when it comes to carports and garages, particularly in townhouses, requiring them to be recessed would be problematic.

So those are the recommendations that we are making for the design standards for the RMD infill zone.

So I can pause there if you would like to discuss.

If I may, there was just one other standard she had, and that was uh if you have five or fewer townhouses, you instantly became a multiplex.

That is correct.

That's actually not a standard.

That is part of the definition that we've constructed.

And I will tell you, we spent a month and a half talking through definitions of what is a multiplex, what is a townhouse.

Do they need to include references to lotting patterns?

Um do they need to include references to how the different dwellings within a building are arranged?

And ultimately, we decided that the simplest and most seamless way to address many, many different scenarios and different configurations was to say that anything less than gosh, five.

Yeah, it is cuts.

So if you have four or fewer dwelling units, two, three or four dwelling units, we said that's a multiplex.

Anything above that is one of two things.

It's either a townhouse or it's an apartment.

And so it diverges at five.

Um we don't think with this change, the treatment should be roughly equivalent.

Um, there should not be the multiplexes should not be treated as a more intense use than a townhouse, but it is the simplest way we came up with to address um many different potential configurations for units within a building.

Um I have a question.

So for the point number two, you suggest to eliminate the monominus article the blank was surface that prohibited.

Can you elaborate why that you recommend to eliminate that?

Yes, I think we per we just thought that it was unnecessary, particularly thinking that the frontage or the facade that we really would care about would be that front facade.

If you have a side of a single dwelling unit, a duplex, a triplex, it isn't necessary.

Um we did not think that it was necessary to have articulation requirements.

This is a standard that does apply, if I'm not mistaken in our mixed-use zones and on a larger, you know, more massive building, we do want to see articulation.

If it comes to a residential structure, I think frankly, about my house, which the sides of it are unarticulated and almost certainly longer than 40 feet.

So we we did not think that this was necessary for a residential zone.

Okay, so just to clarify, so this EV is facing a street, it has to have some articulation, right?

That is where the first requirement that we're proposing to retain would come in.

So it with the references to stoops, porches, terraces, balconies, and view windows.

Yes.

Okay, then I agree.

Thank you.

Any other thoughts?

Okay, I think we're good on this one.

This slide in the next also relate to Ms.

Harris's testimony.

So she called to attention our side and rear yard setback standards in our mixed use zones.

Not all of them in the MXT and the MXC.

The setbacks differ a bit, but in the vast majority of our mixed use zones, we treat the side and rear setbacks differently based on whether they abut residential land or they abut non-residential land.

Specifically, if something abuts residential land, there is a 25-foot setback, but this does not account for the intensity of the proposed development.

And this is something that Ms.

Harris called to attention.

You could have a townhouse development in our MX C D zone.

And if those townhouses are next to residential development, this setback applies.

If you're abutting non-residential land, the side and rear setbacks generally in the MX zones are that zero feet apply, you have no required setback unless you provide any setback, in which case you need to provide a 10-foot setback.

So this has been an issue on some projects.

It does not allow flexibility for the provision of a setback between zero and 10 feet.

You have a choice of zero, you have a choice of 10, nothing in between.

So we are recommending that where you have the initial circumstance, you're abutting residential property.

That 25 foot side or rear setback applies only in certain circumstances which are much more tuned to the intensity of the development.

So specifically, we would recommend revising those setback standards and applying them to developments that are greater than 50 feet in height, uses other than single unit detached cottage courts, multiplexes, or townhouses, and also abutting residential property.

And then in all other scenarios, instead of saying, oh, non-residential land is treated this way, we say all other scenarios, if you do not meet those three criteria, then you have a zero foot flat side or rear setback.

So that would eliminate the reference to the 10-foot minimum if required if provided.

Thank you.

Any other thoughts on this suggestion?

Makes a lot of sense.

If you can say zero, why can't I be five?

I agree.

I think we are good on this one.

Thank you.

Excellent.

And so as I said, we are only providing slides on the items that we are proposing changes or had recommendations for.

So if there are other items in Ms.

Harris's testimony or in the testimony that you received yesterday, we are happy to discuss that, but we are not proposing changes based on them.

Just the one other on the interpretation of 1.5 spaces per unit.

Yes.

So Commissioner Zion is referencing that our current townhouse parking requirement is 1.5 spaces per unit, which begs the question of if you are providing those on-site interior to a townhouse, how are you providing 1.5 spaces?

This is something that is carried forward from our current ordinance.

That is the standard as it as it stands now.

And we do have language in the ordinance that outlines if you are rounding parking spaces, you round up.

And that is our current practice.

Anytime that parking is provided on site specific to an individual townhouse, we require two spaces.

So if we had an instance where we did have townhouses with surface parking, it's all provided in common.

Or frankly, if it were provided in common in a parking garage, we would apply that 1.5 space per unit to the entire site.

We did not want to increase the number of spaces required.

Um, but we also didn't want to want to decrease it either.

We think that 1.5 has not really been creating an issue and have just been applying it through the rounding, the rounding requirements in the code and matter of policy.

If I may, I'm not arguing the number, uh it's a fine number.

It's just whether um can I provide one on site and one somewhere else in the subdivision?

That is the common area for the other point fives.

I believe that in practice when we have when we have units where it is being provided specific to a unit, we simply do require the two you the two spaces for the unit.

And Mr.

Wazilak can certainly add any nuance there.

That having been said, I think um when we look at a development, we're usually looking at it from a site plan, like entire site plan.

So if someone would propose that, which I can't recall an application that actually did one space on on the lot of a townhouse and then another space off lot uh in a common area.

Um I think we would permit that because at least under the current code, you can count that uh within the overall site plan.

Well, you can count it unless you say you have to provide 1.5 rounded up to two spaces on every lot.

So either you're requiring that or you're requiring it 1.5 on the totality of the subdivision.

Yeah, to follow up with that, if we don't specify with that generally the situation, there is no townhouse providing no parking space on on site on their lot and rely on comma area to provide parking.

Is that permissible tool?

It is.

Uh it's been decades since we've seen development that proposes that.

Um, some of our older townhouse communities uh do have their parking in their common areas and not on each individual lot.

But what's being built there has been built in the city over the last I'll say 30 years.

Um they are provided.

I don't know.

You know, the parking spaces are provided on the lot of the townhouse unit.

So the current tax provide the flexibility, whether it has to be meet on lot or not.

Didn't this come up when we were looking at the um site plan for the Rockshire giant development where they had to put in the common spaces as well along that new road that they were making in order to meet the parking requirement?

There was a special situation where they had there's an obligation to provide certain spaces for the Rockshire HOA in the pool.

Okay, yeah, you're not gonna be able to do anything to do with that.

It wasn't about how many, yeah, you're right.

But again, I wasn't quite clear.

If I provide one space on the site and one space within the subdivision, that is permissible.

Yes.

But if I do that within this within the site plan area, I would say but if I do that, I have to then provide two spaces for every townhouse that I can't allow the average of 1.5 per space.

I think you can.

That's what you're saying.

If you're looking at it in the context of a of a site plan, it would need to come up to one and a half per unit being proposed.

I mean, I have not one and a half for every unit, it's one and a half per unit.

So in what scenario you require two per unit?

If they're on site.

Right.

If they're in a lot, if they're on the lot of the townhouse, then that requirement gets it 1.5 rounds up to two for each unit.

So is this uh clearly stated in the code?

I mean, it's kind of two scenarios.

One is 1.5 applied to the whole site, and then you round up to two for the individual lots.

Is this clear in the current code written like that?

I don't know that it is clear in in the current code or in the proposed staff draft, and I will say 99 times out of a hundred, I recommend more clarity, more specificity.

But I think if we were to do that, we're getting ourselves into a a situation of perhaps trying to anticipate many different scenarios.

Um and the current requirement is flexible in application.

So I don't, and I would defer to Mr.

Wazilak if we've been seeing issues with this requirement, but it is a requirement that has been in place for a number of years.

So in many instances, if there was not an active issue or clarity needed to if there wasn't additional clarity needed, there are some instances where we said if it if it's not broke, don't fix don't fix it.

Okay, so basically we are keep retaining the language from the old existing code and it has no problem in practicing this, implementing this.

Yeah.

You have testimony that it was a problem.

But be that as a in practice Harris said it was a problem, right?

Yeah, we did we did not agree.

So okay.

Okay, then I will uh keep the stab recommendation.

Any other thoughts?

Well, it's a practical matter.

Nobody builds a townhouse with one parking space.

If you want to sell it, you have two two parking spaces.

So practically, this is not a question.

And I agree, you know, I I'm used to some of the older townhouse layouts too that had common parking where this might be an issue.

Uh, but if it's not a problem, that's okay.

Okay, thank you.

And then regarding the testomy about the tree cannot be coverage, the staff does not recommend um 10 juice and any commissioners have any thoughts on that.

I just have a question.

I mean, is there a reason why you don't have recommendations?

And I think did I see Mr.

Ryan on the call?

I don't know if he's got thoughts on this.

I just wanted to get your point of view.

Yeah.

Because I I wish we had gotten this testimony earlier.

Bear with me for just a moment.

Um we did coordinate with our forestry staff, and they ultimately did not believe that any of the the three points outlined in that testimony would require a revision to the staff draft.

And I do have specific language from Mr.

Ryan.

He did say if we need him, he has his phone by him so we could text him if if it's absolutely necessary.

But when it comes to the soil volume, um, the question about soil volume.

Initially, in receiving that testimony, we thought, oh, this is an excellent idea.

We should put this in the ordinance.

And then we dug a little bit further and remembered that that's actually already required through our a standard detail that we have related to tree planting.

So that question is an excellent suggestion and something that we already require.

When it comes to setting specific goals related to canopy coverage over parking lots, we do have specific requirements for the internal area of a parking facility and the amount of that percentage-wise that needs to be covered in tree canopy.

Specifically, we currently require, and the staff draft also requires that 5% of the interior area be landscaped with canopy trees.

In conversations again with our forestry staff, they said that is 5% at planting, and they they estimate that that's about 400 square feet of canopy per tree planted, and it's going to grow up to 1200 to 8,000 square feet canopy at maturity.

So they did not see any need to um to set additional targets or anything of that nature.

It's really already baked into our landscaping requirements for the internal area of a parking facility.

And the last one dealt with um and and they referenced, I actually might try and find what they sent me.

It's not coming up immediately.

The third, oh I'm sorry, I have a perfect, yes.

The third thing was strengthened protection and prioritization of large canopy shade trees wherever the site conditions allow, both by retaining existing mature trees where possible and favoring large canopy species when planting is required.

Absolutely.

So for that they reminded us that the forest and tree preservation ordinance was just very recently updated, and the protections for existing trees were greatly strengthened.

Prior to the update, um, I believe we were requiring retention or replacement for trees that were above 12 inches diameter at breast height, and now it's been revised to require it for trees that have six inches diameter breast height, which is quite small trees.

So we really this is certainly something that the city is prioritizing, and based on based on the information that they provided, that is something that has recently been accomplished.

Okay, thank you.

Just one thought in my head is going nuts, which is you say interior parking.

You don't mean inside a building, do we?

It's within the dimensions of the outside parking lot.

That is absolutely correct.

Yes, it's the I think we call it the internal area of a parking facility, and Chair Soon actually suggested that we provide a graphic to depict exactly what that is, and that is something that our consultants are currently working on, so that we will be able to say here's what we mean when we talk about the internal area of a parking facility, but it is specifically for surface slots and not not the interior of a building.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think we uh finished all the three topics we want to discuss.

Any other thoughts?

Well, except that now you have other recommendations to put into the other memo.

So for those recommendations, how do we deal with that?

Do we recommend at this meeting or next meeting?

So the motion could include because as I understand it, the planning commission largely supported staff's recommendation.

The motion could authorize the addition of staff's recommendation on those points uh to be included in the memorandum.

Obviously, the the chair would be reviewing that before signing it.

So I I know the planning commission has dealt and has authorized staff to add additional information subject to the chair's review in the past.

In this case, these really weren't controversial items, so that is an option uh for the commission.

Commissioners, we're okay with this.

Yes.

Any other discussion thoughts before we move to the motion?

Great.

Hearing that, then maybe we can have a motion on the starting with the tax amendment document.

Do I have a motion?

Take a shot.

Motion to approve the recommendation memo recommending approval of the zoning text amendment uh subject to the edits made here tonight and subject to additional language staff will make discussed here tonight, all subject to Commissioner Sung's uh review, and just also include the authorization for her to sign it ultimately.

And uh for for review commissioner stung review and signature Do I have a second?

I second the motion.

Oh, you in favor say aye.

Aye.

The motion passes.

Opposed.

Opposed.

Okay, Commissioner Zainz.

Do you have any uh reasons?

I'm opposed for the reasons I've been stating for three weeks, or at least that that I think we owe it to the uh mayor and council to see the actual draft.

Okay, that's reasonable to say.

And I think the motion still passes.

Right.

Yes, okay.

All right, thank you.

So let's move to the have a motion for the map amendment.

Memo.

Do I have a motion here?

I would like to make a motion.

I can't even find the text, so Mr.

May keep me in check.

Uh I move that we approve the comprehensive map amendment memo related to the zoning text amendment before us tonight, subject to any changes and edits made by the commission at this meeting, as well as uh the review and sign by the chair of the planning commission.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All in favor, say aye or raise your hand.

I and any opposed.

Not in this one.

Fine.

Okay.

Then the motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

And I I think um, do we need to make any other motions for this?

Okay, great.

So as we conclude this stage of the zoning ordinance rewrite, I want to have some remarks.

And I want to um bring my sincerest gratitude to everyone now who has been part of this journey.

And this process begins almost two years ago, the fall of 2023.

And then since then, planning commission has held a number of briefings and working sessions.

And since uh this year, we have four working sessions until uh today's tonight.

And first, I really want to thank all our staff and the consultants and your analysis, outreach, and careful drafting and build a solid foundation for this process from day one.

And I especially want to thank Mr.

Westleck and Ms.

Siemens and Miss Mr.

Dumains for your expertise and commitment you brought to this process.

And secondly, I want to thank all the community members who took your time to participate.

Whether by speaking in person or submitting your written testimonies, and we hear your concerns and your voice, help us shaping the thoughtful and informed recommendation.

And thirdly, I want to thank all my fellow commissioners, and thank you for your hard work and the in-depth discussion.

You brought you brought to this process.

And I think our diverse perspectives has strengthened this effort in a very meaningful way.

So this uni ordinance is ultimately for everyone that who lives, works, and visit Rockville.

I'm grateful that the this collaboration that brought us to this point, and I'm looking forward to the next step to adoption the process to mayor and council.

Any other thoughts on this?

Yeah, thank you for leading us through this process.

Thank you.

And we thank the chair for being a great referee.

Thank you.

Lots of three three votes.

Well, I that's what I said.

Is very healthy in bringing different perspectives in this process.

And given that, I think we can conclude this item and we can move to any um what is the next new business.

Madam Chair, I just uh actually willing to echo uh what you just said on behalf of the staff.

Uh, we appreciate the efforts of the commission and the hard work and the thoughtful uh consideration and discussions that you had.

I think uh it will make this process uh much better and be much appreciated by the mayor and council and and the citizens of Rockville.

So we appreciate you working with us on the schedule as well.

Uh I know it wasn't easy, um, but um for any of us, uh, but we were able to accomplish uh something that'll be very good and that will serve the city moving forward.

So we appreciate that all very much.

Thank you.

So um so do we have a staff liaison report?

Uh just very briefly, uh, your next meeting would be on March the 11th.

Currently, we're not showing any items uh for that agenda.

Um so uh I'll keep you posted on whether we will have anything and what we will do with ultimately the disposition of that meeting.

Um I believe the last time I had mentioned that on March 25th, you would be considering the annexation plan for the property known as the Winx property.

Um just today we received a request to delay uh the uh consideration of the annexation plan for that property um to do for the applicant to do more outreach and to also consider uh the zones that they might propose.

So um you will not be hearing that on March 25th.

So that is uh in terms of our your upcoming agenda, uh that's what it's looking like.

I think there's only one other item that's lining up for the 25th, and that is tentative at this point, so I don't want to put it out there.

Um but it's related to a site plan.

So any thoughts?

Just for notice, I will not be uh the prospective March 11th meeting, whether it occurs or it doesn't occur.

I will not be here.

Uh neither will I well that potentially creates a quorum issue, right?

Because we we have four, so no, right, right.

But what I'm saying is if any of us four know of any issue, please, you know, we'll let you know, madam chair.

Thank you.

And I think, yeah, if there's no agenda, we don't need to have that meeting, right?

Correct.

Okay, we will see.

And any new business.

All right, hearing none.

So I don't think we have any minutes to approve.

That is correct.

Okay, so I think we received all the correspondence, the testimonies, right?

Okay, thank you.

And I think do I have a motion to adore?

Uh Madam Chair, I did have one item that I forgot to mention.

I it's not really business, but I did want to make you aware of uh that our research team and is our research manager, and uh her team has just prepared a Rockville Trends report uh that's got a lot of statistical data about the city at a generally high level, uh, but it's still very interesting, and that um document will be produced uh very shortly.

And so when it does when it is, I will send you all a link to it.

Thank you.

And that's will be very interesting to read.

Okay, so if we finish all the items, do I have a motion to adjust?

I move to adjourn.

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

The meetings adjured.

Good night, Rockville.