Good evening, Rockville.

Today is Wednesday, April 8th, 2026.

This is meeting 626 of the City of Rockville Planning Commission.

I am Mongsen, Chair of the Planning Commission.

I'm joined in Chamber by Commissioners Jeff Zains, Sulan Pitman and Eric Foten, and online by Commissioner Jamie Esponosa.

Commissioner Shayen Saladin will join us shortly.

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

Tonight's agenda includes one review and action item, and this will be followed by our regular scheduled commission agendas.

And does any commissioner have any thoughts before we proceed?

Okay.

So let's proceed with today's fourth agenda.

Compatibility finding for residential youth in the MX e zone for level one set plan application 2026-225-STP.

A proposal to construct 68 tool over two condominium units at two research plays.

James Salt has and James and SOT has INC is the applicant.

So Mr.

Westlet, is there a presentation from staff?

Yes, madam chair.

Just by way of introduction, this is an unusual situation.

In the 17 years that we've had the current code, we've not encountered this.

But uh the project pencils out essentially to a level one site plan, which the chief of zoning is the approving authority.

But the way the code is written, the compatibility finding for this particular residential use in the this particular zone, which is the MXE, is required to be made by either the mayor and council or the planning commission if it is not recommended in the comprehensive plan.

So here we are, and uh you are tasked with making that compatibility finding this evening.

And with that, I will turn it over to Christopher Davis, who will make the staff presentation.

Thank you.

Good evening, Planning Commission.

Before Mr.

Davis begins, I will swear him in.

If you could identify yourself for the record.

Christopher Davis.

And will you provide truthful testimony?

I will.

Thank you.

Please proceed.

All right, thank you.

Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the commission.

Um, as Mr.

Wasserleck indicated, this is a compatibility finding for a level one site plan at two research place.

So as you can see on the screen, the uh subject property is highlighted in red.

It is located at two research place within planning area 15, corresponding to the Falls Grove and Research Boulevard area.

The site is approximately 2.8 acres in size and has a land use designation of office.

Uh the zoning for the property, as Mr.

Wasleck indicated, is MXE, which corresponds to the city's mixed use employment zone, and the existing use for the property is office.

Uh as you can see from the area, the property is improved with a uh office building centrally located on the site and provides um access via an existing driveway to research place, uh, the terminus of research place, which is a cul-de-sac.

As you can see from the surrounding properties, uh, they are also improved with uh centrally located office buildings surrounded by surface parking.

And the site further gains access from research place to research boulevard to the southwest.

Um, notably, as you can see, these properties above I-270 to the northeast.

Um, and uh the is a larger property to the south improves with several office buildings as well.

So for some brief background on this particular property, uh the site was approved for a level two site plan back in June of 2023, where the planning commission approved uh a multi building development, including a life science building uh with approximately 200,000 square feet of gross floor area and a multi story parking garage.

The applicant intended to move forward with that life science use, but was unable to find a tenant to fulfill that use, and subsequently that approval for the life science building expired in June of 2025.

The applicant has now shifted its intended purpose for the property, and their current proposal has shifted to a residential development where the proposal is to demolish the existing office building and construct 68 two over two condominium units.

Proposed, several with a north-south orientation, and most of the units with the east-west orientation.

As you can see, the development will be provided access from that research place CuldeSec via a new private driveway, which will give access to each of the units rear loaded garages.

There are several open spaces proposed on the site, most notably this central open space between the units, approximately plan center here as well as along the eastern or the plan east side of the property with several pedestrian and resident amenities proposed in those spaces.

Several additional parking spaces are proposed, plan north to provide visitor parking for the site.

So relating specifically to the compatibility finding, the zoning ordinance requires that the planning commission determine compatibility for the project, as Mr.

Waselec indicated due to the proposed residential use and the existing zoning for the site.

The plan and commission must determine that the use is compatible with the adjoining and confronting uses by means of landscaping screening or other measures.

So shown here on the screen is the applicant's proposed landscape plan.

Those treatments are anticipated to provide compatibility which with each of the adjoining uses surrounding the site.

Some example images of the landscaping are shown here on the screen.

Ornamental trees combined with evergreen plantings will provide a variety of green plantings along this property edge, and we'll also provide a vertical screening from the adjoining uses.

So this is along the entrance driveway and along that planned south boundary.

Along this side, new deciduous trees will be planted along that entrance driveway to complement existing trees on the other side, as well as in front of the units, new plantings and grass cover will be accompanied by a six-foot-tall privacy fence to screen the front of these proposed units from the adjoining office uses further west.

Along the eastern boundary, this is the side of the site that abuts I-270, and so the primary feature to screen the development is a proposed sound wall by the applicant.

This sound wall is proposed to not only attenuate noise from I-270, but will also provide screening for the residential use.

And this detail provides uh some of the proposed landscaping along the southern boundary.

Uh the applicant has proposed a variety of robust plantings along this side, as this site will provide uh extended areas of green plantings, um, and is anticipated to uh complement the adjacent property redevelopment that the uh adjacent property owners are proposing, another site which proposes um uh an office to residential conversion.

Um, and so the applicant has coordinated with those property owners to uh enhance this area to be open and landscaped to serve residents of both uh developments and provide pedestrian amenities.

So just for some background on the next steps, as Mr.

Waselec indicated, this is a level one site plan that will ultimately be decided by the chief of zoning.

Uh the next steps for the project would be to finalize uh review of the level one site plan.

Um during that process, staff will review the development as it does with every development for um compliance with all applicable development standards.

Umce that is finalized, the chief of zoning again will make a final decision on the level one site plan.

So having reviewed the application and the proposed landscaping uh plan and site plan staff recommends that the planning commission find that the proposed construction of 68 two over two condominium units at two research places is compatible with the adjoining and confronting uses by means of landscaping and screening in accordance with section 2513076 C6A of the zoning ordinance, subject to the conditions provided in staff's report.

And with that, Madam Chair, that concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you very much for the presentation.

So does any commission earth have any questions for staff at this moment?

Well, are we going to get a presentation by the applicant?

Or should I ask questions to the staff first?

The uh the applicant is here to to speak if you would like to go.

Okay, then let's proceed with the applicant's presentation first, then we can have some questions.

It'll be a very short present.

Do I need to be sworn in, Jim?

Okay.

Sir, can you identify yourself for the record?

James Saltz.

And will you provide truthful testimony this evening?

Yes, sir.

I will.

Thank you.

Please proceed.

Okay, thank you.

Uh, first, and commissioner you Jeff Bundes knows who I am.

We're not developers.

Um, we've been uh corporate residents in the city for over 40 years.

We're we've been business for 46 years.

We bought this building 20 years ago, and we bought it for the record about nine nine and a half million dollars.

Today uh for an office use.

I hate to tell you this, but it's probably worth about four million dollars.

The rents were when we moved in, it was $25 a foot.

Today we're doing renewals at 20%.

The building has been about roughly 38% vacant now for three years.

We had an accounting firm move out, and so the uh top floor is vacant and we have vacant space.

So unfortunately, the investment uh, which no complaints, that's the way the world is, but uh we bought the building as an investment just to give you a little bit of uh background.

The values have just plummeted and the vacancies have gone up.

So when COVID hit and life science was booming, well, we thought, okay, it would be good to make a conversion to a life science building, which we did.

We spent the money and time, and we got it approved by you guys very quickly.

And so we marketed actually uh MedCo marketed out at the Life Science Fair in uh California.

No takers.

So we sat there for another couple of years.

The site plan expired, and quite frankly, the only option because uh you know the the note will be coming due next year.

We had to go and switch to residential.

And it just shows you, you know, uh just by way of background too.

We're working on the uh Westat site.

We're also uh and I don't think we filed anything publicly, but the Rock Center site, which is to the south.

Uh, you know, we're they'll be filing a site plan like next week because we're working with them on that for uh office to a residential use, the union building, which are really nice people, it's the communication uh communications union, which is right next.

It's identical building, same size, built back in the 70s.

Uh we uh we we talk to them all the time when they were doing parking lot repairs, they come and park in our place.

You know, we're we've been friends for 20 years, and uh they're pretty much uh struggling with a high vacancy too.

I don't know what they're gonna do, but uh they'll probably do so.

It's just it's the sign of the times vacancies are just you know the 25 to 30 percent.

So uh we looked at ourselves and with the uh bank note uh which is coming due.

I mean we we're we're not we're concerned about it, but we're not that's not it.

Uh we're we're gonna, you know, hopefully we've got uh a couple three builders interested.

They really like the market, they like Rockville.

Uh I know I've talked to the mayor about this when we first started to think about it, just what's going on in the office market and research boulevard.

And so, you know, with the union building, which someday I'm sure they're gonna be staying in front of you, our building, Rock Center, West At.

You know, it's just Ray Search Boulevard when we bought the building is different today.

It can be better and I'm sure it will be, but you know, it's just background information.

So we've worked with staff, the uh the guys have been great.

Uh we've coordinated with Rock Center, uh, the union folks coordinated with them.

They know what's going on, and uh so anyway, we're we'll be filing the official site plan back.

We'll be in to see you next week after we get this done, hopefully it approved.

And then uh you know, we'll be proceeding on with redeveloping the site, selling it.

We won't do it, but we'll sell it.

We'll have to sell it.

Any qu any questions?

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you for the background information.

Yeah, yeah.

That's happening.

I don't know where please commit to thank you.

I have uh a whole number of questions.

First of all, I'll report.

I was on the site Eastern Monday.

No eggs were found.

Um but uh uh it's uh a loud sight even then.

But um there's reference.

Excuse me.

There's there's reference in your uh application about a noise fence as opposed to a noise wall.

It's it's it's a noise wall.

Well, there are there are two separate references.

One is a noise fence and the other is a noise wall on on some of those drawings.

That's correct.

Uh Commissioner Zanks, uh the on the drawings it says sound fence.

Um, but in our communications with the applicant, they indicated that it's going to be a noise wall.

And that that will be reflected on their final documents.

Yes, sir.

Sorry about that.

So ignore all the references to the sound fence.

Sound fence, right, correct.

Okay.

Sorry about that.

It's yeah, sound wall.

Now on the eastern side, um, I will note that your parking lot is at a lower elevation than I-270 itself.

You do you intend to uh continue that to extend toward I-270?

Yeah, the grading will we we've designed the site so it's a balanced site.

So that grade over in that area will come up somewhat, but not all the way up.

All right.

So uh as I understand it, for mitigation, you are proposing a 19-foot sign sound wall.

18 is what the recommendation is, yes, sir.

Okay.

So how is that height compared to the height of the buildings behind it?

Well, the building on the east side.

The buildings will be uh uh stacked towns, two over twos.

Right.

So those buildings will probably 40 feet?

They'll probably be close to that, yes, sir.

So they'll be higher than the north the sound wall.

Yes.

And what's the distance between the sound wall and the side of those buildings?

It looked like you had a four-foot sidewalk.

It looked like another four-foot buffer or so.

Look like about eight feet.

It it it yeah, it could be.

I don't have the exact measurement, sir, but that sounds about right, yes.

So with a 19-foot, 18-foot wall, uh, maybe on an elevation five foot higher or so.

Um, how long of the day will those units, those closest units be in shade, given that it's an east northeastern orientation to the wall.

Yeah.

I I I can't answer that, but um I could probably do the calculations and show you what the uh shading would be, correct?

Yes.

Roughly it looked to me like they'll see sunlight at one o'clock in the afternoon.

About it depends upon the time of year.

It depends upon the time of day, but they'll be in shade a significant amount of time.

Yes.

Okay.

Um you uh there's a recreation area proposed to the south of that, call it?

Private, yes, sir.

Right.

Except that in the noise calculations, it was not assumed to be a recreation area because it looked a little loud, being that close to the 270.

Yeah, it was um it's as this discussed and is the uh mitigation report has it's considered a passive area, not so much an active play area.

The active, the active areas are pushed further away from 270.

All right.

So in your proposal, uh at least in the sound mitigation report, it had your noise wall continuing on to the southern neighboring property for the entire extent of that property.

Yeah.

Can I respond?

So yes, sir.

So um the uh in conjunction with the Rock Center uh owners of the property, which have will be filing their site plan, but have had numerous meetings, uh, and they're using the um same acoustical engineering company.

So the plan would be, and they haven't filed anything yet, but we've talked to them numerous times as recently as yesterday, the uh 18-foot wall would extend uh past ours, tied in.

And I don't know the exact length because I don't think that's been decided.

I don't know how far.

They're only going to remove the first building, which is the northern building closest to us.

The rest of it will remain commercial.

So I think that the sound wall will only go partly down that side, maybe a third of maybe a third or quarter of the way.

Have you done the sound studies on that?

Because noise travels around walls pretty easily.

Yes.

And that study is underway by the Rock Center folks, and when they come in, then that mitigation study will be part of their submission, but we already talked to them about the continuous nature.

The the problem looks to me like you you don't have adequate mitigation until you have that full wall.

Yes, sir.

And what we will have to do, and I've discussed this uh with Chris, is that we're going to have to uh coordinate to make sure that the sound wall, by the time that there's an occupancy on our site that that sound wall is extended.

And in the event that they're slowed down, then I'm going to end up having to construct the sound wall and probably get paid back.

But yes.

Right.

So you would be okay with a condition that's as compatibility as dependent upon a sound wall extending through your neighbor's property.

Commissioner, uh I get that.

You're absolutely right.

And uh we looked at other mitigation measures.

And to be honest, in order to mitigate in the event that they didn't proceed, then the sound wall would have to wrap the site.

And I you know, we discussed that.

We didn't think that was the idea was, and with the city, is that hopefully there's a pedestrian connection from the union building.

Someday they'll probably do this through our site down the Rock Center, and Rock Center will also have now some uh retail and some pad sites.

It'll be sort of a mixed-use concept.

Now that plan hasn't been filed yet.

It's uh, but we've had numerous discussions.

So the idea, Commissioner, is that it be uh a continuous pedestrian pathway, and I understand it.

You're absolutely right.

We must have some mitigation.

If they don't proceed, I'd have to put in a sound wall between the properties, which none of us want.

I get that.

So the other option is is you're right, I would have to construct their sound wall and then hopefully get paid back by them.

But I hear you're right.

And then you are content with doing interior mitigation for sound uh having um brick exteriors uh doing uh what's the STF is that the ratings for the windows exactly yeah and that's all in the sound report for the uh interior yes sir that's all spelled out correct all right so then then my only remaining problem is is the distance between those two on two townhouses next to within eight feet of an 18 foot wall yeah um you wouldn't be better off giving up two sets of those two over twos I mean to make it compatible well yeah yes sir I mean uh to be honest uh we have tried to uh get the value back out of the property and I believe with the landscaping and with the sound mitigation which is all in the report uh we are really attempting to sir uh put together a good development but also we are uh in a bit of a financial bind to be honest but we've made every effort we can in terms of visual in terms of noise to uh uh mitigate okay do can you give any examples where of uh a sound wall that high next to buildings that close in the county uh I think also yeah I I could probably look that up but I believe that um down the street with the um uh development it's I guess just no uh I was thinking there's um north of that there's um a sound wall uh with residential behind it and I also think that there uh I believe Pulte is redeveloping a site as well that's just north of where the Chick-fil-A you know that I call it the Chick-fil-A Center but it's there uh that that also uh backs up to 270 with the sound wall okay that that's all the questions I have no I I I understand and I appreciate it Commissioner and believe me um I wish there were other options to be honest but we've done the best we can I think and we've been very uh attentive to the acoustics and also to the visual but just frankly from my standpoint I'm far less concerned about landscaping than I am about sound and safety for the residents right I think as a matter of compatibility yes sir I'm done thank you I I want to follow up on that yeah I'm also concerned about the noise you see also I understand so now there are two open play area one is to the how do you say it to the north on the north aisle and the other to the corner so both those open area uh within the noise limit level the minimum noise level yes and yeah the the the acoustical study yes shows the decibel uh ratings in each area subject to the mitigation yes okay okay yeah and that's the only in the the parking area near the 270 not uh the STM and I that was purposely designed with stormwater management because uh Commissioner um it's is close so we try to back everything up and put the storm water management facilities there so yes ma'am okay thank you any other um commissioners in the chamber have questions so just an observation parking looks pretty tight here um it looks like there's um parking on site for each unit and a very small guest parking lot in uh the upper right hand corner um there's no parking exemption being uh they're not seeking a parking exemption right if this were the equivalent um our zone and we were building residential would this meet parking requirements I think may depend on which zone but I believe so the zoning ordinance generally just requires uh a set amount of parking for each residential unit um it doesn't require any additional parking for visitor for isn't isn't the requirement something like one and a half or two spots per unit and this looks like it might be one spot per unit so each unit is actually providing two spaces uh they have a rear loaded garage plus a space outside of the garage so each unit will actually have two units per or two spaces per unit.

But isn't isn't the requirement something like one and a half or two spots per unit?

And this looks like it might be one spot per unit.

So each unit's actually providing two spaces.

Um they have a rear loaded garage plus a space outside of the garage.

So each unit will actually have two units per or two spaces per unit.

Gotcha.

Thank you for the clarification.

Yes, sir.

So uh I think uh affordable housing is um quote unquote affordable housing around here that means something different.

Um true.

But uh I think this kind of you know gets into that area where um there the the this type of housing is a little bit more affordable than most of the housing that's around here, and I'm a fan of that these days.

Um so uh totally agree with Commissioner Zion's concerns, but um we don't seem to be getting a lot of these types of applications around.

So I'm I'm I applaud you for trying to do some uh make some headway on affordable housing in in the city of Rockville.

Thank you, Commissioner.

We're we're trying.

I wish that the life science deal would worked out to be honest, uh, but then no one came to the table.

But yeah, thank you for that comment.

Any other comments, comments?

So I have uh two questions for staff.

Um assuming this body finds compatibility and assuming the chief of zoning approves site level one site plan, when or w will or when will this come back to this body and in what form um so th this is the only stage that's anticipated before the planning commission um following the chief of soundings um uh decision, uh assuming it's approval the applicant would be able to move forward with permitting for the development.

And then just following up on uh point that Commissioner Zion was asking about, uh do you know is there a requirement minimum distance from a sound wall to uh residential property?

I'm not aware of uh specific uh distance or setback for um uh uh residents residents uh residential units in this zone.

Um we have setback requirements for uh proposed residential units in residential zones, um but this falls in the mixed use zone, which doesn't have such a requirement.

Uh I was just curious.

I didn't think that we would move forward with anything that was out of compliance.

Um I'll just add on that um while I share to some extent Commissioner Science's concerns, um I more so share uh Commissioner Sal Houdin's uh thoughts about expanding housing in the city uh and this is a step in that direction.

And if the uh adjacent properties also convert to residential, I think that's a very good thing and a good use of the land for the city.

Uh I think you'll see more of that coming.

Uh and you know, but I think the other good news is not to go the uh the largest parcel, because we we we did a study, I don't know, uh at the bequest of uh Mayor Newton a few years ago just to see what was going on because there was a lot of talk, and so there's uh hopefully Rock Center will continue on, and so that'll give a little bit of a mixed use flair so that folks can actually, you know, in the evenings walk down to a restaurant or shop or something like that.

That would be the hope, at least then I can't promise that for Rock Center, but that's what's been discussed.

Comment here, Pina.

I just have a comment.

This is uh an interesting project, and you are you may be the beginning of a completely different research place, a completely different look and use of that side of town.

So we got to get it right, right?

Yeah, you know that's that's go up sorry, commissioner.

No, no, uh just the the landscaping, I think does I I was so appreciative of your com of your questions and comments about the sound.

That was wonderful.

I do I have a different perspective on the landscaping.

I think it's really important to people's well-being and overall health.

So thank you for that.

And I do hope that as you progress, and Mr.

Rossleck, you're the approving authority for this, so let's make it really beautiful and and all that.

So thank you.

I had one suggestion.

This was like three years ago.

I think the research boulevard, which is four lanes, I think it should be two lanes with a median just to create that.

I mean, I you know, I don't want to get anybody in trouble here.

But when they when they uh when the mayor came over and we talked about that, here's the other piece of good news, Meso Scale, which is a huge uh life science company located.

Matter of fact, they came in to meet with meet with the mayor to talk about this.

They've purchased three properties in addition to the old uh police station, which across the road.

So they're not leaving, which is good because there's an employment base there.

So if Rock Center comes in with a little bit of retail, which they're talking about, and you get to residential, and I think if Research Boulevard became a more pedestrian-friendly street with the median with but I'm that's not, you know, I don't want to get myself in trouble, but that that's would help this neighborhood to be honest.

And I think the planning commission is actually uh the planning staff has looked at this, but you're right, it'll be reimagined for sure.

Thank you.

So Commissioner Espanosa, do you have any uh comments?

Thoughts I have nothing to add, thank you.

All right, thank you.

Uh so I think any other questions.

Well, I would just add conditions to the approval that that says uh no occupancy before uh uh a full noise wall on this property and the adjoining property consistent with the uh uh sound study.

Yeah, that's true.

Yeah.

Uh I would uh say uh the other condition, which of course would occur at site plan as well as uh the units to be designed for uh to meet noise standards along the way.

Uh I think those are the less controversial ones that I might have.

And and the other two is no unit closer than 30 feet to the sound wall.

That's that looks to me like it it deletes those two units closest to the wall, which would be in shade most of the time, anyhow.

Uh so Commissioner Zions, you suggest to add three more conditions, right?

Well, those though, yeah, those were the three conditions I had.

So can we discuss um maybe one by one?

So we we can yeah, so maybe we can discuss do what?

Yeah.

With these cuts, all the conditions, right?

If we agree on all the three, we can discuss one by one.

Yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

So first one, so we don't have an exact language.

Shall we have the language here or how do we proceed this?

So uh Madam Chair, we um do have a kind of a an additional uh condition that kind of generally covers noise.

Um and staff can present that to you and see if that kind of falls into the realm of what the commission is thinking, and then if you you want to have further discussion.

Okay, okay.

So so in addition to the condition one, in the staff report, you do have additional condition prepared.

Yes, we can share those with you if you'd like to please okay.

We can see the screen.

Yeah.

Yes, okay.

So this condition um generally um specifies that prior to approval of the level one site plan, um, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the applicable noise regulations, um, including uh MNC PBC's uh staff guidelines for the consideration of transportation noise impacts and land use planning.

Um that document contains the uh acceptable acceptable noise levels um that the county requires um with new developments, and those are the same standards that we as uh the city would follow.

Um so the applicant would have to demonstrate exactly how you're proposing, how they're proposing to attenuate to those noise levels and provide the additional mitigation that was discussed.

So that'll have to be documented in their final document, submitted to the city before we approve the the site plan.

Go ahead.

If I may, there's I think there's one element missing, and that's the timing of compliance.

You know, I would look to compliance before occupancy.

Right.

So it says prior to the approval of the level of site plan.

Yeah, that's the site plan.

So but but that means you can approve uh something that occurs in the future after the occupancy of the building.

Well, isn't that true for everything that happens before the building is built?

Right?

All the permits, everything is issued on the construction of a building prior to that building being constructed.

So if you're gonna apply that here, doesn't that apply to every single thing?

So sometimes yes.

I mean it depends upon the situation.

That's why I'd rather have it be explicit.

So Commissioner Science would would your concern can be translated into the noise wall, which demonstrate compliance should be constructed before occupancy.

The noise wall to be constructed before occupancy.

Mike, please sorry.

I would add that the noise wall should be constructed before occupancy on both this property and the neighboring property.

Okay, but if the level one site plan has the noise wall in it and it needs to be compliant with the noise regulations, wouldn't that necessitate that the occupancy permit would not be issued if they don't comply?

Mr.

Waskowitz helping.

Uh would it?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Any conditions that are imposed by either the staff or the planning commission would have to be complied with, particularly if there's a timing element associated with those.

But generally it's before occupancy of a building unless it's some sort of there.

In this instance, it would be before occupancy for construction of the noise wall.

Absolutely.

So the before occupancy for this site were including the adjacent site.

Yeah, that's that's the other thing is this site plan would not include property on the other side.

That's true.

The site plan is for only this property.

So my concern still stands because it concerns property, not within the parameters of the site plan.

Well, if you want to add that as a condition, that's that's your prerogative.

That's what I've been trying to do.

But then we're adding condition that something happened on a parcel other than what's being applied for.

Yeah.

Today I think the the the operative point in my mind is that these units are subject to the noise regulations, right?

That they comply to noise regulations.

So whether they do a wall on the adjacent property, they do a wraparound wall, they insulate, right?

All those things are mitigation efforts, and they all ultimately result in the same end goal, which is making a house that's livable.

Correct.

Right.

So I I would not be in favor of putting in a condition that is uh extends to properties other than what is under uh the applicant's control.

Uh I think it's really more about making the place livable, and that is what noise regulations are there for.

And so however they determine however they decide to get there, they need to get there.

Except that there's a noise study that says the only way to achieve the noise standards is to extend the wall, unless you think a moat uh around this place is acceptable with a noise wall around it.

It would like a look like a medieval fort.

And that's you would be okay with that.

That's what you're telling me.

I'm not saying I I'm not buying these properties, right?

And I don't think there's a moat anywhere in any of these drawings.

So we let's keep it to what's reasonable and what's what's being you know talked about.

I something think something far more reasonable when you talk about the building materials, and and we can't stipulate exactly what building materials you use.

You gave the example of break earlier.

If you were to do some sort of insulated concrete form, I'm sure that would get you to your noise requirements.

Um fully agree with Commissioner Salahoudin on the point where I don't want to put anything in here that talks about any other property.

Um but yeah, I I think that you know Commissioner Science, I I appreciate how specific you want to be.

Um I don't know that a moat is the way to go in this instance.

Um, but I do think that with a combination of what is feasible and legal for the applicant to do on that site combined with the necessary building materials would get us there.

And you might be building with concrete.

I don't know.

That's correct.

We we will comply exactly with those parameters for noise.

So come down, Peterman.

I think the problem here, maybe that uh you're gonna build it one way if your neighbor comes along with you and you're gonna build it a different way if your neighbor does not.

And the timing of this is if you guys are ready for occupancy and they are not, you may have to build that wall for them or build the wraparound wall.

Correct.

So we could get to where you're going, I think, Commissioner Zion's uh with not wanting occupancy of these uh units if the other ones aren't ready yet, by just saying demonstrate compliance before occupancy with the applicable noise regulations.

And that way, if the adjacent property isn't ready yet, this property has to have that extended wall before they can move in.

That way that resolves the neighbor, and uh I we really appreciate the neighborliness, you and your your you guys are showing, that's terrific, but you're probably not gonna be ready at the same time.

Yeah, and what you suggested was exactly what we would agree to do.

And I think I've echoed that to uh staff either or is fine if they don't proceed or don't wish to cooperate to the south, I'll have to mitigate.

We have a plan for on-site mitigation without them.

So it's either or.

Yeah, and uh that would that be acceptable if we add compliance before occupancy, just in case the building next door doesn't come along, and that way it yeah, it may be, oh well, they're gonna open in six months, so we're just gonna have our little wall and that's not what we want.

We want the buildings to the these units to be fully habitable and to these specifications before anybody moves in, even if the rest of the wall is gonna get done within a few months or whatever.

That makes sense.

Yeah.

So Commissioner Atlanosa, do you have something to add?

No, I wouldn't in agreement with every uh recommendation with uh being intuition.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Science.

I just blasted away by sound.

Oh uh how you think the the problem I have is that there was nothing in any document that we had that indicated that you can have compliance without a noise wall extending to your neighbor.

And the the compliance interior, no problem.

Uh I could I don't need to be specific on the uh materials or ever, fine.

You say compliance, and I'm sure that will happen.

But the alternative compliance here of on-site compliance for not the interior, but the exterior activity areas which meet we mandate, we mandate it, and then we also have regulations that says the sound levels have to be safe.

But I have not seen an alternative plan that says there is an alternative way to get those sound levels down.

And I personally, and I personally believe that there are potentially multiple ways to do that, and that uh the the important thing is that the it is incumbent upon the developer to meet the guidelines, right?

To meet the regulations.

How he he or she does it is not our place to regulate because we don't know all the different options that are out there, and there's a potential if we get too specific here, that we end up erecting a barrier to getting this affordable housing constructed for no reason other than we didn't think about that particular thing.

We put in uh language that is supposed to do exactly what we've already been established.

We've all you know, we're we're already covered for just to put in more language.

There's no reason to do it.

We're covered right now with this language here in this condition that says the developer has to meet the applicable noise regulations prior to occupancy.

We've already established that.

So Commissioner Piedman.

Yeah, I I think uh this I agree with the Commissioner Piedman's suggestion, just add in the timing prior to uh occupancy and demonstrate compliance is a more general language that covers all the scenarios, right?

So that ensures more they will meet the compliance, however, they can meet.

So we don't need to be more specific because we well know the engineer, we don't know how they're gonna meet.

So this is the goal we want to achieve is the complexity.

Okay, but but you know the alternative to a longer noise wall is a wraparound noise wall, which after your concern about uh landscaping, all that landscaping would die because it would never see the sun because you would be putting a noise wall on the southern side side of the site to wrap around the entire site.

So you know, in one sense, I I can see it is compatible, but to have a noise barrier completely surrounding the site, I would find that incompatible with its neighbors.

Excuse me, Commissioner, but uh I never testified, nor is it uh required to wrap the entire site.

It was, and we uh we will demonstrate the extent of the sound wall at the time of the detailed site plan, which Mr.

Waslack will review.

It does not need to circle the entire site, and we will absolutely move forward meeting the mitigation requirements with or without the neighbor, both interior and exterior.

So you have an illustration of what that wraparound would look like and how far it would extend.

Yes, sir.

The uh acoustical engineer is working on that, and that'll be part of our site plan submission, sir.

Will be, or do you have it?

Do you have I don't I have a concept and the calculations are not done.

It's Phoenix Engineering who's done a ton of work in and around the city, and it will be shown on the plan, which will be submitted to Mr.

Waslack, sir.

Yeah, I I think this demonstrate compliance, the condition is broad enough that we will trust Mr.

Westlack will ensure this condition is met, whatever it may be, right?

So our goal is to make sure it's compliance.

That's the condition.

I'm okay with the language and adding the the timing.

You're gonna add the timing but not say anything about off-site.

I think the the the little we say, the more the scenario it covers, right?

It covers all scenario and the applicant agrees on the timing.

So exactly what would you agree to adding?

I think that that that whole thing.

So the whole thing demonstrate compliance prior to occupancy.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, and then adding that and the with applicable noise regulation, all that.

That's yeah.

That's so do we all agree on on that?

Yes.

Yes, sure.

Sum up.

Okay, I'm leaving it to Mr.

Waskowitz to look.

I'm sorry.

To make sure we don't have an isolated medieval fortress here.

I I trust Mr.

Westlack will do the job.

So Commissioner Espinosa, do you agree with the condition with added language, the timing?

Yes.

Thank you.

We need the some noise barrier here.

Okay.

Which still leaves us with Commissioner Lines' other um condition that we remove the two units that are closest to the sound wall.

And again, there I would leave some flexibility.

I just say just have no units closer than a 30 feet.

Can we discuss this before we dig into it?

Yeah.

Because I disagree.

Um I I understand you know what you're saying and why you're doing it.

Uh I don't think it's within the regulations, certainly.

Um, and I also believe that there's a person for every home and there's a home for every person.

Um this is not a situation where we are assigning people to live in homes that may not get daylight until a certain amount of time every day.

And uh not to put the applicant on the spot, but this is what 68 units of new housing in the city?

Yes, sir.

Ballpark.

If we throw it back 30 rather than eight, how many fewer?

Four.

Four units.

Okay.

So I'm not I don't have uh it up in front of me.

It's uh it's yeah.

So I don't it I don't want to set a precedent of redesigning applicants' properties for non-regulatory reasons that maybe someone aesthetically doesn't really like.

And I think this falls into that.

I have personal examples from my life where people have lived in homes just like this.

Um I can go deep into it.

I don't think I need to.

Um, so that that's where I'm coming from.

I I understand and respect what you're trying to do.

I think that is a step or two too far for what this body is supposed to be doing.

Thank you.

Any other thoughts, Commissioners?

Yeah, I'll just go on record saying that I 100% agree with Commissioner Fulton.

Um, I don't think it's our place to put in rules that don't exist in the code.

The code, I mean the zoning ordinance, we just went through the process of rewriting it.

If we thought this was a bad idea, we probably should have put that in there.

Um it's the developer and the people who market these uh the these properties ultimately that need to find the buyer.

If they build a piece of property that is not habitable that nobody that there's no market for, then they will take the loss on that, and you'll essentially get what you want, and that is those two, those four units will be unoccupied for forever and ever and ever, right?

But there's someone out there that may want that house, someone that's allergic to sunlight that needs uh a place that's that's in darkness most of the day, or someone who works the night shift that likes to have a dark apartment during the day.

There are people who want to live in these homes, and maybe those homes closest to 270 end up being the most affordable and the ones that are most needed in this area.

So um absolutely positively against stacking new rules, arbitrary rules for someone for one person in particular's taste when um that person's not the one that's paying for the property or developing the property or taking the risk.

Commissioner Dias will keep them?

My wife will testify that I have no taste, so let's get that on the record right away.

Uh second of all, the the mission we have is compatibility, which is a general one and specific to every particular circumstance.

Um that makes it very odd.

Um the uh the reason that I am so concerned about those nearby houses is not only the amount of daylight for compatibility, which I like daylight, um it's also that it those units are the most impacted by sound, even mitigated sound.

They are the highest levels uh uh on the on the acoustic drawings.

So I will bow to the will of the body, but the body should not cut itself short on what what is capable of doing under the guise of compatibility.

Thank you, Commissioner Pitman.

I respectfully disagree with Commissioner Science.

Thank you.

So Commissioner Espinoza?

It's kind of a self-deprecating remark if you if you think about it, right?

If she if you don't have taste, you chose her.

That's tough.

That's a tough situation to put yourself in.

Commissioner Epstanosa.

No, I I have nothing to add to the discussion.

Okay, yeah.

So what what I hear is like most of Commissioners don't agree on the community science recommendation.

And for me, I think I I agree with the commissioner uh footens idea since this is it's not an ordinance or required by law, and uh I think right, right?

So Evie's the developer losing for unit, they might not be moving this product forward.

So I'm okay with not adding that condition.

Okay, so everyone is agree on that.

Okay, Commissioner Science?

Okay, okay.

Great.

So you have any other conditions, the sort of condition where believe it or not, I have no other conditions that I would add.

So this staff's condition covers your condition.

That's great.

So now we have two conditions with this finding.

So do we have a motion?

Do we have does we have a simple motion we can read through?

Sure.

Uh one second, madam chair.

Okay.

Oh, sorry, sorry.

So I see there's one person in the public if the person do you want to have uh provide the public testimony?

Dear ma'am.

Sure.

Okay, please come forward.

I might need some guidance.

This is my first in-person one.

Oh, welcome, welcome.

And I think Mr.

Watslak need to swear you in.

Okay.

Yes.

Could you identify yourself for the record, please?

Okay.

And will you provide truthful testimony this evening?

Yes.

Thank you.

My truthful testimony.

I grew up in Rockville.

I'm a graduate student at University of Wisconsin Madison, and I'm in a land use planning class.

My background is in planning.

And I needed to attend a legal proceeding, and I figured why not attend one while at home.

So considering I haven't lived in Rockville for like seven, eight years, I'm just here visiting family.

I don't think my input would offer much, but it's really fun knowing the areas you guys are talking about.

Because I don't know anything in Wisconsin.

That's it.

Thank you.

Oh, thank you very much.

We'd like to badge.

Go badges.

So you'll come back as a land use planner or something.

Yeah.

And the participant more.

Thank you so much.

Okay, with that, I think we can try to have a motion.

Yes, madam chair.

Um, just before we guess, Commissioner Zions, you you want to add something?

No, I was gonna I was going to say, I guess what we need to approve is your um statement on page 16 of the memo plus this finding it yes, that sounds like it's the it's the will of the body.

Um I would just um we do have some additional language to kind of clarify this condition.

Okay.

Um I know we talked uh about um occupancy.

So uh staff would propose that an additional sentence be added to the condition shown on the screen.

Um that would read as something uh to the fact that measures for Norris compliance must be constructed prior to occupancy of any unit where such measure is needed for compliance so why couldn't it just be prior to approval of the level one site plan and issuance of the occupancy permit?

And then keep it all the same.

That's the that's to me that's easier.

Sure, sure.

Okay, I think that's sounds good.

So we added two timings, right?

One is approval of the side plan, the other is the occupancy.

So both timing needs to show compliance.

Commissioners, do we agree on this edit?

Okay, great.

So now can we have a motion?

I'll move approval.

And the reason I'll move approval is I I want wanted this body to recognize factors that I had in my head.

And and given that they've considered them and accepted some, rejected others.

I am content to approve this because I think conversion of office to residential is the is a lot of our future.

And uh we might as well start here.

Commissioner Zionists just want to confirm that your motion is subject to the findings and conditions in the staff report as well as the additional condition just discussed by the commission.

Correct.

So that's page 16 plus plus the new condition.

Second.

Oh, in favor, say aye.

Aye.

So Commissioner, okay.

I see Commissioner Epson also raised his hands.

Okay, so the motion, the motion is approved.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

We look forward to proceeding on, and I'm sure I'll be back here with other sites.

We welcome you again.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you very much.

So now let's move to our um regular commissioner agendas.

Okay, so Mr.

Westlak, do we have a staff liaison report?

Uh yes, madam chair and members of the commission wanted to give you a brief update on the zoning ordinance rewrite and comprehensive map amendment that you worked so diligently on uh this winter.

Uh unfortunately, the mayor and council had it on their agenda for March 27th.

They also had a budget work session and public hearing on that same agenda, and uh did not get to the zoning ordinance rewrite and comprehensive map amendment.

So that uh initial work session with the council has been rescheduled to April 13th next Monday.

Uh that's also the date of the first set of public hearings uh for those, and then the next round of public hearings will be on May 4th rather than April 20th.

The work sessions will begin on May 4th and be on May 4th, 11th, and 18th, and we're looking at potential adoption of the Zoor and CMA on July the 6th.

So kind of push things back about four to five weeks, uh which is uh unfortunate, and uh, but that's it was kind of unavoidable uh given given the circumstances.

Um I did send out the uh the final signed versions of your recommendation memos.

That is what the uh mayor and council will be discussing at their work session on on April the 13th is your your recommendations on the issues that they raised and that you also require thank you.

Excuse me, and then you'll come out with a draft by April 20th.

We will be issuing a draft one week after, yes.

There'll be a revised staff draft on April 20th, and then another revised staff draft once we have gone through all the mayor council work sessions and prior to their taking final action.

So it'll be two more, two more drafts.

And I just did want to remind the commission that uh you would agree that with um delegating plat approval for minor subdivisions to staff uh that will be bringing forward a resolution that would memorialize that memorialize that uh if the mayor and council uh adopts the code that includes that.

So that would come forward to you probably uh soon after July 6th.

Any questions on on the status of of the Zoor?

Uh let's go ahead.

So I just want to uh confirm on the April 20th.

So both the mayor and council and us will get that uh staff draft of the yes, it'll be published as an electronic form, and we'll I'll send you the link to that.

Okay, so so that will be the red line the version.

Yes, okay, great.

So we will have a timeline to review it.

Thank you.

Okay, any other comments?

Commissioner Esponosa, do we have any questions?

No?

Okay, great.

So looking ahead to your next meeting, which would be on April 22nd, uh, we have a mandatory referral application coming forward for the bus rapid transit system on Veers Mill Road.

Um, so that is the only item that is lining up for that agenda.

And uh looking ahead to May, there's another mandatory referral application that is for the Rockville Senior Center, which would allow for the second uh entrance from West Cootie Drive in the senior center property.

So those are the two applications that are uh pending over the next month or so.

And let's see, you think I covered everything with that?

That concludes my report.

Thank you.

We're looking forward to the two mentor referral applications.

So do we have old business or new business to discuss?

Anyone?

No?

Okay.

So I think we received the two minutes to approve.

Yes, those are the minutes for September 10th and September 24th.

Yeah, so any comments, Commissioners, for those two minutes.

No commenter and Esponosa.

I I do on the September 24th minute.

I was absent.

However, on the meeting minute shows me as present and absent.

Um underneath the present law.

But the only comment I had on the minutes, and I won't be voting on those.

So Mr.

Westback.

Yeah, I see the um chair has Commissioner Espinoza was the chair at the time, and he's in the header as being present uh and also noted as being absent, so we can make that change.

Okay, yeah, Mr.

Westback will attend to that.

Okay, so now do we vote to approve the minutes?

Yeah, you need to take a vote on each uh set of minutes.

Okay, so first one is um okay.

First one is for the meeting number 11, 2025.

Do I have a do we do the motion or we just vote?

Need a motion.

Okay, do I have a motion to approve?

Uh Chat and I move that we approve the meeting minutes for meeting number 11-2025 as presented to the commission today.

Um, and I'll add parenthetically, uh, this was a long meeting, and I enjoyed uh the re revisiting this meeting.

Um I thought it was very well captured everything that went on.

So I forgot some of the nuances of that one.

So thank you to staff for that.

I second.

Oh, you in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay, the mo the minutes is approved.

I can't vote.

I wasn't here.

So you abstain.

I I I guess, yes.

Yes, you abstained.

Great.

Okay, so now do I have a motion to approve the meeting number 12 2025?

And that is the meeting.

The Commissioner Assumnosa is absent, right?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay, so with uh changes.

I move to approve uh meeting 12-2025, subject to the revision uh removing uh uh revising it to reflect that uh chip Chairman Espinoza was in fact entirely not present and not partially present.

I second all in favor, raise your hand or say aye.

Aye.

Okay, the meetings is approved.

Thank you.

Okay, abstains acknowledged.

All right, so I any more correspondence?

Uh no.

No, okay.

So do I have a motion to adjure?

So moved.

Second.

Oh, in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

The meeting is adjured.

Good good night, Rockville.

Thank you.