Good evening, Rockville.

Today is Wednesday, July 22nd, 2026.

This is meeting number 9-26 of the City of Rockview Planning Commission.

I am Men Sen, Chair of the Planning Commission.

I'm joined in chamber by Commissioners Jeff Zains, Sullivan Pitman, Eric Footin, and Jamie Espinosa.

Commissioner Cheyenne Hassel Hadin can now join us tonight.

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

Tonight's agenda includes one recommendation to mayor and council, one review on level two set plan, one briefing on the City of Rockview Trends Report, and then this will be followed by our regular scheduled commission items.

Before we proceed, does any commissioner have any questions?

Okay.

So let's proceed with today's first agenda item.

Recommendation to mayor and council.

Section map amendment MAP2026-127 to resume property at 24 Martins Lane from R60 to R60HD to place a property in the historic district overlaid zone.

Historic district commission of Rockville is the applicant.

So Mr.

Watsley, is there a presentation from staff?

Yes, Madam Chair, there is.

Just to note that this application is a historic district map amendment, as you stated, and the commission's role is to make a recommendation to the mayor and council, who will be the ultimate uh decision makers on this particular application.

And with that, I am joined by Megan Flick and Katie Gerbis from our historic preservation team to make the staff presentation.

I'll turn it over to you Maker.

Thank you, Jim.

So good evening, Commissioners.

This is our report for a map 2026-127, which is a sectional map amendment at 24 Martins Lane.

So just wanted to start by going over the historic designation process.

And then the HTC recommends a historic designation.

This happened at their June 18th meeting, which I will get into in more detail on the next slide.

And then the next step is that staff applies for a sectional map amendment to apply the historic district overlay zone on the property based on the HTC's findings.

And then we are now at the third step, which is uh planning commission reviews the sectional map amendment application and makes a recommendation to the mayor and council.

Uh and then finally, the mayor and council will hold a public hearing and take action to designate the property or dismiss the request.

So they felt it met the following historic significance criteria, uh, that it represents the development heritage or cultural characteristics of the city, uh, that it's a site of an important event in Rockville's history, uh, that it's identified with a person or a group of persons who influence the city's history, and that it exemplifies the cultural, economic, industrial, social, political, archaeological, or historical heritage of the city.

Uh and the HDC also determined that it met the architectural design and landscape criteria that it embodies distinctive characteristics of a tight period or method of construction.

Uh so getting into the uh property description here, uh, it's located on the south side of Martins Lane.

Um, and it's a narrow but deep lot.

It's actually an internal lot, so it doesn't have direct frontage on Martins Lane, um, but there's a pipe sem out on the east of the property, so the legal lot line does have Martins Lane frontage and vehicle access is to the driver alley on the west side of the home.

And then getting into the building description, uh, starting with the front or eastern facade.

Um, this home is commonly referred to as the Powell Crutchfield House.

It's a two and a half story vernacular home, and it's estimated to have been built sometime between 1892 and 1897, uh, although other accounts claim the home was built in 1909.

Um, and the photo on the left of your screen is an older photo from 1988, um, showing the front of the home, and on the right, you can see the front of the home currently.

I think this photo is taken in April of this year.

Um, so you can see some of the disc repair here, the door to the screen porch is falling off, and there is some overgrown ivy on the front.

And then getting into the rear or western facade, the home is actually later enlarged in the 1920s to include an L-shaped kitchen wing onto the rear of the home.

And again, you can see the older photo on the left in 1988 of the rear, and then on the right is uh the rear currently.

Um and again, you can just see some damage here.

You can see the roof has collapsed in large areas, um, and there are some missing windows as well.

Uh and then finally, we have some more current photos of the north and south sides of the home.

Um so again, these are just showing more of the deteriorating condition of the home.

Um we have some damaged siding and that overgrown ivy, um, and then also uh some more missing windows.

And then getting into the family and neighborhood history.

Um, so the Hey Taitai community is one of the earliest black communities in Rockville.

Um, it was established by Samuel Martin and traces back to formerly enslaved people on the Beale property.

Uh these lands were actually deeded from the Beale family.

So the image on the left uh shows the Hay Tai Martins Lane district.

Um, so other parts of this site are designated, but this specific property has not been designated.

And then the 1916 map on the right shows the distinct geographic areas of the Martins Lane District.

Uh, so that includes Martins Lane, the Beal Parcels, the Beale subdivision, and then also a modern development on McLean Court.

And just wanted to note too that this property is part of the original Ross Powell Crutchfield homestead, and it remained in the same family and its ascendants uh for several generations until 2023.

So getting into plan and commission action here, uh planning commission's role is to one determine consistency with the comp plan uh and then also to determine conformity with the purposes of the historic district overlay zone.

Uh so I will just go through each of these one at a time.

So starting with the consistency with the city's comprehensive plan, uh, as far as the historic preservation element, it does align with the historic designation of properties.

It contributes to maintaining the city's CLG status.

Um, and then the area is culturally significant for its development pattern, fueled by family ties and self-sufficiency in the eras of slavery and segregation.

Um, however, the building is in severe disrepair and is currently unsafe for habitation, so it would likely be a candidate for the city's demolition by neglect ordinance due to its deteriorating condition.

Um, and then as far as planning area four, designation would serve as celebration and display of the property's rich history, generate awareness of community, and play a role in maintaining the character and identity of the historic districts in the neighborhood.

Um, as far as conformity with the purposes of the historic district zone, um, the purposes are listed on the slide here.

And in terms of this property, designation would ensure long-term preservation of the property and the larger Heightai community as the oldest black community in Rockville.

Um, however, the current state of disrepair is not conducive to improving property values on or near the property.

Um, if designated, any alterations to the site would be required to come before the HDC for review and approval.

Uh, so full rehabilitation is not likely, um, and it's likely that there will be a request for demolition.

Um, and then finally, designation is unlikely to foster civic beauty or generate heritage tourism, but it will provide an opportunity for residents to learn about the city's history in the context of uh the Haytai community.

So staff recommend that the planning commission consider any recommendation that it may wish to make based on those two areas of analysis.

So it's whether the proposed sectional map amendment would one be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan, uh, and two conform to the purposes of the historic district zone.

And then getting back to that process there, the next step after plan and commission recommendation tonight would be for Mayor and Council to hold a public hearing and take action to designate the property or dismiss the request.

Um, and that will be a formal public hearing held on September 14th, I think is currently scheduled.

Um, and there will be um notices and advertisements for that hearing as required by code.

That's it.

Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation.

So coming to nurse, do you have any questions to staff at this point?

Not yet.

I have for staff, um, just some kind of procedural stuff.

Thank you for the presentation.

Um I think I saw somewhere in the briefing materials that there was a structural integrity report around 2022.

Does that sound right?

And has staff seen that?

Yes, that's correct.

That was a part of the uh initial EOS application was uh the structure report, and it's just showing the interior of the home, and I think it was yeah, 2022.

Okay, so staff has seen that report then.

Yes.

Okay.

Um and then I know that obviously the property is uninhabited now.

When was it last inhabited, the structure?

I'm not sure we know the date that it was last inhabited.

I'm willing to defer to people in the in the audience if they know if I may.

I think one of the letters sent by someone in the public, and I don't remember which one refers to 21 years ago or something like that.

It's if I'm remembering the I think that was uh Reverend Woods letter.

Yeah, I don't remember who it was, yeah.

Couldn't pull it while I was I was sitting here.

Um you talked about, and this is in the packet, and you just mentioned it, kind of a future state uh where this property is in uh historic district zone, there is a demolition by neglect or demolition, and then I guess the owner comes to the HDC as the approving authority for a complete rebuild for the plans and the design.

Correct.

So if it's designated, any alterations would be required to come before the HDC.

So that would include any rehab or any request for demolition of the structure.

Pardon my ignorance because I'm unfamiliar with a complete rebuild under the those that set of circumstances.

What guidelines or design standards would the applicant have to follow?

Would it have to match the vernacular style of the original structure to some degree, obviously not entirely?

So it would a bit depend on what the proposal before us is.

Um whether the proposal would be making alterations to these existing structure or seeking demolition and then completely rebuilding it.

Um so we are governor, we meaning the HGC is governed by the Secretary of the Interior Standards, which has a series of standards for how we treat historic properties.

We also have a series of technical guidelines for exterior alterations.

So we would certainly be putting any proposal to do anything on any historic property in the city up against those standards and guidelines.

Now, in an instance here where if the entire structure were to be demolished, um we would not necessarily be looking for it to be rebuilt to look exactly like it is.

We would be looking for it to maintain some of the character of the historic district that it's within, um, but we could not force someone to do build a replica of it, for example.

It gets a little bit tricky.

We have other cases where we have more modern homes on historic land um that they're still subject to all of that review, but the I guess the level of scrutiny is a little bit different than if it's an alteration to an existing house that has that existing fabric.

Thank you.

So just to clarify, if this property was designated historic, it could still be demolished.

It would just go back to HTC for that process.

Yeah, that is correct.

Okay, and then my second question, just to again to clarify.

We're to consider whether or not this meets meets the historic requirements.

That's that's it.

That's our role.

So it's to whether it's consistent with the comprehensive plan, and then whether it conforms to the purposes of a historic district.

So whether or not it there's a permit for demolition that's been applied for that doesn't that should not be part of this.

Am I correct?

Yeah, that's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Just a couple of things for conformity uh with the purpose.

Does it have to conform to every purpose listed?

Or could it meet one purpose?

I believe it is a bit vague in our code.

Um so that is up to you all as a body in the staff report.

You can see we've listed out those five purposes.

Um, Mr.

Waslik, correct me if I'm wrong or Mr.

Dume, but I don't believe the code specifies it does not.

And the the same kind of question with consistency with the comp plan.

Does it need to be consistent with all elements or it's our judgment on what consistency means?

It defers to your judgment as well.

And there was a reference in the staff report to a purpose provision.

I remember the number, but not the uh precise uh quote from it, uh 4.9 that that said encourage um encourage sound structure in this in effect.

Uh I I don't have the quote.

I hope you can find it.

Um yeah, I think it's action 4.9, which states to ensure that all locally designated properties are compliant with building codes to avoid demolition by neglect.

So that's an action that's not a purpose.

It's an action of the comprehensive plan, correct, not a purpose of the historic district zone.

Right.

Um, I don't need to go into what that means, whether it applies when something is designated or after something is designated, because you can't encourage anything until it's within your jurisdiction.

Yes, that is fair.

And then I'll also note that the code currently, right now, as well as in the new ordinance that will be effective August 1, demolition by neglect only applies to historic properties.

If it's a non-designated property, it's like a property maintenance code violation.

And just so everybody is clear, uh by September 14th, the new ordinance will apply, and the new ordinance would require a unanimous vote if the applicant, if the landowner objects to designation.

So that actually changed on June 29th when the mayor and council um voted to adopt the updated zoning ordinance rewrite.

Um that is now a supermajority, which I believe is defined as five of the seven members if the owner is against designation in writing.

I'm a step behind.

But a vote.

It happened quick.

Thank you.

I have a clarification question.

So currently we are reviewing this criteria based on the current code.

And in September, the mayor and council will review this under the new code.

I think the designation criteria is the same, and the purposes of the historic district zone are the same, as is the comp plan.

Those haven't been modified.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

Any other questions at this time?

Okay, then Ms.

Wasmack, do we have a applicant presentation?

Uh no, madam chair, the um the HDC is the applicant, and they will not be making a presentation.

Uh, but we do have uh eight members of the public that have signed up to speak in advance.

Okay.

Uh so we can start the public hearing process.

And before we do that, let me remind us the rule.

So if you attend to if you intend to testify for any of the today's agenda and uh has now signed, please for sign in, and so we can call your name.

And before we go to um this, so the I remind the folks the the time limits.

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

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

And there's a clock in front of you, and me uh Mr.

Dumains will start the timer and why you begin speaking, and any time clarification questions may be asked by the member of the commission, and please adhere to those time limits, and they will be enforced by me.

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

With that, let's uh welcome the first speaker.

Thank you, madam chair.

The first speaker is Nancy Picard, to be followed by Wellington Crutchfield Jr.

Thank you.

Good evening, planning commissioners.

I'm Nancy Picard.

I'm the executive director of Peerless Rockville, and I am speaking tonight on behalf of that organization.

Um so the matter of 24 Martins Lane before you tonight provides a great opportunity for the city to protect historic black history, um, the resources of that community, and Pierless Rock Rockville strongly supports designation of this property.

We agree with the staff findings that 24 Martins Lane meets the city's historic significance criteria A, B, C, and D, as well as architectural design and landscape criteria A.

The city found and the HDC concurred that this property is representative of the development, heritage, and cultural characteristics of the city.

In particular, its relevance and strong importance to the nascent black community known as Hayti, which grew on the edge of Rockville and provided a place for the recently enslaved and their immediate descendants to live, love, learn, and enjoy the right of a secure home, land ownership, and economic stability that had been withheld from them for many, many years.

The lands were deeded to individuals formally held in slavery by the Bell family.

She conveyed this land with some interesting deed restrictions where she would retain some matter of control until that was actually removed from the deeds many years later.

24 Martins Lane was conveyed to and Flora Flora Ross Powell and her husband Adam Powell.

It is likely that Flora, who was born in 1856 before slavery ended, was herself enslaved by the Bells as a child.

In Hayti, several generations of the Ross, as well as the Wood and Smith families remained for many years growing their families and establishing a very distinct black community.

From its late 19th century, beginning and up until today, the small but significant community has stood as a testament to the tenacity of the early owners and the desire for a better future for their children.

For the people who founded the Heightai community, owning land was a chance for prosperity, the possibility of a stable future for their descendants, and also status.

Martins Lane Hayti continues to be a source of pride and an example of resourcefulness for those who live here.

The significance of this parcel thus clearly qualifies for historic designation.

However, the planning commission is charged with evaluating that historic designation also conforms with Rockville's comprehensive plan.

As articulated in the historic preservation element, the first goal is to safeguard Rockville's physical and cultural heritage through a proactive historic preservation program.

Goal two is to preserve and recognize significant examples of architectural periods, historic themes, and the diversity of Rockville's history and historic resources through local historic designation.

And that's what you were considering tonight.

It also states that Rockville should actively create new and also expand existing historic districts.

Policy 10 states that the city should recognize native, underrepresented it, underrepresented it.

Sorry, I can't say that, and diverse historical context, communities, and periods of development in Rockville.

And I think we could all agree that this parcel does that very thing.

Goal five is to pursue an equity and inclusive framework to recognize the diversity of Rockville's history and its historic resources, and states that recognition and preservation of historically underrepresented populations, time periods, and building styles must go hand in hand with ensuring inclusive representation and all preservation efforts.

This property is an important story of Rockville's heritage, and it can be safeguarded through designation.

I want to remind you that designation of the property does not prevent new construction.

It simply provides the city of Rockville with more opportunities to guide development that is respectful and complementary of the built environment and the existing historic resources.

And I want to just shout a little background.

I scribbled these uh thoughts, so bear with me.

But it's part of the comprehensive plan.

This was a recommended action that was included specifically to address the kind of issue that is before you tonight, which is long-standing properties that were left to decline.

It was included to make a clear point by the mayor and council at the time that this was something we want to add it when the next zoning ordinary zoning rewrite came forward.

They made sure to include 4.9 as an action that the city should take.

So thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Wellington Crutchfield Jr.

to be followed by Charlotte Crutchfield.

Good evening, everyone.

And I reside in 24 Martins Lane.

The property that you're talking about was built by my great uncle Claude Prather back in 1909, 1910 on the Ross Powell property.

This was property was built by my uncle when my uncle moved.

My grandparents and my dad, Wellington Sr.

Warren Crutchfield, and Elaine Crutchfield moved in that property.

I'm the seventh generation.

I've been raised on that property all my life.

That property means a lot to us.

Not only did it raise my dad and my aunt and my uncle, there were many black educators that came up from the South to get a job to teach in our system in Montgomery County.

There were many times me as a kid that I would sit across, the math teacher or the assistant principal of Carver or Lincoln.

So this does have a strong, strong family tie, because it's the first property to be built on the Ross Powell area outside of the home that I currently live in.

My home is still logged, still based on log in the middle of the room.

I have a little thing that shows you the log cabin.

So one of the things that I want to make sure that we understand is the property that you're talking about, it's not the original property of the Ross Powell.

The property is built by Claude Praiser in 1909, 1910, something like that.

So that was the first piece of house that was ever built after they built their original property that I live in.

So it does mean a lot to us.

That property is not the original property.

My property is the original property.

My property is 24 Martin's Lane.

This property never had an address for almost 50 years.

My grandparents used Post Office Box 282.

When the taxes were paid, they were paid on the whole property of the original Ross Powell.

This property never had a city of Rockville address.

And so why does it mean a lot to me?

Because it raised all of us.

I mean, granted, I live in what I live in.

That's where my family comes from.

I'm the seventh generation.

My granddaughter back there is the ninth generation, and we would like to keep it.

Yes, it did deteriorate because things happen in families.

But please, when you talk about the property, let's make sure we talk about the correct property.

That is not 24 Martin's Lane.

That is a piece of the original property that was put there.

24 Martin's Lane is where I live.

When it came to 22 and things like that, I'm not for sure.

The city did it, the post office did it, or who did it.

But before we make a decision, please let's get the correct address of the correct survey and everything, so that whatever you guys decide that is decided on the actual facts.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

I just have a question for the staff and sir, like can you show us on the plan which property I'll talk about?

Yeah, do we have that added photo?

Can I walk over?

Right, yeah.

This whole property right here belongs to the home that I live in.

All of this, when the property that you're speaking about was built in 1909, 1910, it was built over here.

It was not the original property.

Um I would more than happy to be more than happy to divide everyone over to take a tour because many, many years ago, my property was deemed historic.

We had tourists through it and everything.

So the property that I own that I am in now is the original property that you're talking about.

The property is the original 24 Martin's Lane, is where I am.

We have never, my grandparents never ever had an address of Rockville.

Their address was post office box 282.

Excuse me.

When my great-grandmother was paying taxes, this property was never divided.

She paid taxes on this property, the whole property.

Well, my grandfather paid taxes the same way.

When my uncle paid the property taxes, the same way.

The electricity was connected to my property when they did connect electricity.

But this property we're speaking of that never had anything, it never had a rock bill address until recently when someone came up with a bright idea to go, okay.

This is where I live is 22 Martin's Lane for a while.

A, and then they say, okay, well, my grandparents, the house we're speaking about was 22B.

Then all of a sudden, when things happen in the family, all of a sudden now that became 24 Martin's Lane.

That was never 24 Martin's Lane.

Oh, 24 Martin's Lane was where I live.

Thank you, thank you, sir.

And maybe that can the staff provide some clarification on this?

Yeah, that's correct.

It was an address change over the years.

It was 22A and 22B.

And then this property was then assigned the address 24 Martin's Lane, which is the current address of the property.

Any other questions on this?

I don't know.

That's what we call field stone.

So if we if we identify it, it's the location is understood as 24 Martin's Lane.

Right.

But if we also put Paren's P.O.

box at 282, would that be okay?

282.

I'm sorry.

218.

2812.

Is that would that be okay?

So Commissioner Zions, you would use that title to refer to the property.

So given that this is a map amendment, ultimately, we'll be making recommendation on the property as it currently is identified.

Um certainly the commission could make that recommendation, but I don't think it would have any like functional meaning for the purpose of the map amendment.

Okay.

Okay, any other thoughts.

Just clarifying for staff, I I heard the gentleman say, get a survey or make sure you're looking at the right property.

Is there any concern that we are not looking at the proper land for this map amendment?

Not from staff's perspective.

Um, as was described by Mr.

Crutchfield and in the staff report, the property has been subdivided, been readdressed several times.

Um, but currently, if we're working off of the legal lot descriptions that we have from the State Department of Assessments and Taxations, 24 Martins Lane is the address for the property that we are discussing here tonight.

The current address for that property.

Okay, so where was the 24 Martins Lane before?

If you give us a moment, we can pull up a map.

We just need to pull it because it's not on our slide deck.

So give us just a second here.

It is, I believe, in your staff report.

There is a map that shows the other historic sites in the area.

It's on page 13 of your staff report.

Actually, yeah, we'll pull this up, but um, page 13's map shows you you can see 22 Martin's Lane, which is highlighted in a darker color.

If you print it in color, it's orange.

If you did black and white, it's not orange.

Um, and then directly to the south of that is 24 Martins, and there's a star on that.

If you just give us one moment, we'll share it on the screen as well, Mr.

Waslick is going to um pull it up because his laptop is already connected to RGRS server.

All right, so on this, I guess, sort of in the center of our map here, you see a property that starts with a rectangle that looks like it has its thumb sticking up to for that slight frontage on Martin's Lane.

That's 24, what's currently addressed is 24 Martins.

That is the parcel that we are having a deliberation about this evening.

Immediately to the north, you can see 22 Martins.

And then you can also see it with direct frontage onto Martins Lane 20 and 16 Martin's Lane.

Yes.

So I believe if I'm understanding Mr.

Cretchville correctly, what is now known as 24 Martins and 22 were all once one large parcel.

And the structure that is at 22 is the original home.

Later additional homes is built on it.

And then even long after the house was constructed, then there was a subdivision and readdressing of those properties.

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

And so the current 22 is already designated in the historical district, right?

22 Martin's Lane, the original home is historically designated, yes.

Okay.

All right.

Any other questions?

Yes.

Any idea when 22 Martin's Lane was designated?

Give me one moment.

I have it here.

2003.

So ownership of 24 Martins Lane obviously wasn't the same in 2003 then of 22 Martin's Lane.

We would need to look into the land records to confirm that.

I imagine not.

But I don't know the lineage, like the deed history of 22 off the top of our head.

Any other thoughts?

Excuse me, if it were the same uh parcel at the time of designation, wouldn't it be designated historic today?

Correct.

It was not the same parcel at the time of designation.

So it's it had to be subdivided somewhere.

Yes.

The question I would need to look up is just if it was the same ownership, even though it was two parcels.

So that means by two other than three, it's already two owners for those two lots.

I believe so.

It was two distinctly different parcels by 2003.

Again, I'd have to look up the deed history for 22 Martins to confirm that there was no that one person did not own both of those pieces of land.

But do we know one, the the two parcels were subdivided.

Give us just one moment.

I think we have this.

Well, we can hear the next speaker on while staff can do some research.

The next speaker is Charlotte Crutchfield, to be followed by Nicole Crutchfield.

Good evening, Chairwoman son and commission members.

So I'm state delegate Charlotte Crutchfield, and I also own a parcel of land here, and I own 16 Martins Lane, which is on the far side.

You had a question about ownership of 24 and 22.

I do believe that they were owned by the same person during the entire time, if I'm not mistaken.

And in fact, if we if you don't mind, I'd like to ask my family to stand, the Crutchville family, if you all would stand, um, because we are real well represented tonight.

So you've got several generations standing before you.

So that's what we used.

This property again represents the blood, sweat, and tears of my ancestors.

That's what it does.

It's one of the earliest black settlements here in Rockville.

It's important to understand the structure, even though it is somewhat dated and dilapidated, represented the kind of architecture of that early turn of the century architecture.

But you know what?

Most importantly, it represents the community itself.

I mean, there are so many family barbecues, so many family events that have been done on all of that property.

Yes, I married into the family.

And when I came into the family, the first thing my husband wanted to do then, he you know, my fiance, in fact, wanted to do for me when I when I first met him was to take me to the property and show me the property.

Um the house that was designated in uh 2003 as a historic property, but also there is a family cemetery that unfortunately is where my husband is buried.

So just to let you know how important this is to the family and how important it is to all of us in the community there.

Um I just think that to continue and to make this a historical designation.

I'm wrapping it up.

I'm doing it right now.

It will serve the greater community of Rockville.

It is just so critical that we continue to do that.

So thank you very much for allowing me to testify.

And if you have any questions, the family is here to answer those questions for you.

So we appreciate the time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions for the next speaker is Nicole Crutchfield to be followed by Kevin Zeletsky?

Good evening, Nicole Crutchfield.

I live at 20 Martins Lane.

I'm speaking to respectfully urge the Planning Commission to designate the property at 24 Martins Lane as protected historic site.

This location represents an essential chapter of the City of Rockville's African American legacy, one that deserves formal resignation resignation and preservation.

For generations, the Martins Lane community has been home to the Crutchfield family, their ancestors, and other African American families who have to be the cornerstone of the African American life in Rockville.

Families who lived, worked, and worship here in Rockville helped us shape the cultural and civic identity of the city.

Martins Lane is more than a street.

It's a living archive of the black history in Rockville.

The property at 24 Martins Lane stands as one of the few remaining physical links to this history.

Its preservation would ensure that future residents and visitors understand the contributions, resilience, and lived experiences of the African American community that helped build Rockville.

Historic designation of the property is not simply about protecting where the current structure is built, but it's about safeguarding the memory and identity and the truth of how the Crutchville family was able to preserve when African American families face segregation, redlining, and limited access to housing.

As redevelopment pressure continues to increase, it becomes more urgent to preserve sites that reflect the diversity of Rockville's past.

Recognizing 24 Martins Lane as historic would affirm the city's commitment to inclusive storytelling and equitable preservation.

We respectfully request that the commission evaluate and designate 24 Martins Lane as historic property.

This action would honor the Crutchville family and other families from the Hayti community who called Martins Lane home and ensure that their legacy remains visible for generations to come.

Fifth generation on the land, like was said previously, many family events have taken place, that being weddings, and unfortunately, we held my father's repass there, who was the patriarch of the family until he passed seven years ago.

It is very important that this be designated a continued designation of historic.

I take pride knowing that I live on the land that my ancestors used to that was designated to us by our ancestors.

So I respectfully wish that you would consider the consideration of historic.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker is Kevin Zalesky, to be followed by Hannah Lore Quigley.

So good evening.

I live at 101 North Street.

My backyard is directly adjacent to the property at 24 Martins Lane or 22B.

I've lived there for close to 25 years across the yard from multiple generations of the Crutchfield family, including one of the patriarchs of Hayti just mentioned Warren Crutchfield, who was instrumental in the historic designation of the uh of the nearby Hayti Cemetery, the adjoining property at 22 Martins Lane.

Sadly, as is mentioned, he passed away several years ago, and the property at 24 Martins Lane was forced to be sold.

I think the historical significance of the property has already been well established.

It is worth noting in the hearing last month.

That was a sentiment that was widely shared by other members of the Historic District Commission.

I want to discuss this site, though, from a planning perspective, specifically as it pertains to the criteria for the master plan and the purposes of the historic district zone.

I had the opportunity to serve for more than three years, starting in 2016 on the WECA committee that was tasked with developing our first neighborhood plan since 1986.

We worked side by side with uh then the director of long-range planning, David Levy, and other planning department staff to create a comprehensive vision for planning area four that was overwhelmingly approved by the community in the plan, as the staff report highlights.

Hayti was one of just a small handful of areas that was specifically singled out as in desperate need of critical historio historical evaluation and preservation to safeguard the fragile and rapidly dwindling history of Rockville's free black communities.

Having worked on that firsthand to ensure that the equity of these communities and neighborhoods were firmly included in our vision for planning area four.

I can comfortably say that a failure to approve this historic overlay as recommended by the city's own HDC would be clearly inconsistent with the intentions that are now codified in Rockville's comprehensive plan.

Regarding the purposes of the historic district zone, it's critically important to remember that the overlay applies to the map plat, not just the structure on the property.

This site, in its context, contiguous to 22 Martins Lane, its location near other important designated and non-designated historic sites like the Haytai Cemetery and the Carroll House, and its function as a bridge between North Street and Martin's Lane communities make it a vital component in the historical historical neighborhood character of Hayti.

We should certainly strive to preserve the historic home, but even if every timber needs to be replaced, or if the home didn't end up remaining at all, the location and the context of the home and land is vital in preserving the history and overall character of the community.

Well, I think the staff report did an excellent job outlining how designation of this site would meet many of the purposes of the historic district zone.

I would contend as a longtime direct neighbor to the property.

Um, that historic designation would not destabilize property values or detract from civic beauty.

On the contrary, I think it would add an additional layer of protection that to ensure that whatever ultimately happens on the property is consistent with the venerable and the historic nature of the location.

Finally, regarding the condition of the structure on the property, it's already been pointed out that this should in no way undermine the historic designation of the overall plat.

Um it's incredibly sad that the home wasn't cataloged earlier by the city and that resources weren't made available to assist in its preservation.

Um, but I still believe that as long as a house is standing, there's valuable historic context.

I'll wrap it up here.

Um, in any case, historic designation in this instance uh would in no way promote um demolition by neglect as been mentioned under Action 4.9 and the preservation element.

Um, just the opposite.

It would demonstrate that the city genuinely values its remaining priceless historic resources and be the first hopeful step to correct where we failed in this so far in our duty.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Thank you for our testimony.

The next speaker is handler quiggly to be followed by David Hills.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Uh this is my testimony to the planning commission for the mapping of the property at 24 Martins Lane to have the historic district overlay.

Uh for the record, I noticed that whoever puts together the staff report on page six of the agenda, it shows a map of Rockville.

And Hayti is not noted by the blue star.

It's somewhere in Lincoln Park, and that should be a change for the record.

Uh African American historic spaces are facing erasure.

That this property at 24 Martins Lane is historic, should not be viewed as inconvenient.

We're not making new historic properties, and we can't reach back and make new historic properties from this community and period.

We can only preserve what we have.

This overlay needs to come in line with the Maryland Historical Trust.

What they've already designated as historic zone, just like the historic district overlay, the front lot of Haytai Cemetery at 205 Martins Lane was extended to the street to include the historic district overlay in 2020.

The property at 24 Martins Lane should also have the historic district overlay from 22 Martins Lane in 23, extended to 24.

That's a lot of numbers.

Originally, when the house at 22 Martins Lane was granted, the historic district overlay, the property at 24 should have gotten the same treatment.

This is an oversight by the city of Rockville and should be remedied moving forward.

In fact, the property at 24 has been historically dependent on 22.

Up to 1988, that property was known as 22B.

And the landscape maintenance was done by the owners at 20 and 22, going back decades and decades.

The house at 24 doesn't even have a mailbox.

The dwelling was dependent on 22 Martins Lane for mail and taxes.

And those were paid from 20 Martins Lane.

There is no mailbox at 24 Martins Lane, only a PO box.

They use PO box to 82.

The current city's overlay should reflect what the MHT overlay illustrates from Maryland Historical Trust State Historic Site's inventory form with the Hayti slash Martin Lane, Historic District encompassing Hayti Sanitary, 22 Martins Lane, and 24 Martins Lane.

All these paper trails document that 24 is a derivative of the historic properties around it.

All agree.

He said the house had good bones and could be rebuilt on its foundations to its historic aesthetic.

The seller ultimately went with a different recommendation that it could be torn down.

But as condition is not in the scope of the Planning Commission, I will just say this that the historic preservation community in Rockville is in alignment, that this piece of history be saved and protected, and this community is ready to back that up.

Thank you, ma'am.

Please wrap up.

Okay.

I will say that this is one of the houses, according to MHT, that quote has not been altered to the degree that they have lost their integrity, or as we say in the historic preservation community.

I love what you haven't done to the place.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate your time.

Thank you.

The next speaker is David Hill to be followed by Bridget Donald Newton.

Commission David Hill of 733 Beale Avenue, also a former city land use commissioner and a few guises.

The HDC has already judged this is a historically significant property.

Will you replace your judgment for theirs?

Meanwhile, the planning criteria identification for these proceedings are good in the staff report, and the analysis of these high criteria are strong.

Among the several applicable master plan criteria, only one is identified as contrary to an HD mapping amendment action.

This leaves half a dozen met or benign, a preponderance thus in favor of a positive recommendation.

That seems right to me in detail.

Yet the same report is agnostic regarding an advised outcome, leaving that up to you.

I urge you to make the logical inference from a preponderant positive points to make a positive recommendation to the mayor and council on enacting a subject map amendment.

Regarding the contrary point, item 4.9 is an extrapolation of poor condition of the structure on the subject property.

A property can be both historic and have a structure in poor condition.

The worst outcome here would be loss of actual historic structure fiber and property context based solely on poor structural condition without a clear way forward for something better.

Clouding that way forward includes the current zoning, community stability and expectation, centrality of this large parcel as a glue within the neighborhood between the Martins Lane and North Street nodes of this historic enclave, the likely pipe stem character of access to something else residential built on this lot, and some further points.

Therefore, having the HDC exercise ongoing ongoing regulatory oversight of change to this property is a good approach.

This would be the effect of putting the R60 HD overlay on this parcel in a map amendment now, designating it as historic property or specialized care to balance the issues encumbering it by the HDC, the body formed for historic resource care within the city.

I advocate you to make such a recommendation.

In the remaining time, I mentioned that the badly out-of-date city historic inventory may contribute to this property situation.

I imagine if that inventory had been updated within 40 years, consideration of this property likely would have occurred more timely.

That would have likely improved the condition of the house structure here by highlighting it and not led to the current situation where recognition of historic significance of this property is suddenly determined at the 11th hour of a new property owner intent.

Properties do not become historic overnight.

Situations emulating this bring out alarmed communities and can ambush property owners that have rights.

Having a periodically updated historic inventory as an anecdote to that dilemma, and the city administration has neglected funding such for a long time.

Yes, it takes a bit of regulatory courage to place new properties in historic inventory, yet when doing so expresses a community consensus intent, such as acting with planning earnestness and integrity.

The current process for this property is an example of the hazard two or lack of effect of utility when that inventory is out of date.

One of the HDC commissioners comment on this, and I urge the planning commission to appreciate such and become advocates for an update as you have the influence to do so.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Bridget Donald Newton.

Good evening.

I lived, I have lived in the city of Rockville since 1981, which is almost 45 years.

So I've seen a lot of good and a lot of change and a lot of things that we could do better.

I'm speaking as a private citizen, and I acknowledge that we could have done better in the years I sat up there in making things happen.

But there's always an election.

When I was president of the West End, Selden Higgins, may his memory be a blessing, came to me and asked that Haytai be included in the West End neighborhood.

Lots of reasons.

We can get into it later, but it was one of the best things that ever happened for myself personally and for I think the West End, because we started to come together as a unified neighborhood uh west of North Washington Street.

Sorry, I had to stop and think.

Uh North Washington Street.

Um I hope that Kevin Zeletsky's uh testimony will be given to you all in long form so that you can read it.

There's so much there that needs to be understood, not just about the property, but the history of the property, the history of the Hate community and the families that have made up part of Rockville for so many decades.

So thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Do we have more speakers?

Madam Chair, that uh exhausts the list of folks who have signed up in advance.

Uh so anyone doesn't sign up but let to speak.

Or I hearing none.

And okay.

I do have one potential speaker online.

Okay.

And that speaker is uh participating by phone with the first three numbers of five, seven, one.

Uh, if you'd like to speak, uh you're free to unmute yourself.

Madam Chair, they are unmuted.

Um, not hearing any testimony.

Um please emulate yourself and you can speak now.

Can you hear us?

Maybe we can try it later.

Um, maybe staff can give us um clarification on the property, and then we can try again.

Yes, we can try that.

Well, would you like clarification on?

Uh I think before we would like to know the one the two um 22 and 24 were subdivided, and also are they all under the same ownership?

Regarding the subdivision question, we've not been able to find the exact date of subdivision, but it was prior to the designation of 22 in 2003.

Um, we're still trying to figure out when the exact subdivision took place.

Um, your second question, can you repeat that, Commissioner Sand?

So would I hear from the the speaker of the 22 and 24 are under the same ownership?

Currently, they are not.

At one point in time, they likely were.

Um, it was owned by a family and descendants of the family.

So when we look into the deed research, a lot of it is like trusts of the family or estates of the family.

So it is possible that at one point in time the same person owned both of them.

Okay, how about the the property uh 20 and 16?

I would have to pull up the STAT files for those, but they were all kind of owned by the same family lineage and same relatives.

Okay, that's good to know.

Um I have no questions.

I do have questions for just kind of benefit of the record and for our viewing audience, because you know, a ton of people in the city of Rough will tune in when uh we have our meetings.

Um not necessarily because I'm a little confused.

Can you just walk me through just the timeline here?

Because we've heard a lot of testimony, and I've the staff report um has a lot of information.

I just want to nail this down.

So in 2003, 22 Martin's Lane receives a historic designation, is my understanding.

That is correct.

Then based on the staff report, 24 Martins Lane is sold sometime in 2023.

That is correct.

And at that point, the there's different ownership.

Yes.

So I've obviously never purchased a historic home, so walk me through this.

So in 2023, that purchaser, when they purchased the home, they received no notice of historic designation because 24 Martins Lane was not historic.

That is correct.

I'm assuming and um I'm just uh a slight correction.

It was on the locational atlas of historic sites for Montgomery County that was uh developed in 1976.

So if they did any research, they might have found that.

But it is not on our local inventory.

So on the county, 24 Martins Lane is on the historic preservation you're saying.

It is something that would have been evaluated if a demolition permit were requested.

So it was right, and I'm not there yet.

Right, right.

I'm just going through the timeline just so I can understand this, right?

Um so in 2023, that homeowner purchased it, they received no notice.

My assumption is when you buy a historic property, you are received some sort of like, hey, this is encumbered in some way as historic designation, and there, you know, there's restrictions.

I believe there would be disclosures and it would come up in a title search.

The city directly does not reach out to every property owner.

And so then following the timeline, now the new owner recently files um an application for evaluation of significance because they want to demolish the property, and that triggers the process where the historic HDC looks at it and they go through their elements and criteria.

Do I have that whole timeline correct?

Yes.

That's all I wanted to do is just so can I can understand it and for the record.

Any other questions?

Well, I I just wanted to say one thing for the inventory again.

Again, this is because of a fellow work compatriot of park and planning, who in 1976 reviewed the entire county and created an inventory.

This was on that inventory.

It wasn't that it was overlooked at the time.

Uh it was just that it was never acted on by the city of Rockville, even after 1988, when Eileen McGucky and filed uh a Maryland Historic Trust Inventory form as well.

Correct?

That's correct.

And you don't have any particular reason why it was never brought to the council for historic designation.

Not that we could find.

Um, so it under the current code, which I guess would have been a slightly different code in 2003 because we rewrote the code in 2009, but right now the city can initiate a designation, as can a property owner or as can anyone else.

So staff's not we were not able to find any application for a request of designation from that property in any of our records, whether that was initiated by the city or initiated by someone else.

And just proactively, are there any other sites on the 1976 inventory 50 years ago that have not been evaluated by I am sure there are.

I am sure there are okay.

That could be uh our suggestion that the CPU initiate uh research uh on this.

Uh so I think we we are clear on the timelines and the facts.

So commissioner, what's your thoughts uh on this?

I'd make a regul recommendation to designate consistent with the historic uh preservations commission's recommendations.

And and and I would too, based on our limited purview in this matter.

The HDC has already reviewed it, right?

They had a vote, they looked at the elements.

I don't know that we supplement our thinking on it over them.

And ultimately it's gonna be up to the mayor and council.

I agree.

I think we should uh forward the HTC's recommendation for designation.

As our recommendation as well.

Yes, as ours, yes.

Sorry.

Yes.

Um I I tend to agree with my my fellow commissioners.

I do want to acknowledge that staff did identify conflict um within both the compliance and the conformity sections, and I think that we all think it may pass the threshold, or I guess the conflict is under the threshold.

Um, but I do want to acknowledge that because I would like to hear mayor and council have a robust debate about that because I think that there are some very good conversation points to be had.

Yeah, I agree with my fellow commissioner, and my thoughts is um may maybe we can add that based on what we hear, this relationship between the 22 and 24 are very closely connected.

In the staff report, we didn't hear that portion.

So it sounds like those were originally integrated portion of this activity, right?

So it's worth to mention that this piece is an integral part of this larger community.

And I also I think that for the historical designation, the the criteria staff identified is it has more significance on the historical and the cultural aspect, and that aspect will not go away, no matter the structure uh status.

I think that that the site itself, the memories are very critical and important to uh be uh remembered.

And um also just if I don't know, like if uh just a question for the historical district commission, like if they demolish this building, are they going to do some documentations of the building and just to collect the memories and the history for the building before they demolish technically that's outside the scope of the historic district commission?

Um certainly as staff, we can look into that and see if there are resources.

I don't believe historically we've done that for demolitions, but we admittedly don't often see demolitions within historic properties.

That's a pretty rare thing for us.

Um so that's something we can certainly take back and see if we can find resources to do such.

Thank you.

I think if it's a unique case and special case, if it have if we designate the buddy still at the end, it has to be demolished.

I would recommend to do a sufficient documentation to commemorate this building.

Yeah.

So with that, uh, do we have a motion?

I thought I meant oh.

I thought I made a motion.

No.

Oh.

You you just were discussing, you didn't say I move.

Oh, you you can say the motion now.

Uh I move a recommendation uh to designate that the council designate this property uh as historic, and that we find that it is uh consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and conforms to the purposes of the historic district.

Again, consistent with the recommendations of the historic preservation commission.

I second.

Oh, we in favor say I make a point.

Um I wonder I I heard your motion um and I reviewed read the reviewing kind of the scope.

I would be more comfortable saying that we believe that it is consistent with the compliance and conformity rather than making a recommendation that's not within our purview.

Well, I mean, I guess it could be, but I would rather we go forward saying that the uh two elements that we are charged with reviewing is what we are moving forward with.

I thought that was what I said.

It's consistent with the comprehensive play, uh comprehensive plan and conforms to the purpose of the historic preservation.

And you made a recommendation uh on behalf of this commission for the historic uh zone.

I'm just limiting to those two elements.

The compliance and conformity.

So shouldn't uh tell me they are we does the uh would the council benefit by a specific recommendation to designate so I'll just read you the code language that governs your review right now.

So since this is a sectional map amendment, um what it says about your role is the commission may submit a written recommendation, which will be placed in the application file by the clerk and become part of the record on the application.

The scope of the recommendation is really up to you.

So I recommend that the council designate it as historic.

I agree with Commissioner Science.

I think uh I would I think we should be specific and clear.

I did want to assert what we think about the consistency and the conformity.

I kind of want to go over the language again, just to be very clear, because I thought I saw where you were going with this.

And I kind of agree with Commissioner Fulton that we really need to just limit ourselves.

Um to the consistency with the city's comprehensive plan and conform to the purposes of the historic zone and just leave the motion at that instead of opening up to anything that makes it sound like we're endorsing any sort of finding.

Well, other than those two.

Even the staff recommendation has those two qualifiers as a secondary consideration.

Because it says the staff recommends the planning commission consider any recommendation that it may wish to make based on these two things.

So the core is what is our recommendation.

Right.

And our recommendation is that it is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan.

No, our recommendation is to designate.

I don't think we have a we in this instance, is what I'm hearing from my part.

If our task is just to say, hey, the HDC's findings that it's consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and conforms to the purpose of the historic zone.

I I would prefer to just limit it to that finding.

So it's interesting that uh so I want to add the commissioners on this side.

What's your concerns uh on adding that recommendation just just for us to process?

I just don't want to exceed our scope and and and put and by that I I get that we can make any recommendation we want, right?

We can say anything we want.

And from this side of that of the dais, I think we want to be as limited as possible in this discussion.

That's all.

And I think we have five votes for that, right?

And if we kind of veer away from that and open it up to more, I think we start getting into a weird split, which I don't want to do.

So can I ask Mr.

Domain if we add this recommend to uh to be designated, is this beyond our scope?

Uh I very candidly, I think the concerns that Commissioners Fulton and Espinoza are raising are perfectly understandable, but I I will not I'm not going to advise the commission that you you know you legally should not make that recommendation.

I think it I'm sure a recommendation like that has happened before.

I certainly have no legal concerns about you doing it from a legal risk perspective.

Um I mean, I think and I think it's certainly possible for a commission, and I'm not saying you should in this case, for a commission to say designating a particular property is consistent with the plan, and therefore we recommend designation.

That that's I think that is a that is a possible outcome of this discussion.

Um obviously uh madam chair, this is entirely up to you.

Um, but I will point out so a motion has been made and seconded.

Um, and you can allow as much discussion as you would like, um, but ultimately, you know, I would take Commissioner Fulton and Espinoza's points as a as a request to make a friendly amendment, and I have not heard Commissioner Zions accept an amendment to that motion.

So again, you decide how much discussion you know you'd like, but but you can also call a vote if you'd like to as well.

That this doesn't require a unanimous decision.

Could we could could someone please read the motion that was approved by the HDC?

I know it's in the packet, but if someone could please read it, that'd be great.

Give us just one moment to pull it up.

Okay, so the motion that was approved by the historic commission district commission reads as follows.

Finding that although the property at wait, hold on, give me one moment.

Yes, okay.

Finding that the building proposed for demolition at 24 Martins Lane meets the historic district commission's adopted criteria for historic significance, criteria A, B, C, and D, and architectural design and landscape significance criteria A, I move that the HDC recommend historic designation.

So if we're in agreement that we want to forward this and we want to see this designated, why would we not just forward the recommendation of the HD HDC?

Because I have a very pedantic question for staff.

Did they recommend the building or the property in that motion?

It's the property.

Okay, I thought I heard you say building.

I apologize.

Right.

So we are not overstepping by recommending designation.

We are in fact agreeing with the HDC and forwarding their recommendation to the mayor and council with our stamp of approval on it.

Commissioners, if I could make one more point of clarification that may be helpful and may not be helpful.

So this is a sectional map amendment that you're reviewing, and whether it's historic for historic designation purposes or just a sectional map amendment that's uh implementing a comprehensive plan, for example.

Typically, your recommendation is going to be on the sectional map amendment.

And if there's some concerns about stepping on the toes of the historic district commission, it would also be possible for the commission to simply take a position on the sectional map amendment and say we recommend approval or we recommend denial of the sectional map amendment.

Now that accomplishes the purpose of designation, but it doesn't actually require the body to say, I recommend that you designate this particular property.

It's in other words, you're speaking on the application.

So that is also a very pedantic point, but it all but but it but it it captures your typical role in this process of reviewing amendments to the city's uh uh zoning map.

Thank you for that very bureaucratic out Yeah, I think uh why why would we not?

This is a really special property.

I think I I don't think anyone up here would disagree with that.

So why would we not be bold and say what we mean?

When it is not overstepping our bounds, it is not overstepping the law, it does not put us in legal jeopardy.

Why would we not just say what we mean?

So what I hear is on this side that we need to say clearly we need to designate the historical property on this side.

We want to keep the two criteria and the the the Mr.

Dumain recommended that we we can say in in the motion that we agreed to approve the section map amendment, which achieve all of this.

I guess I'll uh you might have thought that was a rhetorical question, Commissioner Pittman, but I will I will answer.

Um because it everybody it's um I struggle every time we have uh historical uh thing come in front of us.

Um I struggle because it is a it in my mind it is a very subjective process that leads to a very prescriptive decision and determination.

Um I agree in large part with what the HDC said, but I disagree with some things within.

Um this property uh is of the HATI community is you know, my apologies to other communities, probably the most significant and important in this city.

Um this property is of great significance.

Um that property, in my opinion, will be of historic significance whether there is a historic zone on it or not.

Um it it will always be a part of this fabric of this community.

Um so when I was considering the historic designation, I did have some trepidation about some of the points that the HDC made, some of the things that they said.

I don't agree with one of their decisions.

Yada yada yada.

I do agree, and I do believe that this is consistent and in compliance and conforms with the plan.

And I'm very comfortable saying that, and I want to go on record as saying that.

Um it just reflects a little bit of the conflict that I had in reading the HDC's conclusions on certain points.

So the current motion does not repeat the uh the historical districts uh motion.

So can we agree on just motion on the what the the map what the map amendment instead of instead of specifically stating what it is because the the map map map amendment achieved the historical designation?

Can we agree on that motion?

So it would be we agree with the with the sectional map amendment uh designation of uh historic HD, I guess it is, and or 60 HD or something.

Again, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I mean you certainly could say something like, you know, I recommend that we for or um I make a motion that we recommend to the mayor and council uh approval of the sectional map amendment due to its consistency with the comprehensive plan and uh the purposes of the historic district zone.

That would be the motion that I would be thinking about.

I amend my motion to say that.

Well, these agreeable.

Instead of trying to repeat it.

I second it.

Okay, it's a little bit.

What if I said I wanted to hear you repeat it?

Uh I would ask council to repeat it.

I think I think it's clear for the record.

What the motion is, and I seconded it.

Okay.

Okay, so it seems like we have a motion and we have a second.

And all you in favor, please say I would raise your hand.

I all right.

The motion passes.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

And uh let's move to the next agenda.

The um the we're gonna review uh level tool set plan application 2026-101-STP to permit construction of 198 dwelling units with associated site improvements along with waivers for landscape requirements.

2026-293-WAV and subdivision requirements 2026-382-WAV at 1455 research boulevard in the mixed use employment employment zone.

Paul Polty.

Pulti home company is the applicant.

Mr.

Westleck, is there a presentation from staff?

Uh yes, madam chair, there is.

Uh I did want to note for the record this is a level two site plan, as you stated, and the commission is the approving authority for this application.

Understood.

And uh Christopher Davis is here to make the presentation after I swear him in.

If you could identify yourself for the record.

Uh Christopher Davis Community Planning and Development Services.

And will you provide truthful testimony this evening?

I will.

Please proceed to the apologies for the delay.

As Mr.

Rossleck indicated, this is a level two site plan two zero two six-101-stp for 1455 research boulevard.

As you can see, the subject site is located and shown in blue on the screen.

It is 1455 research boulevard.

It is locating in the planning area 15, corresponding with the Falls Grove and Research Boulevard area.

The site is approximately 2.63 acres in size and has a land use designation of office.

The zoning for the site is MXE, which corresponds with the mixed use employment zone.

And as you can see, the site is has an existing use of office.

The site is improved with a five-story office building surrounded by surface parking lot and perimeter landscaping.

Um in the proximity of the site, you can see uh adjacent uh uses are improved also with office uses and other commercial uses, notably the commercial uses to the south, include office, retail, and other commercial uses.

Um to the east, you can see the site abutz I-270 and has front primary vehicular access and frontage on research boulevard.

The applicant's proposal is to demolish the existing office building and redevelop the site into a residential development, which will consist of approximately 198 dwelling units.

A variety of housing types are proposed, including 78 townhouse units, 56 2 over 2 units, and 64 multifamily condo units.

The applicant's proposed site plan is shown here on the screen.

The general layout for the site includes front loaded townhouses along the northern property boundary.

The core of the site will feature rear loaded townhouses, and the southern third of the site will include the proposed two over two units.

Along the eastern boundary of the site will include two multifamily buildings for the proposed multifamily condo units.

Notably for this site, it is encumbered by an approximately 100 foot wide transcontinental gas easement along the southeast portion of the site, which we will cover later in the presentation.

Vehicular access will be provided from research boulevard, and the site will be improved with new public streets, which will form a loop to provide vehicular access in, out and throughout the site.

In addition, the applicant is proposing on-site amenities, including an array of open space and public use space areas.

The most prominent areas will be along the site's frontage along Research Boulevard, which will include open lawn areas, public seating, and public art.

As you can see from the images here on the screen, they are illustrative to demonstrate the overall feel and proposed elements of the site.

Here you can see the illustratives of the proposed renderings for the different building types proposed on site.

Again, there will be a variety of townhouse types, including rear loaded and front loaded townhomes.

The two over two units will implement a lot of the similar materials as the normal townhomes and the multifamily buildings are described in the top right of the screen.

So the overall timeline for this application is shown here.

The project has met all the necessary process steps for the development, including a pre-application area meeting and stage.

Following their pre-application stage, the applicant filed their level two site plan in July of 2025 and held their required post-application area meeting shortly thereafter in August of 2025.

So coming to the findings of this particular project and level two site plan application.

Staff has found that the project meets the required findings for approval.

Notably, staff has found that the project will not adversely affect the health or safety of people residing or working in the neighborhood.

Notably, it will meet the required requirements and allowances to ensure health or safety for users of the site and for adjacent users of surrounding properties.

Furthermore, it will provide additional housing adjacent to commercial uses, and the application addresses the compatibility requirements to adjacent uses to avoid adverse effects.

Staff has also found that the project will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood.

Notably, this project will convert an existing underutilized office building into a code compliant residential development, with the exception of the waivers that staff will cover later in this presentation.

Furthermore, the project will provide a variety of housing, pursuance to the city's overall goals as stated in the comprehensive plan.

And also the project will further compliance with the city's requirements to ensure public welfare, notably at the permitting stage.

Staff has also reviewed the project in accordance with the adopted adequate public facilities requirements.

Notably, it has found that there will not be any overburden to the existing and program public facilities.

Both schools, transportation, and water and sewer facilities will be provided adequately to serve the project.

Staff has also found that the project will not adversely affect the natural resources of the city.

The project will also address noise attenuation in accordance with the city, city's applicable noise regulations and the noise regulations applicable in the county as well.

Staff has also found that this project will not be in conflict with the comprehensive plan.

Notably, the project provides residential uses to support the surrounding commercial development as recommended by the plan.

The project also represents a residential use, which on this site does not preclude continued focus of office uses in the surrounding area.

Staff has also found that the project provides diverse housing, both in type typology, as we noted.

The project will also provide adequate MPDU units in accordance with the city's requirements.

Furthermore, it would allow conversion of underutilized sites as recommended by the plan and will provide improved infrastructure.

Also, recommendations of the comprehensive plan.

Finally, the staff will note that the zoning ordinance allows for residential use even if such use is not recommended by the plan if the commission finds compatibility of the project with the surrounding properties, which staff did review and does recommend approval.

Finally, the staff has reviewed and found that the project will not constitute a violation of any provision in the zoning ordinance, an exception for the waivers requested by the applicant.

The project is consistent with the zoning requirements.

And finally, as noted, the project will be compatible with the surrounding properties in accordance with this final finding.

So noting the specific compatibility finding, the zoning ordinance requires the planning commission to determine compatibility for proposed residential uses in the MXE zone.

As you can see, the specific language from the code is shown here, and the commission must determine that the use is compatible with adjoining and confronting uses by means of landscaping screening or other measures.

In staff's review of that requirement, the landscape plan was evaluated to ensure compatibility with each of the abutting sides of the property.

As you can see here, the two images show the northern and eastern boundary and the proposed treatments for those areas.

Staff has found to be compatible to the adjoining uses.

Along the northern property boundary, you can see that the front-loaded townhouse lots will be located relatively close to the property boundary to address compatibility.

The applicant will provide signage, noting the abutting forest conservation easement on the abutting property to the north at eight research boulevard.

That area is improved with forest and an existing forest conservation easement.

Along the eastern side of the site, on the lower image on the right, you can see the property abuts I-270.

Dense landscaping is proposed to provide screening of the proposed multifamily buildings and the development beyond from I-270 as noted in the staff report.

And as you can see here on the screen, the area outlined in red represents the transcontinental easement area.

That easement prohibits most plantings outside of ground cover.

And so that area is the area excluded from landscaping, but otherwise, the eastern property boundary will be covered by landscaping to screen the proposed development.

Here are images of the other adjoining property boundaries.

You can see along the southern boundary, the easement also occupies a large share of the shared property boundary.

Outside those areas, though, are a variety of landscaping proposed to provide compatibility with the property to the south.

That property is improved with a surface parking lot, and so the proposed landscaping will help to screen from that use, as well as along the frontage of the property along research boulevard.

Again, this is the area proposed for most of the site's public use space, so it is well improved with open lawn areas.

In addition with the setbacks from the property boundary, will provide a suitable buffer from research boulevard.

So in addition to the findings, the applicant has proposed a or requested a waiver from the landscaping and screening manual.

This in part is due to the presence again of that 100 foot wide transcontinental gas easement on the property.

Specifically to the request are the landscaping requirements for landscape strips between parking facilities and the adjacent areas.

In this case, the areas adjoining a street right-of-way and the areas not adjoining a street right away, which are shown here on this exhibit.

So you can see here is a detailed area image of the southeast corner of the site.

The areas highlighted in orange are the areas requested for the proposed landscape waiver.

As you can see, due to the presence of the easement that prohibits large scale plantings that are required by the landscape manual.

And so the applicant has requested a waiver for planting in those areas of the required plantings.

As you can see, the landscape manual does allow for waivers due to unique site conditions and review of the requested waiver.

Staff did find that the presence of this easement does present those unique conditions.

And furthermore, the restrictions associated with it, along with the necessary infrastructure of the project is rationale for a waiver in this case, which staff does recommend approval.

Additionally, the applicant is requesting a waiver from the subdivision regulations of the zoning ordinance, which require additional setbacks for dwellings in proximity to certain gas transmission lines.

As you can see here for residential development, a subdivider must provide lots of sufficient size to allow for a 50-foot minimum distance between an easement or right-of-way and any proposed dwelling units on the lots.

And as you can see here, here is an exhibit of that area, the transcontinental gas easement area shown in the darker gray.

The area in red shows the proposed 50-foot setback that would essentially be needed from the easement area.

And as you can see, one stick of the proposed residential units would encroach into that 50-foot minimum distance area.

The subdivision regulations do allow the commission to approve waivers if it finds that there is undue hardship and that public health and welfare is not impaired.

In review of the applicant's request, staff did review and find that there would not be any adverse health impacts to this proposal, and that staff would recommend approval of the requested waiver.

So with all the findings being met, staff does recommend that the planning commission approve level two site plan application 2026 101 STP and grant landscape waiver 2026 293 WAV and subdivision waiver 2026 382 WAV based on the findings and subject to the conditions provided and staff's report.

With that, Madam Chair, that concludes staff's presentation.

The applicant is also present and does have a presentation if you would allow.

Thank you very much.

Commissioner, do you have questions for staff, Randall?

I think I'll like to hear the applicant's presentation first.

One first staff, actually.

Thank you, Mr.

Davis.

On the previous slide, you talked about staff uh evaluating and finding, I forget exactly your words, but you evaluate that there would be no adverse impact to safety and health.

Can you just elaborate on what that process looked like, what research what you took into evaluation to reach that conclusion?

Yes, so um this I will say that this is a very unique aspect of our code.

Um to staff's knowledge, we uh have not interacted in with this provision very often.

Um in reviewing this specific request, um, the applicant actually did um a fairly substantial amount of research um to understand what the existing gas line line and easement area is, how it operates, how it functions.

Um they conducted a survey and were able to identify that um given the proximity of this easement to the I-270 roadway, um, the federal government establishes safety guides and um guidelines for this particular um gas line area, including additional um steel encasement, um lateral distance um locations for the actual gas lines, which are above and beyond what would normally be required.

So in consideration of that information, um uh staff did feel that they that this project would not be adversely impacted by the presence of that easement.

Additionally, as included in the packet, um the applicant did note uh similar residential developments that have been improved in Montgomery County, um, which did not require a setback of such um distance and uh in their approval, um, which staff did take into consideration.

So what would it what was ever done for 270 and crossing 270 was done on this section of pipe in terms of shielding or whatever?

I believe that is the case.

The applicant can confirm though.

Thank you.

Uh I have a question for staff.

So can we go to the land waiver page?

Sure.

Uh yeah, so this page, so I see uh the the map.

Yes.

So I think that I understand the waiver you wave in the easement portion, but there are orange colors that beyond the easement.

Uh what's the reason of the waiver beyond the easement area?

Right.

So those areas are proposed for um infrastructure improvements.

Um along the south, there will be a micro uh planter bed there.

Um, and as well in the area just outside the easement, just north of the easement on the west side of the parking lot.

Um, those areas will be uh improved for stormwater management.

And so um because those facilities have to be provided, you can't plant the required landscape material in those areas.

And so those are why those areas are requested as part of the waiver.

Oh so any other questions for now?

Okay, then let's move to uh applicant's presentation.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Pat Harris with Lurch Early and Brewer here on behalf of the applicant Pulti Homes.

Um, first of all, well, let me introduce our team.

We have Chris Norris.

Excuse me, Ms.

Harris.

I need to swear you in.

You've identified yourself for the record.

Uh, will you provide truthful testimony this evening?

I will.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh, with me this evening is uh Chris Norris, who's the director of land acquisition for Pulti.

Then we have our uh team from the engineering firm of Rogers and Associates, uh, Randall Rentfro and Becky Ward Decker, and then uh Katie Wagner from Grove Slade.

Uh, before I get into our my presentation, and so that I do not forget, I will answer Mr.

Zion's question.

And that is um, yes, it's still encased because of the proximity to I-270.

Um, and we did borings all along the easement to confirm that.

The other mitigating factor is the depth of the of the line, 30 inches is required.

We are we range between six feet or an average of six feet, range almost from five feet to ten feet in depth.

And and so that those two factors combined, we felt um were justifiable for the waiver request.

Uh we're excited to bring this project to you.

It is um it replaces a commercial office building that has suffered from vacancy from actually pre-COVID.

Um, and as staff pointed out, it provides a diversity of housing.

It's three different housing types, the two over twos, the townhouses, and also the multifamily condominiums.

Uh, it's can bringing housing to this site is consistent both with well with federal, state, county, and city policies in terms of taking housing and providing it in areas where existing infrastructure exists, um, and near in our case, near other commercial uses, including the retail that's immediately to the south of the property.

Uh we're also consistent with the comprehensive plan, and it recognizes that accessible housing is an essential part of economic development.

So I want to thank staff.

We've worked very closely with them on this on this project, and we accept all of the staff conditions.

What I'm gonna do now is turn it over to Becky, who will give a little bit more detail in terms of the project location and description of the project, and then I'm gonna come back and I'm gonna hit a couple points.

Thank you.

If you would identify yourself for the record, sure, Becky Warfacker, Rogers Consultant.

And will you provide truthful testimony?

Yes, I will.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, Pat.

Great credit.

Presentation, Chris, commission.

Appreciate everyone being here tonight.

Um, I'm gonna run through a few of the existing slides, try not to repeat a lot of what I'm gonna say, Chris had already presented on, so I'll try to go through those portions fairly quickly, and then gonna jump into our proposed plans and highlight some of the features.

Next slide.

So again, the site is located at 1455 Research Boulevard.

It is one parcel, roughly 10.6 acres.

The current condition is an existing five-story office building built in the late 90s, approximately 228 square feet, surrounded by a paved parking lot with a stormwater management pond at the entrance.

The site is zoned MXE, which is mixed use employment, and allows for office and residential use.

The maximum height allowed in the zone is 120 feet, and the open space required for the zone is 20% open space with 5% public use space.

Um give me some context.

There's currently two entrances to the site off of Research Boulevard.

The site is surrounded by commercial uses located within this MXE zone.

Research Boulevard is to the west, to the north, there's a heavily forested area to remain, which is in a forest conservation easement, along with a larger office building.

I-270 is to the east, and then to the south is the recently redeveloped research row that includes a mixture of retail, restaurants, health club, and office space.

Um again, just want to note that that 92-wide transcontinental gas easement runs through the southeast portion of the site, and we're going to follow the rights and regulations set forth in that easement.

Zooming out a little further, giving some greater context of the Roxville area.

Um there's development to the north, and as we move further south and west closer to our site, we gain intensity and density along with some residential momentum.

This office corridor is going to get infused with some good residential energy.

The closest residential area to our site is the townhouse development adjacent to the Montgomery Ave intersection.

And there's also communities located across I-270.

Quickly touching base on Sony again, Ram XE, that's shown in the blue hatch.

Um, our whole block is surrounded by this zone.

It allows for office and residential uses.

Um, density-wise, the plant development to the west, shown in purple across I-270s, mixed your residential, so our proposed site is consistent, is very consistent with the surrounding zone.

Jumping to our proposed development, we are proposing development of a mixed-use community containing 56 stacked units, which are shown in yellow.

There's the two over two, so the first and second floor are one unit, and the third and fourth are the second unit.

Um, 72 townhome units, the pink at the top are all the front loads, and then the rearloads are the mixture of purples in the middle.

Excuse me, which side is the front.

Is it the side with the garages?

It's all based on the garage.

So the front.

Correct.

I'll show that in the next slide on all the elevations, but good question.

Um, along with then the 64 multifamily condo units, which are shown in brown along 270, that's split between the two buildings.

And we are providing the required 15% MPDU units, which is 30 units spread all throughout the building typologies.

And again, I just want to point out the plan has the layout has higher density near 270 with the multifamily, and then generally the development intensity goes from higher to lower, east to west, providing a variety of products.

Then I'll go to the next slide and talk about the elevations.

So this is a visual representation of what Poulty looks to continue to bring to the market.

The condo flats, which were shown in brown next to 270.

The first floor provides parking with four floors of residential above.

And then the two over twos show a variation in the strip to uh help break up some of the longer blocks with parking in the back.

The front load townhomes are shown at the north end of the property.

And again, those have the garages at the front.

The rear loads have the garages located in the back.

Both are really nice products that provide decks along with roof amenities, which also is a really nice addition to this product.

Again, quality products that are bringing much needed for sale housing to the city of Rockville.

Going to touch on circulation.

So the plan is oriented around this U-shaped public road.

It's kind of turned, but U-shaped.

Um, that utilizes the existing entrance at the north, and then the southern entrance shifted slightly to the south.

There's three alley systems.

The top two look like H's on the plan, and the bottom is like that L in alley number three.

We are maintaining the pedestrian connection to the retail to the south, the sidewalk that runs north to south through the site, and utilizing the fishing grid for circulation.

Um just want to point out that we did work closely with staff on parking and providing additional 53 guest parking spaces distributed throughout the site with mixture of on-street and surface parking.

Just touching on open space, we're providing a large swath of a green buffer along the research boulevard frontage.

We're utilizing the existing connection to the southern property and continue to provide access to the amenities in research row.

And we are meeting the required open space and public use requirements.

Lastly, I just want to touch on the five amenity spaces we have highlighted or dashed in pink.

Um each provide a different scale of space and a different experience throughout the site.

Starting at the community frontage, this is like the front door to the project.

It's large green open lawn that abuts against the proposed 10-foot shared use path along Research Boulevard.

It's an inviting area to the community that also provides seating, public art, connections to the bus stops, and opportunities for the community to come together.

So it's the grand unveiling of coming into our neighborhood.

Moving from that to the central meuse, this is the greenway that connects the property.

It's essentially like the central spine of the project, fronting townhomes on both sides and providing a linear linear lawn with seating mixed throughout, along with pergola street, pergola shade structures, and a mixture of different landscaping.

And then just moving to the smaller passive seating areas, these are located at the northeast and southeast portion of the site.

They're more intimate seating features.

Um, and then covered seating along the south with mailbox clusters are located in both locations.

And then finally, the linear park, which is located along that southern portion of the property.

The linear park includes picnic area seating, open common areas, and an overhead structure to help define the space.

And again, this provides a really nice connection to that retail below and that nice tradition or transition between our property and our southern property owner.

With that, I'm gonna pass it back to Pat.

Um, as you can go to number 18.

As staff pointed out, um, one of the important provisions in for this case is provision 2513076, which deals with compatibility, and it says that in the MXE zone, uh project that is exclusively residential is permissible irrespective of what the land use designation is in the comp plan.

Um, and I think staff did a very good job of explaining the compatibility.

I just wanted to point out a couple other items.

One is that immediately north of the project, there is a forest conservation easement area with very healthy trees.

That area is about 220 feet in width.

Um the uses that we will have along the our northern border are primarily the townhomes, which are only 52 feet in height, and again, they will be uh delineated from the property to the north with both signage and a fence.

And then on the southern boundary, there's a 40% the distance between our parking and the parking of the commercial uses to the south.

There's a landscaped area which is about 40 feet in width.

We also have a connection to the southern property, and I I believe that you know the use on the southern property and the proposed use are really have a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship, and that we're providing patrons to that existing retail and uh restaurant uses, and on the other hand, that those commercial uses are providing services for the the new residents.

Um so I think that's a good relationship.

Um we are also not in conflict with the comprehensive plan, which is the requirement in this case.

Um we've just noted a number of comprehensive plan provisions.

The the most obvious one is the one for needed housing in in the city, um, and that's housing, uh housing in general, it's diversity in housing, it's affordable housing, and it's housing near retail, and we check all of those boxes.

Uh and the the other nice thing about the housing here is that because it is diverse, it provides for a mixed demographic in terms of the stacked housing is attractive to both empty nesters and also first-time home buyers, and then that's the townhouses are really more geared toward families.

And then what Poulty has found is that the multifamily condominiums again are more attractive to empty nesters.

So there's a mixture of demographics that will be provided in the community.

The project also furthers the the city's housing objectives.

Um, just at the end of last month, the mayor and council heard the housing assessment study that the city had conducted.

And you know, that that study really focused on the supply and demand of housing, meaning that the more housing that is provided, then generally the more affordable housing will be.

Um it also pointed out, however, that to get the the lower affordable units, um, you need housing to provide that MPD MPDUs, and this project is doing that and providing 30 MPDUs.

In terms of the vacancies in the area, I just wanted to touch on that very quickly.

I mean, pre-COVID, this area has been suffering for a while.

Actually, pre-COVID, um, the vacancies were 20% or so.

And this site in particular suffered even more so.

Um, while its vacancy rate in 2018 was 20%, it gradually or fairly significantly I should say increased such that when the owners decided to sell the property, they were suffering from 50% vacancies.

Um I would note, however, that if this if this site does get approved for housing, the entire corridor will still be retained with 90% of office and commercial uses.

Um I think that's important when you think about the the goals of the city.

But I think it's clear that there needs to be, given the need for housing and the general decrease in office demand, there needs to be an overall recalibration of office to residential.

And I think the the conversion of this property to residential certainly achieves that.

I just want to hit on one other point, which sounds like a minor detail, but I just want to make sure we cover it, and that is there's one provision of the zoning code, which is 2513.05 C2, which says that it requires 15-foot ground floor-to-ceiling heights on the ground floor.

Um, what that section reads in part is areas of a building originally designed for residential use at the ground floor level, having individual entries to the units should, in order to be readily convertible to retail space, have a minimum ceiling height of 15 feet.

This provision was intended for mixed-use buildings where you could have had retail at the bottom, but but instead residential went in, and it was intended to preserve the opportunity to go back to some commercial use at the ground floor.

It was not intended for two over twos or townhouses, certainly.

Um, and then with respect to our condominium buildings, those were not designed for ground floor residential as well.

I'm sorry, yeah, thank you.

Well, ground floor residential or retail.

It's actually they were designed to have parking on the ground floor.

We had consulted with staff on this point, and they agreed with our interpretation.

So I just wanted to make that clear that that's not an issue.

Staff did a good job of hitting on the waivers, and as I noted, the project has the additional mitigating factors of steel and casing and also the depth of the line.

So with that, uh we'd be happy to answer any questions, and we encourage your support of this important project.

Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation.

Commissioner's questions?

All right.

First, let me say I don't have a problem with the residential use.

Uh there was some testimony in our in our packets that called us to look at the master plan more closely.

I'm satisfied that looking at the totality of the master plan, you can read that.

Uh residential would be permissive if compatible.

Uh so I don't have that problem, but I do have some other concerns.

The northern boundary, I think that would be uh slide 14, um, where you're going against the uh uh the trees.

You're going to put a fence at the at the boundary.

Yes.

Well, first of all, the there are backyards, so and I don't know if they're 10 or 15 feet in depth, um, 15 feet in depth.

And then beyond that, there's an uh strip which is an HOA parcel, and then beyond that, there would be a split rail fence.

The intention of the fence, and it made me think, and you probably know the poet.

Um the fences make good neighbors, but the intent is so that there's not an encroachment um into the forest conservation easement area of the adjoining property.

And there's no sidewalk back.

No, no.

And we're satisfied that these uh uh fronting uh townhouses with the uh garages in front meet the city standards for design.

That's correct.

Yes.

Okay.

The next design item I have is is um the uh slide 15.

It looks like the easement actually crosses some private property.

Uh it crosses uh a um at least a driveway.

The gas line?

The gas line easement, yes.

It um hold on, let me look at that.

Do we think that's a good thing?

Um, I I can tell you when we were looking at this issue, there's properties right across I-270 where they have the the honor of having the gas line in their backyard.

Um I'm from New Jersey.

We deal with a lot of gas lines and and they tend to explode now and then is the real problem.

But but it I found it unusual that you had a driveway within that gas easement area.

Well, I will tell you on the southeast corner, we also have an entire surface parking lot.

That's totally acceptable.

Yeah, I don't that doesn't bother me.

Well, um why would a driveway but not a surface parking lot?

That's a HOA.

I think I'm missing the HOA ownership as opposed to a private owner who's got to be responsible for an easement for maintaining the easement and doing whatever or not doing whatever is required.

The only the only requirement for the easement is, and because the driveways there, I think actually the driveway serves as a little bit of a um method to ensure that a structure won't be built over the you know, the structure won't be built, that a tree won't be planted in that area, because pretty much the only thing you can do on top of the easement is put asphalt and park a car.

So it wouldn't be a burden to that.

No, and as I as staff pointed out, we had two examples um in Montgomery County where that's been the situation.

I mean, the gas line was right up right next to the structures.

I'm not gonna point to Montgomery County in this seat, but that's okay.

Um stormwater management, you're you're doing uh underground stormwater management to the 10-year storm.

I'm gonna have one of our that's correct.

Um you know how much a 10-year storm is in inches.

It's about nobody was talking.

Uh it's about 4.8 inches in the 24 hour period, I believe.

Say your name.

Yeah, uh for the record, Randall Renfro Rogers Consulting, yes.

Uh excellent.

Um do you know how many times in the last 10 years it's exceeded 4.8 inches?

Uh I do not know the answer to that, no.

Two, at least since uh 2019.

So what happens to the storm water that exceeds 4.8 inches if all this is underground?

Sure.

So the system itself is designed to capture and convey water because independent of whether it's a 10-year storm or a hundred-year storm or a 500-year storm, the system itself is designed to capture and hold retain water up to that storm.

That's what the system does.

Anything above that point in time, then bypasses it through the storm drain system, and then anything over, I mean, realistically, anything over a 50 or 75 year storm doesn't hit the storm drain anyways because none of the storm drain in the area is designed to capture water at that rate, so it surface flows.

So where is the storm drain here?

How would it be conveyed on the site?

Does it go through open space or it would go through?

I mean, by and large, that's a bit I would love to attempt to answer your question, but there's a lot of areas on the site.

There's 10 acres.

So the water that is designed to go to those two storm drain systems, because there's one on the south of the property and then one on the west.

And I don't believe we have a slide with the showing the stor showing the storm drain system.

So I'll do my best to talk through this.

The south trunk line captures water from the south public road and the south alley, so the bottom of the screen.

And upon the storm drains getting inundated beyond a 10-year storm, uh, the water will flow into the storm drain system until it meets its capacity, which is above a 10-year storm, but stops somewhere between that and a 25-year storm without getting into a necessary details that candidly I couldn't answer.

If it goes above that number, it will flow down the street, and then it'll find its way off the side.

Thank you.

I was I was hoping we would get off the property somehow, but the Yes, it will it will go off the property.

Uh I could have said that, yes.

Thank you.

Uh I have we have to make a finding of no outverse health effects, and and your diagrams show balconies on the I-270 side of a building that will be at about 80 decibels.

How do we think that's healthy?

So the my understanding of the architecture that we showed as part of the presentation, the eastern side is not gonna have the windows themselves have to be built to a certain rating.

I'm not I'm not a noise engineer, so I'm not gonna pretend that I'm gonna list off the appropriate nomenclature.

Uh the I don't believe the eastern edge is anything other than windows along that edge that you can go out on.

If not in your illustration.

Norse, do you have balconies along 270?

Yeah, so I have to get this.

You can just say yes.

We we do have balconies.

Um, they do have balconies.

There we go.

All right.

I may I suggest to my colleagues that that that might be an adverse health effect to have balconies at that high level of decibels if if people can get out there.

I can understand a a uh uh Romeo and Juliet balcony where you can't put chairs out there.

Sure.

But but to have a balcony where people can sit out in that level of noise is I don't think healthy.

I would note two things.

One is that if you look up and down I-270 or 495, there are playing fields, outdoor playgrounds right next to those to the um those busy highways.

Did they ask me to make a finding of whether it was healthy?

No, but um and I would also say when we had our noise study done and there was a distinct difference between obviously you know the late night noise from I-270 and in the middle of the day.

So I think the one thing is I don't know that we necessarily would want to preclude someone from being able to sit out there in the in the evening or late night um when traffic's a little lower.

Can I clarify?

So with the noise study and the enhanced uh window, if they are closed, the the interior noise level meets the requirements.

Absolutely it does.

But only when it's opens that is uh above the correct okay.

And those are not Juliet balcony, those the balcony you can sit on it.

Correct.

Okay.

I appreciate Commissioner Zion's point.

I draw a distinction between things that are ill-advised, um, such as putting a balcony facing 270 and sitting on a balcony facing 270, uh, and things that are unsafe, which would be making it compulsory to sit on a balcony facing 270.

Okay, any other questions.

Just general or I didn't see what your list looked like tonight.

I'm done.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'm sorry it was so long.

Sorry.

Um, I do have two quick things that I want to say.

Um generally speaking, I do share uh Commissioner Zion and I I hope others on here uh the the conversion to residential.

Um much appreciated and admire the work it took by both the applicant and staff to get it there.

Um I hope to see this replicated throughout the city in different ways.

We are putting residential uses and people living in homes where back in the day it was not designed to do that.

Um I really like how you've integrated or made it easy to get from your proposed uh site to research row.

Um that's great.

Uh there are restaurants, as you said.

I get my haircut there, there's a gym there.

That's great.

You would be hard pressed to buy a gallon of milk, you'd be hard pressed to fill a prescription.

That's not on you.

Um research row wasn't designed for people to live there.

Um my greater point is that we as we start doing this, there are certain residential amenities that I believe need to be nearer to where we're doing this.

I don't know how we accomplished it, but I had to say it out loud.

The second thing, and this is more for staff, and it uh aligns with my point.

This is served by two bus routes, 54 and 63.

Um, those run commuter schedules, so they're decent in the morning and in the evening on Mondays through Fridays, pretty shoddy on the weekends.

One of them doesn't run on Sunday.

Uh again, the route doesn't take it past many residential areas.

So for our friends in traffic and transportation and DPW, as we start to put residential uses where previously there weren't, if we can somehow coordinate with uh MC D OT about their bus schedules and their headways as we add residential uses where there previously weren't, that would be great.

Where's the gesture, please?

No gallons of milk, but they have easy access to Chick-fil-A.

Have you been there midday?

You gonna call that easy?

I can find the parking lot.

I have no other comment.

I went there for lunch.

I can find the park here.

Commissioner Piedman, you have another thoughts?

Okay.

Okay, so no more discussion.

Do we have any testimony?

Oh, right.

Yeah, do we have anyone?

I'm I don't care.

No one has signed up in advance to okay.

So anyone else would like to speak.

Okay, and uh there are motion.

I mean, I would make a motion, except my motion would uh accrued approval uh as submitted with the exception of balconies on facing 270.

Let's see if there's any other motions first.

I agree.

Any other motions?

Uh I would like to make a motion.

I move that the planning commission approve level two site plan application 2026-101-stp and grant landscape waiver 2026-293-WAV and subdivision wager 20 wait waiver 2026-382.

WAV low battery, sorry, it is obscuring my view, based on the findings and subject to the conditions provided in staff's report.

Seconded.

Okay, so there's a way there is a motion and the second, and all in favor, please raise your hand and just I would say I I would vote in favor, but for the balconies on 270.

Just so you know why I'm objecting.

Okay, so I think we can still vote, right?

Okay, yeah, let's who in favor of this motion, please raise your hand.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, and thank you.

Commissioner Zine.

You oppose?

Okay, got it.

Okay.

And I think the motion is still approved.

Oh, yeah.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

And let's move to our next agenda.

Is the briefing on the city of Rockville Trends Report?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We are pleased to have the planning research staff with us this evening to present to you the Rockville Trends Report for 2026.

We have research manager Manisha Tawari and GIS specialist Miles Muelberg, who is online.

And with that, I will turn it over to Mr.

Wari.

Thank you.

Just give me a minute.

Thank you, please.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Manisha Tawari.

I'm the planning and research manager, and I'm here to give you a briefing on Rockwell Demographics, housing, and economic trends.

That was outlined in the Rockville Trends Report that we prepared early this year.

Our goal is to update the TED report annually.

And to provide an overview of existing conditions in Rockville.

The purpose of this presentation is purely informational and to provide an overview of existing conditions in Rockwell that can help provide background and help frame planning and policy discussions.

Montgomery County Planning Board receives this presentation on a regular basis, especially when there are new releases from census.

So most of the data from this presentation is from the decennial census, American Community Survey, and the population estimates.

Other sources include CoStar, Bureau of Labor and Statistics, and the City's building permit data.

So this is Rockwell's population.

This slide shows the population growth in Rockwell.

Rockwell grew by 400 new residents since 2020, only up by 0.4%.

The growth is not as robust as seen in the previous decades, or the pre-COVID pace.

For example, Rockwell grew 9.7% from 2010 to 2020, and 29.2% from 2000 to 2010.

Montgomery County this shows how Montgomery County grew and the state grew in the same time frame.

Montgomery County grew about 1.3%, which is higher than that of Rockwell.

Rockwell is the fourth largest city in Maryland after Baltimore, Frederick, and Gaithersburg.

The city of Frederick growth is the highest at 17.4%, and it is the fastest growing jurisdiction compared to Gaithersburg and Rockwell.

So the key factors pertaining to population growth is new building construction and household size.

Within the households, 26% of the city's population are families with children under age 80.

And 28.6% of the households are persons living alone.

If you're looking at age distribution, Rockwell's population is older.

The median age in Rockwell is 38 years.

Rockwell's senior population, ages 65 and over was over 21%.

So this slide shows the change in population between 2000 and 2024.

Rockwell's population of older adults, 45 plus, and young adults, 18 to 34, both increased in terms of share of the total population.

While the number of middle-aged adults has decreased steadily in turn, Rockwell's senior population ages 65 and above increased from 12.8% in 2000 to 21% in 2024.

That's quite substantial growth.

You also need to keep in mind that this time period includes the COVID pandemic, where remote work was feasible and a lot of working families were moving further out.

This is an interesting slide as well.

The number of children ages 17 and under reducing from 1970.

In 1970, there were 18,600 children who were under 17.

And although our population has grown in 2024, that number was only 13,008.

In 1970, Rockwell's population was 42,739, and in 2025, its estimated population was 67,563.

So even as a proportion, in 1970, 44% of Rockville's population was children under 17.

And in 2024, that population has gone down by 20.3%.

The city continues to be a racially diverse place.

Non-Hispanic whites were the largest group with 47% of the residents, followed by Asians, 27%.

Overall, 53% of city residents were people of color.

In addition, Rockwell is home to a large immigrant and linguistically diverse population.

Rockwell is also continuously increased its population of people of color since 1980, with the fastest growing ethnic group being Asians every decade since Rockwell's population is highly educated.

Related to its high levels of education, Rockwell has a higher median household income of over 142,000.

Nearly 47% of Rockwell and the county's household earned 150,000 or more, exceeding the statewide and national medians.

However, on the other spectrum, 35% of households in Rockwell earned less than 100,000 or less.

Now we move on to housing.

So it's kind of a mix.

Rockwell's homeownership rate has been declining.

And in 1990 it was 66%, and in 2024 it went down to about 55%.

Rockwell's median rent of nearly 2,291 dollars is also higher than the county statewide or national medians.

Over half of the city renters spend 30% or more of their income towards rent, similar to other jurisdictions, showing that even with increased household incomes in the city, renters are still cost burdens.

I'm sorry, cost burdened.

Higher housing purchase price and rental prices are also limiting younger households from establishing in Rockwell.

Do you have any questions so far?

Or do you want me to continue the presentation and we can uh discuss at the end?

You went past uh the reduction in household size pretty fast.

Rockwell has reduced its household size faster than the county at large.

How do you explain that?

Um the county is larger and it can accommodate more single-family units.

And uh in Rockwell, we've had a trend where there are more multifamily units being built.

So in multifamily units and townhomes, the household sizes are generally small.

Something in the base of housing, because we put on very few housings, houses in the last five years.

So it must be something dealing with the net immigrant into vacant housing or you know, just moves to housing.

That's different.

Yeah, it's absolutely possible.

Yeah.

But you have no reasons or yeah, what would I present as pure data, and we can analyze it, we can have different assumptions of what it means, but uh right now all we're doing is just presenting what we got from the census, and we can draw our inferences and conclusions of you know what the data says.

You you might look at the number of single-person households.

Yeah.

Um what's that that's done, and then we if we can find a reason why that would be helpful.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

Any other questions at this time?

Okay, then maybe we can continue.

Thank you.

So according to the census again, Rockwell had 77,000 jobs.

In 2023, Rockwell still remains an employment hub for the I-270 corridor, despite the net decline in jobs during the COVID pandemic and uh generally during the Great Recession.

So these this slide talks about the percentage of jobs by industry sector.

Um37% of the jobs located in Rockwell are either in public public administration or educational services.

This can largely be attributed to the city status as the seat of the county government and the presence of Montgomery County College's largest campus.

Due to the location of Montgomery County Public Schools headquarters within the city, 17.1% of the jobs are in educational services.

A large percentage of Rockwell's job are in the professional scientific and management category, which is associated with advanced education and relatively higher salaries.

Many jobs in this category are located along the biotech corridor in Rockwell, IT and other research companies.

For most of 2025, Rockwell's unemployment rate was higher than that of the county and the state.

Since June of 2025, um, federal and private industry layoffs have affected the number of employed workers.

Um federal workforce restructuring and contractor reductions have impacted the local economy.

In Rockwell, more than one in five workers were connected to the federal workforce.

Even modest modest federal cuts have outsized effects on professional services, like life sciences, government contracting, farms that are located in the city.

Also, the median earnings of a federal government worker is 108,805 in Rockwell, which outpaces any other class of workers as measured by the American Community Survey.

Here are some general facts about Rockwell workforce.

About 51% of Rockwell workers spend less than 50 minutes, 30 minutes commuting.

And then there's another interesting fact.

Out of Rockwell's workforce, people who live and work in Rockwell is about 6%, which is like 4,217.

And a vast majority of people live elsewhere and work in Rockwell.

So now we go on to talk a little bit about markets.

This shows a trend of retail vacancy rate and rents per square foot from 2016 up to the mid-quarter of 2026.

Retail market is pretty healthy in Rockwell with a vacancy rate of uh 5.2% and an asking rent of 39.5 dollars per square foot.

The total inventory of retail space in Rockwell is about 4 million square feet in 203 existing buildings.

There are currently no new retail buildings under construction.

The total inventory of office space in Rockwell is 13 million square feet in 231 buildings, out of which approximately 3.2 million square feet is currently vacant.

The average marketing market asking rent was 30.62 dollars per square feet.

The average vacancy rate for office space is pretty high.

It was uh 24.2 percent uh in the second quarter of 2026.

There are currently no new office buildings under construction, um, and approximately 61% of available office space is in class C buildings, uh Class A properties, I'm sorry.

So uh this is my last slide, and um it talks about the industrial flex market.

Uh the total industrial flex space in Rockwell is about 4.3 million square feet and 167 existing buildings.

The average market asking rent was 24.6 uh dollars per square feet.

As of June 2026, the average uh vacancy uh rate for retail space was 6.8 percent.

Industrial stock is small and old, with 88% built before 1990, and uh therefore it's dominated by older buildings.

Demand for space for light industrial uses is strong currently and highly competitive in the region, uh, mostly driven by shrunken inventory and uh industrial land.

So regional demand for industrial uh flex is high, creating more opportunity, however, industrial use cannot um price or compete with you know residential users.

Um in general, Rockwell's commercial stock is aging, office retail buildings, uh, office retail and industrial buildings are mostly 40 plus years old, creating competitive disadvantages locally and regionally.

So this concludes my presentation, and um I'd like to hear your thoughts on um what we what we discussed.

Thank you very much.

Commissioners any thoughts on this trend.

Thank you for sharing that information.

Very interesting.

Yeah, no, I I agree.

I actually will ask that make sure that we get a copy of this and hope that you're amenable to our questions after we digest it a little bit.

Absolutely.

Thank you very much.

Yeah, I just look at the last slides about this industrial flex market.

So the the the price going up and the stock of those space does not increase, but the the vacancy rate goes down.

That shows this there's the market and needs for this this space.

Yeah, there is a market for it.

Uh currently, there's a very high demand for industrial flex space.

Because generally over the county, the industrial land use is shrinking.

Um like I said, industrial use is having a very hard time competing with residential because residential is more profitable.

Um office market per se is currently existing.

Uh is is currently struggling.

So industrial has a high demand, but uh at a lot of times when you know ready uh and planning work together in a lot of you know these kind of projects, and they tell us that hey, there's this user who's looking for industrial space, and um they end up kind of going to Gatesburg or you know, sometimes even as far down as Frederick, because there just isn't enough uh land or to accommodate the needs.

Yeah, that that is good to know for our future development and to consider.

Thank you.

And so we can still reach out to you if after we digest this and you will have questions.

Absolutely.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay, so now we move to our regular commission uh items.

Mr.

Westlack, do we have a staff layer down report?

Uh yes, madam chair.

Uh, your next meeting will be in September on September 9th.

Uh, we will actually take a break in August this year.

Last couple of years we have not.

So uh with the ZOR completed and adopted by the council if there's not a need for uh for ZOR work sessions or anything else uh during August.

So I hope you enjoy that break.

We do have one item that's lining up for that meeting.

Uh fairly late breaking, so it's potentially tentative, but there's been a request for um allocation of residential units within King Farm.

Um that's not to get into too much detail, but kind of the final 400 units uh that are potential within King Farm uh have to be approved by the mayor and council because the concept plan did not necessarily allocate them in terms of their location and type.

Uh but um this would be another one of those, I think the third or fourth in a series of of those allocations of the final uh amount of residential within King Farm.

So that potentially would be coming forward to you for a recommendation to the mayor and council.

I guess the biggest news is the mayor and council adopted uh the zoning award in three right and the comprehensive map amendment on June 29th.

It will become a f both will become effective on August 1st on that Saturday.

So I thank you for all your work uh in making a high quality recommendations to the council.

I know it was definitely appreciated by them.

They had some significant work sessions uh with us, and uh I think we have a really good ordinance uh moving forward that'll serve us very well.

We do have some applications that'll be coming forward to you that um potentially will be processed under the current zoning order.

So just want to make you aware of that, like this evening uh that was reviewed entirely under the current ordinance, and there are a couple others.

Um at least one has formally made a request, and there potentially are others that would come forward, although we anticipate the new ordinance is probably more uh amenable to applicants, but it kind of remains to be seen over the next couple of months.

Okay.

Uh so thank you for the report.

So do we have old business?

Uh just real quick, I should have brought this up at the beginning.

At the top of the agenda, Commissioner Pittman's first name is misspelled.

Just letting you know so we fix it for the next agenda.

I've noticed that it's spelled incorrectly on the agendas, and they fix it for the minutes.

So I haven't brought it up.

Yeah, but thank you.

Oh, okay.

That's in our preloaded uh, Mr.

Wasselak, you spelled it right.

It's just not the way she spells it.

So, what's the correct spatial?

It's S-U-Z-A-N.

Little present from my parents.

Okay.

Now we all know.

Thank you.

Okay, and we see we have a new business.

We need to approve a resolution to authorize the chief of zoning to approve final record plat application for minor subdivisions.

So do we have a presentation?

Just briefly, no PowerPoints.

Oh, okay.

This is if you adopt this resolution, this would formally authorize approval of minor subdivisions.

Uh two staff, essentially the chief of zoning, whoever holds that position.

Uh this is uh as a result, it's authorized by the land use article and also by the new zoning ordinance.

And so to to effectuate that, you would need to adopt this uh resolution formally to uh to make that happen.

So minor subdivisions or subdivisions that are four lots or less.

Um that is subject to certain criteria, and of course the criteria is they have to you have to meet every aspect of our our zoning code uh to be adopted.

So um, unless there are any questions, that concludes my report on that subject.

Any questions?

Do we need a motion?

Are you asking for a motion?

Okay.

Sorry, yeah, you do need a motion to adopt a resolution.

Okay, I know it's something a bit unusual.

Any other questions?

Discussion, no?

So um I'm looking for a motion.

I move that we approve approve the resolution, or that we resolve to authorize the chief of zoning to approve final record plat applications for minor subdivisions.

Second.

Oh, in favor, please say I will raise your hand.

The motion is approved.

Thank you.

Okay, and the next we have a minute approval for August 13.

So I think I have two corrections.

I can start.

So on page two of the minutes.

Uh I think the commissioner um Espinosa is written as Chris Esponosa.

So on page two in the middle, so I think that should be Commissioner Esponosa.

I think I think it was chair.

I think it's supposed to be chair, that's why they put Chris.

It's supposed to be chair.

Chair Espinosa.

Yes.

And then the last two sentences uh of on page two.

So that I asked a question about the permission for additional um accessory driving units, and Mr.

Westback responded that although both detached and attached ADUs are permitted and as conditional uses, period, and the conditions differ between the two types and that the ZOR will make them consistent.

Can we just clarify what that means?

And I think this needs to re-written a little bit.

So the way the um permissions for detach and 80 and attached ADUs ended up in the current zoning ordinance, because they were adopted at different times by different mayor and councils, that the conditional use requirements were different for attached ADUs and detached ADUs, and so that was I was what I was trying to get at that the conditions for the conditional use requirements are different for each of those, but that the ZOR will make them consistent between the two okay.

That makes sense.

So the so before that, although both although do we need although in this sentence?

Or if we have although maybe it's it's like common, not not period.

Yeah, I think that can be deleted.

To just streamline the sentence a little bit.

That's all I have.

Any other comments?

I I just have one at the top of page three, Commission Pittman.

Just need this little typo.

Thank you.

Yep.

Let's pause while I check the spelling of my name in all instances, please.

Kidding.

So Commissioner Futen's name is spelled correctly.

As far as I can tell, yes.

Okay.

Yes.

Uh motion to approve minutes with those three edits.

I second.

Oh, in favor, please say I will raise your hand.

I aye.

Okay.

Uh so the commissioner science.

Absolutely.

Okay.

And uh the meetings is approved.

Thank you.

And I think uh do we have a motion to adjourn?

I move to adjourn.

Second.

Oh, in favor, please say aye.

The meeting is adjured.

Good night, Rockville.

Thank you.