Mayor and Council - Regular Meeting
The Mayor and Council held a meeting that included numerous proclamations and recognitions, a public hearing on the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite and Comprehensive Map Amendment, and a public hearing on the FY27 Budget. Key discussions revolved around zoning changes, particularly for the Montrose and North Farm planning area and a property near Newmark Commons, as well as the city budget and community grants.
About this meeting
- Government Body
- Mayor and Council
- Meeting Type
- Mayor And Council
- Location
- Rockville, MD
- Meeting Date
- April 13, 2026
Transcript
1055 sections (from 1,177 segments)
Today is 04/13/2026. We have a full house in the chamber and an overflow, and we're happy to see everyone today. We'll begin with the pledge of allegiance. Okay, so I do want to note that we have a special day today. We're going to focus on some proclamations and recognitions. And I'm going to ask my colleagues to join me at the podium.
Good evening, everyone. I'm, council member Zola Shah, and it is my honor to read Financial Literacy Month. Whereas the month of April is recognized as national financial literacy month, a time to recognize the importance of financial education and empower individuals and families to make informed and effective financial decisions. And now, therefore, the mayor and council of the city of Rockville do hereby proclaim April 2026 as financial literacy month and urge all residents to take advantage of available financial education resources, engage in activities that build financial knowledge and skills, and make informed decisions that support their long term financial well-being. Madam mayor, I move the proclamation.
Thank you. Do we have a second? Council member Miles seconds. All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Aye. You. Council member.
And I believe we have Lydia Vale here to accept the proclamation.
All of you. Thank you.
Good evening, everyone. We're really grateful to be accepting this evening's proclamation for National Financial Literacy Month, as well as on behalf of the relaunched Bank on Rockville Coalition. We have representatives here this evening from the Latino Economic Development Center. Center. Thank you. From LEDC, from Truist Bank, and from Career Catchers. And we also have the support of folks from other agencies like Community Action Agency within our Department of Housing and Community Development. So we are very delighted to be bringing these supports and services to Rockville residents to support financial empowerment pathways to employment, living wage careers, housing, and more. So thank you so much for the proclamation and to our partners for being here this evening.
Mayor Ashton has encouraged me to share more about Bank on Rockville. Anyone is interested, we will be hosting programs later on this summer, opportunities to participate in financial empowerment workshops, homeownership counseling, and through our partners, we will also be extending events and opportunities for people to be learning how to connect with banking resources that support access to banking for folks who are underbanked and unbanked. So, again, please look for those invitations as events and activities become posted and dates get shared.
Okay. Looks like this is
all Literacy Month. Okay. Alright. Next up is the proclamation in honor of Fair Housing Month. This is a month that this mayor and council, from day one, Fair Housing and all the housing issues in the city were a strategic priority and continued to be.
We have some phenomenal, nonprofit partners, entities, city staff. There are a lot of people that make fair housing month, possible. You're gonna learn a lot more about some young people that are making it interesting and engaging but we'll start off first with the proclamation in honor of Fair Housing Month. Whereas the month of April marks the anniversary of the passage of the Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, and disability. Now, therefore, the mayor and council of the city of Rockville, Maryland do hereby proclaim their support for the Children's Bill of I'm sorry.
That's a little bit of an error.
Now, therefore, the mayor and council of
the city of Rockville do hereby proclaim April 2026 as fair housing month and urge all residents to join in this commitment to eliminate housing discrimination, support equal housing opportunity, and recognize that our community is stronger when it is fair, open, and inclusive. Madam Mayor, I move the proclamation.
Councilor Graveshaw seconds. All those in favor, please raise your hand. A moment. Alright.
We have some folks here to accept this. I'll look around. Excellent. Thank you, Ryan. All these wonderful people, whoever would like to say a few words, you are more than welcome to hear. Hi.
My name is Sarah Sonnett, and I'm very happy to be here tonight. On behalf of Main Street, I wanna thank you so much for this meaningful recognition. Fair housing is more than just a policy. It is a pathway to dignity, to stability, and to opportunity. Main Street is both home and community.
It offers a safe springboard to the future, recognizing individual strengths and providing opportunities to build upon those strengths. My family knows this firsthand as my son, Sam, has lived at Main Street since the building opened five years ago. We are we are all expected to make our way as we reach adulthood. For some of us, though, a little extra support is needed to help us build the confidence that we need to move forward. Finding that support in community reduces loneliness and bolsters whatever we need to go on to become more independent individuals.
And given economic reality, affordability in housing takes on increasing importance. Sam's experience at Main Street has been transformative. He has a place where he feels safe and truly independent. He has built routines, friendships, and a sense of confidence that every parent hopes their child will one day have. He has experienced kindness and understanding, and he is learning to pay it forward. We are deeply grateful to Main Street and to the city of Rockville for recognizing how vital inclusive affordable housing is for the individuals and families in our own community. Thank you very much.
Hi, my name is Stephanie Rudman and I'm with Montgomery Housing Partnership, MHP. We are an affordable housing nonprofit, provider that works mainly in Montgomery County and the some in Prince George's County and in DC. But here, we own over 3,000 units in Montgomery County, and we have two big buildings in the city of Rockville. Most recently, we purchased Bethany House, which is two fifty units of very low income housing by the Twinbrook Metro. We also own a property called Beales Grant, is just north of Town Center.
And we strive to provide housing for all types of people. And we want to thank the city of Rockville and Rockville Housing Enterprises and the staff here who have been incredibly supportive and helpful with us as we've transitioned this building to new ownership and new management. Not only do we provide the bricks and sticks, but we also have a lot of services we provide to our residents. So we have children's programs, we have preschool programs, after school programs. We provide health care services, educational services, and we also work in the communities that we have, buildings.
So we'll work with neighborhood associations, with, kids in the community, and, we're just working to make, you know, all of our our buildings and our communities better. So thank you.
Thank you. You heard about, Fair Housing Month, and I wanna thank the Department of Housing and Community Development for all their work to build on our programs, and thank you to the nonprofit partners. I know you heard from some of them this evening, and it's very special that they are not only providing housing, but the important wraparound services to help uplift people and to make sure that they're taken care of in a whole sense holistically, from health to other support services to activities to engage. That is so important to the quality of life and to helping people progress. So, we're also going to be noting that, in addition to the nonprofit providers and the work that the city is doing, we have some incredible work that's been done for Fair Housing Month.
The Department of Housing Community Development, on behalf of the city, has initiated an annual Fair Housing Student Art Competition and we are going to recognize some of the youth who have been selected as winners. So, my colleagues and I are going to share some of the names with you and let's give them a huge round of applause. Okay. First we have Alana Chan. Alana won first place for Fair Housing for All post the conference.
Thank you very much. Next, we have Maydelle Lopez. Maydelle won second place for the Fair Housing for All poster contest. Thank you. And third place winner is Nyla Buta.
Do we have Nyla here? Congratulations. Alright. And then I'll just read what it says, just so you have a sense of what we're honoring. So the mayor and council city of Rockville, Maryland certificate of recognition, and this is in recognition of these youths outstanding artistic achievements in the twenty twenty six Fair Housing Poster Contest. Thank you for sharing your talent and your creative vision on the theme Fair Housing for All, carrying forward doctor Martin Luther King's dream to promote equal housing opportunities and diversity in our community. So, again. And we have a few more names. Is Councilmember Fulton on the line?
Mayor, I don't think so.
Okay. Alright. We'll cover that one now. Alright. So, I'll just do these. Do you have anyone to share? Okay. Alright. So we have Atalia Beju. Last name, Vianu.
Beautiful. Alright. Next, Jocelyn Connolly. Next we have Ruben Feinstein. Okay. Not here. Alright. And I also want to acknowledge the coordinator who is Katie Dwyer
Alright. Alright.
It's okay. Alright. So it's my honor to present this certificate of recognition to Oliver McKeever. The community congratulates him, Julius West Middle School eighth grader, Oliver McKeever, for his acceptance into the February, SATB Gospel Choir. So Oliver, come on up.
Thank you so much. And we also recognize miss Cynthia Diehl, who's the choir coach for Oliver. Thank you so much.
Good evening. It's so great to see everybody here on this beautiful spring day. I have the honor of reading, the Montgomery County Black History Knowledge Bowl, team members. And let me just, make sure I have this correct here. This is a team from Julius West Middle School. I think I see the principal here as well. This is the second year in a row that Julius West has won this. So I wanna, I'm proud to have the honor of recognizing the team members. Just making sure I have them all here. There we go.
So the first one I have is Sloane Mahaffy. Mahaffy. I I apologize if I mispronounced your name. Congratulations. Beautiful. Thanks for for the correction. The next student I would like to recognize is Ava Rogers. Is Ava here?
Congratulations.
And then want to also recognize Ben Vivins. And then I believe we have the coach here is is missus Christina Templin here. Awesome.
And thank you, parents.
Next, I have the honor of recognizing, the Montgomery County Public Schools National History Day competition. And the the certificate goes to Solana Sternfield. And also the coach, coach miss Rachel Cermannini. Congratulations.
Alright back to me. The next proclamation is one that, I do hold very near and dear to my heart. We had a celebration, in honor of this day recently, and that is Arbor Day. And Arbor Day is a wonderful day that we can all kind of take a step back and recognize the many wonderful ways that trees are just quietly there providing shade and they're providing a way to protect against climate change. They're protecting our community and the more we can do for our trees, the more we can do for our community.
And it is a great honor. Sit the city of Rockville has been named Tree City USA for thirty seven years. So we are we are very thrilled and I I do love me a tree. So, I'm very excited to be able to present this. Whereas in 1872, the Nebraska Board of Agriculture set aside a special day called Arbor Day for the planting of trees in response to a state proclamation urging settlers and homesteaders in that prairie state to plant trees that would provide shade, shelter, fruit, fuel, and beauty for residents of the large list treeless largely treeless plains.
Now, therefore, the mayor and council of the city of Rockville, Maryland do hereby proclaim 04/10/2026 as Arbor Day, and we urge the Rockville community to encourage all efforts to care for our trees and woodlands and support our city's community forestry program. Madam Mayor, I move the proclamation. Aye. And accepting it is our wonderful forestry staff, Paula Perez.
Good to see you again. Yes. You too.
Well, as always, I'd like to thank the madam mayor and council members, for the continued commitment for caring for the trees, throughout the city of Rockville. This June marks the completion of our first, full five year cycle of our tree street tree pruning program and ensuring that our 30,000 plus street trees are inspected by an arborist and receiving maintenance, at least once every five years really demonstrates the city's strong dedication to both, public safety and long term health of our urban forest. So thank you all. And as you know, we celebrated our America two fifty Arbor Day event last Friday at Millennium Garden Park, and the weather could not have been better. And the sixth grade students from Julius West Middle School really enjoyed, planting our, our our commemorative tree, the white oak.
And the white oak is not only our national tree, but it is, the Maryland state tree. So it's a fitting and symbolic choice for this, milestone celebration. So
thank you.
I have the honor of reading our National Public Health Week. This proclamation means a lot to me as a former federal public health employee. Whereas the week of April 6 through the twelfth twenty twenty six is the thirty first anniversary of National Public Health Week, and this year's theme is ready, set, action. And now, therefore, the mayor and council of the city of Rock Ville, Maryland do hereby proclaim the week of April 6 through the twelfth twenty twenty six as National Public Health Week in Rockville, Maryland, and call upon residents of Rockville to observe this week by helping our family, friends, neighbors, coworkers, and leaders to better understand the value of public health and supporting great opportunities to adopt preventative lifestyle habits year round. And I believe Doctor.
Jackson Vivian is here, my former coworker at NIH.
Good to see you.
So I'm very happy to accept this proclamation this week as a physician, as a scientist. Yes, I work at the National Institutes of Health. I care for patients who have various illnesses and diseases. And I'm just grateful to be able to accept this proclamation in recognition of all the people of this great city but throughout Montgomery County to really, as she stated, Izola, to state that the readiness and preparedness for our health. So just making sure that we take deep breaths as we go through life and throughout our day.
And a lot of times, we're going, going, going, going, going. We're not observant of just taking a breath and just taking it second by second. So just small things like that to have you internalize and recognize where you are and in the present really helped for you to center yourself, but then to also be able to help your your fellow friends and strangers and neighbors. So just an importance of that. So thank you very much.
Councilman councilmember Shaw, you wanna proclaim it?
Madam Mayor, I move the proclamation.
One way to honor Public Health Week is to make sure you schedule your checkups. And there are clinics in the City of Rockville as well as across the county that offer free and low cost care. So, please schedule your checkups. We want to see you all alive and happy. Okay.
So, I want to make sure that this is a very solemn proclamation, but it's an important one, and I wanted to co present it with my colleague, councilmember Van Grak. We are remembering Yom Hoshoah. It's a moment to pause and remember these 6,000,000 Jews along Jewish people along with millions of others who were murdered during the history's darkest chapters. It's a day not only of mourning, but a reflection and responsibility. And so we wanna say a few words if councilman Brangrach would.
And I would also encourage you, you cannot forget the past. You also cannot forget your humanity in the present. And there's a there's some great movies about this horrible, horrible genocide that occurred, and I think it's incumbent on all of us to look at those movies to reflect in on history and to remember and to to make sure we never have a repeat again and speak out when we see inhumanity in our country and across the globe. Councilman Van Grak. Thanks.
As someone who's has numerous family members who were killed in the holocaust, I am truly honored to live in a city that recognizes, such a tragedy and remembers that this is something that we must ensure never happens again. And given the rise of antisemitism in our world and anti and Islamophobia in this world, it is important for us to not only recognize what happened in the past, but to act within the present. And it's, last year, I recited a poem by Martin Niemoller, which I'll recite again because it's important to remember. And he said, first, they came for the communists. And I was not a communist, so I did not speak out.
And they came for the socialists, and I was not a socialist, so I did not speak out. And they came for the trade unionist, and I was not a trade unionist, so I did not speak out. And they came for the Jews, and I was not a Jew, so I did not speak out. And then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out. Whereas Yom Hashoah, the day of remembrance, is a day set aside for the Jewish people to remember the Holocaust and is Israel's official commemoration of the 6,000,000 Jews murdered during the Holocaust.
And now, therefore, the mayor and council of the city of Rockville, Maryland do hereby proclaim sundown on 04/13/2026 through nightfall of 04/14/2026 as Yom Hashoah Day of Remembrance and urge all residents to remember the victims of the Holocaust and reflect on the need for grace, dignity, and respect for all people. Madam Mayor, I move the proclamation.
Thank you. Do we have a second? Councilmember Shaw seconds. All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye.
Aye. And then we
have And now I have, former councilmember Beryl Feinberg come up to
say a few words.
It's an honor to be here with some colleagues, although I'm no longer up there. It is a very important and solemn day and it is one that regardless of anyone's political views, we need to remember what happened and the people who were murdered, during the Shoah. And during that, it was people from many different walks of life. And I just wanna make sure to include the Roma, the Sinti, people with disabilities, and Poles, Polish people were also targeted for the destruction or the decimation of for racial, ethnic, or national reasons. And many mourning more, including the LGBTQ, Jehovah's Witnesses, Soviet prisoners of war, and political dissidents also suffered the grievous oppression and death under the Nazi tyranny.
Remember all of those who were murdered needlessly. Thank you very much.
So here in Rockville, we take great pride in our public safety personnel. But it's very easy to recognize the members of the fire department, members of the police department that you see on the streets. But I have to tell you, some of the most important members of our public safety personnel are those who are part of the telecommunication team. In fact, very often, the first people that you will interact with when there is a tragedy, when there is a problem, is someone over the phone. And we here in Rockville take extreme pride of our amazing personnel within our operations.
I've seen firsthand behind the scenes of the degree to which their system setup is incredible. And I can tell you numerous places both with throughout the world and the nation are not as privileged as we are here in Rockville to have incredible personnel manning our telecommunication system and ensuring that all of our residents and anybody here in the city of Rockville is safe. And I know we take deep pride into those of who are who are here. So whereas the week of April 12 through 04/18/2026 has been designated as National Public Safety Telecommunication Week, And the police communications operations of the Rockville City Police Department's Communication Center are an essential link between our law enforcement professionals and the residents of Rockville. And the Communication Center handled 66,661 calls in 2025.
And now, therefore, the mayor and council of Rockville, Maryland do hereby proclaim April 12 through 04/18/2026 as National Public Safety Telecommunications Week in the city of Rockville, Maryland, and call upon the residents to commemorate this observance by thanking our police communication operators for the in I'm gonna add incredible, amazing, great work that they do to assist in the protection and safety of our communities. Madam mayor, I move the proclamation.
Council member, Valery seconds. All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye.
And now we have numerous members of our team. We actually have, our chief, Jason West, but we also have Carl Nadler and Victoria Leoncini here to accept this proclamation. Welcome.
Thank
you very much.
Thank you.
I don't wanna say a few words.
Take it away. Well,
don't if you really wanna ask me if I wanna say a few words, but first, I'd like to say, thank you, madam mayor, council members, city manager, and, of course, police chief West. We really appreciate everyone taking the time out of their busy schedule to acknowledge us. The other thing I wanna say is that I'm very happy to work for a city that stands tall on certain issues even if it is not the safe thing to do or the politically correct thing to do, and that's all I'll say there. Something else I'd like to talk talk about that really makes most of us angry at work and sad at the same time is people who are constantly conned out of money. It used to be scampers and frauders would go after the elderly people.
Well, they've gotten so good, we've had scientists, doctors, even a teenager the other day that was scanned out of money. And please tell your family, your friends, and ask them to tell their family and friends that the Rockville City Police, Montgomery County Police, the sheriff's department, the Social Security Administration, the FBI will never contact you and say, send me money so you're not getting arrested. They won't say, go to the bank and Venmo me money. They won't say, get Bitcoin and send it to me. They've gotten so good where some of these conmen and fraudsters make believe they're your niece or nephew that they're locked up in jail right now, and they need you to send the money immediately for bail to get out.
It just doesn't happen, and it happens way too often where people really are scammed out of their hard turn hard you know, hard earnings and savings and so on and so forth. And most of us have caller ID now on our phones and our cell phones, and it may look like it's from the police department or the Social Security Administration. Take the information. Don't say anything. Hang up, and then do your own research and get look up the phone number for that police department or the Social Security Administration.
Or if you don't you're not sure how to look up a phone number, ask a friend or a neighbor. And if you're ever unsure of someone you're talking to, up and give your local police department a call wherever you are. So don't the the bottom line is don't give away your money. Don't give people your personal information over the phone. Don't ever give them your credit card information.
It won't happen. And like I said, we just see too many of it, and they've gotten so good now because it's very easy to get, including mine, all of our personal information now with the Internet. With a little research of $19.95, you could find out information about all of us. So, again, if you're unsure of something, please contact the police and never ever give out your personal information or take money out of your bank account to give someone because you think you're in trouble. Okay? It just doesn't happen. All right? Thanks. Thanks for letting me take the time out, everyone.
Thank you for your hard work.
Thank you
so much.
We couldn't do what we do without our fellow officers, the public, the citizens of Rockville who help us tremendously, and also our wonderful new police chief, chief West. He's really put the department in a new in a new era, a very positive era that all of us who work here really appreciate it and stand behind him a 100%. Again, thank you, everyone.
Thank you. We really appreciate you sharing that wisdom and, we have heard of scammers and sometimes they're not even in this country. There are some other places doing that work, so please heed that advice. I have the honor of reading our National Arab American Heritage Month proclamation. This is a newer, celebration.
I think it was around 2021 or 2022, but so important to see and make sure that we are recognizing the diverse community that we have in the city of Rockville and the county. We have seen too much hate from all different kinds of hate, religious hate, gender hate, disability hate, so much hate language filling our airwaves. And it is very special that in Rockville, we get to say we appreciate you, we see you, you are welcome here, and we will speak up for you. So I just wanted to say thank you to everyone, for allowing us to take these few minutes to celebrate these important celebrations throughout every month of the year. Whereas, April is National Arab Heritage American Heritage Month and the 2026 theme is many voices, one community.
Whereas, congressman David Dingle of Michigan with the help of several Arab American organizing groups issued a resolution in 2017 recognizing April as National Arab American Heritage Month and then in 2022 making it federal. Whereas more than three point five three point five million Arab Americans who live in United States who traced their ancestry to 22 countries from North Africa to the Arabian Gulf and places including Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestine, Sudan, and others. And whereas the number of Marylanders of Arab industry has more than doubled since the census first measured in nineteen o eight and is among the fastest growing Arab populations in the country. Now therefore, the Mayor and Council Maryland do proclaim April 2026 as National Arab American Heritage Month and encourage all residents to acknowledge, embrace, and celebrate Arab Americans. Someone please help me move the proclamation.
Doctor Miles moves. Councilman Vallari seconds. All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Excellent. Thank you. And we have some recipients here to accept this and say a few words. I wanna welcome Samira Hussain, who is the founder of the Arab American Heritage Month and chair of Arab Americans of Montgomery County and the Islamic Center of Maryland. Come on up. We'll also welcome Arwa Abed, Middle Eastern American Liaison from the Office of Community Partnerships. And Rim Sharath, Clinical Social Worker Outreach Committee, Islamic Center of Maryland. Thank you very much. And do you want to say anything?
Absolutely. We can continue.
Good evening, Assalamu alaikom. Thank you, madam mayor and every council member. We are honored to be in this to be part of Rockville City and honor the Arab American Heritage Month. It has been founded in 1997. And ever since, we have done educational outreach.
We have done you name it, we have done it because I think educating ourselves, educating our neighbors is the key issue. We we have been living in a lot of violence and a lot of hate, as was stated. But I think it's going to be up to each of us to reach out and ask a question and communicate because that can knock all the dividing walls between us. Reem can continue, but I would like to thank you since Arawa, she's our Middle Eastern liaison from the Office of Community Partnerships. She probably got caught in the traffic.
And, on behalf of the Arab Americans of Montgomery County and the Middle Eastern American Advisor Group, we thank you from the heart. Reem will continue.
Alright. Thank you, mayor and city council and everyone who organizes, this event and other events for the city. As a first generation Arab American and daughter of immigrants, I was a firsthand witness to my parents' journey of building a home in a new and unfamiliar country. Arab culture is rooted in the concepts of community, resiliency, and the push to keep having hope and persevere despite the challenges. Their journey was often rough, but what stayed true throughout their journey of building their home was a community that welcomed them with open arms and told them it'll be okay, and we're here to stand by your side.
That community was here, and we've been here since 2000. Now, as a mental health therapist in Montgomery County, PTA president at one of the local middle schools, and a proud parent of a middle schooler, I see firsthand the impact that mental health, community building efforts, and services and resources for our most vulnerable people can change the trajectory of a person's life. Nothing is more valuable to a person's journey than the experience of being seen, heard, included, and supported especially when needed. It's true when they say it takes a village and the Rockville and greater Montgomery County area is like a village. Yes, there are times where challenges and road bumps come along the way as with everything in life, but at the end, we can come together to celebrate and support one another.
I want to end by saying I stand here on the shoulders of all those who've paved the path before me. I also stand alongside other communities who share equally resilient and beautiful journeys of creating a home in Rockville. Just like my family was taken in by this village, I'm honored to be in a space with others in this room, everyone who's called Rockville home as we continue to build a healthier, stronger, and more inclusive Rockville. Thank you.
Yes, ma'am. Good evening again. I'm going to do my best council member Kate Fulton impersonation and be brief. However, this is a as all proclamations are, this is a very important one. And I have the privilege in this instance to present the proclamation declaring April 2026 as Autism Acceptance Month in Rockville. Let's see. I think this is
an extra.
Here we go. There we go. Cooking with gas or electricity now. Alrighty. What I'll do is read, one of the proclamations and then call folks up to receive them, and I believe y'all have a few words to share as well.
Is that correct? Okay. I'll, read this as follows. It says whereas April 2026 is autism acceptance month, and this year's theme is celebrate differences. And the city of Rockwell is honored to take part in the annual observance to help raise awareness, to promote autism acceptance, to celebrate each individual's unique differences, and to foster inclusivity and connectedness connectedness rather.
Now, therefore, the city of Rockville I'm sorry. The mayor and council of the City Of Rockville Of Maryland do hereby proclaim April 2026 as autism acceptance month in the city of Rockville, Maryland, and we urge everyone to increase their knowledge of the condition and specific programs that have been and are being developed to support individuals with autism and their families. So I have three people to recognize in particular, and we have some that will speak on speak as well. I have, miss Brittany Bletsoe, the mother of ace Alexander, are you here? Oh, my apologies. Oh, councilmember Fulton's shaking her head at me. Madam mayor, I move the proclamation.
Thank you. Do we have a second? Councilman Jackson seconds. All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye.
Aye. Alright. Sorry, miss Bledsoe. Take two. Can you come down for us, please? It's like the price is right. Yep. Come on down. Well, she could spin the big wheel. Thank you for what you do, ma'am. And I wanna also bring up, Rebecca Murphy, an assistant, who's the co chair of the Rockwell Human Rights Commission. Good to see And, Tara Owens, the executive director of Main Street, and a couple of guests with her. Awesome.
in keeping with council member Fulton, a shut up and let y'all speak. Go for it.
Council member, Miles, we forgot to add Sunflower Bakery.
Oh, I apologize.
Also here. So Okay.
Oh, Sunflower Bakery, please come up. Yes. Thank you. I'm so sorry. You?
I'm so sorry.
Autism acceptance is more than awareness. It is about recognizing the inherent value and contributions of autistic individuals and ensuring they are supported, included, and celebrated for who they are. Each year, standing up here feels a little bit different. What began as a call for awareness has grown into something far richer, a genuine conversation about belonging. Acceptance means that autistic people are not asked to mask who we are in order to be welcomed. It means our community makes room for the full range of how we think, communicate, and contribute.
We are grateful once again to see so many of the organizations that support autistic individuals and their families here with us today. Their presence is a reminder that this work is shared and that Rockville continues to be a place where neurodivergent residents are seen as neighbors, colleagues, and friends. On behalf of the Human Rights Commission of the City of Rockville, and as a proudly autistic community member myself and Becca, we graciously accept this proclamation from the Marian Council. Thank you.
Hello. My name is Jesse, and I'm 22 years old. And I'm a member of Main Street Connects, Maryland, and I've been part of to a community for the past four or five months. And I'm after I moved from Utah, autism exists on many levels, and it affects people in different ways, how we find jobs, how we make friends, and how we interact with others. And because of it's important to not judge anyone, especially when they are having a hard time.
Personally, I sometimes repeat myself and and accept patience. And as I work through my thoughts, that that the patient understanding makes may make a difference. Sometimes, like now, I struggle with speaking sometimes. And there's days where I catch myself repeating over and over again, which is okay to do that. Accepting means being seen for who you are.
It means having a community to understand you and support you. For me, Main Street Connect has provide that community, and I'm grateful to have found a place where I can truly be myself. Thank you for recognizing Autism Acceptance Month and for helping create a more understanding and inclusive community for everyone. Thank you.
Good evening, and thank you for this honor. My name is Sam Smith, and I am proud to be a part of the Main Street community living right here in Rockville. I also have autism. Today, about one in thirty six children in The United States are diagnosed with autism. That means millions of individuals like me are part of our schools, workplaces, and neighborhoods.
For a long time, talked about autism awareness, but holding awareness was just a start. From awareness, we need to move to acceptance. Acceptance means understanding inclusion and opportunity. It means seeing our strengths, supporting our challenges, and making space for us all to live full and meaningful lives. Because of places like Main Street and the programming of Main Street Connect.
I have a home where I feel independent, safe, respected, and strong. I'm grateful to the city of Rockville for recognizing Autism Acceptance Month and for helping create a community where everyone belongs. Thank you for this proclamation.
I'm not sure I can follow that,
but one thing I can appreciate with this evening is is the word inclusion, and I've heard it more than once, and it's it's nice to hear, and and clearly Rockville values that. So mayor Ashton and and county council members, thank you for taking time to I'm sorry?
You gave us a promotion.
For recognizing Autism Acceptance Month. At Sunflower Bakery, awareness and acceptance is just a starting point. Our real focus is on opportunity, dignity, and high expectations. Every day, our students and graduates show what's possible when people are given the right training, the right opportunity, and the right environment to show what they can do. We're proud to partner with the families, with our stakeholders, with the city, and with this community to build pathways to employment for young adults with learning differences, and we work with a large population who who are on the autism spectrum.
So, thank you for the work that you do to contribute to the community that we live in.
Absolutely. Mayor
Ashton is helping me. So every year we have a wonderful graduation where we highlight and lift up our graduates. We are honored to recognize 46 individuals who will be graduating from our pastry arts, hospitality, and culinary programs, and honoring community members who have either made an impact to Sunflower or the disability community, and we invite you to join us on April 26 at the Montgomery County Cultural Arts Center. So everyone is welcome.
I wanna thank mayor Ashton and the council. My name is Britney. Autism acceptance month is different to me.
My son drowned in
the city of Rockville from my from little ping from the apartment. I just wanna say thank you to everybody that came and that supports this. This isn't just for me. It's for everybody else. Learning about autism is different than just a book reading it in front of you. Everybody's different. There's nobody the same. I just wanna tell you that thank you to everybody, and thank you to you two for not leaving me since it happened.
Thank you to Britney Bledsoe. A tragedy has turned into creating awareness for so many. And, last year, we announced, scholarships for children who are who have autism to learn how to swim. So I just wanted to say that was an honor of ACE and, tragedy can't always be prevented, but we try and, we really appreciate you sharing your story. Thank you to this entire community for being here. Can we give a clap out for inclusion?
Thanks Thank so much.
Alright. So it's my honor to, proclaim, April as Earth month. So you already know about Arbor Day and, what Rockville does, for the trees. And Earth Day is really important as well. We have actually well, Earth Month, sorry.
We have on the website a lot of events that take place during Earth Month, stream cleanups, other things that are really, really exciting and important for adults, for children, and for older adults. Just I would be remiss not to mention, because I'm on the Commission on Aging, that this Saturday, April 18, is Rockville Villages Go Green, and it's at the senior center. And you can learn more information by going on the website and looking it up. Now I will read the proclamation for Earth month or Earth Day. Whereas, the first Earth Day was proclaimed in 1970 to foster public environmental awareness and whereas Earth Hour, an annual global event organized by the World Wildlife Fund, calls on individuals, governments, and businesses around the world to turn off all nonessential lighting for one hour between 08:30 p.
M. And 09:30 p. M. On Saturday, 03/28/2026, to call attention to climate change and loss of biodiversity. And now, therefore, the mayor and council do hereby proclaim the month of April 2026 as Earth Month in the city of Rockville, and further proclaim Wednesday, 04/22/2026 as Earth Day, and Saturday, 03/28/2026, between the hours of 08:30PM and 09:30PM as Earth hour, and urge all members of the community to take actions to promote a healthy and sustainable environment.
And with that, madam mayor, move the proclamation.
Thank you. Do I a second? Councilor by Frank seconds. All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye.
Aye. It is unanimous.
And I believe we have Cindy McCabe of the environmental commission, the Rockville Environmental Commission to come up and say a few words. Oh, you're welcome.
Thank you, council member. My name is Cindy McCabe. I'm with the Rockville Environment Commission, and this is Charlie.
Do you wanna say hi? Well,
I just wanna say that I'm so proud to be a resident of Rockville hearing all of the proclamations that have come before me. It's hard to follow any of them. Some of them were very heartfelt. Thank you, council members, and mayor Ashton. I'm pleased to accept this proclamation on behalf of the Environment Commission and all who are engaged in protecting Rockville's environment, and we also have commissioner Summer here as well representing.
We appreciate the mayor and the council's support for environmental programs, the city's climate action plan, which is going great, and the electric vehicle readiness plan. Earth Day is April 22, but Rockville is hosting lots of events, some of which were already mentioned. So I'll try not to double up, but you may have to forgive me. To learn about all of the events, you can go to Rockville MD Dot Gov Slash Earth Month. Some of them are Rockville Weed Warriors, an invasive plant removal event, climate solutions webinars, including how to landscape with native plants, and how to install solar with our switch together campaign, which is on June 4.
The Cordon Creek Nature Center hosts many events like the city nature challenge in April and the spring festival in May. We love the nature center and all the turtles. Green permit fee waivers are in effect for April. If you know any contractors or anyone who is getting a green upgrade on their home, like installing solar, electric vehicle chargers, and efficient heating and cooling systems, The permit is free for the month of April. These are just a few examples. Go ahead and check the website, Rockville reports, and the environment and sustainability e newsletter if for more events and details. Thank you so much, council and mayor, for this.
So, are a number of health conditions that we often issue proclamations of because they're really not the community isn't aware of the degree to which it's important to both get checked, but also to recognize those who might be suffering from these conditions. And so, one of those is Parkinson's disease. And we recognize every April, declaring the month to recognize and bring awareness to this condition that is affected that many people are affected by. Whereas Parkinson's disease is a chronic progressive neurological disease, and then the second is the second most common neurodegenerative disease in The United States. In fact, Parkinson's disease is estimated to affect approximately one million people in The United States, and the prevalence will rise to one point two million in 2030.
And now, therefore, the mayor and council of Rockville, Maryland do hereby proclaim April 2026 as Parkinson's Awareness Month in Rockville, Maryland, and call upon all residents to join all communities and across the region to understand this disease, support research, and all efforts to find a cure. Madam Mayor, I move the proclamation. All right, and I believe we have, Doctor. Aviva Ellinstein from the Parkinson's Disease and Movement Disorders Neurologist to come and say a few words. Welcome.
Thank you very much.
Thank
you. Thank you. Hello everybody. It's really my honor to be here. I'm just one of many neurologists in this area and more so one of many movement disorder neurologists who have really dedicated our education and professions to taking care of people living with Parkinson's disease.
Also, many folks in this area, as you know, study Parkinson's disease, and along with trying to advance treatments and find a cure, it's, I think, equally important to keep a focus on prevention, which is really getting a lot more attention these days. We don't fully understand how to prevent it, but I would ask everyone to keep their eyes on things we can do in our communities to decrease exposures to things that might contribute to Parkinson's disease later in life. I happen to just be a movement disorder doctor here because we're down the street from the NIH where I trained, and so I accept this proclamation not only on behalf of everyone living with Parkinson's disease, those of us taking care of them, but also my mentor, who ultimately brought me here, Doctor. Mark Hallett, who recently passed. And so I accept this also in his memory.
And here in this area, we are not only blessed, I would say, to have lots of doctors, more than many other regions in the country, but we also have a fantastic non organization to support people living with Parkinson's, their spouses, their caregivers, their family members. And here tonight also is Jared Cohen, who's the president of our regional Parkinson Foundation of the National Capital Area. If we have a minute, he can come up and say something as well.
Thanks, Jared. Thank you so much, Mayor.
Thank you, Council. Thank you, Mayor, for taking a moment to recognize Parkinson's this one one month a year, but people live with it all year long. PFNCA, for more than thirty years, has been providing programs and services to help people live well with Parkinson's and to let everyone know we're we're we're providing programming now in Rockville at title boxing and also at the Preston. So if you know people with Parkinson's, please encourage them to learn more about local opportunities that can help them live well with the disease. But again, thank you to the mayor and to the council.
Awesome. Oh, you're dealing with me again. Hopefully, I have my act together better. I have the honor of presenting a proclamation for Science Day. I think we have a number of science geeks up here. So this this this yeah. This this one is good as all of them are. The proclamation reads as follows. Whereas on 04/22/1990, the Rockville Science Center held its first Rockville Science Day and has continued Science Day as an annual event in the city of Rockville. And now, therefore, the mayor and council of Rockville, Maryland do hereby proclaim actually, before I do that, let me skip up one because this is an important date.
Whereas on Sunday, 04/26/2026, the Rockville Science Center will present its thirty fifth annual Rockville Science Day on the Rockville campus of Montgomery College, which will include hands on activities for kids of all ages and and technological innovations of interest to adults. Now, therefore, the mayor and council of Rockville, Maryland do hereby proclaim 04/26/2026, Rockville Science Day, and Rockville urge all members of the community to participate in this opportunity and connect with science in the real world. With that, madam mayor, I move the proclamation.
Thank you for a second. Councilor Brack. Thank you your Councilor your hands and say Aye.
Aye. Oh, I think we have some scientists in the building. Come on down. You wanna come down? Yeah. Say a few words. Say a few words. Alright. Thanks for coming out tonight.
Awesome. Yeah. So thank you so much.
Exactly.
So, yes, thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you so much for for the proclamation for our thirty fifth Rockville Science Day. I'm Ulysses Santa Maria. I'm the current president of the Science Center. So, yeah, please come by, check us out. So Rockville Science Day at this point, we now call it the biggest science event in Montgomery County at our thirty fifth year. We are incredibly proud to be able to offer this for now thirty five years and for many more years to come. We will feature over a 120 exhibitors, and we have about 4,000 people who come and join us for the day for a a wide variety of hands on activities, demonstrations around the sciences. And for us, the sciences is a very large swath.
So you come, you don't know what you're gonna see, but it's gonna be great. And, and yeah. But also, the other important message to relay is, you know, with the celebration of our thirty fifth year also comes the understory. We are also, working on getting relocated, to maintain ourselves here in Rockville. So, addition, you know, we have that sort of promotional aspect to science science day this year.
So for us, we have a fifty fifty raffle they'll also be doing at the event with the starting ticket price of $7 for our nice slogan, save 7 for science to make sure that we're able to, find a new home here in the region and be able to stick around for the long run. That way we can be here, when the seventy seventieth Rockville Science Day comes around. So, but no, seriously, I hope to see you all there and thank you all for the support that you've given us, over the years here at the Science Center. And, you know, we we I can't actually imagine Rockville Science Day happening anywhere else but Rockville. So thank you.
this time I didn't bring the rocket.
That way the photo's a little bit easier.
Thank you.
Thank you to everyone who came out to celebrate our proclamations and recognitions. In this building, in this city, we celebrate inclusivity and science and we really appreciate everyone indulging us and and really raising awareness on important topics. Thank you.
I know.
Colleagues, given the time, I think we roll light into our meeting, just because we wanna make sure that we can get to community forum and our public hearings close to time. Okay. With that, we'll move to agenda review. Ms. Sarah Taylor Farrell.
Madam Mayor and council members, we did make a change to this evening's agenda, the work session on Budget number three for capital improvement debt review and final balancing has been moved from tonight's meeting to next week's meeting on April 20, and it reflects on tonight's meeting. And it has already been added for the April 20 meeting.
Thank you. And I just want for the listening public, this gives us a chance to listen to everyone's comments in the budget public hearing and then to come back again next week. It also means that you won't be here until midnight. So thank you for everyone to everyone for making that adjustment. Now we have the city manager's report.
Mayor Ashton, members of City Council. Ladies and gentlemen, good evening. Mayor, I rarely do this, but I only wanna use the time tonight to recognize two city employees, but I think it's really worth it. First, I wanna recognize a Rec and Park team member. That's seniors program manager, Terri Hilton. Terri Hilton won a really impressive award. It's called the World Changer Award. It's from the Women in Parks and Recreation, a professional group that connects and supports women in the field of recreation and parks across The United States. So this is a national award. And here's why, miss Hilton is receiving the award, and this is a quote.
She embodies the true essence of servant leadership and commitment to making a meaningful difference and for being a role model whose work enhances the lives of those around her and beyond. That is very high praise for Teri. Anybody that knows her will acknowledge that that's exactly who she is and what she does every single day. So I wanted to call that out tonight. Secondly, I wanna call out and congratulate police lieutenant Dan Romero, who, a couple weeks ago graduated from north the Northwestern University School of Police Staff and Command.
This is a very rigorous police leadership training academy and it's really important to note Dan's, continuing appreciation and commitment to, continuing education, but also professional development. It's really impressive that he would take the time to go through that. So congratulations to Dan. And lastly, I think this is really cool and I'll share it with you. At the entire graduation ceremony, guess who gave the keynote address? Our own police chief, Jason West. That's really impressive as well. Did he sneak out? He did. Dog on him. Anyway, that's pretty impressive. So just wanna call that out. Thanks for the time there. I appreciate it.
Thank you. I just also wanna thank staff for a number of responses from RCPD managing some public safety to public works. One of our longstanding employees had his last day on Friday and dealt with a major water main break on Wooten Parkway. I think he's been here over fifty plus years. And he put his retirement ceremony on hold to go out and do one more water main break.
That shows a commitment to him and to the city. I also wanna acknowledge the volunteers and the staff who put on the volunteer reception, mister Mihaelic. It was fantastic. I think we counted 2,000 volunteers and over 61,000 volunteer hours, and that is not in in capturing everything encapsulating everything. I know that it was for rec and parks only, so there's so many people who are doing volunteer work throughout the city, and we appreciate them.
Your team also helped us with the youth town hall, as well as a number of cleanups in the housing needs assessment. So we've been very busy in the city trying to implement our priorities, but taking care of the community. So thank you to everyone who participated. We'll now move on to community forum. I do want to clarify that we have community forum.
We also have two public hearings later. So if you're interested in having your remarks count towards the public hearing, please hold and we'll have community forum for general issues. But then there will be a public hearing and we'll call folks up. The public hearing will be just in a few minutes after consent agenda, so it won't be too long, but there'll be one on the zoning text amendment as well as a zoning text amendment, zoning ordinance rewrite, as well as on our budget. So I wanted to note those.
So if you're here to speak on that, just hold a sec, and we'll get to that shortly. Okay. Now we're gonna open the floor for community forum. This is a time where we welcome your ideas, your concerns, your feedback, and you will have up to three minutes. We request that you address the mayor and council. You speak in a civil and courteous tone, and we appreciate everyone who has signed up in advance. And I'll call for folks if you're inspired to speak after. Those who've signed up in advance, please let us know. All right. First, I'd like to welcome Jake Jakobic. Is Jake Jakobic here?
I believe he's from Webex.
Okay. Is he on? Okay. Just also to make sure he's on the line, please. We'll move on to Will Riso. Do we have He had to leave. He had to leave. Okay. Next, Libby Adams. Welcome.
Ms. Adams, can you turn the mic toward you, please? Thank you. Okay.
I'm back. Unfortunately, my stuff is all of our belongings are being held hostage in the apartment across the street unless I come up with $12,000 to pay to clean it. Right now, I am still waiting for something to be done as far as you know, back in at the November, our unit was deemed clear and free of mold, and our family was forced to go back in there. As of March 25, I've done another test, and it shows it says fungal growth is evident in portions of the dwelling dwelling. Fungal growth is believed to extend to areas not accessible at the time of inspection to include ceiling or wall cavities.
This is just little blurbs out of it. Debris and elevated moisture levels inside HVAC system and ductwork have created conditions conductive to mold growth. Possible cross contamination occurred during previous mold remediation. Testing and analysis showed elevated con concentrations of fungal spores, including a lot of ones that I can't name, but namely black mold. Okay?
Special note, elevated levels of mold airborne as confirmed on laboratory analysis, mold categorized as potentially toxicogenic confirmed airborne on laboratory analysis. Investigation and development of corrective measures and verification of corrective measures should be done on the HVAC system, which wasn't done the last time, yet my my unit was deemed clear and fine. Obviously, it was not. At present, there are no government regulations in place to regulate the removal of mold, bacteria, and or what are permissible levels. Common sense has to prevail.
We are dealing with a fungus that is invisible to the naked eye by itself. Mold is wonderful at fulfilling its purpose when outside but can become a containment in an issue inside. Namely, elevated concentrations of potentially potentially toxigenic microbial organisms were noted in the living room, kids room, rear bedroom, and HVAC system of the property, which means that it is currently being dispersed across the whole building and essentially the whole row of buildings, which I've been saying since the beginning. And, you know but it's funny that I end up here on the day that you guys are talking about public health and fair housing and even Parkinson's. Mold can cause symptoms that end up developing into Parkinson's as well as many other issues.
All of the molds that are listed I don't know if you guys have been on the emails. I don't know if anybody's paying attention. The levels are outrageous, and that is after four months after the city inspectors cleared our apartment, said it was livable and free and clear of mold. That was another four months that my family was forced to live in there being exposed to that because the Rockville City Department cleared my place as habitable. I'm just you know, I know that maybe you guys weren't equipped back then, but if you're not equipped, then you guys shouldn't be clearing things unnecessarily.
So, it's a shame that I'm back here, and it's a shame that there are other people that are still over there that are being ignored. So that's all I have to say.
Thank you, mister Mihelic. Is there someone who can speak to miss Adams, please? Thank you. Okay. Next, we have Ms. Anusha. Ms. Shista, welcome.
Thank you for this opportunity, as always, to be in front of you and say a few words, mostly to say thank you. I'm happy to live in this city, and I appreciate everything that you guys do to include us. Today, I celebrate Sri Lanka's New Year. That's why I'm dressed in this color. This is the color of the New Year, apparently.
But I'm mostly here to say thank you to the mayor for including us in the events that have taken place in this city. It started with the Richard Montgomery performance. The the the drummers had a wonderful experience. And then you continue to invite us to the international night performance. And then we are going to be on the stage, and a rock will sit during the hometown holidays.
We are very happy about that. And to be walking in the parade, my goodness, what an opportunity. Thank you so much for recognizing Sri Lanka and for giving us an opportunity to be ourselves in this city. So as I always say, every experience is an opportunity for us to become the light we are meant to be. I thank you for giving me that opportunity. Thank
you. Welcome, Jeanie O'Meara. You're gonna wait? Okay. Thank you. Mister Jacobyc?
I think they're working to get him a link. Is he on?
I know they sent him a link. Is he on?
Is on?
Is there anyone else who would like to speak?
Yeah. One.
Okay. Mister Jackaback, go ahead.
Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry for the mix up. Hi there. Good evening, mayor and council. My name is Jake Jakobach. I am live in 319 Grandin Avenue in Croydon Park, and I am the chair of the Rockville Bicycle Advisory Committee. I need to first commend the city council for its hard work in making Rockville a better city to ride a bike, to make it safer for all of us who wish to take all kinds of ways of getting around to be safer on the city. And as part of our work on the committee, we host regular events, bike rides, such.
And with the beginning of bike month next month, I wanted to formally invite, madam mayor and the council to our inaugural bike month ride on May 2 at 10:00 starting at City Hall. It'll be a short six, seven mile bike ride around the city going at a leisurely pace, very social, everybody hanging out just enjoying themselves. And I want to formally invite all of you to come and join us on that ride that day on May 2. I understand it is on your calendar, and, I look forward to seeing all of you there, on May 2. Thank you for your time.
Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak as part of this community forum who will have several budget public hearings and zoning ordinance rewrites and comprehensive map amendments shortly? So alright. Just checking. Thank you to everyone who signed up in advance who participated.
Colleagues, we have several items on consent agenda. I will read them as a start. Agenda 9A, adoption and resolution to establish the maximum rate of rent increase as required by the Section 18,194 of the Rock Ville City Code entitled Voluntary Rent Guidelines and Notice Requirements of Rent Increases Item 9B, authorization for the City Manager to execute the federal aid project guidelines and working supplement agreement with the Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration for the Research Boulevard Shared Use Path Feasibility and Design Project under the Carbon Reduction Program. Item 9C, approval of minutes. Colleagues, does anyone have any broad questions, or can we move forward with a motion?
Okay. Who wants to make the motion?
Madam Mayor, I move to approve consent agenda items A, B, and C.
Thank you. Do we have a second? Councilmember Van Grack seconds. All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Excellent. Thank you. We'll now kick off our section of hearings. And I believe we have some staff members who are going to present. I just want to make sure they're getting in place.
All right. We're moving to Agenda Item 10A, Public Hearing one the Zoning Text Amendment Application TXT twenty twenty six-two 71 for the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite Zohr, Mayor and Council of Rockville applicants. We application, as well as the next one after this on map amendment so folks know when to testify, please. Thank you. Welcome.
Good evening, madam mayor, members of the council. So this evening, as mentioned, we do have three agenda items pertaining to our ongoing zoning ordinance rewrite and comprehensive map amendment. For the record, I'm Holly Simmons, deputy zoning manager with community planning and development services. So first up in our public hearings, we do have a public hearing on the zoning ordinance rewrite followed by a public hearing on the comprehensive map amendment. As many of you all will recall, these are two separate legislative items, so there are two separate hearings.
Before we get into both of those items, we did want to provide a bit of context. I know it's been a while since we've seen you all, so we did want to reflect back on where we've been and give a heads up about where we are going. So you'll see before you the project adoption timeline specifically. Adoption is the last phase of this project, which has been going on for over two years now. So we kicked off adoption back on December 1 when you all authorized us to file the staff drafts of the zoning ordinance and the zoning map.
In January through February, we had review with the Planning Commission. They held four, work sessions where they dug into a number of topics and had public hearings as well, so we per received quite a bit of testimony during that time. That concluded on February 25 when the Planning Commission made their recommendations to this body, and that will be the subject of our work session later in the evening. Currently, we are kicking off the Mayor and Council review, so that will run from April through June 2026, and we are anticipating adoption to occur on 07/06/2026. And with that, madam mayor, I will turn it back over to you to conduct the public hearing.
Thank you. Can you just give some guidance to the public on there are two different ones as they think about which one to testify on? We have some early signs, so many people from the floor who wanna speak. So please go ahead.
Absolutely. So for this first one, we really are focusing on the zoning text amendment for the zoning ordinance rewrite. If you have comments on the nearly 300 page staff draft zoning ordinance, now would be the time to provide them. So anything, related to standards within zones, different uses, parking, landscaping, things of that nature, kind of the policy that's written in narrative form, this is the time to provide comments on that element of the project. If you have comments and testimony regarding rezonings that are proposed that you see our zoning map changing from one zone to another, perhaps related to a specific property or related generally to re rezoning in the city, the comprehensive map amendment portion or the comprehensive map amendment public hearing would be the time to provide that testimony.
Thank you very much. And to give a heads up, have I four people signed up in advance on this one. Mark Bischela from the College Garden Civic Association, Bill Commoners, Julia Binder, and then Jeanine Amara will speak. And then we have a number of people signed up for the next public hearing. We'll start off with former council member Mark Bischelen, now president of the College Garden Civic Association.
I just can't keep out of it. Okay. So on March 24, we had a special general meeting at the College Garden Civic Association because of the tight timeline of the zoning ordinance approval process. And, I had to do some education, I I'll hold up some signs that you and the audience behind me can see. I had to educate the the 40 some people that were there that when you do a zoning ordinance, there's a map, and then there's a text.
And the current, zoning ordinance, 253 pages. The new one's 290 pages. It does incorporate the design, document that is separate at the moment. That's a lot of stuff to go through. And whereas College Gardens retains its r 90 zone, what I had to tell the people that at our meeting that is that the definition is what counts.
So we're our 99,000 square feet minimum lot size, but what does that mean? And you have to dig into the, text part, the 290 pages. And a text zone includes a purpose statement, uses and standard, and zone standards, and some other things. And keep that in mind because that's what I'll be talking about. There's a highlights document.
It's good as far as it goes. It's 53 pages, but it is incomplete. It doesn't have a section on uses, and that has changed big time for our zones. Okay? And so when I prepared for our civic association meeting, I actually put together a table that should be in the highlights document that's not there and this is on differences in uses for the single family, zones and that'd be r four forty through r 400 and this is what's missing from the highlights document and it should be there because it's it's it's there are huge changes.
I'm gonna read you four, resolutions from our Civic Association meeting. We'll take this back up at our regular meeting in May. Process resolution one. The College Garden Civic Association resolves that mayor and council instruct city staff that the uses of small and large lot single residential zones be tabulated in a similar fashion as the CGCA draft table and officially be appended to staff highlights document and distributed to all neighborhood associations. Process, resolution number two.
The College Garden Civic Association resolves that mayor and council instruct the table clearly indicate which changes are due to state law and which are due to mayor and council, direction. Now there are changes in uses and at least three of these come from state law, But there's there's no indication in what you can read either in a highlights document or the the draft zoning about which are which. In fact, they're hardly mentioned at all if mentioned. Resolution number three. The college it's three paragraphs.
The College Garden Civic Association, CGCA, resolves and asks the Rockville mayor and council extend the approval timeline of Rockville's proposed zoning ordinance to, at earliest, September 2026. Further, in order that stakeholders include neighborhood associations are able to better understand the many changes, instruct city staff to provide an improved highlights document that should be timely released to the public to allow stakeholders to effectively advocate before the mayor and council in the revised approval timelines. The CGCA finds the proposed zoning ordinance materials as currently presented to be so daunting in their breath and so vastly different in their structures from the previous zoning ordinance that it's difficult for the College Garden Civic Association to effectively review and make substantive comments on the proposed zoning ordinance. We did, however, make one substantive resolution and this, I'm reading it here because it applies not only to College Gardens NSR 90 zone but to any single family zone. The College Garden Civic Association resolves to mayor and council that section twenty five point seven point one point four a, purpose of the small lot single unit residential zones be reworded as follows.
Now there's two parts to this. There's two sentences that already there. I'll read them right now. The small lot single unit residential zones include the r 90, r 75, r 60, and r 40 zones. These zones are intended primarily for single unit residential uses on smaller lots than those in the large lot single unit residential zones. That's what's there now. It's not a purpose statement. It's a description. These are two sentences to be added. The purposes of these zones include one, provide appropriate located areas for residential development that are consistent with the plan and public health and safety and two, stabilize and protect the essential characteristics of the existing residential neighborhoods. And where did I get those? I got them right out of the current zoning ordinance. So thank you.
Thank you. Next, we welcome Bill Commoners.
Good evening, madam mayor, members of the council. My name is Bill Commoners. I'm here representing Tower Dawson LLC, the owner of and the original developer of the Tower Oaks planned development and the property just to itself. Tower Dawson is a business resident of the city having moved its offices to 2000 Tower Oaks Boulevard, their lead platinum building. I have two subjects to share with you this evening.
The first is the current zoning ordinance provisions related to planned developments. I urge you to keep these provisions in the new ordinance with as little change as possible. I will have a letter for you that references the corresponding provisions of the new zoning ordinance to make it easy to see the comparison between the old and the new. But to allow orderly development of the planned developments, the zoning ordinance should retain the general and individual planned development zone zone provisions, the planned development governing documents definition and development standards, and the APF provisions. The amendment provisions for planned development should also be kept, but in the more simplified process proposed in the ZTA because the current amendment process is a deterrent in time and cost to the evolution of the planned developments.
The second subject relates to the former elementary school site just north of Tower Oaks. The owner has always been supportive of the recommendations in the comp plan and has carried forward by the staff to rezone the property. But at the same time, the owner is certainly open to consideration of other less intense alternative zones that will still allow more homes than the current zoning and therefore might be economically feasible. Development Jerome, by the way.
Please continue. Sorry about that.
Different kind of heckling. Just the development under the current R 90 zone is just not economic from the start. By abutting Tower Oaks, the property can have regular access from the south, meaning Wooten Parkway, that can thereby avoid use of the Don Mills Court for regular access, instead leaving that only for emergency egress and ingress purposes that are already provided for in an existing easement with the city. As a creative compromise for the property, the planning commission proposes to restrict density based on the use of Don Mills Court. Instead, Tower Dawson suggests a more restrictive approach, modifying the planning commission's text with language to simply limit connection to the adjacent residential street to being used only for emergency egress or excuse me, emergency access, ingress and egress.
I will give a copy of the proposed replacement provisions to the clerk for you. But in this way, combined with regular access from the South, there may in fact be an economic way to provide the added housing without the community impacts, and at the same time, prevent any potential cut through traffic concerns. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to your work session. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Welcome, Julia Binder. I'm Julia Binder. I'm actually
asked to speak at the next hearing.
Okay, that sounds fine. Yes. Welcome, Jeanie O'Meara.
Hello. Good evening, everyone. You've seen me talk about deer mesh fencing before, so
I will keep it brief.
I think you know where I stand on it. But I'm here to support the city staff recommendation, if I'm interpreting it correctly, of their recommendation of letting folks, especially who live on corner lots, be able to have the eight foot mesh deer fencing put up. Additionally, I agree that the corner lot should be able to start this fencing behind the front facades of their home. I did notice in the recommendation, I think there was a reference to fence extenders, that they strongly recommended the traditional fence and an eight foot deer mesh fence be put in together, to minimize, them being intrusive or clumsy. So that this way, they would be side by side fencing rather than having these big gaps in between.
But I, not only myself agree with this, I also bought, which I can drop off, there's over 60 of our neighbors who support the eight foot deer fencing established as well. So thank you for your time.
Thank you. We also have Jason Pepin. Welcome. Good
evening.
My name is Jason Pepin with Investment Properties. We own property in the Rockville Town Center, including 1 Church Street and 11 North Washington Street. We have been engaged throughout this process and previously submitted a comment in the public record requesting consideration for this use. While it is not included in the planning commission's recommendation, we did not receive specific feedback on the rationale and would welcome further consideration from the mayor and council. To be clear, the two buildings I mentioned are viable office buildings today.
We are actively leasing space and signing new leases with new tenants, and we are not proposing any conversion or change in use at this time. My comment is strictly about zoning flexibility for the future. As office markets evolve, adaptive reuse is becoming an important tool to keep buildings occupied and contributing to the tax base. We are asking the city to consider allowing indoor self-service storage as a permitted use or a conditional use within the MX TD District limited to existing buildings and structured parking with no exterior changes. And I do have an example.
This is a multi story self-service facility, self storage, facility in McLean, Virginia. From the outside, it looks like a typical office building, and there are many similar examples, like this one. This is a photo of our building at 1 Church Street right across the street from the Rockville Metro, as it stands today. And this photo is the exact same photo and represents what it would look like if this type of use were ever implemented within the MXTD District. With the amount of new and planned residential development in and around the town center, this would provide a convenient option for nearby residents while remaining consistent with the character of the district.
This is not a building specific request. It's a zoning text consideration to provide flexibility if and when it's ever needed. Thank you for your consideration.
Thank you. That exhausts a list of those who signed up for this section. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Okay. I'll turn it back to staff if you can also just note, upcoming dates for public hearings as well as how long this will be open through.
Absolutely. Thank you. So the next public hearing for both the zoning ordinance rewrite and the comprehensive map amendment will occur on May 4. And then our public record remains open until adoption of both the zoning text amendment for the zoning ordinance rewrite and the comprehensive map amendment for the zoning map, which again is anticipated to be July 6. However, I would note that the earlier folks provide comments and testimony, the more able we are to be responsive to them.
Thank you very much. Okay. Seeing no additional hands for this section, would
you So I
just wanted to clarify, is this
hearing the comprehensive map amendment in
public hearing going be now?
Well, I'm getting to that. Okay. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you. You. Alright. So we'll now move on to agenda item 10b, which is public hearing number one on map amendment application, map twenty twenty six dash zero zero one two six for a comprehensive zoning map amendment for the entire city, mayor and council, City Of Rockville as applicants. Welcome back Holly Simmons and Jim Wasilek.
Thank you, madam mayor. So this is the second public hearing for our project this evening. And as noted earlier, we'll focus on the comprehensive map amendment. So I'll turn it back to you.
Thank you. I did want to note the mayor and council did have some discussion during our leadership planning team meeting, and we'll probably have a discussion later today about timing. The body is very interested in making sure the public has enough time to review this as we do as well, and we have a chance to listen to all the comments and feedback. I also wanted to note that based on the feedback this evening, staff is gonna come back with a revised draft with edits that incorporate the Planning Commission's recommendations plus what we weighed in on on those recommendations, and that will be issued on April 20. You can follow along on Engage Rockville. Okay. I will now call on those who have signed up. Bill Kamenos. Did you want to speak again in this section? Okay.
Julia Binder. Welcome.
Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Julia Binder. I live in Newmark Commons, and I was recently elected to the board of our HOA. I'm here to represent the board and read a letter sent to you on April 6 by our board president, James Nations. It reads, the board of directors of Newmark Commons is writing to oppose the rezoning to RMD 25 of the 10 acre parcel abutting Don Mills Court and homes on streets off Scandia Way.
This level of density would not be compatible with the adjacent communities of Newmark Commons and Markwood. We ask that you consider residential medium density infill as an alternative less dense zone. We also ask that you take steps to protect our neighborhoods from being used as a transit for vehicles coming from the South, seeking access to Falls Road, Maryland Avenue, and I 270. This traffic would come not only from the additional homes on a 10 acre plot, but also from the 20 acre plot connected to it from the South where plans reportedly call for building an estimated 375 homes. If vehicle access were granted through our communities, we would become an alternate route for traffic from Montrose Road, Tower Oaks Boulevard, and Wooten Parkway.
This would offer drivers an alternative North South commuter cut through between Montrose Road and Rockville, but at the cost of passing through our neighborhoods. This level of traffic would endanger our neighborhood school children and adult walkers and expose our residents to additional carbon emissions and noise pollution. The city of Rockville has a history of rejecting other suggestions of creating parallel routes to the pike by, for example, connecting and extending East Jefferson Street. These ideas were discarded for the same reason that vehicle access through Newmark Commons and Markwood should be rejected, concern for the safety of residential neighborhoods and schools and respect for the citizens of Rockville. We appreciate the need for more housing in Rockville, but we ask that new housing be planned and constructed in ways that honor the needs of adjacent communities like ours.
Members of the NMC board of directors would welcome the opportunity as suggested by mayor Ashton to meet with the developers in a mutual listening session to determine how we might work together to lessen the impact of development on our communities. Thank you for the city's engagement with Newmark Commons regarding the Rockville 2040 comprehensive plan. Chief of zoning, Jim Waselek, has been supportive in keeping the community informed starting with a briefing just six months ago to our board on 09/04/2025. Since learning of the plans, 700 of our neighbors have signed a petition opposing the RMD 25 designation, including two thirds of all Newmark common residents. The NMC board of director thanks you for the thoughtful and ongoing leadership you're demonstrating by listening to our residents, considering potential rezoning options, and acting to support a future that maintains the quality of life for all current and future homes in Rockville.
Thank you very much.
Thank you. Welcome Peter Krug.
Thank you mayor and council. My name is Peter Krug and I've been living in Rockville, specifically in Newmark Commons for four years. I'd like to address transparency if you will. We all know what's happened with Wooten High School and how the, closing of Wooten High School due to basically MCPS allowing it to fall into disrepair, created a situation, that enabled them to decide to close the school and by creating options on the fly and then not listening to the impacted parties, they basically were able to transfer students. Their plan now is to transfer students to another school and so this is about a transparency issue here because there was no input from the community in making these decisions.
And so as you know, mayor and council recommended changes and you were rejected. An organization challenging this closure is lawyering up to stay the decision. And so this is a despite unanimous outcry, there's no communications that were able to change MCPS's mind. On the flip side of the same coin, there's a parcel of land on Area 12 that is adjacent to the Newmark Commons and Markwood neighborhoods that's currently zoned r 90. From what we can tell, the owner has been trying to rezone the property from high density, to high density r M D 25 for quite a while.
Instead of presenting a building proposal to the community in support of a rezoning request, the changes have submitted as part of the zoning ordinance rewrite. Did the developer use this tactic to enable a zoning change without input from the impacted parties? This lack of transparency smacks of a predetermined decisions made intentionally to avoid studies of community impact. Residents recommended the changes but we're told is not standard to change the rewrite once it has been accepted as in the Rockville 2040 comprehensive plan. Newmark Commons has recently hired a new board of directors elected and the new neighborhood is now officially opposing rezoning to R M D 25.
While the parallels between the Wooten closure and the rezoning of the parcel are striking, there's one major difference. Mayor and council can instruct the rezoning commission to limit changes to compatible development. Please use your power to either maintain R 90 or limit density to R M D infill with no roads connecting to Newmark Commons. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Anna Astrid Molina.
Good evening, mayor and council. I lived in Markwood for thirty years and as a Venezuelan American, I deeply value the opportunity to speak to you in this democracy. I want to thank all for the extensive work on the 2040 plant. I am here to urge you to reject the R and D 25 rezoning for Parcels SOAR ID 17. Because Markku does not have an HOA, we were not notified and our voices are missing from the conversations deciding the fate of our doorsteps.
There is a sacred reason why this land is unsortable for high density development. This plot was part of the 1789 Montgomery County Core Farm And Almshouse. For a hundred and sixty years, it was the final resort and final resting place for the poor, the elderly, and those with mental illness. Hundreds estimated between 501,000 people lie lie here in unmarked graves, including John Dix Dorsey and Sidney Randolph, victims of the nineteenth century lynching. The last burial was in 1983.
In 1984, city study, in an 1884 city study concluded that public use for this property was not viable due to these unmarked graves and restricted access through what is now Wotton Parkway. While small archaeological digs in 1987 and construction in 2000 relocated about a 100 remains, the vast majority of these salts are still there. If the city was deterred from using this site for public projects because of this grave, how can we justify a seven story high rise in the same ground? This is not just open space. It is a sensitive historical site.
To allow an RMD 25 designation, which requires deep excavation for foundations and underground utility, is to risk disturbing the remains of our County's more vulnerable former residents. Also, want to mention noise pollution. Even if traffic is restricted through Wotton Parkway, noise by residents will directly impact Newmark Commons and Markwood. Currently, the high noise levels from two seventy and the nursing home traffic is cumbersome. On days where patients have outdoor activities, the noise levels make it impossible for me to work from home, forcing me to go to the library.
Adding two forty four high density units will shatter the piece of Marwick And Newmark Commons. Besides demand for a low impact approach that honors its history, the RMG 25 is the most intrusive designation possible. I ask you to honor the dignity of those buried there and the safety of those living here today. Please prioritize our shared history and our quality of life over high density development. Thank you so much.
Thank you. Welcome, Susan Knowles, followed by Alex Bellida.
Hi. I'm Susan Knowles, and I live in Newmark Commons. I wanna thank the mayor and council for continuing to listen to our community's concerns about the proposed new zoning for partial Zord ID 17 in Planning Area 12. Staff has informed me that these recommendations were made by a long range planning team. Who were these people, and did they come out and actually walk the property?
Our neighborhood was not involved because we're in Area 3, and this property that abuts ours is in Planning Area 12. The owners of the property have had ten years to work with you, and we've had about one. When I came before you on December 1, I asked you to please keep working on this document before the draft was submitted to the planning commission. It moved on with input to the staff to look at different zoning options for this parcel. When it was presented to the Planning Commission, the only choices they were given at first was to keep it as the draft stated, RMD 25, or revert back to the older designation, R 90.
During discussion, the Planning Commission was led to believe that historically, the zoning usually agreed with the newer recommendation. Luckily, the Planning Commission looked at compatibility with the neighboring properties and added some language that seemed to take our concerns into account. But what we have now puts our neighborhood in Markwood between a rock and a hard place. They decided to keep the R M D 25, but added that if development was allowed to exit onto Don Mills Court, the zoning would have to be less dense. But that would allow the 375 or so townhomes on the 20 acres south that will be developed to also use the exit, creating a north south route between the Wooten Parkway And 270 At Falls Road.
This is a draft. The mayor and council have the power to make changes to this document. There have been no traffic studies or environmental studies to see how this will affect Newmark, Markwood, and all the neighborhoods around the Falls Road interchange. Online, it says the city staff will update the staff draft ordinance and zoning map during this review process, and this document will be revised incorporating mayor and council direction. Please take this time to listen to the suggestions we have been offering.
You have the power to have the staff make the changes before the official adoption on July 6. All we are asking for is something that the city has always stated that's important, compatibility with the adjoining neighborhoods and no road into or through Newmark Commons and Markwood. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Welcome, mister Bellita, followed by Kristin Ram Ramoson.
Thank you very much, madam mayor, members of the council. Some of what you'll hear tonight from us as I'm a resident of Newmark Commons will be repetitive, but I was in the radio business for over forty years. We used to have a saying, tell them what you're gonna tell them, tell them again, and then tell them what you told them because you can't go back in radio and reread what they said. So forgive us if we sometimes cross remarks. One of the mysteries of the city's rezoning process is that no one could tell us who exactly decided this small plot of land next to Newmark would be rezoned R M D 25.
We were told by planning staff that it came from consultants. Who were these consultants, and did they ever visit the plot? And how did they justify putting high rise structures in an area of development that is not near transit hubs or businesses? How did they decide to integrate hundreds of new residents and all of their cars without regard as to how they would get out of this parcel, go to work, go to school, go to business. Is there a map somewhere that shows what new roads will be needed to accommodate these people?
Surely, someone must have thought about this before deciding R M D 25 was a great idea. But the comprehensive plan says, quoting, proposed additional road connections were not supported during Rockville's 2040 public engagement process. Then there's also this pesky 1991 agreement with the residents of Don Mills Court regarding access to the city maintained stormwater facility. The the agreement stipulates that access to that plot, quote, will not be used as a public right of way to facilitate development, and such decision is in the best interest of the city. Did anyone also consider how unpleasant it might be to live in buildings slapped right up against I two seventy?
I can attest to the noise levels that we hear in Newmark from trucks, whiny sport cars, and racing motorcycles. Now right now, there's a healthy tree canopy on that plot that offers a measure of protection, not just from the noise, but from pollution. Whoops. Those trees won't survive dense development. But I get it.
You want to increase housing opportunities in the city. It makes sense. It's good forward thinking policy in these changing times. But does it make good sense and good policy to let unnamed consultants pick just any old plot of undeveloped land, leaving you and us to deal with the consequences? And does it make good sense and good policy to run roughshod over an established neighborhood whose residents oppose this? I urge you to defer a decision on rezoning this plot. Leave it as it is currently zoned until you can make a truly informed decision and until the representatives of the developer actually reach out to us and start talking. Thank you.
Thank you. Welcome, miss Rumison, followed by Pat Reber.
Good evening, madam mayor and council members. My name is Kristen Rasmussen, and I lived in Newmark Commons for the last three years. Before moving to Rockville, I lived in Cambodia, Phnom Penh, a very crowded city where development occurred with no public input. So I do appreciate this opportunity to be here today. I wish to express my concerns, and I will repeat much of what's already been said as well as what I said back in December, but we thought that it was important to get as many of us in front of you as possible.
I have many concerns with the process that's been followed as part of the comprehensive map amendment application being considered tonight. The areas affected by the proposal to rezone the land parcel, those of us living in those areas have had insufficient time to engage with city leadership on the matter. Now that has improved over the last couple of months and we do appreciate your efforts. But I'm concerned as others are that this area and the implications of the development in it have not been carefully considered. In recent years, Rockville has been increasingly affected by flooding.
This is one reason why the city council developed its climate action plan 2022. As you know, the Rockville climate action plan makes specific references to protecting the city's tree canopy, reducing greenhouse greenhouse gas emissions, and taking steps to mitigate flooding. My neighbors and I are aware that the parcel is currently zoned for townhome and single family home development, which we are not opposed to. If developed and rezoned, it would mean that some trees would be cut. Zoning for high density, we fear that there would be clear cutting, which as we heard earlier would affect noise levels as well as air quality.
High density development and consequential tree loss would also put communities at risk of increased flooding, which is already a major concern due to the impact of climate change. I implore you as council members to uphold commitments laid out in the city's climate action plan. Doing otherwise would simply defy logic. High density development would also mean many more cars on what are now the safe streets of Newmar Commons. And I, as a mother of a young child who's going to go to middle school in just over a year, am very concerned about that.
When I drive through the area, I see many kids crossing Newmar Commons neighborhood to other communities, not just those that are living in NMC. And already, we have a traffic issue with people going faster, a limited number of signs posted, speed, sign signs posting the speed limit. More cars on the road would make the area less safe for the children and other residents of Newmar Commons in adjacent neighborhoods. My neighbors and I have outlined many reasons to remove rezoning of the parcel from consideration as part of the map amendment application. In the case of this parcel, high density development would have overwhelmingly negative consequences for surrounding residents in even the wider city.
Thank you very much to listening for our input and for taking our concerns into consideration.
Thank you. Welcome, Pat Reber.
Thank you, mayor and council for having us, testify tonight. I am also with the Newmark Commons Group, so I don't think I need to identify the plot in question. We appreciate that six of you took time with us over the past weeks weeks to meet with us, and I know that took time from busy days, and we appreciate that very much. The seventh has eluded us, but we're still trying. Today, I will address the January 13 testimony from representative Tower Dawson.
Mister Commoner was here this evening, and I've had a small chat with him. And, maybe we will start talking, and, I thought he had very enlightening testimony this evening. In January, however, I wrote my testimony, so you're gonna have to listen to it. In January, he acknowledged our concerns about safety, pollution, and noise from heavy traffic routed through our two communities. He said, quote, there can be routes of access to serve the property from other than the abutting Don Mills Court, end quote.
First, the word can is an indefinite commitment. We hope to get more solid assurance that all traffic from the plot next to us, along with that from the 20 acres to the south am I coming through in the mic? We hear you. Yeah.
Thank you.
Would exit onto Wooten Parkway. Second, the assurance offered in his testimony in January, not this evening, only addresses traffic on Don Mills Court. There are other possible routes onto our streets. We already hear the loud drone of two seventy but are somewhat protected by wooded property. You just heard that from my husband.
The prospect is dangerous and daunting of thousands more trucks, cars, service vehicles, ride shares, and deliveries transiting our neighborhoods from 30 acres of development. Third, last September, city staff briefed the Newmark Commons board about the proposed rezoning. One board member asked staff how the city would access the site if developed. The answer from this a Rockville staff member was, quote, the clearest way would be through Don Mills Court. Fourth, Tower Dawson's lawyer, mister Commoner, suggested that Newmark residents should have been bracing over the past half century for more traffic because the site had originally been intended for a school.
That plan was abandoned decades ago, and Rockville City itself said it should never be open to traffic. Fifth, the Tara Dawson lawyer noted that there was no opposition to r m d 25 in traffic before the 2021 adoption of Rockville's comprehensive plan. That's because thanks to a city ordinance from 2011, the city was not obligated to inform adjacent properties like us about a proposed rezoning if it was part of a developing a comprehensive plan. For these reasons, we are asking mayor and council for a solid commitment that vehicle traffic from any development on the 10 acre plot next to Newmark and the contiguous 20 acre plot south of it will only flow south onto Wooden Parkway. Can mayor and council help us with these concerns during this con process?
Thank you very much.
Thank you. That exhausts the list of those who have signed up in advance. I'm just double checking. Is there anyone else who did not speak who would like to speak? Please join and note your name and whether you live in the city of Rockville.
I I I signed up online, but maybe I did it My name is Tyler Abrams. I am a sixteen year resident of the city of Rockville. I live at 915 Grandin Avenue, near Lone Oak Park, East Rockville. My wife and I have been residents here at Rockville, like I said, for sixteen years. We've raised our two young children here, and we love Rockville.
I'm ready I'm I'm here specifically in reference to area one, the Vears Mill Road corridor of planning area eight, Twinbrook and Twinbrook Forest, which propose it's basically the logic is built around a proposed bus line that will run along Viers Mill, and I would argue that there are many existing bus lines along Viers Mill. As a 16 resident in the city of Rockville and more specifically the South Side Of Grandin Avenue, East Of 1st Street, I am adamantly opposed to the rezoning of my property and my entire street from residential detached to residential attached and the threat this has on my street, the sense of neighborhood, the community my family lives in. While I understand the general land use principles, guidelines, and policies that were used to generate this particular aspect of the commission's proposal, I fear that in practice, the proposed rezoning of Grandin Avenue will be a detriment. I, like many of my neighbors, moved to this neighborhood as a result of recognizing its great charm. It is a diverse, working class neighborhood where neighbors are friendly and respectful of one another, and we very much appreciate the quaint, quiet nature of where we live.
Each and every one of us who purchased a home here bought into the sense of neighborhood that it exudes. The relative density, relative home size, and relative lot size is very consistent from block to block in my neighborhood, making this feel like a cohesive place that we all call home. Homeowners take great pride in what is, in most cases, their largest investment, myself included. A great example of this is the large amount of home improvement that is consistently ongoing throughout our neighborhood. The introduction, however, of townhouses, duplexes, triplexes, and apartment buildings to our neighborhood and my actual street specifically would change the makeup of our neighborhood.
It inherently would mean increased density, which I know is the intent here, but also an influx of renters who, by their very nature, do not have a stake in the neighborhood or the communities they live in. This would also contribute to a transient feel in our street where occupants come and go on a regular basis, and there are far fewer people and families who tend to stay for longer periods of time and contribute to the community and neighborhood we live in. This also would inevitably impact our property values as the value of the homes on Grandin Avenue would become the value of the land rather than the value of the existing structure. As developers will want to move in to create denser building types and the homes we have worked so hard to upkeep and improve over the years will have no value anymore. It is also likely that parking would be a major issue as we already lack adequate street parking.
Thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Mister Komener?
Thank you, madam mayor. I think I was signed up for this one, but I apologize. I was out in the hallway chatting when, you began it. My name is Bill Commoners. I'm an attorney representing the Tower Dawson LLC, the owner of Tower Oaks on the property in the South.
And I just wanna mention a couple of things, that have come up in some of the discussion. First of all, I wanna make sure that everyone understands that Tower Dawson has not in the past nor does it today have any plan for development of the 9.75 acre adjacent to Tower Oaks. But when a plan is prepared, whether it's by Tower Dawson or someone else, it's gonna go through the city's very rigorous review process for any physical engineering issues and compatibility access questions. Any of that will be considered by the city staff as they do with every development application that comes in. I have great confidence in them about that.
Second, there's been some comment about the density that's potentially allowed on the property to the south of this property that's within Tower Oaks. So I heard somebody this evening talk about 375 units. I've heard 400 units. There's an agreement between Tower Dawson and Newmar Commons that limits that area to a 170 units as maximum. Finally, I mentioned in my testimony on the zoning ordinance, ordinance, the potential footnotes for the whatever zone you place on this property to try and address this access question.
And I just like to read into the record the two the two choices or the two items that have been that have come up. First is from the planning commission, which we have proposed to revise. It they've recommended in this in their report to you, quote, if any vehicular access to a property is provided from a secondary residential street that ended in a cul de sac on the effective date, then the maximum development density is limited at 10 dwelling units per acre. Now that still leaves the question of act of access of some kind for that. We want we the our client suggests more limiting than that, as I mentioned earlier, with a footnote that would say, only quote, only emergency ingress and egress to a property may be provided from a secondary residential street that ended in a cul de sac on the effective date, unquote.
So that that, I would hope, would address any question about regular vehicular access from any development of that parcel on our client's behalf. And that would be a footnote that could be used and be applicable irrespective of whatever zone you place on the property, R M D 25 or whatever it might be, to try to accommodate the concern about access to Don Mills Court, but preserving the opportunity for the emergency ingress and egress, which is already provided for today. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Doctor Mouse, go
clarifying question for her? Is that possible?
I think, mister I just assume. Okay.
I just I just had a you said there was no plans for y'all to develop the 10 acre property adjacent to Tower Oaks, or did you mean ten eight the 10 acre parcel next to Newmark?
The 10 acre part the 9.75 acre parcel north of Tower Oaks is the parcel that's adjacent. Got it.
That's all. That's all. Thank you. Thank
you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in this section? Okay. I want to acknowledge that we have received written comments. The mayor and council have that in our records, and we will continue to watch for those. Want to turn it back to Ms. Holly Simmons to see if you have any follow-up. Thank
you, madam mayor. That concludes materials for staff, but we're looking forward to being back before you for the work session later this evening.
Thank you. There has been some comments about all the different zoning districts. I wanted to note, in addition to what I said earlier about when your revised draft is going be published, there is a zoning district quick reference on Engage Rockville. I will note that I've heard from staff different height limitations. If we can have those height limitations included in this quick reference so that the listening public can track all the different RMD, RM25, 10, infill so that there's a sense.
Staff does a great job of saying what's allowed in terms of housing type, but not necessarily heights, and I think that might be another helpful piece of information to add. Certainly,
we can make that happen.
Thank you. And I wanna remind the listening public that we do have another public hearing coming up. Do you wanna send a reminder share a reminder on that?
Sure. So, again, the next public hearing that we have is on May 4. There will be public hearing both on the zoning ordinance rewrite and on the comprehensive map amendment similar to what has occurred this evening. And as madam mayor mentioned earlier, we are planning after this evening to revise the staff drafts of the zoning ordinance and the zoning map based on mayor and council's direction this evening, and that is intended to be published to engage Rockville on April 20, one week from today.
Thank you very much to everyone who participated in our public hearings. We're going to be moving on to our budget public hearing next, but want to note that there will be a work session on this very topic this evening under agenda item 12. So if you're interested, feel free to stick around. You can also watch us online. I'm now going to move on to our next agenda item, which is FY 'twenty seven Budget Public Hearing four. And I want to turn to Sarah. I know this has been properly noticed, as you mentioned. Is there anything else you want to say, Ms. Sarah Taylor Farrell?
Madam Mayor, it has been properly noticed on threethirteen and threetwenty three.
Thank you. And I want to welcome staff members Daniel Chambers, Stacy Webster, and Kim Francesco. Thank you.
Good evening, madam mayor and members of the council. This is our fourth and final public hearing scheduled for the FY 'twenty seven operating budget and capital improvements program, with the public record for the FY 'twenty seven proposed budget also closing tonight. Included in your packets this evening is a summary of all public testimony on the FY '27 budget thus far as well as an interim report of the survey results. At the time of drafting that report, we had four seventy responses, and a final report will be shared with the mayor and council following the close of the public record. This public hearing was advertised in The Washington Post, posted to the city of Rockville's website, social media accounts, channel eleven bulletin board, and Rockville reports.
And once again, the public record for the f y twenty seven proposed budget will be closing tonight, so this is the final chance to provide testimony on this budget. Thank you.
Thank you. Although I know officially we listen all the time, but this is the official closing of this public hearing. I want to thank you. I want to thank everyone who's filled out the budget survey. People have filled out the CIP project ideas and really contributed throughout the process through all the hearings we've had. So thank you. Okay. So I have a list of folks who have signed up in advance, and then I will call for those who would like to speak. I want to note that please address the mayor and council. If you have any written testimony that you haven't already emailed, please feel free to give it to Ms.
Sarah Taylor Farrell, our city clerk's office. We'll then log that information. I'd like to first welcome Julia Estella Sarmiento. As you speak, please note whether you live in the city of Rockville, and please restate your name.
Good evening. My name is Julia Sarmiento, and I am the Maryland Housing Program Manager at the Latino Economic Development Center. LEDC serves residents across the DMV by providing the skills and financial tools they need to buy, rent, and sustain their homes, maintain affordable rental housing, and start or expand small I'm here today to request your support for LEDC for $4,000 grant application to the city of Rockville, which will allow us to continue and expand tenant services for residents within the city of Rockville. As a Maryland housing program manager, I oversee a team dedicated to ensuring that Montgomery County tenants understand their rights and responsibilities within the city of Rockville. LEDC works directly with tenants facing evictions or other housing hardships, like the shutoff of their utilities or poor living conditions.
Our team connects residents to Montgomery County rental assistance programs as well as local resources and services offered by the city Of Rockville. LADC has provided housing services in Montgomery County since 2009 and tenant services since the beginning of COVID nineteen. Our staff is highly knowledgeable about both city and county rental laws as well as the social service programs available to tenants and families. Today, I am advocating for your support of LADC's grant proposal because this funding will allow us to focus more intentionally on Rockville residents who are facing financial challenges. With this support, we can continue connecting tenants to the resources that help them avoid eviction, prevent utility disconnections and stabilize their housing situations.
LEDC also provides referral to financial education, budgeting assistance and credit building programs both within the both within and beyond our organization, each of which is critical to long term housing stability. Last year, LADC helped Ms. Flores, a City Of Rockville resident, who had fallen behind on her rent and despite making payments, was unable to bring her account current. She had been hospitalized due to back injury, which affected her ability to work consistently. While Ms.
Flores owned a small business that was generating income, she was overspending and lacked a clear understanding of her business finances. LEDC referred Ms. Flores to a small business coach who helped her organize her finances, develop a profit and loss statement and implemented healthy financial behavior. Ultimately, Ms. Flores avoided eviction and stabilized her finances. Today, she has improved her control over her income and is seeing more money remain in her bank account at the end of each month. This is the type of holistic, culturally responsive support LEDC provides to City Of Rockville residents. With your support of this application, we can continue helping tenants like Ms. Flores remain housed, financially stable, on a path towards long term success. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you. Welcome, former Councilmember Beryl Feinberg, followed by Christina Recky.
Thank you very much. It seems like it's old. Oh, I thought former council member Bershaler was here a minute ago. It felt like old home week here. My name is Beryl L.
Feinberg and I reside at 10404 Strathmore Park Court, Rockville, Maryland. Thank you, Monique Ashton and council members for your service. Really appreciate and understand all the time and effort you put into making Rockville a great place to live, work and play. The city manager's FY twenty seven operating budget proposes a $25,000 community services and enrichment grant for the hospitality training program. Tonight, I want to underscore the benefits and critical need for this grant for the Sunflower Bakery.
Neurodivergent individuals face significantly higher unemployment and underemployment rates with estimates indicating that thirty percent to forty percent of neurodivergent adults are unemployed, a rate three times higher than for individuals with other disabilities and eight times higher than the general population. Adults on the autism spectrum face even steeper barriers with unemployment estimates ranging from 76 to over 80% according to the National Institutes of Health Research. Since 2009, Sunflower Bakery has improved the lives of over six seventy five teens and young adults with learning differences. Young adults with differing abilities participate in a twenty six week training program, acquiring skills to prepare them for future employment within the food service or hospitality industry. Incorporating both classroom and hands on training, students learn many of the same skills that typical young adults struggle with as they enter the workforce.
Promptness, learning to listening to supervisors, balanced with self advocacy, responsive customer service, time management, money management, and job searching skills. Program participates participate in the Sunflower Bakery space. You can read more about this on their website. Unlike other workforce development programs, Sunflower Bakery incorporates job services and employment supports post graduation from training. All of this requires timely receipt of financial resources for program participation in their varying programs.
Following rigorous accreditation processes, Sunflower Bakery proudly noted status as a community rehabilitation partner with the Maryland State Division of Rehabilitation Services or DORS for employment services and pre employment training for its STEP or Sunflower Teen Exposure Program and importantly, the job coaching services. In the last several months, DOORS funding has been delayed or underfunded, while Sunflower Bakery organizational cash flow requirements are in real time. Many of its generous supporters previously in the federal workforce or as contractors lost jobs and scaled back donations. Matching federal funds have been reduced. All of this is to say without Rockville's ongoing support, potential students may never experience this extraordinary workforce development program.
Firsthand, I have witnessed how with workforce training, not only are the graduates' life changed, but so too the entire family's life expectations. Thank you again for your support. Should you wish to witness how this grant and the other programs change lives, you may request a tour of the Sunflower Bakery headquartered right here in the city of Rockville near the Twin The Twinbrook neighborhood. Or you may register to attend the annual celebration on April 26 at the Montgomery College Cultural Arts Seventh at 7PM. Check out their website for more details.
And thank you mayor Ashton and council member Van Grack for serving on the celebration and graduation host committee. Really appreciate it and hope to see you there on the twenty sixth and any others of you. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Welcome, Cristina
Recchi, yes.
Recchi? Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Ashton and council members. My name is Cristina Recchi. I'm vice president of programs at the PTA at Meadowhall Elementary School, and I'm also an English teacher at Community Reach of Montgomery County, working with, parents at Meadowhall Elementary School.
I'm here tonight to ask you for your continued support for English classes for Meadowhall parents in the coming budget year. I've had the privilege of teaching parents who are deeply committed to their children's education and to their own growth. They are here with us tonight and so are their beautiful children. So is Ms. Cecilia Rojas, LOP Program Director at Community Reach of Montgomery County.
These parents come to class because they want to do more than simply get by in daily life. They want to understand what is happening at their children's school. They want to communicate with teachers with confidence. They want to help with homework, prepare for exams, read school messages, and take an active role in their children's academic progress. Parents gain the language skills they need to participate more fully in school life.
They become more comfortable asking questions, attending school meetings and events, speaking with staff, and supporting learning at home. That matters because strong parent involvement is closely connected to student success. I've seen parents who were once hesitant to begin to speak with greater assurance. I have seen them return to class consistently because they know these lessons are helping them at school, at home, and in the community. Their commitment shows that this program is needed and that it is working.
Funding English classes gives parents tools not only to help their children meet school responsibilities, but also to be included and thrive in the broader community. English proficiency helps parents navigate daily life with greater independence. It helps them speak up for themselves, access services, build relationships, pursue employment opportunities and contribute more fully to the life of our city. These classes are not simply language instruction, they are a bridge to confidence, connection and participation. When we invest in parents, we also invest in children.
When we help families build communication skills, we strengthen schools. And when we create opportunities for parents to engage and succeed, we strengthen the entire community. This is why continued funding to community reach of Montgomery County is so important. It allows us to keep building a school environment where families are not left on the margins but are equipped to participate, belong, and thrive. Thank you for your time, your leadership, and your consideration.
Thank you. Welcome, and thanks to all the children for coming out as well. Love to see civic engagement. Welcome Kate Berman. Kate Berman.
Madam Mayor, there was a Madison was supposed to be called on the list before Beryl Feinberg.
Okay. She's not on the list. Let's see. Okay. We can call Madison Kelowna's phones. Welcome.
Honorable mayor Ashton and city council members, good evening. My name is Madison Kalonin. I am proud to be a development associate at Sunflower Bakery. I'm here tonight to provide testimony in support of Sunflower Bakery's funding request to the city of Rockville as part of your fiscal year twenty twenty seven budget. I first wanna take a moment to thank mayor Ashton and the Rockville City Council for your continued support of Sunflower's mission and work.
We greatly appreciate that this council, amidst your very busy schedules, makes the time to stop by our storefronts and community events often. For those of you who are not familiar, Sunflower Bakery is a workforce development program for individuals with learning differences headquartered right here in Rockville on Alpine Road. We offer training in pastry arts, hospitality, and culinary arts that teach our students transferable yet industry aligned technical and interpersonal skills to support their transition into the workforce. As a nonprofit social enterprise, every item we sell provides critical training to our students. The employment gap for individuals with learning differences is a nationwide concern, but we're tackling it at a local level.
Individuals with learning differences are underrepresented in the workforce not due to lack of ability, but rather a lack of workforce development opportunities tailored to their needs. According to the US Census Bureau, five point three percent of Rockville residents under the 65 have a disability. In Montgomery County as a whole, fifty one percent of individuals with disabilities ages 18 to 64 are employed compared to eighty two percent of their peers without disabilities. Sigma, structural, and individual barriers are all hurdles for individuals with learning differences to pursue meaningful employment, and Sunflower Bakery fosters the skills, knowledge, and self assurance needed to overcome them. Sunflower Bakery has made intentional decisions to further our impact as a local service provider and business, and I ask that the city of Rockville considers a similar intentional investment in our programs.
This past year, Sunflower Bakery earned its three year CARF accreditation from the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities. This was the product of an intensive evaluation process and signifies to our students, families, supporters, and community partners that Sunflower's programs meet rigorous standards and its staff are committed to continuous improvement. We also have the honor of celebrating our first class of culinary arts graduates this past year. We recently expanded to offer training in culinary arts in response to student interest and feedback from our employer partners indicating a need for employees with these skills. Each each decision our staff makes is grounded in the question, what is best for our students?
And this expansion is a testament to that mantra. In that same vein, we have just launched our hospitality sunflower teen exposure program. Our teen program introduces teens with learning differences to career opportunities and introduces soft skills that will benefit them in the work workplace. This curriculum complements our existing pastry arts teen program but was created to support teens who are more interested in front of house and customer service roles. On April 26, we'll be celebrating our largest graduating class ever at our annual graduation event.
Nearly half of these graduates are from our hospitality workforce development program, for which Sunflower Bakery is seeking support from the city of Rockville. In the past two years, we have more than doubled our enrollment of our hospitality program, and we seek to keep this momentum going. Our community of over 70 local employer partners consistently mention the dependability, skill, and drive of Sunflower graduates. I invite you to our bakeshop or cafe to see our hardworking hospitality students in action. I appreciate the continued support of the city of Rockville and Sunflower Bakery's pursuit of a more inclusive community. Thank you for your consideration, and I have some treats
to share with you all made
by our students.
Thank you. Thank
you. While she's moving, just wanted to invite
Oh, I think you're going for one.
Welcome, miss Welcome, miss Jody Tick. Do you want us Okay. Alright. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Alright.
Do we have Steven Gormley? Steven Gormley? Okay. Kevin Kennedy. Welcome.
Yay. Thank you.
Madam mayor, members of the council, city staff, good evening. My name is Kevin Kennedy. I know you're all familiar with the Rockville villages, and I greatly appreciate the support that you've continued to show for them. When I moved to Rockville in 2022, I was pleased to find active villages here, including one in Rockville Town Center where I live. It's challenging these days to connect with neighbors in a new community, particularly for me since I was working full time and caring for my wife who is in the late stages of Alzheimer's disease and lives in a nearby memory care home.
The city had the foresight to hire a full time facilitator for to help the city neighborhoods start and grow active villages, and more recently, to add a part time assistant. With the numerous villages in Rockville in various stages of development, I've been impressed watching Trish Evans and her assistant help the city's villages move forward. It's been great to be part of Rockville Town Center Village. We have about a dozen people in our informal leadership group, a number of whom are here in the audience this evening. We've been very active with a monthly coffee club, regular lunch, munch gatherings, a museum outings, a trivia team competing weekly at the world of beer, and many other gatherings.
We've run two coat donation drives for Meadowhall Elementary School families, and I was was pleased to see some of those families here this evening. And also more recently, a drive for toil toiletries for the County Coalition for the Homeless. We've established a website and a monthly newsletter, which goes out to over 300 people. While we're volunteer driven, we would not be where we are today without the support of the city village staff. The city's team has also fostered cooperation across the different villages with events like this Saturday's villages go green and the villages year in review in January that some of you attended.
The city's village staff also helps keep us from reinventing the wheel. When my village decided to do a survey of residents' interests and needs, Trish pointed us to one West Rockville Connects had done. When Falls Grove Village wanted to do a survey, then she pointed them to me and to our survey. I applaud the growth and success of the other Rockville villages and root for the ones that are just getting off the ground. However, I believe current staffing cannot provide all the current and nascent villages in the city the degree of support that has allowed Town Center Village to thrive.
It's just not sustainable. Additional staffing, I think, is critical to build on Rockville's success in growing its village movement. At previous hearings, you heard recommendations to increase village program staffing from Elaine Kuback, chair of the Commission on Aging, and Diane Fuchs, an officer with West Rockville Connects Village. I echo those recommendations. Shifting the assistant position from part time to full time in the fiscal year twenty seven budget would enhance the support the city provides to its villages and help make Rockville even more livable. An additional halftime assistant position on top of that would further strengthen individual villages and connections between them. I hope you'll consider those changes to the budget. Thank you.
Thank you. Welcome, Kevin Kennedy followed by Nancy Picard. Nancy Picard. Thank you.
I thought I was last, but I'll go first of our group tonight. Thank you. Good evening, madam mayor and members of council. I'm Nancy Picard, executive director for Peerless Rockville. For more than fifty years, Peerless has served as the city's partner gathering I'm sorry, and sharing Rockville's history.
Tonight, I really would like to thank you, the members of the council here tonight that have recognized this and that have taken the opportunity to speak out for us and to, propose increasing the budget for us. But I'm here tonight to actually ask you to go just a little bit further and to maintain the grant at the $95,000 level that we've had this year. Even level funding represents a reduction for us. Inflation, combined with the city's shift to reimbursement based funding, means we now have to borrow money just to cover basic operating expenses like salaries for a large portion of the year. This added cost directly reduces what we can deliver to the public.
In many communities, our work is done by government agencies or municipal departments. In Rockville, it's done by a nonprofit at a fraction of the cost. Peerless Rockville fulfills a role that no city department currently covers. A significant cut to our operational funding does not just affect our organization. It directly diminishes the city's ability to collect and interpret its own heritage and to provide heritage tourism opportunities to all.
Rockville in the county is known to embrace its history, but its approach is exceptionally lean because it leverages Peerless Rockville's expertise rather than maintaining a full city department. However, this model has a breaking point and requires a minimum level of investment. To sustain our modern professionally staffed archive, we require funding sources that reflect today's economic realities. Consider our neighbors. Gaithersburg allocates more than triple our current funding, over $300,000 to support its history and culture programs.
For Rockville to further cut to 75,000 would not just be a budget adjustment. It would be a retreat from a benchmark level of civic engagement that our neighboring jurisdictions already are meeting. We understand that the city of Bowie operates its history programs with a budget of $830,000. Of that, over 400,000 is dedicated specifically to personnel and professional services, many of the same specialized functions that peer peerless currently provides. Many other jurisdictions directly fund museums and cultural centers.
These cities have determined that heritage education is a fundamental civic priority. In contrast, the proposed $75,000 grant represents less than point 04% of the total city budget. This is not a sustainable pass and, unfortunately, will force us to retreat from our archives, pull, cut put cuts to our staff, or cuts to upcoming educational programs and initiatives. I ask that you maintain our current funding level or increase it, recognizing it as a high value investment that allows the Rockville Peerless Partnership to continue. At ninety thousand, we will do everything we can to make it work, But any amount below that level will likely result in measurable dis decreases in services.
We are deeply committed to this work and to the city of Rockville. We need your continued support. Thank you so much for your time and consideration.
Thank you. Welcome Deborah Liverpool followed by Marion Buno.
Good evening, mayor and council. My name is Deborah Liverpool. I'm the chair of the board of directors for Peerless Rockville. I'm here to speak in strong support of maintaining, if not increasing, funding for Peerless Rockville. Peerless Rockville is not simply a historic organization.
It is a steward of our city's identity, our shared memory, our truth. The red brick courthouse in which Peerless sits stands on the grounds where enslaved African Americans were once bought and sold. That's not a distant history. That's Rockville's history. Today, Peerless Rockville ensures this story and many others are told with honesty, dignity, and context.
At a time when communities across the country are grappling with how to tell inclusive and accurate histories, Rockville already has a trusted partner doing that work. Cutting funding could now undermine that process and send the wrong message about our city's commitment to equity and truth. This is not just about history. It's about a smart investment. Peerless Rockville delivers exceptional values to the city with a regularly with a relatively modest budget.
And involves educational programming for students, cultural events for residents, heritage tourism that brings visitors into Rockville, supporting local businesses contributing to our local economy. If we were to replicate these services across multiple departments, it would significantly cost more. Peerless leverages city funding to attract other grants, donations, volunteer engagements. In other words, your investment multiplies, reducing the investment risk not only programming but additional outside resources that benefit the community. Finally, I would ask you to consider the long term aspect.
Cities that invest in their history that are fully and honestly building stronger communities. They foster civic pride, attract vendors, visitors, and create spaces that residents can learn and reflect. Peerless Rockville does all of that. This is not a place to cut. It's a place to stand firm. Respectfully, I urge you to maintain or initially increase funding for Peerless Rockville as a vital partner in preserving history, strengthening our community, and supporting our local economy.
Thank you. Welcome, Miriam Buno.
Greetings, mayor and council.
My name
is doctor Miriam Buno and I'm the education and outreach manager for Peerless Rockville. I'm a part time employee who is responsible for the majority of our events. Most of you know or have been to our events, but I wanna tell you a couple stories that are probably less visible. A number of years ago, a boy from Julius West Middle School came to the Peerless offices to do research on The US colored troops from Rockville in
the civil
war. Peerless continued to support him when he was a student at Richard Montgomery and wrote an essay on the topic. He came back to us as a student at Howard University to give a presentation where he shares the floor with a US park ranger, and he comes back to Peerless again in recent years to work on the US Civil War trail sign that he coauthored on North Washington Street. Peerless was there to support him at every step of his education and provided essential archival materials as well as a platform to help him tell the story of contributions made by underrepresented people living in Rockville. By speaking for us and participating in the creation of the US Civil War Trail sign, he gave back to our community, ultimately adding to the city's interpretive landscape.
Peerless is proud to have helped him on his journey of learning and sharing. Here's another story, of Peerless working with an individual to preserve Rockville's history. In this case, it's peerless providing assistance and serving as a repository for unique archival materials. I had a meeting last week with a woman who has been recreationally photographing and documenting changes on Rockville Pike for the past twenty years. She wants to preserve these images which are irreplaceable and came to Peerless for help.
We're now working with her not only to store her photos but help her prepare for a presentation on them, how how Rockville Pike has changed over time and what it means and finding other ways for her photos to be shared with the public through our platforms. These are not the first and they will not be the last people who have walked into Peerless to get knowledge or shared theirs and become active participants in documenting and sharing Rockville's history. The community grant is our operational funding for our archival and educational content. We deeply appreciate the support of a city that values historical accuracy and inclusive heritages and takes a stand funding content that demonstrates these values. I want you to know that the current wider atmosphere towards accurate history has created a challenging funding reality in the history nonprofit world and that the city of Rockville has the opportunity to protect and preserve Rockville's diverse heritage by keeping our community grant stable.
Please continue your support by funding Peerless at the current level adjusted for inflation and newly imposed financing expenses. A reduction will seriously impact the quality and availability of our services and it will be another blow against true and inclusive history at a most vulnerable time. Thank you.
Thank you. Welcome Paul Newman. Thank you. And miss Sarah Taylor Farrell, I just want to encourage those who are supposed to be speaking virtually, if we could just send them an email and check to see what they're joining.
We are. And mister Newman called to let us know. He's feeling under the weather, so he will not be speaking tonight.
Good evening, madam mayor and members of the council. I'm Noreen Bryan. I live in Rockville, and I'm here to deliver Paul Newman's testimony. So it's not really me. It's him that's here. Good evening to all of and this is the testimony. Good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Paul Newman, Peerless Rockville board member and city resident for over forty years. I'm here to urge you to fully fund Peerless Rockville at the level they were historically received because their work uniquely benefits the municipality in ways no other organization does. My message tonight rests on two themes, partnership and leverage.
First, partnership. In many ways, Peerless Rockville provides services as an extension of city government, providing research, archival work, educational programs, historic documentation that the city does not have the staff, infrastructure, or time to produce on its own. When residents, historians, or other organizations ask questions about the city's history, Peerless Rockville is often the one who responds to these calls. They help to preserve the city community artifacts and memories that shape our culture and document our diversity of experience. This is a true partnership, one that fills a gap in government capacity with professionalism, expertise, and responsiveness.
Cutting their funding doesn't just affect a nonprofit. It weakens a partner that the city relies upon. My second point is leverage. Peerless Rockville returns value to the community many times the dollar amount of its grant. Actively research and document city history.
They provide informal public relations simply by telling the story of this community accurately, thoughtfully, and compellingly. Peerless further leverages the city's investment by generating additional income from its rental properties and grants. If the city had to replicate these services internally, it would cost far more, many times more than the requested grant. Staff time alone would exceed the amount. Acquiring special expertise would exceed that amount.
The infrastructure needed to maintain archives and respond to research requests would cost still more. This is the definition of leverage, a small investment that produces an outsized return. In closing, is asking for the for the level of support they have received in recent years. A reduction to as low as 50,000 would undermine a partnership that benefits the city every day and would diminish the leverage that returns a modest investment into a powerful community asset. Fully funding Peerless Rockville is fiscally responsible, strategically smart, and essential to preserving the history, identity, and civic pride of the community.
Thank you for your time. As a fellow board member of Peerless, I appreciate and fully support Mr. Newman's testimony. Thank you.
Thank you. Welcome Anita Neal Powell.
Good evening, mayor and council. My name is Anita Neil Powell, president of Lincoln Park Historical Foundation and a lifelong resident of Montgomery County in Rockville. On behalf of the foundation, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments during the FY twenty twenty seven budget cycle. As I listen to nonprofit funding requests, several issues stand out. If the city provides funding to nonprofit organization, there should be clear requirements for annual reporting that documents how funds were spent and whether they were used as approved.
For organizations whose mission served the entire city, reports should demonstrate citywide impact across the full 13.11 square miles, not activities concentrated in limited areas or pockets within the city, particularly for those receiving recurring funding through the community grant process. I am also aware that funding was awarded to certain organizations in support of the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary. As of April, I am uncertain whether any information has been shared with the mayor and council or the public regarding timelines for programs, projects, or events. When proposals are funded, expectations for start dates, milestones and deliverables should be clearly defined as ensure transparency and accountability. Finally, regarding nonprofit expenditures, while our foundation did not apply for funding this year, it is important to understand how public funds are used for salaries, rent, or other operating expenses.
Our support payments to volunteers for research or project based work. However, I do not support the use of taxpayers' dollars to fund ongoing staff salaries, such as executive leadership position, executive director, et al. If public funds are allocated for salary, those expenses should be clearly identified as separate line items in the budget. I share this perspective in the interest of transparency and fiscal responsibility. Thank you again, mayor and council, for the opportunity to comment on the FY 2027 budget. I hope these observations will be used as you deliberate on nonprofit funding decisions.
Thank you. Welcome, Charles Reagan.
Good evening, mayor Ashton and members of the Rockville City Council. I'm Charlie Reagan. I am the executive director of the Treehouse Child Advocacy Center of Montgomery County. I wanted to take this opportunity to thank, to speak, tonight and especially to thank you for your continued support of the Rockville Community Service and Enrichment Grant program overall. These grants have a direct and meaningful impact on the well-being of children and families in our community.
As April is child abuse prevention month, it seems appropriate that I'm here on behalf of the treehouse child advocacy center, where your funding helps provide critical services to children who are victims of abuse and neglect. At the Treehouse, we often say we are the best, resource we hope no no one ever has to use. But the reality is too many children in our community do need us. And when they do, they deserve to have access to compassion compassionate, high quality care without delay. Because of your investment, children in Rockville receive specialized medical exams in a safe, child friendly environment as well as trauma focused therapy that helps them start to heal.
These services are provided through a coordinated multidisciplinary team approach that reduces further trauma and ensures that children and their families don't have to navigate this difficult experience alone. This work is immediate, local, and life changing. It helps turn moments of crisis into pathways toward healing. Without this funding, many of these children would face delays in care or, unfortunately, may not receive services at all. With your support, they are given the opportunity to feel safe again, to process their trauma, and to move forward with hope and resilience.
As you consider the budget for the upcoming year, I respectfully urge you to continue and, if possible, strengthen your investment in the community service and enrichment grant program overall. The return on that investment is profound, healthier children, stronger families, and a safer Rockville for all of us. I'd also like to extend an invitation to each of you. This Friday, April 17 from one to four, we will be hosting an open house at the Treehouse Child Advocacy Center. We would be honored to welcome you and anyone from the community to show you our space and introduce you to the dedicated team and community partners who make this work possible every day.
So thank you again for your leadership and for your for and for your commitment to the children and families of Rockville. Thank
Thank you. You. Is Cassidy in the room? Miss Cassidy? Okay. Gonna go on to virtual. We have Craig Rice virtually. Miss Craig
Good evening. Welcome.
Can you
hear me okay?
We can.
Alright. Fantastic. Well, thank you very much. On behalf of Mana Food Center, I wanna thank you all for your leadership and for your continued commitment to supporting Rockville residents, especially during times of growing uncertainty. Your partnership has helped to ensure that families in Rockville have access to the food
and resources they need to thrive. And for that, we're incredibly grateful. Since our founding in 1983, MENNA has grown from a small volunteer driven effort into the primary food assistance provider serving Montgomery County, including many of our neighbors right here in Rockville. What began in a vacant school serving a few 100 residents has grown into a network that now reaches more than a 176,000 people each year. We distribute over 3,000,000 pounds of food annually and partner with local farms, schools, faith communities, grocery providers, and other nonprofit organizations, many of which serve Rockville families as well.
And we're proud to be a part of a broader ecosystem that reflects the compassion and commitment of this community. We are incredibly grateful for Rockville's support through its community grant program and partnership in connecting residents to food assistance, And we encourage the city to build on this foundation with increased sustained investment to meet the rising need. Because the reality is the need is rising quickly, and we're seeing that impact right here in your city. Right now, Manna is serving more than 11,000 families each month across the county, and in that includes a growing number in Rockville. In this past year, we've experienced a 20% increase in families seeking assistance, and we know that number reflects not just need, but capacity.
Many more families are struggling quietly, really making difficult choices every day between food, rent, transportation, and health care. Food insecurity is not happening in isolation. It is deeply connected to rising housing costs, health care access, and economic instability. Families are now having to navigate multiple overlapping challenges and turning to organizations like MANA as a critical first line of support. But at the same time, the nonprofit network that serves these families is under significant strain.
Organizations across this region are being asked to do more than ever before with fewer resources. Demand is not only increasing, but it's becoming more complex and more time intensive. And families need more support, more follow-up, and more coordination across services. Meanwhile, operating costs continue to rise. Food, fuel, rent, utilities, insurance, all increasing at a pace that current funding simply does not match.
And more importantly, our people are under strain. Our nonprofit staff, including those serving on the front lines, are experiencing declining wages, rising burnout, and increased financial insecurity. Many are working multiple jobs just to make ends meet, and some are relying on the very services they provide to help them. This model is not sustainable. And without action, we risk losing experienced staff, reducing service capacity, and weakening the very network that so many, residents rely on.
That's why we respectfully ask for you to consider two key priorities this year. First, continue and where possible, increase investments in community based food assistance and human services. These are investments that are efficient, targeted, and deeply impactful. They allow organizations like MANNA and our partners to meet residents where they are and deliver food with dignity, flexibility, and cultural relevance. And second, we urge you to support funding levels that account for the true cost of delivering these services, including cost of living adjustments for our nonprofit partners.
This is not about expansion. It's about stability and ensuring that organizations can retain staff, maintain operations, and continue serving residents without disruption. Rockville has long been a city that leads with compassion, innovation, and a deep sense of community responsibility, and this is a time in which we want we're asking you to build on that legacy. With thoughtful and strategic investment now, you can help ensure that families in Rockville remain food secure, that nonprofits remain strong and resilient, and that the progress we have made together is not only protected, but strengthened into the future. Thank you for your time, your leadership, and your partnership.
Thank you. Oh, I I don't think we have Noel v Escobar, but if you see a login, please let me know. Next, we will welcome Ulysses Santa Maria.
Good evening, mayor council. Good to see you again. So I currently serve as president of Rockville Science Center. So, for tonight, I'm addressing our line item in the proposed budget. For the most part, I just urge to, you know, consider maintaining the amount that was budgeted for us in the prior fiscal year as compared to this one.
No need to give out the exact numbers, but asking for maintenance. For us, we we serve as a interesting and overall relatively unique aspect of the city. There are not that many places that can claim that they have a science center or a affiliated science and technology museum, which sometimes we're classified with. But we're also an activity center, so people come and they do primarily activities with us. And as such, it provides a a different aspect to the city.
It shows that we care about education. It shows that we care about, making sure that our, community has enrichment as well as a nourishing aspect to the things that we, value here. Oftentimes, we're shown as a beacon for highly educated professionals, primarily in biotechnology, research, and, other sectors that are related to that as well. So in terms of our annual community impact, we see anywhere between, at minimum, you know, 5,000 just through our annual event alone, Rockville Science Day, which we've now been hosting and will host for thirty five years, making it a staple of of the community. But in addition to that, we can get up to 9,000, 10,000 people in our community and beyond.
Our own internal data shows that we're a destination location. We attract people from all throughout the region to come to Rockville. Our internal data shows alone that, about 60% of our population actually come from, Gaithersburg in Germantown. So people are driving to us and we've had patrons come to us as far as Baltimore, Northern Virginia, Washington DC proper, York, Pennsylvania because they saw a program that we were offering, a training that we were offering that they couldn't find anywhere in their region. In terms of other goals such as economic development and and outputs, we have a high college rate, so many of our students go on to college.
We currently use a slogan 99 to 90. So 99% of the high schoolers that enroll in our programs end up going to college and about 90% of them when we reviewed the data finish as STEM majors. So they go on and become working professionals in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, medicine, these sorts of things. As far as other new developments for us, we, also can can have the possibility of lowering a person's cost of living here through our recent expansions in the, makerspace department for us. A makerspace is a tool shop.
You can think of it as a, a third space where people who like to build things or create things or fix things can come, but we also, serve as, but we also serve as not just that, give me one sec. But we also serve as a place where people learn to repurpose, reuse, and repair. So we've offered workshops such as understanding how light fixtures work, how to fix your walls, and we get access to tools that can help you accomplish these things for little to no cost, saving people potentially hundreds, if not thousands of dollars over the course of the year if they choose to take advantage of it and as long as we do our effort to make sure that they know about it. So that's all the various ways that we have come to serve our local community. And, you know, the funds that we receive go to that and any possible expansions we try, as time progresses.
So we're always looking to try new things. You know, that's what we do. We're scientists. We're technologists. We iterate. We try new things. And whatever works, works. And if it doesn't work, sometimes we try again, but then we'll move on. That's just a scientific method.
Thank you.
Thank you very much. That exhausts the list of those who have signed up for the budget hearing. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Welcome.
Good evening, Madam Mayor and members of the Rockville City Council. My name is Robin Yasino. I'm a Rockville resident, and I'm here on behalf of NAMI Montgomery County. That's the local affiliate of the National Alliance on Mental Illness. I'm a volunteer and one of the many residents who have personally benefited from their work.
And I want to express gratitude on behalf of all of us from NAMI Montgomery County for the Community Services and Enrichment Grant allocated to NAMI in the proposed 2027 budget. The city's support ensures that NAMI's peer led support groups, classes, and resources remain free of charge for residents who are affected by mental health issues. That includes those who are living with a mental health issue, as well as the family members who walk beside them. I happen to fall into both of those categories. Years ago, despite being in treatment myself for quite a long time, I felt lost when a loved one was diagnosed with a serious mental illness.
It felt as though we had been dropped onto some kind of foreign highway. NAMI's family to family class helped me find my bearings. I learned about treatment options and how to provide effective support and so much more. But the best part was being with others who were on a similar journey. Together, we learned how to navigate that new territory together with our class leaders who had been there, who already knew that territory.
That's the secret sauce about NAMI. More than a decade later, NAMI was again invaluable when I faced a mental health crisis of my own. Mental illness affects one in five people, and yet it is incredibly isolating. Through NAMI's peer to peer class and support groups, I connected with people who really understood with what I was going through. And being part of a community, that has been a cornerstone of my ongoing recovery and a very powerful antidote that surrounds the stigma with mental illness.
Today, the need for these services, which are free of charge to people who attend them, it is greater than ever. In response to rising demand, NAMI Montgomery County has increased its support groups 25% this year alone. Between January and March, NAMI held 74 support group meetings, and more than half of them were filled beyond capacity. Those were people who went onto waiting lists. The City Of Rockville's continued support is essential to meeting the growing need and ensuring that nobody in our community has to face these challenges alone. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Okay. We'll turn it back to staff.
Thank you very much. That concludes the final public hearing for the FY 'twenty seven budget. And the public record will close tonight for that budget.
Thank you very much. I will note that on April 20, we will have a budget work session. We'll talk about CIP, bulk balancing, and I think some final discussion on community grants. Is that right? Okay.
And then we currently have adoption by May 4. Thank you to the finance team. Keep us on our toes. And thank you to everyone who came out to testify to share your feedback and the work that you're doing in the community. We now have Agenda Item 11A, which is the adoption of an ordinance declaring a 5,867 square foot property located at 301 Frederick Avenue to be no longer necessary for public use in authorizing the conveyance of said property to the 1715 Douglas Avenue property owner for nominal consideration. I'd like to welcome Mr. Andrew Lukemeyer.
Good evening, madam mayor, members of the city council. I'm here tonight for the adoption of an ordinance that would convey a portion of a city owned parcel at 301 Frederick Avenue to the property owner of the adjacent property at 715 Douglas Avenue. This action follows the introduction of the ordinance by the mayor and council on 03/02/2026. The agenda for this presentation includes a brief review explaining the background and purpose with information on the subject city parcel with an aerial map and plat for a visual depiction of the property, a review of the property conveyance procedure, description of the public notice provided since the introduction of the ordinance and the next steps, and lastly, a suggested motion. In 1964, the city acquired a 7,340 square foot parcel with address 301 Frederick Avenue from the property owner of 715 Douglas Avenue for a nominal amount.
This parcel is located at the corner of Douglas And Frederick Avenues in the Lincoln Park neighborhood. This parcel of land is partially improved with a sidewalk and a ride on bus stop. Aside from these existing public amenities and the reservation of an area for a future expansion of the bus stop to include space for a shelter, city staff has determined that there are no other public needs for the unused portion of
parcel. The current owner of 715 Douglas Avenue, who is family to the property owners who conveyed the land to the city back in 1964, has requested the city's consideration to convey the unused portion back to her family's property. It is staff's opinion that the unimproved portion of the parcel can be deemed no longer needed for public use and can be conveyed to the property owner of 715 Douglas Avenue for a nominal amount, mirroring how the property was acquired by the city back in 1964. The city hired a professional land surveyor to conduct a field survey and prepare meets and bounds and plats for the division of the parcel. The property to be conveyed to the property owner is the southern portion of the property measuring 5,867 square feet and containing no public improvements.
The property to be retained by the city is the northern portion adjacent to Frederick Avenue measuring 1,473 square feet and containing the existing sidewalk and the ride on bus stop with enough space for a future concrete pad for a bus shelter. The city charter gives the mayor and council the power to convey any real or lease held property when no longer needed for public use after having given at least twenty days as public notice of the proposed conveyance. Since the introduction of the ordinance on 03/02/2026, city staff has taken the following steps to provide the required twenty days of public notice of the proposed conveyance. A public notice was published in the Washington Post on 03/09/2026. An announcement of the mayor and council's consideration of the property conveyance was posted to the city's website on 03/05/2026.
A letter was sent to 305 Frederick Avenue, the only other directly adjacent private property to 301 Frederick Avenue on March. Following the previous introduction of the ordinance, the next step is to adopt the ordinance at tonight's meeting. After the adoption, the city manager will convey the conveyance area to the owner of 715 Douglas Avenue for nominal consideration by executing a deed of conveyance in a form approved by the office of the city attorney. The suggested motion for tonight to adopt the ordinance is on your screen. That concludes my planned remarks for this evening, and thank you for your attention.
Thank you. One second. Have one question, and then I will turn over to Councilmember Vallari. The nominal amount that the applicant is paying, can you just clarify what that is?
The nominal amount is $1 Perfect.
Okay. Thank you. Councilman Vallari.
Madam Mayor, I'd like to make the motion. I move to adopt an ordinance declaring 5,867 square feet of property located at 301 Frederick Avenue to be no longer necessary for public use and authorizing the conveyance of said property to the 715 Douglas Avenue property owner for nominal consideration.
Mike, please.
Thank you. I wanted to say thank you to the property owner. As I mentioned earlier, when we met about this and introduced it, the property owner helped the city to have space to develop the road and sidewalk and which is important for public safety. So just thank you, and I'm glad that we were able to bring resolution. Okay. Thank you, mister Lukemeyer. I'm going to propose that we take a quick break. What do we need? Five, ten minutes? I'm hearing ten.
Okay. We'll be back in ten minutes. Thank you everyone for being here today. Good evening, Rockville. Today is 04/13/2026.
We are reconvening Meeting nine-twenty six. We're moving on to agenda item 12A, which is Work Session one, discussion and direction on Planning Commission recommendations on zoning text amendment TXT twenty twenty six-two 71, the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite and Map Amendment, MAP twenty twenty six-one 126, the Comprehensive Zoning Map Amendment, Mayor and Council of Rockville Applicants. Welcome back Holly Simmons as well as Jim Wasilek. I know you're also joined by Nick Naim and Evan Johnson. Thank you.
Good evening again, madam mayor, members of the city council. So we do have quite a bit of information for you all this evening and direction being sought. Just to start out with an overview of what we are doing here during this, work session, as mentioned earlier in the evening, our planning commission did provide recommendations on quite a number of items back on February 25 when they finished their review of the staff draft of the zoning ordinance and zoning map. And so we're here before you this evening to seek your direction on the most substantive of those recommendations. So we'll start out with the staff draft of the zoning ordinance and proceed on to the staff draft of the zoning map.
I will mention that there are three more work sessions after this one where we will be going over individually each one of the articles and specifically focusing on the key changes from the current zoning ordinance to the staff draft of the zoning ordinance. So there will be plenty of opportunity to discuss other items outside of what we talk about here this evening, and we really are focused just on the Planning Commission's recommendations. So as mentioned earlier this evening, we will be taking these the direction that you provide to us this evening and incorporating that into the revised staff draft that we plan to publish one week from today. And once we get through the discussion and direction on Planning Commission recommendations, we will have some information on next steps so we can all understand where we're headed from here. So first up are the Planning Commission recommendations on the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance.
As we go through these, we're going to take each one of the substantive recommendations in kind. We'll seek mayor and council guidance. Typically, that is going to look like seeing what the Planning Commission's recommendation is and then asking for your concurrence or other opinions. We are, as I said, focused on substantive changes. The planning commission recommendations can be found starting at brief book pages eight forty one for the zoning ordinance rewrite portion and eight sixty for the comprehensive map amendment if for those folks who would like to follow along.
And we are going to proceed through these in order of article. So we'll start with article one. If there's an article where we don't have a a recommendation that we need to go over, we simply won't be addressing those articles. So first up, in Article one, we have some information on transitional provisions. So we do include transitional provisions within the zoning ordinance that basically provide a framework for how we move from the current zoning ordinance to the proposed zoning ordinance or what will become our current zoning ordinance upon adoption.
This is specifically proposed to ensure orderly and fair transitions from our current to our new zoning ordinance, and there is a limited option for pending applications to proceed under the current zoning ordinance even after the new zoning ordinance is adopted. Within the staff draft, there are certain eligibility criteria. Specifically, they need to have completed a site plan app they need to have submitted a complete site plan application within one year prior to the adoption date. The applicant needs to provide written request to the chief of zoning within two months of adoption, asking to proceed under the current zoning ordinance, and they need to receive approval within one year following adoption date of the ordinance. We understood that there was some desire from this body for flexibility in terms of those transitional provisions, so we reconsidered this and made a recommendation to the Planning Commission, which they ultimately adopted as their own to widen the eligibility criteria to include not only site plans but also project plans, Planning to extend the submission window to eighteen months prior to adoption from that one year twelve month timeline, and also to extend the approval deadline to two years following adoption.
So the question here becomes, does the mayor and council con concur with the Planning Commission recommendation?
Thank you. So we're going to pause between each section so you can get our feedback. And also just to give some groundwork, this is not the final decision. We're giving tentative straw polls. I was gonna say council member. Yeah. City manager Mahalik. Go ahead.
That's correct, Mary. If folks are a little reluctant tonight, the the thumbs up or thumbs on are soft. Right? Final vote is in until you guys actually adopt the ordinance.
Okay. And I'm gonna use the method of going down the line if there are questions. Okay? And then if not, if there are no questions, then we'll do the thumbs up. Okay? So, doctor Miles, you get the first right of refusal on questions if you have any.
I don't have any.
Okay. I'm just gonna look down the line and see if anyone so I don't have to go to each person. If you have a question, go ahead.
So I like what you the commission's recommendation here, but the question I have is within either of the the recommendations, it says that there's the written requests in which I presume would apply in either scenario. To what degree is this a discretional or subjective with regard to allowance? Because we're essentially saying you can do this, But is this something that we're saying, you can do it, but we might hold back approval for one way or another?
I would say it's entirely the applicant's option whether they choose to proceed under the old ordinance or think, no. The new ordinance is more favorable, and I'd like to proceed under that.
So I was going the actually the opposite direction, not necessarily from the applicant's perspective, from the city's perspective. So let's it because it says that there's a written request within too much of adoption. Does that mean that written request is automatically granted, or is there a discretionary or subjective standard on behalf of the city in deciding to allow them to go with this direction?
I don't foresee that it would be. If if an applicant said we would like to proceed under the current zoning ordinance, I don't foresee an instance in which we would say no. However, I perhaps should also defer to our chief of zoning.
I would concur with miss Simmons that, essentially, if they make the request, we essentially Okay.
So so this provision is being drafted as in you choose your lane, and as long as you're you're within the parameters, you can go in that direction.
Great.
That answered my question. Thank you.
Thank you. I have a follow-up question. Thank you, colleague, for that. I sent this note to Mr. Mihalik, and I know response was sent to the full council on March 23.
In general, I support the Planning Commission's recommendation here, and I appreciate you all coming and presenting them with options. Where I have a question is when a property owner is losing rights. And I know that we're not saying someone who has something, you have to tear it down. Right? That's not what we're saying.
You can you they'll be grandfathered. But if they were to make substantial changes or sell the property, they are in effect losing rights in some areas. Most of the places in this, we're giving more rights or expanding opportunity. But for example, if there is an industrial area that's changing, that's one example. Know that there has been some since the comprehensive plan, there has been an increased demand for industrial space.
So that's one example. The second example is the drive through opportunities on 355. Right? We're trying to fill every space, and in some cases, staff is recommending that we don't allow drive throughs on 355. To what level is the city reaching out to property owners in in the instance where you're proposing a loss of property rights? So
I would say two things to that, and you've really touched on a lot of this, but, it is correct that we are proposing to grandfather existing uses. So they would be treated as, conforming uses under the new ordinance if they are currently in existence. And if they continue to be in the same form, even if they were to expand, they would be treated as a conforming use and, for all intents and purposes, would be conforming. The zoning ordinance specifically says in, or the draft zoning ordinance specifically says at section twenty five point six point one d that, those existing uses would continue as conforming uses. When it comes to outreach, we have sent notices to all of the properties that are proposed to be rezoned.
We did that back in 2024 was the first time we sent notice, to all of the property owners as well as those within a 100 feet of them, and then we reached out again in the 2025 to those same properties and everyone within 500 feet of them. And I will say that every opportunity that we have had to push our Engage Rockville page and say, please sign up for updates, stay informed on this project, we have absolutely done that. Have we specifically reached out to property owners and said, here are all of the, potential and anticipated impacts and changes to your property? We have not done that. I don't foresee that that would be feasible, but the information is readily available for those who do want to, dig in.
And we are certainly always happy to speak with any property owner who has any questions.
Thank you. So we the city has not the communication says we're working on this, but it didn't say your specific property will be changing in this way and may lose rights. It's not scratch the last part. It's not saying specifically even you're changing in this way, or is it doing that? Has it done that?
I do know that you did that for some areas because we heard from a church, for example, that they did not want to lose property rights and they wanted have the zoning kept. Has that happened for other property owners that might be losing rights? For example, people who own industrial properties that they're not gonna if if they sell it to someone else, they wouldn't be able to stay industrial.
So specifically thinking of the light industrial properties down by the Twinbrook Metro Station, are proposed to be rezoned to MXB, they would have received the same communications that we provided to other property owners that are proposed to be rezoned.
Okay. So told that this this would be rezoned, and you would not be able to do industrial in the same way if you were to redevelop the property?
We developed a form letter that essentially said you and this is harkening back, over a year and a half now. So this is asterisk asterisks and caveats that I don't remember the specific language, but we did, say you are currently zoned x. You are proposed to be rezoned to y. Here's the comprehensive plan recommendation, the specific language. Please show up to one of our property owner meetings that we are going to have. And then we offered the first time in person and virtual options for attendance. And then the second time, we had two different virtual meetings at different times of the day and on different days of the week.
Okay. I preliminary support this idea of the grace period. I do I would like to get more information to confirm if there is a list of highlighting the areas where people are losing property rights. I think that might be helpful just to better understand the communication that was sent. Appreciate that. Councilmember Vallari?
To piggyback on that, I can confirm that Ms. Simmons' memory is accurate because I live in a home that received the letter. And it was very clear. I was actually very happy, wearing my City Council member hat. But it was super clear as far as this is what your property is currently zoned, this is what is proposed. I noted that distinction. I just want to make sure that everybody got that same communication because I found it really helpful, and I know that my neighbors nearby also found it really helpful, too.
Thank you. Any more questions on this one? All right, those who support preliminarily this approach of well, I'll ask who supports the planning commission recommendation, and then I'll just if if we don't see enough
Mary, you can just do
the planning zoning commission recommendation all
the way through. Is fine
with that.
Okay. Perfect. Who supports the planning commission recommendation? Okay. Excellent. Council member
With with that caveat that it's, you know, not necessarily up to discretionary standards.
We understood. Yep.
Alright. So next up, we have some information about approval findings for site plans, project plans, preliminary plans of subdivision. All of these different application types have findings that need to be made in order for them to be approved. Currently, they, there are a variety of different findings. They are not consistent with one another.
So we really have reworked in the staff draft and simplified those approval findings to be, first, objective and accessible, consistent across these application types, strongly tied to the comprehensive plan, and strongly tied to city regulations. The Planning Commission agreed with the findings that we had included, but then they also wanted to add a compatibility finding specifically for project plans and level two site plans, which reads the application is compatible with the surrounding area. Candidly, this is not something that staff recommended. However, the Planning Commission ultimately did recommend the addition of this finding for those two project types.
Thank you. Councilwoman Valeri, you get the first right of refusal on questions.
Thank you.
And I apologize. I'm sure it is in the memo, but I'm sure that, your summary would be even better. What was the the kind of the rationale given by the Planning Commission for adding this language?
There I will say there were a variety of opinions. It was a four two split vote if I recall correctly. I think that there was let me actually go back to their memo. Bear with me for just a moment.
No problem. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have turned it into pop quiz at this time of night.
Alright. So on page eight forty four of the brief book, it does describe that there was a four two vote, and this was ultimately supported by the planning commission and says a majority of the commission supported a separate compatibility finding to be provided that would provide for distinct analysis. It would provide the same emphasis as that given to the adequate public facilities finding, and both requirements are already a require both requirements are already a requirement of chapter 25. Commissioners who voted in the minority expressed concern that the proposed finding would be subjective and redundant to existing findings. And I will say, that last sentence, I think, also more or less encapsulates staff's position.
The other, the other findings that are that staff do recommend are that, the application would be consistent with the plan. It would be supported by adequate public facilities, and it conforms to the requirements of the chapter and other applicable laws governing health, safety, natural resources, and the environment. So staff really thinks that the suitability and compatibility are to the are tied to the application of zones, the uses within the zones, development standards, and design standards. However, I think particularly in thinking about Newmark Commons residents concerns, there was a feeling amongst the planning commissioners that this would add an extra layer of emphasis over and above what is already contained within our regulations similar to calling out the adequate public facilities item.
Okay. And and I guess I do kinda I mean, on the one hand, I get that. On the other hand, I know that when we were looking at ADUs, a lot of the compatibility issues were so subjective on that level that it actually just made it such a narrow window that, again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So I absolutely appreciate the fact, again, the redundancy, think, too, is another point. That's why I really wanted to kind of know their rationale.
Yeah, I don't know that I would support the Commission's recommendation just because it's very adequately covered by the rest, the comprehensive plan and city regulations. But I appreciate it. Thank you so much for the input.
Thank you. I do support the recommendation. I appreciate the Planning Commission. I've been going to other cities and looking at different housing types and seeing how well it's done. I'm thinking about Boston where they have interestingly single family homes, six plexes, and it just the way they've looked at and mapped out the neighborhoods just blends really nicely, and it's they're doing more missing middle housing, but it's compatible.
So that made me have additional thought on this one. And so I don't have any additional questions except can you do this? Can you fulfill what the planning commission does? It has recommended with a level of clarity.
I I will admit it is it is, as council member Valeri pointed out, quite subjective. So it is certainly a finding that could be included in the text, but it does add a level of subjectivity, which is why staff did not that's that's a part of the reason that staff did not ultimately recommend something of that nature.
Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Councilman Van Gruyk.
I was just gonna add. I agree that we need to work to make compatible developments. I mean, it makes sense. We've heard it from countless community. Heard it from RockShire.
We're hearing from Newmark comments. My only concern is if we're making this actually part of a standard, then there's, as we've heard, subjective criteria. And we've seen in the history of our nation and in our state, subjective criteria with regard to housing development has been at times used improperly. And that's a concern of mine when things are being done behind closed doors with regard to restrictions. Now I do believe that in public forums with regard to the planning commission and the mayor and council, when we're discussing compatibility in a public facing forum, that makes sense, and we've done that.
We've talked about here from the dais. This does not conform with this property. We don't wanna see it. But it's when it's behind closed doors and part of a specific rubric and subjective that I it concerns me. So, putting this particularly on a standard that we have within the code that is not part of, I think, a public forum for us to address out in the open does give me a little bit of a pause.
Thank you. Councilmember Valery. And then we'll stop poll
if anyone has
any questions. But you can blame councilmember Van Grak because it popped in my head. How would this be applied in areas of the city that are not HOA, not historically designated and have a wider variety of housing? Would the conformity actually be against the lack of formal character of the neighborhood?
So we just heard go ahead.
I really think that, as Ms. Simmons described earlier that what staff would do in looking at an application that's being evaluated for conformity, for compatibility, thank you, that, we would look at the comprehensive plan. And what it says specifically about the area that is, the application is proposed, we would look at the, the standards that are applied. If there's, anything that we can, include there that would fold back into the compatibility finding. That's a big reason why we thought it was all kind of covered without having a specific finding because that's what we would use to make that finding as a recommendation.
Yeah. And that makes sense. Thank you very much. Again, I I swear I'm not picking on miss Simmons. I'm just I'm just sitting here trying to think of all different angles, and I know that there are large parts of the city that are not HOAs, are not historically designated, and I just want to make sure that everybody is treated equitably. So thank you.
Thank you. I'm seeing no other questions, each of these I'll ask who supports the Planning Commission, who would like to do something different. Who supports the Planning Commission recommendation? Who does not support the Planning Commission recommendation? Thank you.
Next up, still in article four, we are talking about administrative decision appeals timelines. This one might be quite easy. Back on December 1 when we came to you to request authorization to file the zoning text amendment, madam mayor, you pointed out what are these differences between these appeal timelines. We do, in fact, have two appeal time frames in our staff draft. So thirty days to appeal a decision, which is retained from our existing zoning ordinance.
That is a standard time frame. But then we also in inadvertently, frankly, introduced what effectively is another appeals timeline and it's framed as fifteen days to request a public hearing specifically for administrative decisions. So this is different terminology, the same procedural outcome, and it certainly does create internal consistency. So once this was identified, we brought it to the Planning Commission. We recommended eliminating the fifteen day time frame and retaining and applying uniformly that thirty day appeal period.
Thank you for listening to us. Does anyone have questions on this? Okay. Alright. Who supports the Planning Commission recommendation here?
Thank you.
Excellent. So moving on to article six, uses and use standards. We do have a few different specific use standards applied to uses that we wanted to bring before you. The first one is front loaded townhouses. So these are townhouses that have garages facing the street.
Our proposed standards in the staff draft zoning ordinance really were intended to respond to concerns raised primarily by our Department of Public Works. These this type of development can be very difficult to accommodate all of the site elements on-site. Quite a large portion of their frontage is typically taken up by a driveway, but then you also have to address needs for wet and dry utilities, street trees, storm water, etcetera. So we worked with our consultants to propose three different standards. The first is that they must be designed to accommodate site elements.
The second is that garage doors may only take up 50% of the ground floor facade. And the third is that driveways may be no greater than 10 feet wide within the first eight feet of the curb. And this is something that our development community flagged, and they said, we received testimony from a number of different developers and land use attorneys and also the Maryland Building Industries Association saying, what this is going to do is one of two things. You're either going to get no more front loaded townhouses in the city of Rockville, or you are going to get front loaded townhouses that are 32 feet wide and with incredibly long driveways. Is this the policy outcome that you are intending?
So when we brought this information to the Planning Commission, they had robust conversation about this, particularly in relation to the mayor and council's housing goals and personal experiences with having lived in front loaded townhouses and seeing value in that type of development. So, ultimately, they recommended retaining the first standard, which is broader and just states that they essentially must be designed to accommodate site elements, and removing the other two standards, two and three.
Thank you. I know I've raised questions on this in the past and previous design guidelines as well as in this process, and I appreciate your response to me back in March. And you said exactly the same thing. You said to me very consistently that this would, in effect, have an unintended consequence of not having any front loaded townhomes be being built in the city, or there would be a minimum of 32 wide to accommodate a standard two car garage. So in in any case, I support the Planning Commission's recommendation, and thank you for providing a thorough response on that. Any questions? Who supports the Planning Commission's recommendations here? Thank you.
Alright. Next up, another use with, proposed use standards. We are turning our eyes to shooting galleries or as we are going to return the re term them for, increased clarity, indoor shooting ranges. So currently, in our ordinance, this use is a special exception in the light industrial zone only, so very limited in the areas of the city that it can be located and also, limited further by process constraints. A special exception, as you all are aware, is a Board of Appeals, approval, and it has certain additional discretionary findings associated with it, but there are currently no use specific set back requirements.
So the staff draft proposes retaining the special exception in light industrial zones only, also proposes additional safety related use standards in terms of how building must be built and then adds a use specific setback of 200 feet from a residential zone. The Planning Commission ultimately recommended eliminating the proposed 200 foot setback between shooting galleries and residential zones. They were concerned potentially about legal risk introducing another use standard. And frankly, I think at the end of the day, staff agrees with this recommendation of the planning commission, understanding that we have introduced quite a number of safety related use standards for this particular use. And, also, they're already very limited in the locations that they can be placed and further limited by that special exception process.
ahead. I I was was just just gonna gonna say, so staff is fully supporting the planning commission's recommendation on this?
Staff concurs with the planning commission's recommendation. Yes.
Yes. Doctor Miles.
My question is similar. Thank you, madam mayor. It's I thought it would be a good thing just this is not my area of expertise, obviously, that there be a 200 like, there'd be distance as I'm reading it between a proposed shooting gallery and a residential zone. Intuitively, that makes sense to me, but I I don't you you mentioned that there were some legal things that the planning commission discussed with what you all concur. But how does it intuitively make sense to do away with the 200 foot setback? Or maybe I'm just thinking about it wrong.
No. That's that's a completely understandable question. I think staff is less concerned about legal risk perhaps, so I would defer to our city attorney on that. It is more so that we currently do not have this additional setback. The process is already quite onerous, and they are very limited in the locations of the city that they can be developed.
And then we are further introducing and proposing additional use standards, including that the facility's does design must comply with occupational safety standards, including air air filtration for lead and noise exposure limits. The applicant must supply a security plan which at a minimum contains a continuously operated video surveillance system located on all exterior entrances. The applicant must provide a plan for the safe removal and disposal of lead and lead dust. A coated keypad lock must be installed at each entrance into the shooting gallery indoor shooting range. The use must be constructed in such a manner that a bullet of the maximum caliber fired within the range cannot escape from the structure.
The range portion of the facility must utilize bullet traps that prevent the bullet from escaping from the structure and, in addition, minimize the escape of lead particles, and a first aid kit containing items recommended by a certified expert in emergency medical treatment must be readily available in the range facility for emergency treatment or care of for minor injuries. All of that to say, if the body wanted additionally to apply that 200 foot setback, that would be perfectly appropriate as well.
Please go ahead, doctor Miles.
Thanks for that. I I mean, that does make sense, and I can understand why staff would concur. I think if our I mean, we, generally speaking, don't have a a ton of residential around light industrial, but we do. There's you know, David Skull comes to mind as an example. And I personally just you know, I've had kids. I wouldn't wanna live next to a shot shooting you know, for whatever reason, people with guns coming in and out, like, next door. I'd like to keep that as far away as possible. But I guess the legal part of it is that it it wouldn't be applied necessarily retroactively. Right? It would just be for new projects moving forward.
Is that that it and and in so doing, would that obviate the potential legal concern, or is there other other legal concerns that you all are considering that I'm not aware of at the present moment? And I think that's all I have.
Sure. Councilmember Miles, I can try to answer that question. I I think the legal concern that was ray it was not raised on on the part of staff or the city attorney's office. I think some of the planning commissioners may have been concerned that it was yet another restriction on the use. And if there wasn't adequate justification for the distance requirement, then it could present some legal concern. I will say candidly, I do not have any legal concern with a 200 foot separation. I think you yourself just made reasonable arguments for why it's in the interest of the public health, safety, welfare to have that restriction. That said, it's also not legally required that you include it. So again, from my perspective, I don't think there's a pressing legal concern here that would prevent you from having that separation.
You. Councilman Valeri?
Thank you. Something popped in my head. Usually, I was last time we talked about this, what I always think in my mind is what are the requirements to establish a cannabis dispensary and are we chewing more or less? And I think we have some very reasonable restrictions there established by the Maryland Cannabis Commission. So I don't see that 200 feet from a residential zone, as Councilmember Miles noted, are in various parts of the city that have been marginalized in many ways, I think this is a bare minimum that we could do here.
So I support the staff draft and not the Planning Commission. Commission.
Thank you. I will just share that we have these kinds of zones in communities that are predominantly low SES, communities that are black and brown, but also there are places where we're adding more housing opportunity when we're trying to increase housing. And I think we just potentially might create more conflict on this. I think this is a reasonable recommendation. My question is, in addition to this, are there any special requirements that would keep stray bullets from penetrating a wall?
I mean, I don't know. I I'm just curious about that.
Yes. So I'm finding my way back to the page, but that essentially is captured in the use standards that we are proposing outside of there there were maybe one or two that did deal with that.
Okay. I didn't see that in yeah. But I know you guys are gonna share something with us, so we'll see that come through. Okay. And this does only applies to real bullets, real indoor shooting galleries, not like, I don't know, paintballing and other facilities like that. Is that correct?
That is correct. And I did just find in response to your last question my way back to the pages, page one ten of the staff draft. The shooting gallery or indoor shooting range must be constructed in such a manner that a bullet of the maximum caliber fired within the range cannot escape from the structure.
Okay. Excellent. That would include the front door. Yes. Oh, interesting. Okay. Councilman Van Grapp.
Just echoing some of my colleagues', you know, thoughts. I understand we've got parameters here, and I understand there's onerous parameters. Mistakes happen. And so this is the type of zoning restriction that we buffer to ensure that if there is a mistake, like there's one part of the shooting range they didn't get the specific protection from, that this is exactly the type of zoning restriction that I think creates that buffer. Echoing my colleague's concern that was kind of you know, where I was probing to see staff, you know, might have some review, and I appreciate the city attorney's office really clarifying the legal aspect too.
Thank you. Okay. So let's call for it. Who supports the the planning commission recommendation? Who supports staff recommendation? Thank you.
Alright. Next up, electric vehicle charging. This is a new use proposed within the staff draft, and it is proposed to be allowed in all zones. However, it is not a lot proposed to be allowed as a sole purpose use in all zones. We've really reserved that to be oriented around auto oriented and industrial areas.
You can see in the table before you, the zones in which it's proposed to be allowed as a sole purpose or principal use are industrial zones, the mixed use corridor district, the mixed use corridor transition district, and the mixed use business district. And then as an accessory use in all of our residential zones, the mixed use neighborhood commercial zone, mixed use commercial, mixed use transition, mixed use employment, and all of our mixed use transit district zones, as well as the park zone. So when we discussed this with the Planning Commission, we also understood that there might be desire, particularly of this body, to see a bit more flexibility there. So we proposed, and the Planning Commission ultimately recommended also allowing this as a principal use in the MXE, MXNC, and MXTD zones when the use is converting specifically from an existing gas station.
Councilor Michelle, you get the right of first refusal here on questions.
Madam mayor, I don't have any questions on this.
Thank you very much. Councilman Van Grugh.
So I'm just trying to understand the commission's recommendation here because I I saw this. So we're already allowing in those so they they we're just broadening the ability for the principal use when there's that conversion that occurs?
Correct. So as proposed in the staff draft, in those zones, the MXE, MXNC, and MXTD's family of zones that we have proposed, it would be allowed but as an accessory use. So So this would allow it as a principal use when it's an existing gas station that is converting to an electric vehicle charging principal use.
That's exactly the way I understood it. So then the the next question is, is there any concern from staff? Because to me, this is one of those that seems like a no brainer good idea because with that conversion, which we wanna encourage, we could foster foster, you know, positive use of land in area that's already used in that type of context. The staff has any concern about that? Or or or was there a reason that staff might have trepidation about us going forward with that recommendation?
I don't know that we would have trepidation. I think it's really balancing priorities. These zones our thinking originally was that, particularly with the MXNC and the MXTD, this is an auto oriented use. If you have a gas station that the use is sunsetting and it's turning into an electric like, sole purpose electric vehicle charging use, that use will perpetuate probably longer into the future. So do we want these areas to continue in an auto oriented like, a a little bit more of an auto oriented disposition, or do we want to transition them away from that?
And thinking about these as perhaps a little bit more walkable zones, we ultimately or we initially were prioritizing that walkability and density over the electric vehicle charging. However, I don't think if mayor and council supported the Planning Commission's recommendation. I think we think that that is perfectly reasonable as well. It might just be, you know, prioritizing the allowance and the flexibility for those electric vehicle sole purpose, uses a little bit, like, weighing the balance in that direction a bit.
So so I I completely understand staff's view about that, and that makes sense because we're transitioning. On the other hand, I know that when you when we're dealing with these gas stations, we have a problem with their development because they become a Superfund site, and then who wants to come in. But, you know, from my view, this is actually a positive encouragement to be able to make that transition, be able to foster, you know, the climate goals, but at the same time, be able to use the property. But I really appreciate that perspective from staff.
Thank you, councilman Vangroek. I totally agree. And I've raised this concern because some of us have been fighting on this. There is a burned out gas station that we would love to see something happen with, and it's just been sitting there. I think if a property owner had to choose between turning something to housing or electric charging, they probably would sell it for housing, but they may have limitations as noted with the super fund side or it just sits there vacant, abandoned for years and years.
Would support turning it into something useful for the community. I appreciate staff listening to us and moving a little further and Planning Commission doing their part as well. I'm going to look for additional questions and if not, I'll pose the question. Just so you know, your battery is running low. Please help her with a charger so our presentation can continue. And with that, team, who supports the Planning Commission recommendation? Okay. Got your answer.
Alright. Still in the same article, uses and new standards, we are moving on to maybe a bit a bit more of a sweeping change. We currently, throughout our ordinance, have what we call use based gross floor area restrictions. So these are something that exists in our current ordinance. We did have our consultants review and update all of these use restrict or these use based gross floor area restrictions.
But at the time that we were drafting the staff draft, we did not feel that we could make a sweeping change to eliminate these without having input from this body specifically. So you see these in a lot of zones, our lower intensity mixed use zones as well as our residential zones and, in some cases, industrial zones. There's a table before you. I will emphasize these are examples. So you see five different uses on the left hand side, all of which have a gross floor area restriction in our current ordinance, for example, auctioneers and commercial galleries.
You can have them in the MXNC, MXC, and MXT, but they are limited to 2,500 square feet in size. And in that instance, the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance proposed eliminating restriction entirely, but you'll see below that three other uses where they do currently have a use based gross floor area restriction, and it's proposed to be retained and, in most instances, shifted in the Staff Draft of the Zoning Ordinance. But, again, these are just examples. We did we did want to bring to you, and this was a gay again raised by this body back on December 1, what is going on with these? Why do we have them?
I will emphasize, some zoning ordinances don't make use of these at all. They, in our current ordinance, can cause some, some issues with flexibility for allowing uses to establish in a zone. Mister Waselek, I'm sure at another time, could tell you all about a a veterinary clinic that is having issues with our use based gross floor area restrictions for veterinary clinics right now. But, ultimately, after doing quite a bit of review, talking about this at two different planning commission meetings, the commission we recommended, and the Planning Commission adopted it as their recommendation to retain restrictions for certain uses. I'll go over those in a minute.
Those are the ones that you see before you right now. And on the next slide, you'll see all of the various use the gross floor area restrictions that they proposed and recommended eliminating. So where we are proposing retaining them are primarily in the residential zones, specifically for accessory dwelling units. However, we are updating those in the revised staff draft to conform with state state law. Cottage courts, this is actually a restriction to keep them small enough to ensure that they are actually cottages.
The area that we've proposed is consistent with what the city of Gaithersburg has in place. Home based businesses set at 30% of the area of the dwelling to ensure that a home based business is still based in a dwelling and is not just a commercial use. And then in our light in oh, and then accessory structures as well to ensure that they are, in fact, accessory to the principal use. In our light industrial zone, we are proposing to retain restrictions for offices, retail establishments, and eating and drinking establishments. These are all set at percentages of the gross floor area of the principal use, and they're intended primarily to allow some flexibility for those use, but really ensure that our light industrial zones are used for and intended for light industrial uses.
In the MXNC, we are also proposing to retain restriction on the size of hospitals. It's 50,000 square feet, which is quite large for the MXNC, quite small for a hospital, but we do think that that is appropriate for the zone. And then finally, the last one to retain is a restriction in our mixed use zones on single tenant commercial uses. This is a policy that was developed over time and vetted through a number of different processes, so we did think it was appropriate to retain that restriction as well. However, on this slide, the Planning Commission is recommending eliminating these restrictions for a whole host of uses, the vast majority of which are applied in our mixed use zone.
So this includes instructional facilities, wholesale establishments, alcoholic beverage retail establishments, health and fitness establishments, and the list goes on. And I'll turn it back to you.
Councilmember Van Grackie, have the right of first refusal and questions.
So my view, I really liked what staff is proposing here. I thought it's the right perspective. And more importantly, I think it's looking at how this council is dealing with the zones and the residential build, and you're literally taking kind of our views and our policy views and putting into policy. So I just wanna let staff know this is exactly the way that I think it should go. And I actually have to say, I think the planning commission's kind of pullback a little bit might be a little bit too far.
I understand and I agree with some of the residential retention because there's fostering specific goals. Right? Home businesses. We don't want a 90% home business that is really a business. Right?
With the accessory dwelling units, we understand they've got to be accessories. So from a resident but when we go past that, when we're talking about the hospitals, when we're talking about the food food and beverages, I think they go under the same type of elimination that I think staff was looking at to begin with and fosters what the Planning Commission did for a bulk of where they eliminated. So my my in kind of looking through things, my view was kind of a little bit of both. I think that from the residential restrictions, keeping them for the targeted areas that fosters a goal. But for all the other commercial uses, I think for the exact same great reasons that staff put forward, I would eliminate them the way staff was intending.
Thank you. I First of I wanna say thank you for listening to us. I know I raised this. It was at the back of the zoning ordinance text and I was seeing very, very odd, like philanthropic institutions were very, very limited, for example. I still have questions about this.
I feel like I need to see more examples and where it is in the city to really weigh in. But in general, on your first page on Article Article six six, where can you go back there? You guys move to it says health and fitness establishment, 5,000 square feet, MXNC, MXC, and MXT, that just seems like we can't have a St. James or a number of facilities that we just wouldn't be able to attract. In this climate where we know that biotech, physical fitness training, those are growth areas, I don't understand why we would do that.
So in general, I don't like this per se, So I I don't think it it, for me, doesn't go far enough. Same with laboratory, medical, dental. Those are growth areas in the city. When a in a in a situation where filling filling office space is a challenge, I just see that we're putting additional barriers. We heard that the vacancy rate's about 26%. I just I worry that we might have an unintended consequence here. So I I I think this this particular slide here gives me pause.
I think that's an excellent point, and the Planning Commission agrees with you. So what you see on the slide before you is current in the middle and the staff draft all the way to the right, but it's not showing you on this same slide exactly what the planning commission recommended. If you go to and it's gonna take me a moment because there's a little bit of a lag here. But on this last slide, you're seeing all of the restrictions that the commission recommended eliminating those restrictions for in their entirety. So it includes both of the uses that you are, indicating here, those health and fitness establishments and the medical and dental laboratories along with a number of other uses.
They said, let's let's get rid of these restrictions for all of these uses in the zones where they are currently applied both in our current ordinance and in the staff draft.
Yeah. I agree with the Planning Commission here. So I just wanted to be very clear on that. I do agree with my colleague that for residential zones and where the Commission put the restrictions on those pieces, I understand the sensitivity there. What I did have a question is on the IL zone and the hospital seems quite small as you noted. Why is staff and the Planning Commission recommending that? I mean, if we annex in Shady Grove Hospital, for example, and they start expanding, which they have, why would we have a restriction like this?
I would say in that instance we would not be applying the mixed use neighborhood commercial zone. This is the zone, if you'll recall, that's proposed to be near the bus rapid transit stations along the Beers Mill Corridor. There are currently limited instances of the MXNC in town center, but they are proposed to become the MXTD 85. The intention with this zone is that it should be more neighborhood oriented and just smaller scale. So that is the thinking here is that if a hospital were to develop, it would probably be a very small scale specialized hospital. I would say though if it's the will of the mayor and council to remove that restriction, that is something that is doable.
Okay. I'm thinking about, for example, in some communities I've been in, people will actually put a community health center. So what about a community health center or a veterinary hospital? How would you consider those?
We have a separate use for a veterinary hospital and we also have a use for medical office. Is that what you would apply, Jim, to a community health center? I will say one of the corrections that we are making in our, in the staff draft, which you will see in the revision to it, is that currently that medical office definition caps the number of practitioners at four, which, was kind of carried forward from an earlier iteration where we were considering having medical office and medical clinic and hospital. It was too complicated. One of our residents indicated that that was potentially a problem and we agree.
So that use of a community health center would fall into that medical office definition.
Okay. I, in general, would want to get explaining, a little bit more information about the retaining restrictions for everything under residential. So I'm I I will support generally this, but I don't necessarily support these particular items. Councilman Vallari.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. No, and I think that that is a really good point that, as defined by the state, hospital is extremely specific and does not encapsulate certificate of need and all sorts of other wonderful things that you have to get when you are building a hospital, but that would not be what is covered urgent care, ambulatory surgical center. There would be a multitude of things. There's also regulations around that are already limiting to non hospitals. They have their own standards, especially under OSHA and other state laws, that we don't have to worry about.
I do have a question. Am challenged a little bit, I think, by retaining the restrictions on home based businesses because I think that there are actually many in older parts of the city that are very compatible with surrounding buildings and do not create either visually or by nature of how the business is interacted with. It's not jarring and it provides a community good. For instance, dentists in particular. I think that I would be challenged by that in particular, although that is separate.
I would want to get a little bit more information on that. I know we've already had the EDU conversation as far as restrictions, but can you explain to me, because I was trying to look it up really quick but couldn't find it, what the what single tenant commercial use, why that one in particular is teased out?
I am going to defer to our chief of zoning on that.
During some past, efforts, in rerunning the zoning ordinance, there was a limit of, I believe, its footprint now of 65,000 square feet for any particular retail use. So that would allow for a fairly large retail use, could be multistory. But the initial imposition of that limitation was to not allow for large big box type users. So that dates from twenty five years ago. It's been modified and tweaked a couple of times over the course of that time period. But that's the origination of it and kind of the intent of it.
Now that I kind of thought that's where it was going, which in some ways makes sense. What I'm thinking of in particular is I'm thinking of a a one tenant building that along Rockville Pike that we would like to see that area become mixed use. Right? But we wouldn't want to necessarily push you know what I mean? I think that there's a balancing act there.
So I think I'm generally understanding the ones to remove the restrictions, the retaining. Wanna get a little bit more information, dovetails with what the mayor said. I just wanna understand the rationale and to make sure that we're not cutting ourselves off from possibility that would work for the city.
Looking to see other questions we have. I think it comes from Venkat. You were also wanting more information on these IL. Right? Is that correct?
The answer is yes. But but much like you, madam mayor, I am at the outset leaning towards opposing the keeping restrictions for the residential areas for all the reasons that my colleagues have said and more that the residentials have focused use that I support, whereas the commercial use have significant concerns because there could be, just as some of the examples my colleagues gave, some usage in commercial that we could be restricting that could really benefit the city.
Okay. So I'm gonna split us here then. So we can so who supports the Planning Commission's recommendations with concerns or getting more information restrictions for office, all the commercial uses below. And I will say who supports in case people want to know, I'll ask who supports the Planning Commission, all of them. So let's start with who supports it, as some of our colleagues noted, staff coming back to and raising concern about retaining those restrictions. Doctor. Myles?
wholesale take the planning commission's recommendations. Okay. Alright. So first is Planning Commission's recommendations minus the commercial areas on page 11. Think that was the information.
I did like that one, but I don't want any.
So Okay. More information. Okay.
So, ma'am, I would just rec we got the clear direction. I would just have encourage you guys when we get the actual text in seven days to just take a careful look at it, we're we can cover this again during one of our next work sessions.
And if you could call it out, you know, specifically, this is where a staff really thinks we might be having concerns and, know, retained versus not.
Understood.
That would be helpful. Yep. Thank you. And I'll just note we are at 10:24 and halfway through. Alright.
Moving on to article seven, which is our zone standards. We have actually two recommendations that we might present to you together. They are applied across all of the zones, and the Planning Commission, as a spoiler alert, recommended eliminating both of these standards. So this is quite a complicated table. What you really should focus on are the two green columns.
In all of our residential zones, we have lot coverage requirements which limit the area of a lot that can be taken up by buildings and structures. We have that applied over the entire lot, and then we also have a separate standard for the rear yard. The staff draft already proposes eliminating that rear yard lot coverage requirement, particularly considering ADUs on smaller lots. It just seems inequitable, so we've already taken that out of the staff draft. The maximum lot coverage is proposed to be retained, but then we also have a front yard impervious surface coverage requirement.
So this is separate from the lot coverage. It applies only to the front yard. It's over and above any storm water requirements that are applied on the site, and it really was intended when it was introduced with the 2009 update to the ordinance to preclude the development of parking lots in residential front yards. That that concern has really not borne out, and it also is incredibly difficult to enforce this standard because it's not associated with any specific permit. So the vast majority of the time that we are catching noncompliance with this, it's when it's already in space, and then we're having to take enforcement actions.
So with all of that, with all of that said, we asked the planning commission if they would recommend eliminating that front yard coverage requirement, and they did ultimately recommend that. Oh, I'm trying to hit next page on my laptop. So the next one is established setbacks. In our residential zones, we have kind of standard hard and fast setbacks. Perhaps you need to be 25 feet from the front of your property property, and then we also apply an established setback.
So it says, okay. In your zone, you either need to be 25 feet from that front property line or you need to apply the, quote, unquote, established setback, whichever is greater. And so anytime you're trying to apply a front setback in a residential zone, from the R400, our largest lot residential zones, all the way up to the RMD I think it applies even to the RMD 25, certainly the RMD 15 you have to do a calculation of how far back in space are all of your neighbors on your block face actually set back, and then you average that, and if that's greater than your 25 foot or your 20 foot, whatever that front setback may be, that's the actual setback that applies. So needless to say, this is very complicated, particularly for homeowners to calculate, and often results only in just a foot or two of difference, but you still have to go through this exercise. And we asked, again, the Planning Commission if they were interested in eliminating established setbacks and just defaulting to the setback that is outlined in the zone, and they did recommend eliminating this standard as well.
Doctor Miles.
I have no questions. It seems reasonable.
Question? Councilman Van Gruyk.
So the only question I had is, everything seems logical, but is wasn't the reason for this that there are places in the city where we have significant variations, and therefore, there sometimes is a benefit for establishing that because numerous neighbors have not gone to that setback?
That may be the case. I would probably defer to mister Wozilek regarding the development patterns throughout the city. I think this is another area where it is perhaps benefiting or it's weighing what the goal is ultimately. If we want clarity, and ease of application of the zoning ordinance, and also not focusing so much on perpetuating historic development patterns, eliminating the established setback could make sense. And I think the planning commission recommends and staff agrees that it does make sense.
However, if we do want to prioritize, more of that perpetuation of kind of the existing development pattern in some of those neighborhoods where it may exist, then retaining the established setbacks would make sense.
So Okay. And I would just add to that that we've seen this in the neighborhoods that were actually created before zoning West End, East Rockville, Lincoln Park, where the how there were there were no standards for the houses could be placed. And some of the houses are nonconforming because they're too close to the street. But what it's resulted in is you have a block face that may have 12 houses in that block. So the homeowner or builder has to pay an engineer to measure the front the existing front setback of each and every house along that block face and then do the calculation. So it's not an insignificant cost to do that as as part of a project.
So I agree with everything you said, and I completely understand. What if we I I'm just jotting down my notes when looking at this. What if we had exactly established setback requirements but allowed an exception for someone to request to go back to the establishment in case of a variance. Like most most cases, I think you're right. We're talking about a foot or two. But if you're getting a situation where really the benefit could be 20 feet because you've got these old bill situations that there could be an exception where someone variance from the established setback requirements. Would that be too complicated of something to propose?
So, essentially, you're proposing an option where an applicant could use the established setback if they wanted to?
No. I'm saying No. The established setback is what the standard would be. However, if someone wanted to go back to the situations where you could measure to get a better, less of a setback, essentially, to conforming to what the neighborhood would be as opposed to what the established setback is. Does that make sense?
I just wanna make sure we're using the same so the established setback is the one that you see on the screen where you're averaging it.
Well, it Is that Well, my understanding is what we're do what what what you're proposing, and I've got it wrong, is to make it standard so they don't have to measure everything. Correct?
And and I apologize if I'm using the wrong terms. That that's what I understand you're saying, which makes all the sense in the world. The question is, could there be a situation where that's our standard, but someone would be allowed to go back to the previous standard as a variance request if it suited what they wanted to do?
I think we might be saying the same thing, and I just I wanna make sure that I'm completely understanding. You you agree that there should just be the number. If it's 25 feet, that's what the setback is. However, if you would like to do this exercise of averaging all of the existing dwellings on a block face, you could request to do that as some additional flexibility. Am I understanding?
Exactly what I'm proposing. Chewy T.
Okay. I don't see I
I did ask. I got the look. Just
trying to think how this would play out, in in reality. So we have we have you know, every property has a setback and that's the line where you have to be behind. You don't have to be on the line necessarily. What this does is essentially establish a build to line where you have to be at that line. So I guess we could continue to retain that. But there's nothing that says, say if all the houses on a block face were 50 feet back and they were only required to be 20 feet or five feet back, a homeowner could still be 50 feet back if they would choose. But this would allow them to be at 25 if they wanted if they wanted to. Well, what about a situation? And I guess, let's say
that the setback I guess, I'm looking at the reverse situation where, let's say, the setback's 20, but the entire house block all goes to 10. Yeah. And an owner would say, I wanna be at 10 because that's what the average of my block is, but we're saying now you have to be at 20.
And we've never permitted smaller than their normal required setback
Oh, okay.
Established setback.
Then that then that answered my question. What you so you're saying, we've never gone below what this the situation is and allowed that?
Correct.
Okay. That answers my question fully. No more questions. Thank
you. So are you saying in even in some of the older neighborhoods that they we won't have situations where property lines are different from what your established standard would be? Like, it'll be closer to the street? What
we have does anything that's nonconforming to the existing setback, we don't count those since they're not compliant with the code. We only
count Well, the if someone redeveloped that property?
They would have to meet the normal zoning setbacks.
Yeah. That's where I have a concern because we we we are seeing redevelopment all across the city and or if someone god forbid, someone has a fire and has to rebuild, we've seen that too. So I have some concerns about that, and I would, similar to the comments of my colleague, would wanna have an appeals process. I
I would say this is a good conversation to have. Our nonconforming our development standards nonconformities are included in, I think, Article nine, so we certainly can talk about that at that point in time. I think this is a little bit separate and aside from anything that is nonconforming.
Yeah. This is one that gives me pause that I'd want more information on with examples because I do have concerns. We do have some much older neighborhoods and there's variability and I wouldn't want someone to be penalized. Also, we've seen situations where there are major tree coverage in the back, someone's trying to build and save that tree. So I would like to have some level of flexibility where people can make an appeal for rational, logical reasons.
If I might add about this, the established setback as currently applied to our single unit residential zones only ever burdens the property owner more. As mister Wazilak said, you have your standard setback, maybe it's 25 feet, and the established setback only applies when it's greater than 25 feet. So the way that it's written is it's 25 feet or the established setback, whichever is greater, up to a certain set amount. Maybe it's 60 feet. So eliminating the established set the established setback, I think, actually would benefit property owners in the way that you are wanting it to because this only ever pushes the houses further from the street.
There is currently no instance in which it brings them closer to the street than the setback of the underlying zone?
Well, that's the example I gave. There are some older neighborhoods where properties may be closer to the street. And when we do this, even though there's multiple properties like that, and I'm thinking some some neighborhoods, they don't have a large backyard, they don't have a large front yard. They're just it's it's really an older community, and sometimes we're seeing either rebuild through fire or rebuild through sale or whatever it is. I just that's the one I wanna just make sure that we think through all the if thens so that we're not harming.
And, also, if there is a major tree or something that people are trying to have respect with nature while also providing housing. Those are two scenarios that I wanna contemplate. There may be others that you all can think of because you get this every day that I want us to just think through how do we handle those situations. And in terms of the rear lot coverage, I totally support you know, voted to support ADUs. My question is, we have a flood mitigation plan.
If we eliminate rear lot coverage, then what will we do for water absorption? Will there be different standards? Will there be something that people have to do with that water? Specifically in some of the older neighborhoods, flooding is a big issue. And I know I remember raising the call of we need a flood plan that last term because we actually were seeing people who had flooded basements all the time. We had wild storms. So yes, but what are we gonna do about flooding?
So with our lot coverage requirements, they are separate from and, I would say, in large part unrelated to any stormwater requirements. So they are kind of just, they're a zoning standard. It doesn't you could conform to the lot coverage. And, correct me if I'm wrong, mister Wozlok, but pave your entire backyard. It's really focused on the structures themselves, and it says here's how much of the property you can cover in structures.
It doesn't say anything about paving your entire backyard. So I would I think it's a fair concern, but it is just completely different and distinct from the zoning lot coverage. And we do have storm water regulations. Regulations. They They are are they are included in a separate part of city code outside of the zoning ordinance.
But I think that one could create more problems for the other. So in terms of not people paving the over their full backyards or not having place of water to go. So I just I do think we need to think, yes, let's support the ADUs and let's support, you know, dealing with this, but we do need to understand that water must go someplace. So how do we deal with that?
That is not something that the zoning ordinance deals with. It is addressed in a separate part of city code.
So are we gonna then turn around and immediately address that?
I would defer to our department of Public Works. Okay. They they maintain and administer that portion of city code. And if mister Dumay has anything to add or mister Wozilak?
Yeah. From for for us as a decision maker, there's an if then cause effect. I just would need to have more information because they are related issues, and so I wouldn't want to inadvertently create a problem.
Councilmember Vallari. Thank you, Madam Mayor. This is and you can tell me forget it. I would I would be interested to see if staff had a version of this graphic but showing nonconforming lot sizes. It's very hard for me to kind of visualize this when we do have some parcels in the city that are in older neighborhoods, little funky shaped.
And so as a visual learner, I just wanted to put a pin in it, but this makes sense for extremely parcels that make sense, but not there are a lot of places throughout the city where the parcels are not gonna be so nicely cut, and I would be curious to see this. But I know you don't have it right this second totally understandable, but I just wanted to flag that for myself.
Any other questions? Okay. Alright. So I'm gonna ask who supports this recommendation. I will just say I'm holding out because I want more information on the things I just mentioned. So I look forward to deeper discussion on that. Are we doing supporting the Commission? Yes, we're doing supporting the Commission's recommendations and then we'll do who supports staff recommendations or who's not ready to take a stance just yet because we need more information. Okay. Who supports the Commission recommendation?
Who supports staff's original recommendation? Who wants more information?
Alright. And with that, I will turn it over to mister Wozilak to, dive in on deer fences.
Thank you, miss Simmons. The mayor council will recall that, you received testimony, in December about the need for deer fencing requirements in the city because residents were kind of being overrun with deer incursions in certain instances. City does not have specific deer fencing requirements at that time. Although, I will say our fence limitations were somewhat different than Montgomery County. We actually do did do allow for fences, up to eight feet in our rear yards, of residential properties, whereas the county limits, to six and a half.
We found that deer fencing comes in kind of eight foot tall sizes. So that's fairly conventional piece of deer fencing that you can purchase easily and many of our residents have done that. What has turned out to be problematic is properties that are corner lots or through lots where they have, more than one front yard and so that limits where an eight foot fence can be installed. And in front yards, the city does limit fence heights to four feet. So we did, come up with a staff recommendation to the commission and provided some options to them.
They did agree with our recommendation to define what a deer fence actually is. We did look at the county's definition where it talks about plastic mesh of a certain size and what the supports can be, and we think that's a good, example to follow and would recommend adding that to the code. Our recommendation and and also the commissions will be to continue to permit, deer fences in the side and rear yards of all lots in the city and retain the prohibition on deer fences in the front yard, with a certain exception. And that would be for corner and through lots allowing those in what we consider by zoning to be a front yard that might not necessarily be in the front of the home. The owner might not think of those as a front yard practically.
So we developed some options, for the planning commission to consider. On the left, you have our current requirements of in blue. In the light blue shading is where you can have an eight foot fence currently. And option one would expand that area to, kind of essentially the rear yard in a practical sense even though on this corner lot, there are two front yards. And then option two, which ultimately was recommended by both staff and the commission, we would extend that area where you can have an eight foot fence, just behind the front facade of the home.
So the front yard, is still limited to to four feet. But what most people think of as their rear yard, even though by zoning, it's a front yard, would be, would allow for an eight foot deer fence, not an eight foot tall chain link fence or or wood fence, but just the deer fence. And we did provide an option three, which would allow for eight foot tall deer fences throughout. But ultimately, Planning Commission, recommended option two. And I I would note that we we used an example, from the city, for these these options.
And, essentially, we think this would meet the and you heard testimony earlier this evening. We think that what we've developed, that would be compliant. That was the issue that kind of triggered all of this. So, with that, I'd be happy to answer questions on the deer fence.
Thank you. Councilman Vallari.
So thank you. Madam Mayor knows this is one of my favorite issues because I think, as the city manager knows, I would love to look at deer mitigation as our next big tough issue to take on. But in light of us not doing that, I think providing options for residents, regardless of their parcel and parcel orientation, orientation to be able to put up a deer fence anywhere makes sense. As the Planning Commission actually noted, the see through construction requirement actually eliminates the visual impact rationale for the front facade limitation. So I think the problem that actually exists within our code is that it was treating wood slab privacy fences the same as a chain link fence, same as a deer fence.
These are all very different not only different materials, but as far as visual impact on a home. And I know that the resident who spoke at community forum, I know what that resident's lot looks like. The resident I have been talking to you about quite a bit from an older neighborhood in the city, I think that by eliminating the front yard, it's actually not an equitable application, frankly, because in some of the older neighborhoods, the parcels again, going back to this is a very nice standard parcel it wouldn't be equitable because residents there would not have the same ability as residents in newer developments to be able to put a deer fence in. And then ultimately, deer fencing is completely see through. We're not talking about a possible visual impact that would be so jarring as to be inhibiting public safety.
So I would really like to I truly support option three. I think that in terms of equity, it makes the most sense for entire city, which the entire city will be falling under this. So I think it's an important consideration. Thank you for I know that this is the definition is part of this. I have a sneaking suspicion that our definition will my definition of what is your fence and yours will be very similar, but I agree that we need a good definition, A, and then, B, it
should
be available regardless of how old your neighborhood is.
Thank you. I want to thank staff for listening to our feedback on this concern where people were at risk of being fined a thousand dollars for simply trying to protect themselves from Lyme disease and everything that's planted being eaten. So we do have an issue with deer in some communities. I know some communities get nine nine at a time, and I know all of my tubes were eaten before. Before.
I have multiple neighbors who have had Lyme disease. This is a very real issue that we hear about, so I I appreciate you taking this seriously. It sounds small in the midst of everything else we're working on, but this is something we heard a lot of feedback on. My question is, for Montgomery County zoning ordinance, can you clarify their side and rear is eight feet, correct? And their front for Dira mesh is six feet?
Because your charts for the side in the rear is clear, all fences versus deer fence.
I don't
see correct.
For their front, they allow deer mesh at 6.5?
Yeah. Oh, they allow all fences at 6.5, including deer.
Including deer. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I I support what the county is doing for consistency. I do know that four feet, unless you put something over the top of it, will not stop deer from getting in the space. I will say I've had a fence, so the deer jump right over it. My my own fence, and I I you know, it's a four or five foot fence. So I I would support what the county is doing, at least in terms of DearMesh. So I would say it's a little bit of a hybrid approach.
that option three ish?
Yeah.
Can you clarify option three?
If I understand correctly, I think it's option two about allowing fences up to 6.5 feet in the front as opposed to four feet, which is our our normal max.
Can you clarify option three again just so we when we take our vote?
Option three is eight feet all around.
All around? Yeah. Okay. Option two wouldn't let you do that. And option two would not let you do that in the front.
You would be limited to four feet in option So two under
option four would be complying with the county.
Yeah. It seems like we might be talking about a a three a perhaps, you're allowing the deer fences everywhere on the property, but in the front yard, they would be limited to six and a half feet. Yes. Like the county. Is that accurate?
Yeah. That's that's what I'm suggesting as a consideration. So I'm suggesting a three a as miss Simmons noted, where we're complying with the county. The back is eight feet, and then back and rear is eight feet, and the front is six and a half. Six and half. Yeah. And we we have a special provision for corner lots.
Okay. That's my that's my suggestion. Council member Jackson.
Thank you, madam mayor. I think that's a good idea, at least a creative idea. But I'm thinking about practicality. So if you have a deer fence that is six and a half feet, the deer are just gonna jump over it. I mean, there's a reason why it's eight feet because the the deer have ability to jump pretty high. I mean, I've been a gardener now for, gosh, oh, fifteen years or whatever it is. And, I mean, we actually built the fence up to eight or 10 feet just because the deer deer kept jumping over the fence. So I just, you know, I think we should consider that.
Thank you. I was gonna so I spoke to some gardeners slash people who are dealing with deer, and they said in the front, they were fine with six and a half because usually it's the the deer would be jumping into the house. And so they believe that the deer don't jump as much in the front yard because they see the house versus just peering over a four foot fence and just eating. It's more about the leaning over eating versus in the backyard they have more room to like, they can jump between yards. I just wanted to share a distinction that I've heard from practical feedback from residents.
But yes, I hear what you're saying. I will also note this thing because I know I asked this question of staff, I wanted to make sure everyone is aware. People put out rings, metal rings around their trees all the time, and that is more than four feet. So I just wanna clarify four feet does absolutely nothing. For tree protection, we don't have a category for tree protection, and we don't limit that.
We would not consider that to be a fence, and so it wouldn't be limited.
Right. Yeah. But some people use that same material in their front yard, I just wanted to flag that as deer fence. All right, I'm just going down the line. Any other comments?
Go ahead.
That's one by Greg. I do agree with a lot of what my colleagues said. This is clearly an issue. I think the answer is somewhere between a two and a three. And I think that, you know, we've got to realize that eight feet is really what gets the job done when it comes to deer.
But I also think, and I think this goes to what what my colleague said, the definition of deer fence is critical here. Because, you know, I've seen deer fence definitions before where they talk about a see through, but you could have wood that's a see through. And they talk about the material, but what is the material? So I know that there have been jurisdictions that have had good definitions. I think we could actually do a little bit better in the county with regard to how we're defining it because I know that there's a lot of residents that go to different places that they're calling it a deer fence even though it's not in the typical what you would go to Home Depot to get your deer fence, and they're trying to solve the problem.
And so I don't know that I agree that someone should be able to take their entire property front and back and be able to put an eight foot deer fence on it. I think that's a problem because how is there could be a situation where they don't have a mailbox and the mailman has to get in there. And now we've allowed them to have a whole deer fence around. I mean, there's a reason why you can't have an entire fence around your whole property. So what?
Wait a minute. Let him let my colleague finish talking. Alright.
Go ahead.
I I I think there's a reason why we often don't say you can have a giant fence that fully surrounds the property. That being said, there could be some type of compromise where there might be an exception under a certain situation where we allow it. It's tough because the number of people that have come to us and said, we have significant problems. And there are people even in their front house that have trees or plants that they need to protect that the deer are getting to. So maybe there's an avenue of allowing certain type of fencing in certain areas within the property that allows them to solve the problem.
They can ask for a variance from the fencing rules, but I think we need to be sensitive to the situation. So I think the answer is between option two and three, I think we need to be able to allow eight as much as possible, and the definition of defense matters.
Doctor Miles? Okay. Councilman Valeria? Yeah.
Sorry. And apologies to council member Van Gruk. I was just kinda giggling over here because it was 11:00 at night. I'm totally with you on the definition matters. I think it would be helpful kind of in the way, Ms.
Simmons, that you reframed shooting gallery into indoor shooting range. Maybe we should just call this deer mesh going forward. I think it's more clear because I think when you say the word fence in a lot of people's minds, we go from nothing to a privacy fence, basically. And what the residents that I've talked to that are having this issue first off, under option two would not be able to protect because the way that the city currently defines front yard, so that would be kind of a challenge. We don't want to go there yet, maybe someday, but I think the definition will help.
Once we all get on board with the fact that this is mesh, this is see through, this is not locked fence that the mailman would need a key to enter and give you your mail. It's something different, right? It's a deer deterrent that has no visual impact. So I think and again, the challenge is and I think we've heard from the woman this evening and the resident who emailed us as well I think that there is a way to have a compromise. I think council member Jackson's right that eight foot is, I think, optimal.
I don't know how high up a deer jumps. I don't know if a house is a deterrent. At least from what I've seen, I don't think it is because my dogs are not deterrents. So I think the more options, the better. And then that way we could actually encourage compliance with so many unofficial DEAR mesh that is out there that maybe would create a better community feel.
I'll stop there. And to that point, Madam Mayor, maybe there is something in between the six point five and eight. I think that the eight makes sense for a variety of reasons, but also, too, if the max deer mesh is eight feet, then really what the forefoot was doing was trying to kind of like have that for insulation. But I think the devil is in the details of how we're going to define deer mesh. I will do my part to continue to call it deer mesh.
I support the deer mesh language. I just want to ask a question of my colleague, because I'm thinking of all the ideas that have been shared here. I hear what you're saying. There is a physical appearance of people just wrapping their entire front yards. It could be, like, a setback. I don't know. I didn't wanna get into setbacks. But there is some reasonableness of, like, you see people are trying to protect, like, near the the front of their house versus, like, going right up into the sidewalk.
Exactly. And that was my point. Like, I think there could be some variance where, like, I know of families in Rockville that they don't really care about the front. It's their specific plants and bushes that they don't want near the front of their house, where they put the deer fence, whereas mesh fence, whatever we're calling it. But quite frankly, that's considered the front of their yard. So they can't put it around those bushes even though it's right not up. So that's where I think there could easily be a compromise.
That's where I think there.
So maybe there is does staff have a recommendation on, like, for the front yard, not, like, taking up the whole front yard and wrapping the whole thing, but, like, being closer to the house. Have you seen any rules like that before?
I don't think we've had we have. We did do some research on deer fence. And frankly, Montgomery County Ormesh. Montgomery County has probably the most robust definition that we were able to find. Most jurisdictions just don't define deer fencing and don't regulate them. But I think the the setback issue perhaps is is another option that we can look at of people wanna protect the, you know, the plantings that they have closer to their home. We can provide you some options there. But I think the definition I don't think we're gonna do much better than the definition that we have on on page eight fifty three, which is the county's definition.
Okay. That is helpful. I think you're right that a lot of I'm just looking at a lot of jurisdictions just allow it. I think we're we're trying to be more open about it so that we're not penalizing people for just trying to protect their health and their investment. Okay. So do you need us to straw poll this one? I think you got this gist of where we are.
We we got it. It's it's option two modified. And when you guys see the language, you'll probably have
to see
Somewhere between two and three. Yeah.
Yep. Understood.
Yes. Two
a or three a?
Yeah. Okay. Thank you. We have four more. We are at 11:00. I'm just being timekeeper.
Okay. The next topic area is signs and specifically electronic message centers or EMCs. These are digital signs that use LED lights, to display images that are dynamic, moving, etcetera, and that draw your eye, for better or for worse, if you're a driver, to them. So the current ordinance prohibits those types of signs that have motion that or the illusion of motion that would draw a driver's eye toward the sign and hold the driver's eye's attention. The staff draft, maintained that current prohibition but recommended loosening certain restrictions on signs that might fall under that, signs that have to deal with drive throughs, etcetera, those things that are not necessarily oriented toward the roadway itself.
So the Planning Commission actually was split on this issue of three to three. Three, felt that the prohibition on electronic message centers should be, as presented in the staff draft. And three also thought that electronic message centers should be supported, with certain regulations that would apply. So the staff recommendation, was that the prohibition, continue as contained in the staff draft with those assumptions that I mentioned, gasoline price signs, bank teller signs, signs associated with other types of drive through uses, and also parking garage space displays. So, with that, I'd be happy to answer questions.
Question for this one. A sign can be illuminated like an open sign or a closed sign. We're not talking about those. These are just
These are signs that are, kind of self illuminated with LEDs, that provide a lot more flexibility in terms of how the sign displays. So we're not talking about kind of just a panel sign that may have a light fixture inside of it or a sign that has spotlights on it or something like that or an external illumination.
Okay. So my, one is a comment, one is a question. One is I asked staff about, there are schools that have message boards, all the public property would not have to conform to this. They can continue to have their message centers.
That's correct.
This is more like commercial or other usage.
Yeah. The the properties where the city has zoning authority over would have to comply with these.
Right. Okay. And has can you just summarize the feedback you've gotten from, like, the Rockville Chamber already? What or businesses, what have you heard from them?
We got some feedback from, Sign Association, essentially a trade group, kind of ensuring that one thing that we had included, we included internally lit sign as not being prohibited. That was just an error. We corrected that one. And, also, they thought that we should be more or, I guess, less restrictive in what the current code, allows. And so they would not allow for the they would recommend eliminating the prohibition on electronic message centers.
Okay. I did see in town center actually like a very like blazing sign that if you had certain, you know, conditions could be bothersome, and that technically is not allowed. Is that right?
Yes. That is correct.
Okay. Alright. Councilman Van Grack and then councilman Valeri.
I I was just gonna say I I actually support the three members of the planning commission that want to explore it. I I agree with the mayor that I have seen and read that strobe lights that are associated with signs are problematic, and that should continue no matter what. But electronic messaging, I've seen that it can be useful because if a business has messaging that does change that they wanna be putting out, it is an it's a it's a way for them to be able to communicate with the public, and it could be beneficial. I agree that certain sizes and certain situations can be distracted, and we gotta make sure that we are implementing some type of code to make sure that we're not distracting drivers. So it's if it's of a certain size and it's right next to the roadway and it's intended to distract drivers and get their attention, clearly, that's mistake, and that's not something that we should do.
But I think it's something that I think the city should consider exploring just because I think it could be beneficial to businesses, and we really wanna foster economic development.
Councilmember Councilmember Vallarty then Councilmember Jackson.
Thank you. I very much want to echo what Councilmember Van Graaff just said. I think that our small businesses are already challenged right now. Our small businesses that are thriving and surviving in our neighborhood shopping centers can probably use all the help that they can get. I would not want to take that option away.
I think that your statement that you would be prepared to provide regulatory options, I think that that is a very statement elegant approach. So I would be really supportive of looking at the options for consideration at a future meeting, seeing what other jurisdictions, what their regulations look like, with an eye toward how we can best support our small businesses. I think that's the goal of all of us, I would hope, and I think that this has the potential to negatively impact that. Councilman Jackson.
Thank you, mayor. So I echo my colleague's comments, but the one thing that does concern me, you know, and it makes me wonder as for regulations allowing these electronic messages to centers to be allowed. But we should try to make sure that we take into account pedestrians and bicyclists and other people trying to traverse the city. I mean, if the electronic message centers are such that we have them in locations that maybe are high traffic, foot traffic. That seems to work in counterproductive ways to our stated Vision Zero approach.
So I do support exploring the the regulations and seeing what we could do to kind of work out a compromise. But I just want to throw that in there that, you know, we still have to consider pedestrians and bicyclists. It isn't just about economic development and motorists.
Councilman Bacha.
I also wanna echo my colleagues. I do think I support the aspect of the economic development, but I'm I'm concerned around safety, like particularly some of our roads like Versus Mill or Rockville Pike where this could be dangerous. And so I would like to see some more data around this.
I was gonna also as much as I enjoy visiting Times Square, I don't want necessarily 3 55 to look like Times Square in particular. Though I do I do, you know, understand that it it might be helpful in some instance to have the ability to have signs. I also wanna note the public safety comments that my colleagues have mentioned, but also sometimes flashing in homes. You know, we are gonna have more mixed use. And so I wanna be mindful of heights and and brightness that would impact people's ability to live in the mixed community while we're thinking about economic development.
So I'm feeling torn on this one as the Planning Commission did. I don't feel like we have nailed it just yet in terms of thinking about the economic development, but also thinking about quality of life residents who are living in mixed use communities as well as public safety. Doctor. Miles, any questions or comments?
Well, mean, my general comment is more thank you, Madam Mayor is I'm more of a minimalist when it comes to science. I guess my bias, I grew up in a plant community outside of Atlanta where there's not a whole lot of anything flash, and so I prefer less. Hence, that's where my vote comes from. I do recognize, and think I you all bring up some good points, and I would I think my I'm probably gonna side with those retaining the prohibition based on my background.
Thank you. Can I ask a legal question? Is there a legal challenge to say, oh, you guys are favoring banks and gas stations versus others? And I would assume gas stations would also apply to EV stations, not just gas.
That's right. And I don't think that there would be a concern. There are already state regulations on the signage that must be allowed for gas stations, so we would probably just be reflecting what the state law already required in that regard. And then, again, to the extent that the mayor and council has legitimate public policy purposes for differentiating between the signs allowed for different uses, as long as there's justification for those differentiate or those different standards, it's it's generally legally fine.
Yeah. I'm kind of thinking of slow rolling this one in the sense of, like, allowing a little bit more, but not the whole caboodle, if you will. And I do wanna make sure that when we put gasoline price signs that we also put EV signs in case that we start to see flipovers like Takoma Park and other jurisdictions have. Mister Mihalek, do you have enough information to play with this, or do you need a straw poll? Because I don't think that we have a firm yes or no on this.
I don't think we have a firm yes or no. If it's okay, Merck, can we just draw pull the staff recommendation and just see where it's at, and then we'll go back to the other ones? If not, we can just come up with something to put into the draft.
Okay. Who supports well, there is not a planning commission recommendation because they're split. Who supports the staff recommendation?
And then maybe ask one of the other other ones recommended by the planning commission, like supporting exploring regulations to allow electric electronic message centers.
One, council member Miles supports the staff recommendation. Council member Jackson supports the staff recommendation. Oh, okay. Alright. So what were you gonna say, mister Mihalik?
Yeah. Maybe straw poll three, whether or not we should allow electronic message centers additional regulation. That's what I thought I heard here from the body.
What I'm hearing is that people are open to to widening just a little bit more, but not, like, not Times Square.
If I can see a straw poll on that, we know how to write that.
Yeah. Got it. So it's
We got it. We understand.
It's it's okay. Councilmember Vallaire, go ahead.
Maybe this is the way to to thread this, to move to direct staff to bring back regulatory options from comparable jurisdictions, which was somewhat what the staff statement that you're prepared to provide regulatory options for consideration at a future meeting.
Can we ask a clarifying question, Mayor?
Yes. Please go ahead. If I may, so staff's recommendation also was developed in part to respond to the most, like the specific uses that the International Sign Association raised as being particularly concerning when we talk about a complete prohibition on electronic message centers. So I I am curious if the body would be interested in for the purposes of the revised staff draft, implementing staff's recommendation with the understanding that when we get to article 10, we will also bring back a recommendation for you that would incorporate regulations for electronic message centers that align with different our recommendation based on our research of other jurisdictions.
So and that I think that's kind of what I was saying, but that then takes keep a ban off the table. It's a little bit because the staff recommendation is a prohibition. And I think what unless I'm mistaken, that's how I read it.
For the purposes of the revised staff draft, we we do not currently have regulations to place into the revised staff draft. And I think I'm hearing that you all would like to see options at a future meeting. So for the revised staff draft that is to be published next week, I think the options are keep the language as exactly as it is in the staff draft that was authorized on December 1, or add in a bit of additional flexibility as recommended on this slide, understanding again that we will come back to this topic.
And I'm sure I saw mostly like this from the body, if that's
okay. Yeah. Will just say I'm closer to staff's recommendation, but I'm open to a little bit more for me. I have questions about how bright it could be, how flashy can it be. There are some signs that have it must be static for X period of time so you're not having that strobe light thing that you see in some places that causes people who may have seizures to have challenges. So that's kind of where I'm coming from.
I think we have enough merit to draft something.
Okay.
Thank you.
So the next topic is historic preservation and specifically local designations, process and consent. Current code, allows property owner no one let me start over. Property owners are not required to consent to a nomination or designation. This is for historic designation. The staff draft, which was based on discussion and direction from the mayor and council on HTC provided for two paths for designation.
If a property owner consents or is silent about the designation, then a simple majority vote of both the HTC and the mayor and council for final adoption is required. If the owner opposes that designation, then a uno unanimous vote of both bodies would be required. The planning commission was also split on this vote, three three. The staff recommendation was that, and what is in the staff draft allows for those two paths that I just described. Be happy to answer questions that you have.
I have a quick question for you. So in this scenario, if the mayor and council wanna support a designation where the owner does not is not actively supporting it and the HTC says no, then mayor and council can't move forward because we must have unanimous in HGC. Is that the way it's written now? Is there any other
Yeah. If the owner
where one commission can inhibit the mayor and council.
If the owner does not support it, then that that's correct.
Is there any other rule that we ever vote on that one commission can have that kind of impact on the mayor and council?
I would actually ask for mister Wassler could either agree or disagree with me on this. But my reading of the current draft ordinance is that there would still be an independent ability of the mayor and council to file a sectional map amendment to designate a property within the historic district zone, even if the HDC doesn't recommend it. If that's not the case, we could provide that level of clarity. That is not, by the way, the typical practice, and I don't know that we've ever done that before. But I would agree with the mayor's sentiments that it would be unusual to have a board to prevent the mayor and council from taking what is a legislative action, you know, e even if ultimately the historic district commission doesn't agree with the designation.
So it's a long way of saying, I think the mayor and council would have an independent ability to file the sectional math amendment even if the HDC said, you know what, we don't think this is worthwhile. But we could possibly provide additional clarity on that point as well. And then I'd certainly welcome Mr. Waselik's thoughts on that.
I think we agree.
Thank you. And so we would be able to clarify that and whatever is permanently in the record so that future generations interpret understand our intent.
We would take another look at the the ordinance and just see how clear it is. If additional clarity is necessary, we could we could certainly put that in there.
Thank you. It comes from Valerie. I
am extremely challenged by this particular item for a variety of reasons. One, that I would not want it to be a a practice of the mayor and council to legislatively override a property owner's rights. That sits very ill with me. While I understand that certain properties have a historic importance, I still don't believe that that is a right for a governmental body to override a property owner's rights. I think that that then continues into my challenge with if a property owner consents or is silent.
So these are actually two separate things. If a property owner consents, that should be one path. If a property owner is silent Silence should not be taken as consent. Silence is silence, right? You have to say either way.
You can say, I don't really care. That's an answer. But silence should not be what we're basing a decision on, in my opinion. And it's interesting because I know that the Planning Commission also looked at this in the context of zoning map amendments as well about the commission recommended not requiring owner consent for map amendments. So to to that to that extent, you know, owner consent to map amendment consistency logic.
If a historic overlay designation is functionally a rezoning, then the threshold should match between those two, I would think. I think that this and it's borne out by the Planning Commission's split vote. I think they themselves, and I really appreciate that we're having this conversation because I was very interested in their input on this. I think we have a bigger discussion here, and I think it's one worth noting that the options are not opposes designation versus consents or is silent is actually three. I think we do need to hear from the property owner.
Yes, no, I don't care. And how we proceed on that.
Appreciate
staff's I'm closer to that. But I do not believe that we should be making decisions on private property and lasting impacts that can go well beyond the current owner.
Thank you. Actually think, Councilor Mishaw, it was your opportunity to go with questions. You're good? Okay. Councilman Van Gruk?
I was gonna say I support what the mayor was saying. I do like staff's recommendation here, but I also like what council was saying with regard to potential making sure that to the extent we're not potentially overruled by commission, there's an avenue within the code to do so.
Thank you. Council member Jackson?
No. I was just gonna say, madam mayor, that I agree with you and council member Van Grack. I I I like staff's recommendation, but I'm just uncomfortable with the board essentially having veto power over future mayors and councils. Councilor Miles.
Thank you, madam mayor. I support staff's recommendation. Okay.
Alright. Councilor Bershaw?
So so overall, I do support staff's recommendation, but I wanted to know if there are any other jurisdictions that have a similar type of recommendation or similar type of measure.
We would have to do that research for you.
Okay.
There's Maryland state law on historic preservation. Correct? But maybe sharing that with Council Mershaw and the whole body on how they handle designation when owner consent, not consent. Do we have any? I know you guys have made some alignments on who can nominate. Councilman Bashaw.
Just to clarify, I was looking for municipalities or more local government and state.
Okay. I think we've gotten it here. It is 11/25. I'm just flagging. I think we're almost done.
The next topic within historic preservation is delisting. In other words, removing a site from the historic district. And, there are two ways that that can be done in the staff draft. One is that the site or structure has lost physical characteristics that justified its designation or other good cause. And the commission recommended that delisting, if it is based on other good cause, would require a unanimous vote of the mayor and council.
Staff has thought about that further after the commission discussed this, and, our recommendation now is that we that other good cause be replaced with criteria staff adapted from state law related to the demolition of historic structures. To quote, the site or structure is a deterrent to a major improvement program that will be of substantial benefit to the city, and that is, from state code.
Councilman Van Gruyk.
So this goes to a topic that I know that I was discussing with you guys the last time we had this discussion. I just wanna make sure that any type of historic structure where I think it it it I would even go more than even the, what the staff's recommendation here is because we literally could have a situation that it's not just a match deterrent to a major improvement program. But if you've got a potential historic designation that was decrepit, that isn't kept up for whatever reason, they've got violation notices, and this is just a problem in the neighborhood, even if it's not a deterrent to a major improvement program, we might need to delist it so that we actually can get a different build there. I think I I like what staff is is doing here because I think for other good cause is a very, very generic phrase. So I think staff's exactly right to put a little bit of a description in there.
I just would probably widen that description so that it is more than just and maybe maybe just a deterrent to improvement within the city. That would be a substantial benefit to the city. Because if you have a derelict building that the owner isn't upkeeping, keeping it there and not and allowing it to retain that historic structure would be a problem for the city. So I think Steph's exactly right to have a more clear definition. I would just widen.
And I would just add that with the new demolition by neglect requirements that we would be adding under the code, hopefully, we'd never get to that situation.
So so essentially, what you're saying is we'd still have the because I know we were talking about that before. We'd still have the dev demolition by neglect, and this is just an additional category that we're having that I'm perfectly fine. Great job.
Thank you. Doctor. Miles.
I support staff's recommendation.
Councilmember Valeri.
So piggybacking a little bit off of Councilmember Van Graak's point, which I support, there are significant financial impacts for a house being listed, right? So the likelihood of a owner perhaps not being able to afford down the road, the upkeep to keep it historically preserved could occur. And I think that is one of the challenges that I hope that we all do think through a little bit more and that the financial reality of going on and off the historic list. This is not insignificant. It has the ability to is the word I'm looking for gentrify is the word I'm looking for an entire neighborhood if everything is deemed to be as historically significant.
And only those who can afford to make the structural changes are the only ones that can live there. That's not something any of us should be taking lightly. I know I don't take it lightly, and I don't think my colleagues do either. I think there should be no inhibition to delisting. I think if it is the toss-up between delisting or not having a home, I I think an owner should have the right to delist.
I think that delisting due to neglect, as was mentioned, I think that that absolutely makes sense. I think I really do like staff's recommendation. Other good cause is very vague. But I would be interested, similar to what council member Shaw has said as far as other municipal language around these issues, I would like to know, not only Montgomery County, but broadly other municipalities in Maryland, what the deal listing regulations look like, and what are some options. I think that that would be really, really helpful.
And if that's something that we could discuss during where is this coming back on May 18, the historic, I think, if I have it right? Bless you. I think that would be helpful.
Thank you. So the site or structure is a deterrent to a major improvement program. That's from state law, is that what you're saying?
Yes. That's when an actually designated site is being considered for demolition. That criteria could overrule the fact that it's historically designated.
Okay. I I do like so I like that you've clarified with other good cause, but I also still like the unanimous vote of mayor and council. Is that a possibility? Okay. Alright. That's where I
am. Councilman Jackson.
Yeah. I'll just say I support the staff's recommendation. Recommendation.
Council Michelle. I also support staff's recommendation. I
think we have clarity here. Perfect.
Next topic also within historic preservation is one of adaptive reuse. This is a topic that the Planning Commission raised themselves by expressing an interest in incentivizing the conversion of single unit properties that are designated historic into multiunit properties with the thought that that could potentially aid in their preservation by providing an income stream, for that property owner. And it was identified this generally agrees with, the comprehensive plan action 4.5 for historic preservation. The commission did agree to allow, that this potentially could be included in the draft. However, staff does not agree, that this is something that should be included in the draft currently.
It was something that was actually not anticipated by the Rockville 2040 plan and there may be other ways to accomplish this either through the next comprehensive plan review or for a neighborhood plan update. The situation really would allow for use permissions as part of the historic district overlay, which is not currently part of the code. So that's something that's entirely new and properties that are either designated or in neighborhoods where there are designations would kind of not be expecting that. So that is, why we recommended that it should be more fully vetted, in another, master planning effort rather than through this process.
Just to clarify, you're saying in residential zones. Correct? Because there are some historic properties that are borderline like around Town Center, for example, that are office.
Yes. The thought was that the properties that are single family detached homes and used as that, could perhaps be, subdivided into multifamily or apartments.
We do have, some historic properties in Town Center that are subdivided for office use. So I'm just curious, could those properties also be repurposed for not just office use, but I think in North Adams, for example, for housing.
Yeah. I think those properties are in the MXT zone, so that would be a permitted use.
That's currently allowable.
Okay. Thank you. Councilman Vallari.
And we have some historic properties that are multifamily and not single family homes, so it takes all kinds. So I found it interesting that the Commission found that the Rockville 2040 comp plan specifically did encourage adaptive reuse through historic preservation action 4.5, encouraged the adaptive reuse of historic properties when the original use is no longer practical. I think on that basis was what the Commission recommended, revising the staff draft to allow the multifamily uses and structures located in a historic district overlay. I know that staff had shared this is not anticipated in the comp plan, but I think it actually kind of stays true to what the Rockville 2040 plan was trying to accomplish. I actually think that because there are some multifamily buildings in historic districts in and around the city, we already have it.
I don't see why we would not want to encourage it because it would be an inequity. You can't say that this historic property over here totally has every right to be multifamily, and over here, a home that perhaps is maybe too unwieldy to be a single family home, and there are some that are out there, that could very easily be adaptively reused as a multi family. So I just wanted to kind of throw that out there. I support approving it now, and I think that considering a policy through the next comp plan is really just kind of kicking the can down the road, and I'm here to open cans. So let's open some cans.
Councilmember Jackson.
Thank you, mayor. I'll be brief. I support the commission's recommendation.
Councilor Michelle.
I I support the commission's recommendation. I think there are a lot of creative ways that we can create more housing units. And, you know, there are cities like like Boston that has a lot of older structures, even making church older churches from the sixteen hundreds into multifamily units. There's a lot of creative ways in which we can create some more units.
Councilman Mike Reich.
Not surprisingly, I really agree with my colleagues here. I I am, I do like what the commission's recommendation was. So the question I have is, can you pinpoint exactly what part of the 2040 comprehensive plan that you believe this specific policy that the commission was recommending would be contrary
So in our read of the language that the planning commission identified, it is saying to encourage, which does not mean necessarily change the uses that are permitted within the zone. We think that that specifically was not anticipated, and what this would do is take the historic district overlay zone, which currently says nothing about uses, and kind of override or layer on top of the uses that are permitted in the underlying zone. So for example, the historic properties in the mixed use transition district, which are offices or perhaps apartments within them, that is dictated by the MXT zone. And then you have that historic district overlay zone on top of it, which does not say anything about the uses. So this would take and similarly, if you have a single unit residential zone with a historic property inside of it, the uses are defined and outlined by that single unit residential zone.
The historic district layers on top of it and doesn't say anything about the zone or about the uses. So it is entirely possible to have a historic property in the MXT zone or in another mixed use zone that can be adaptively reused to turn into offices, to turn into apartments, to turn into any number of things. So we read that, and we understand that the adaptive reuse would be encouraged within the bounds of the use uses defined in that underlying zone. We also, I think, are a bit concerned about not having done a specific engagement around a policy change of this nature. I would say, from a policy standpoint, I don't think anyone on staff thinks this is a horrible policy, and it certainly could, assist in furthering mayor and council's goals around housing.
However, understanding that it is quite a significant policy change historic properties throughout the city, and it's something that we really haven't been able to vet through this process with community members. I think our recommendation would just be take this what could be good recommendation, put it through a planning process, and move from there.
Then let me, I guess, switch to the the city attorney's office. I mean, how do you see this? Because I I think that the commission's recommendation, just as staff was saying, really goes to the direction that the mayor and council is looking for for the usage of the space. Is this something that we would be prohibited from doing? Is there a change that we could adjust? Or is this a gray interpretation of the 2040 comprehensive plan that wouldn't necessarily be a problem?
So generally speaking, your zoning actions have to be your your zoning regulations have to be consistent with the comprehensive plans. They have to further and not be contrary to the comprehensive plan. There are provisions in the comprehensive plan that emphasize the need for more housing in the city. There are provisions in the comprehensive plan that talk about encouraging the preservation of historic structures. All of those would be justifications for a change like this.
On the flip side, you have recommendations in the comprehensive plan as to the recommended land uses of particular zones, including single family zones, some of which may not have been recommended for multifamily housing but would now have that use instances as a result of this change. So it's a long way of saying, you know, legally you are in a little bit of a gray area. I think you have the support that you would need to make a legal defense as to why you made this particular change because you were furthering aspects of the comprehensive plan. And you could also argue that the amount of multifamily housing that would be generated by this change would probably be pretty insubstantial. So I think this would probably be legally justifiable, but there, you know, there's some conflict there.
Thank you, staff, city attorney's office. Fantastic clarifications. With that, I do support the commission's recommendation and exploring a clarification to ensure that we're doing it legally and within the comp plan. Thank you.
I have a question about because one of my colleagues rightfully mentioned faith based institutions. There are some faith based institutions that are struggling right now. But it's my understanding on the state law that faith based institutions can convert to missing middle housing now. But can you clarify that?
So I believe you're referring to the Housing Expansion and Affordability Act that was passed last year. It is that that is that what you have described, Mayor, generally true, subject to certain requirements about the housing that is generated. So, for example, as I understand the act, and I'm working on my memory here, if a faith based institution were to try to put a purely market rate multifamily building on its property, it would not be subject to the benefits of that act. That act would only kick in if a certain percentage of the units are targeted to lower income individuals. So in other words, have to meet the requirements of the act, but yes, if you do meet those requirements, you would get those benefits.
Okay. That's great. So there is a pathway to doing that under state law at this time with a focus on affordable?
Yes. It is, and we did make sure that those provisions were also reflected in the new zoning ordinance.
Have you seen or is there a concern about LLCs? I know that this is happening in other parts of the country where they're going and just buying up a bunch of homes and turning them. Is that a concern? I'm just wondering what staff said that hesitation is besides the purchase of public participation, which is important.
I mean, I think our concern primarily is that that our neighborhoods really aren't expecting this change to result of this process.
Okay. Thank you. Doctor. Miles.
Thank you, madam mayor. I support staff's recommendation on this one. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I misspoke. Commission's recommendation on this one.
Okay. I think you've heard enough from my colleagues, right, to move on to the next. Perfect.
Alright. That concludes, Planning Commission recommendations on the zoning ordinance text.
I have one thing? Sorry. Absolutely. If this moves forward, I think we do need to do some additional outreach or flagging of this for the upcoming public hearings so that this is a change that people may not be aware of, just to flag the change. Thank you. Go ahead.
So we'd like to move on to discussion of the Planning Commission recommendations on the draft zoning map. And the first, area that the commission discussed was in Planning Area 10, which is the Montrose and North Farm planning area. And you may recall that the comprehensive plan, recommended, rezoning to a new zone, in this area, which contains the existing congressional Towers apartments and the Rollins Park apartments, currently zoned RMD 25. The planning commission recommended that this rezoning take place, but in a kind of a tweaked manner that there would be a new zone created, the RHD zone, residential high density. And our recommendation as staff was that that density be increased to 100 units to the acre and an increase in the maximum height from 75 feet to 150 feet.
We also recommend that portions of this property not be rezoned and retain their existing zone. In this graphic, you can see on the left retaining the R 75. That property is the location of the current privately owned physical fitness center that serves the apartments and also the single family homes. That was a major concern of the residential community that they would not like to see that redeveloped, and they would like to preserve that amenity. We also recommend that properties on the north side of Rollins Avenue, also shown in gray, that is currently RMD 25 be retained at RMD 25 for a depth of 400 feet, parallel to Rollins Avenue.
So both of the properties that would not be rezoned essentially provide for a transition from the single family detached on the southern portion of this area to the new higher density development, that might occur in the new RHD zone. As you know, there was a lot of, testimony regarding this. Staff met with not only the property owners, but the community to try to, work out this recommendation. Our understanding is that the community supports the staff recommendation and the planning commission recommendation as well. Didn't quite get there with the property owner, but we came very close, to that.
So, with that, be happy to answer questions on this particular rezoning.
Thank you. Councilman Jackson. Good. Councilman Shaw.
So wait. Are you saying that the neighborhood supported both of the recommendations?
They support the new one.
The the the commission's recommendation. The rest.
Yeah. The one on the left.
Yeah. Okay. Alright. That that that I must have misheard you. Then yes. Okay. Great. That's exactly what I thought, and that makes perfect sense.
I'm good.
No questions.
Okay. Councilman Valeri. Hi. Quick question.
Does the RHD designation allow or foreclose ground floor commercial or mixed use development? And is that consistent with the comprehensive plan vision for Montrose?
Well, comprehensive plan recommends a development of a new high density residential zone, something that we don't have in our current code. So that is, what we endeavor to develop in that zone. I don't think it allows for resident or retail or mixed use.
So so no first level amenity retail amenities in a residential high density zone?
As drafted, that is correct. Although, will note that the yellow strip that's along the West side of East Jefferson Street is a mixed use zone. That's the mixed use transition zone, so there could be some retail amenities along there.
No. And I and I appreciate that. I think the challenge here is that we're putting high density in. That means that there will be a lot of folks living there. They most likely would love to have some sort of retail amenity.
I'm just going say a coffee shop because I love coffee. It'd be great to have that on the 1st Floor, right? Being able to make that adjustment down the road is going to take a ZTA. So why wouldn't we want to look at RHD not as a true mixed use, but as a way to create an on-site amenity, retail amenity, for residential high density development.
It's certainly a possibility.
I just wanted to throw that out there. I know it's getting late to you, but and to my colleagues as well that I just don't want to constrain ourselves to things like this that it would take a titanic movement to shift, and maybe we could do that from the get go and kind of look at it as a transitional zone from the yellow to the purple with a more limited first level retail.
If if I may, I might caution against that for two reasons. The comprehensive plan does specify that it is to be a high density residential zone, And, also, the community that is existing has we have coordinated quite a lot with them to get to a place where they are wholeheartedly behind the proposal as it currently stands. And I will say we probably went through four or five different iterations. So I think with the combination of the comprehensive plan recommendation, also understanding it is quite walkable to other commercial uses just East of East Jefferson and will be also to the Western portion of East Jefferson. I I would probably tend away from that at this point in time.
Did you hear specific feedback from the Montrose community? Montrose and North Farm. I'm not trying to be exclusive that they would not want to see that sort of
In fact, we did. They specifically and it's, you know, it's not a monolith. There were many different opinions, but, but we did specifically hear the phrase encroachment of commercial into our neighborhood from a number of different folks.
And this was from the single family homeowners, isn't it? Okay. That is correct. Awesome.
Thank you.
I wanna thank staff for coming forward with this and sharing this option with the planning commission. There was a lot of feedback. I know many of us put our feet on the ground walking in that community as well. I think you did a nice job. I appreciate it. I support the staff's recommendation and the Planning Commission's recommendation. Alright. So we need a straw poll here? Okay. Who supports the Planning Commission's recommendation?
The updated one.
Yep. Updated. Mhmm. Perfect. Thank you.
And with that, I'm gonna turn it back over to miss Simmons to take you the rest of the way.
Thank you, mister Wozilek. So on to Planning Area 12. I'm sure you all are quite familiar with this property, 9.75 acres south of Newmark Commons, north of the Tower Oaks development, currently zoned r 90, and the comprehensive plan recommends that it be rezoned to R M D 25, which is our residential medium density 25 dwelling units to the acre zone. So the commission did recommend, after hearing quite a lot of testimony as you yourselves have heard as well from residents of the surrounding community, also from Tower Dawson's representation, they recommended rezoning the site to R M D 25 as recommended by the comprehensive plan, but also adding a footnote to that zone that if any vehicular access to a property is provided from a secondary residential street that ended in a cul de sac on the effective date of the ordinance, then the maximum development density is limited to 10 dwelling units per acre. So that would effectively reduce the density on-site to 10 dwelling units to the acre should vehicular access to the property be provided through Newmark Commons via Don Mills Court.
We also understand, however, that mayor and council may have interest in rezoning the property to a different zone. So while staff continues to recommend the implementation of the RMD 25 zone, we do have considerations that could guide you through identifying a different zone for the property. We do the first consideration, you can see on the left hand side, have three topics in the middle, goals that may be accomplished within those topics, and then a recommendation to accomplish that goal all the way on the right hand side. So these fall into categories of access, density, and form development type. Regardless of what is done with density and form, you could apply a restriction to access specifically to limit the primary access from Don Mills Court.
And our recommendation there, you'd see in the upper right hand blue box, would be prohibiting primary access from a secondary residential street ending in a cul de sac on the effective date of the ordinance. We did do an analysis of the entire city to ensure that that would only apply to this property. If you are interested specifically in reducing the number of dwelling units on the property, so this is that middle lighter orange line, just fewer dwelling units generally, then choosing a zone of RMD 15 or RMD 10 would be our recommendation. One would allow 15 dwelling units to the acre, one would allow 10, so slight variability there. And then if the goal is really to ensure that there's a specific type of development or form, whether it be single unit, multiplex, townhouse, and cottage court development only, we have a recommendation for that.
Rezoning the property either to R M D 15 or R M D 10 and also revising the height in the zone, specifically for R M D 10. The note at the bottom incorrect. That is a copy paste error. That middle bullet all the way at the bottom of the slide should say RMD 15 has a current maximum height of 40 feet. So if the RMD 15 were applied, no no change in the height would be necessary for that zone.
However, RMD 10 were in order to derive single unit multiplex townhouse and cottage development, we would recommend increasing the height to 40 feet. And then if the Mayor and Council is interested to see two over two and Garden Apartment development, really in order to derive that type of development, we are looking at an RMD 25 or RMD 15, but with the RMD 25 reducing the height from 75 feet to 55 feet, or with the RMD 15 increasing it from 40 to 55. And the reason for that is that we really are not going to see two over two development or garden apartments at a height that's lower than that.
Can I ask some clarifying questions before open the floor? When you think about when you think about the the land mass that we just looked at in the in the Montrose community, what is that total square footage?
It's 9.75 acres. I would have to do some
So it's similar in size to this property?
Oh, the Montrose. My apologies. No. No. No. That's I wanna say that's closer to it's much larger. We could probably work that up pretty quickly for you. Jim's gonna
While pull up our zoning he's thinking about that, I know that we're talking about that particular property near Don Mills Court, but the property owners actually own property on Wooten Parkway as well and could master plan the whole thing, could they not? So they could look at the two areas near Wooten Parkway and then also try to bring in that area near Domino's Court. Is that a possibility?
I mean, they could be, although I will say Tower Oaks itself is a planned development. So those regulations apply from the original approval. So it's a little bit different than this 9.75 acre piece which is owned by the Tower Oaks owner but is not within the planned development.
Right. But they might be looking at the big picture here. Why I ask is because while this language specifically speaks to primary access to Don Mills Court, maybe it's not the primary access, but you could have access through the Wooten Parkway that could come down to Don Mills Court, even if it's not primary and it's not the only, if they looked at a comprehensive plan, a master plan there. But I don't think our options here represent or contemplate that. I
mean, their their, you know, their action their access options really are limited. It's either gonna be from Don Mills Court, or from the South.
But because of the it uses primary, if they're coming in through Wooten Parkway as primary and could say that coming from Don Mills Court as secondary. I just I wonder if there's a loophole there. Like, could they have an access point on both sides? And that we've heard comments about cut throughs. That's what I'm trying to get Like, theoretically, there could be cut through.
I think it's possible. If we wanted to be more stringent, I would probably say fire access.
Right. That's what I was trying to get to. It's, like, the option that we're looking at here, we might wanna be explicit in saying it's emergency access.
That certainly could be different.
But we could because some neighborhoods also contemplate bike path and walking path, allow that between the two neighborhoods so that there there's some cohesion. Right. Is that an option?
Certainly. And I think you heard testimony earlier this evening that perhaps it's just the emergency access.
Okay. And then when this came before the full body last time, I heard from the majority of colleagues that were talking about single family townhomes, two over two condos, duplexes, like more RMD infill. But I understand the limitation from the questions I asked with RMD infills would have to adjust the height. Is that right? To allow for two over two condos.
The issue primarily with the RMD infill is that it's really and it's in the name, it's intended for infill sites. So where you have a large tract like this, using a density calculation, makes quite a bit more sense. Our standards for the RMD infill really are not designed for a large tract. They're designed for kind of individual lots inside of already existing, already existing neighborhoods.
Okay. But that was the that was what McMairon Council were trying to get to, those uses. My question is, is there an option to do similar to what you did with the Montrose community where you had sort of a buildup? There's a buffer, considering the emergency zone, but there's a buffer near Domino's Court, and then you have greater allowances as you're getting closer to the Tower Oaks area.
I'm sure there's a way to do it. Now, off the top of my head, I'm thinking maybe, you know, there's maybe two zones that are implemented on the site, although it's kind of long and narrow. That might not make
a lot of sense. You. Councilmember Jackson, then Councilmember Vallery, and then Councilmember Jackson.
Thanks, Mayor. So the mayor effectively asked one of my questions, which was why you weren't considering RMD infill. So I won't go to that. I really appreciate the access and the recommendation. And I I do agree with the mayor.
I mean, the the fire access, like, having that language specifically would would go a long way towards making this palatable, to me at least. And looking at the chart, think both of the options there in orange are intriguing to to to me. But the devil the devil's in the details implemented. I would like to know more, but I think that you have done a good job of coming back to us with options, which is what we asked for. And so I thank you for that.
Doctor. Valeri? Yes. So I totally understand what you're saying about RMD infill. However, I don't see a big difference between the flexibility of RMD infill for this particular with a footnoted density footnote that's contingent upon access.
And we're only looking at access right now, given the transit and the transportation methods that we have right this second. But it also seems to me to be very an access dependence density standard is going to be difficult to administer consistently over time. We don't know what access points will look like. And honestly, and I think probably is most to the point, I think, of a lot of the folks that we heard from both Mark Wood and Newmark Commons is that the preservation of the tree canopy is very important to them. It's one of the design features right, in the Newmark Commons community.
It was about building and being integrated in nature. So I feel that the flexibility of RMD infill is kind of made for this. While it's not traditional in the sense of you've got two single family homes next to each other, and what can you do literally to fill in between the two? That would still be more consistent than an access dependent density. I see what everybody was trying to do, right, and trying to come up with a good compromise and kind of another way through.
All that to say that I think we can get there in an infill, lesser density, without having to create layers of primary access. I think that we need to set aside there are some existing traffic challenges that I think we should be doing in a safety audit aside from all this. Right? But I hesitate to say that this wouldn't fall under the RMD infill because it is not literally looking at housing in between two housing, if that makes sense. I think it's much more of a detriment to have a footnoted density decision point that is very specific to a singular planning area.
I'm really trying to, for everybody's purposes, going forward in the Zohr, have a very clean code that is not dependent on neighborhood to neighborhood to neighborhood, right? And this is a beginning of a good solution but also starts that patchwork quilt of, well, this actually looks like this over here. Actually, it's going to look like this over here. And I think we can be consistent with RMD infill and still get to the issue that folks heard from the community. Just my thoughts.
Thank you. Councilman Van Graat?
I think this is a really good start. And I think we're starting you know, a lot of times when you've got a lot of different parties and, we can't just rubber stamp things, we gotta sometimes do more listening. I think what we did in the Montrose area of really listening to the community and then what we wanted to do gave us a solution that I think developers, the community, the mayor and council were all happy with. And I think we're getting close to where we are here. We're not quite there.
And I know you've heard from what the mayor said, and I think one of the things we've heard from the community the most with regard to this area is direct access into Newmar Commons and the degree to which it would create problems. We've also heard from someone representing the developer, the current owner that says, there's an option to not necessarily have that. Right? So I don't think it's a matter of primary access. It's a matter of, well, emergency access only, you know, in that area and being able to come up with creative solutions that make it so that it's essentially a win win solution.
Now there's not gonna be a pure win win solution because everyone can't have their way, but piecing things together as you've kind of put together here, I think, is a very good start. And to the extent there can be a wave to not have main access in Don Mills Court, that really fulfills it. That being said, I've also heard from people in the community that says, we like our tree canopy. We want it to stay that way. Well, it can't. Right? This is an area that is zoned for development. We've gotta do something with it. Do we need to go all the way to which we went for RMD 25? Not necessarily.
However, we also realized that if we eliminate that access through Newmar Commons, we've addressed the primary concern. So I think the middle ground that you proposed here, which is not having access for anyone other than emergency vehicles, because we also know that there's an e I mean, we've we've gotten the privilege to walk in that area and see it firsthand. And we know there's actually other areas that other reasons such as outflows that the even the city might need to be get in that access for other reasons. So to close off the access for everything but including the city or emergency doesn't make sense. But having that be the access point for anybody to use such as those residents there seems like a win win solution to not have that.
I think the staff is going in the right direction here with regard to the RMD 15 and RMD 10, reducing it from the high rise because, you know, we've heard a lot from folks in Montrose, folks here about not necessarily having high rise building right next to their single family homes. But that being said, we've also got an area that even under the the comp plan talks about some type of additional density other than single family homes. And so having something in RMD 50 15, that has that additional density but doesn't create this monstrosity buildings and not having the access, seems to me like a solution. That being said, I wanna make sure that we're listening to everyone and having everyone in the community. We heard from, you know, we have there was a lot of discussion that we've had from the Montrose folks with regard to the moment it came about.
I wanna make sure we've heard from people in the Newmark Commons that they felt that they weren't part of this conversation. Wanna make sure that whatever we do, we're listening to them and we're digesting what they're gonna be what what their primary interests are. So I think not having access to Don Mills Court, having a limited step down but not all the way step down of an RMD 15 makes sense because it's it gets, I think, everywhere to where everyone to where where they wanna be.
Thank you. I my colleague was mentioning also just Mark Wood as a community as well as we think about Newmark Commons. Thank you for the reminder. I'm just seeing if anyone has any other questions. Okay. Councilman Bershaw.
I I wanna thank staff in bringing back some options, and I do agree with my colleagues that this is a really great start. And also today, you know, we heard a lot of concerns from the community. One of the things that was raised is a possible burial ground, and I'm not sure if there are some procedures around that. That is very concerning to me. And, you know, we're talking about historic preservation. Are is there some procedure around that to get more information?
So we actually did add to our subdivision regulations requirements related to burial grounds, and that is something that comes directly out of state law. So it is it is currently in the staff draft. It's not in our current ordinance, so we did make that update and change.
Okay. So there'd have to be some sort of review?
Yeah. Yes.
Like a like a study to figure out.
I would have to look to see exactly what it is. It does not specifically say a study per se. Bear with me for just a moment. But there would there would need to be study in order to identify it to comply with the regulations related to burial grounds.
Well, miss Simmons is looking at that. There are various other provisions of state law that govern access, maintenance, and changes to cemeteries, including a requirement that, for example, if a burial site has existed for more than fifty years, landowners or controlling entities are required to consult with the Maryland Historic Trust before altering markers, remains, or the site settings. Our subdivision regulations provide specific requirements relating to access to descendants on burial grounds, which is a requirement of the state land use article. But I just wanted to emphasize there are a variety of state statutes from the criminal law article, real property article, and even the business regulation article addressing how cemeteries and buried remains are to be treated. We could not and should not capture all of that within our zoning ordinance, but those would apply to any developer of the property.
I just wanted to stress that that is something that is concerning to me. If that in fact is a burial ground, I think we should be very careful. I'm glad that there are some regulations in terms of just understanding that land a lot more.
Can we deal with first the access? I'm hearing some energy on not having just not dealing with the primary access, but that if you're going through Don Mills Court, that it would be emergency access as as the way to do it, and we would still allow biking and walking paths. Can we at least straw poll that?
Yes. That would
be great.
Yes. Colleagues. Just not dealing with the zoning designation just yet, but just, like, so that there's not some cut through traffic because if this is master plan together through the Wooten community
Right.
We just we're dealing with that together. Alright. Did you have a question?
Just a clarification because I think council member Van Graat brought it up. So that the emergency access and city access because of the
Yes. Would include city access. I think there's some storm water things we have to manage. So when I say emergencies, all city emergency access, fire trucks, etcetera. Plus we would allow for bikes and walking paths. We're not removing that. So generally speaking, as we're looking at this, let's just drop all that. The access point from Pedestrian. That as they Okay. Alright. Council Member Schott, do you
have a question?
Okay. Okay. So now let's deal with and I want to see if my colleagues are I mean, I know it's almost it is midnight, after midnight. But we still have this issue of RMD infill, RMD ten, fifteen. Are we looking at the Montrose community as considered a buffer and then going up?
I just wanted to, as an example, just want to see where everyone stands there. I know as a body we talked about allowing for duplexes, triplexes, two over twos. That's that was that's what I heard the majority say we were interested in trying to allow there for missing middle housing. Is not I don't think there's major bus access right there, but some limited, but the highway is not that far. But just wanted to get a sense of what staff is there an option that you wanna think through further, or do you want us to weigh in right now?
I I would just say if you are interested in seeing two over twos and truly two over twos if that whether or not you care about the garden apartments, it's probably looking at the RMD 15 or 25. And with the RMD 25, you could reduce it down to 55 feet and still get that development or with the RMD 15 increase it up to 55 feet and still get that development.
And we could also do RMD 10 and increase the height. Isn't that an option as well?
That is correct. However, at that density, you may not be getting two over twos just because it's not quite dense enough. With
RMD 10, are you getting garden apartments or not? Likely no. Okay. Colleagues, what are you thinking here? You want to go down the line?
I was
going to say I think RMD 15 is a reasonable compromise. It's not the RMD 25, but it's not I think it's a reasonable compromise.
I still want to get some more information around the burial.
To me. If if there is not a if we are protected by state law, and they would have to make sure that they're not dealing with putting housing over over a burial, what do you what would you say? If that's not the if that's not an issue, what would you say? Sure. Councilman Jackson.
Thank you, Mayor. I think it's getting late. But also, no, I I really think RMD 15 is a good compromise. I've heard from a lot of people in Newmont Commons. I've talked to people, and I think RMD 15 or thereabouts will will actually do the trick. So thank you, staff, for all all the the work. I think our our RMD 15, yes.
And RMD ten and fifteen allow, generally speaking, the uses that we have been naming, correct?
They do, however, without the revision to
the With the height. Yeah. Yeah. So, yeah. I think that RMD 10 has been most socialized in the community. I'm probably likely to get agreement there, and I'm also open to going up as you get further away from Domino's Court is where I stand. Councilman Valeria.
Hey. I'm still wedded to RMD infill. It can happen. No, I do think it can happen, but I am okay with RMD 10. I think with the caveat that anything and everything that we could do to protect the tree canopy there, extremely mature established trees should be done. And I don't know how we could do that necessarily, but it seems to me to make sense given the history of the Newmark Commons development.
I should also clarify when I said that I'm also talking about adjusting the height so that you can get the two over twos. Doctor. Miles.
We have two over two trees.
Thank you, madam mayor. I appreciate staff's work on this. I appreciate the residents for being here. And I think, generally speaking, I I do accept and am mindful of the point brought up by our colleague with regard to burial grounds. I think it used to be a pauper cemetery cemetery.
In that area. But notwithstanding, if there aren't if we if we obviate that, meaning that it does not in that area, does not exist, my preference for would be the portion that abuts Newmark not to be developed whatsoever, but I I recognize that it is purchased by a particular entity. And if they are going to develop to do something no different from what exists there, I'm thinking about, like, those side by sides on Tinger Court. So I think that RMD ten fifteen would make sense. And then the part that abuts Wooten, I think, could be higher, but it sounds like the the developer, at least the legal representative, is not interested in making any development stuff so far.
My goal would be no developmental part that, again, abuts Don Mills and Newmark Commons, but I think it, you know, it it's it's tough when somebody else owns the property. So just keeping it consistent with what's going on there and no cut throughs. Meaning what meaning consistent with what other housing exists in the area currently. That's all.
Did you get enough feedback from us?
I think council member Shaw wants to circle back or no?
Yeah.
I would agree with doctor Miles in terms of keeping consistent with what is already there. But I I am what I heard today, I'm very concerned about the burial ground.
I think I think I heard R M D 15. Very clear direction on, limiting access off of, Don Mills Court. I think that'll give us enough to work with, and we'll come up with some recommendations on the maximum height when we bring it back.
I think you saw a split between RMD 10 and RMD 15, just so you know.
Oh, I I agree.
Was two one fifteen, there were two one ten.
I heard a couple 15 tens
for sure.
I said I I will just clarify myself. I was open to it away from Domino's Court if it's just a step up, like a a gradual, but I was
transition zone.
A transition zone from 10 to 15. I heard 15 on this side from two people. I think I heard 10 here. Doctor. Miles, where were you? Ten or fifteen?
Ten. If we applied and this is introducing complications, so I apologize. But our current transition height proposal for our other zones that go above 50 feet is that when a building exceeds 50 feet in height, it needs to be stepped back at the second story. So if the zone were r m d 15, it was bumped up to 55 feet maximum height and had that transition height applied so there would be a step back in the buildings from Don Mills Court. I don't know if I know that's a lot to absorb right now. So if
it's too much 30. Mhmm. I do love the creative thinking at this hour. Amazing work. Seriously. Could you show us examples of a 10 and then a 15 with a slope? Yeah. Thank you.
We're getting there. Got it strong.
Getting there. Alright. I know there's a lot covered tonight. I can't imagine that we would have gone through budget again with on top of this. So thank you so much, mister city manager, for helping us to adjust. I just wanted to see I know you have a couple of additional revisions, so we're almost there. I just wanna know it is twelve almost 12:30.
Absolutely. I will make this quick. So the Planning Commission did have a number of other recommendations. In many instances, they reviewed portions of the staff draft and supported them as drafted. Obviously, you've seen many recommendations that we've asked for your direction on this evening, and then there are also sets of recommendations that you see before you currently.
Two slides, I will run through them rather quickly. These are recommendations that we are planning on implementing in the staff draft, so you can anticipate seeing them there. If there are any questions, I am happy to go into further detail. In Article one, the Planning Commission recommended revising the purpose statement to increase objectivity, specificity, and inclusivity and the specific language that they are proposing with a specific underline and strike through to identify additions and deletions is included in their memo and we are intending to include that in the revised staff draft. In article three, we recommended and they supported the recommendation to update the chief of zoning's powers and duties to include publishing and amending our development review manual subject to city manager approval.
This is what we currently do. It's just reflected in the zoning ordinance, and we thought that
was important to include. Can you clarify that? Is that removing power from anybody?
No. That is not that is not reassigning duties. Thank you. Article five, adding a requirement for findings for local map amendments. So this is typical practice. We looked at Montgomery County's ordinance to see what are the findings that they require. We adapted from there. This was brought up by one of our commissioners. This is not typical to include findings for sectional or comprehensive map amendments, but local map amendments, can be initiated by mayor and council or by the property owner, typically do include findings. So they recommended adding two findings, and we are intending to make that change in the draft.
In article eight, they, again, raised a great question. What is the function of our purpose statements that are scattered throughout the zoning ordinance? And in some instances, there is a purpose. They tie it to waiver provisions. The waiver says it needs to be consistent with the purpose of this article or this division.
In some instances, they're just kind of sitting there and not adding a whole lot of value. So in those instances, bear with me for a moment, in the parking and loading and bike and pedestrian facilities divisions, we are proposing to remove those per the Planning Commission's recommendations. In Article seven, there were a number of critical questions asked about the RMD infill zone, so we did go and do an analysis of other jurisdictions that have similar zones, and we are proposing a number of changes, specifically revising the density standard to a minimum lot area standard. This would take it from 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit to in terms of density, to 2,000 square foot minimum lot area per dwelling unit, which is more consistent with development patterns that you see in single unit residential zones. We are also intending to specify the maximum number of dwelling units per lot, which are based on use or form.
This is a little bit more complicated I can give you details if you would like, but if not, I will leave it at that. And then also reducing the design standards for this zone to only those that are necessary. And, really, what we're left with when reducing those design standards is to still have elements of the dwelling that interact with the street. So stoops, balconies, porches, things of that nature, even if the side of the building is facing the street as opposed to what we would consider the front.
Are there any other design standards that you're removing?
We are removing other design so that design standard would stay. The design standard that we are proposing to eliminate are a single plane of a facade must not be greater than 40 feet. Monotonous unarticulated blank walls are prohibited, and attached garages and carports must be recessed a minimum of five feet behind the front facade of the main building. The first two really are more typical for zones that have much more massive buildings and were kind of based off of some of our development stand or design standards for our mixed use zones and are perhaps not as appropriate for this zone. And then the attached garages and carports needing to be recessed a minimum of five feet behind the front facade would cause problems for our townhouses, etcetera.
Yeah. Okay. In the mixed use zones, we had questions about the the development standards for these zones. So we are proposing and planning commission recommended revising the setbacks when a property is abutting residential land to account for the intensity of the proposed development. So, basically, the setback setback would increase when it's next to lower intensity residential and a much higher intensity residential or mixed use use is proposed, but not if it's lower in scale.
And then also revising setbacks when abutting non residential land to address an issue. Currently, in a lot of our mixed use zones, these abutting non residential land setbacks are variable from they're either zero feet, you have no setback, or if you have any setback, it's 10 feet. So you provide a zero foot setback. You can provide a 10 foot setback. You cannot provide anything in between, which is an odd standard.
It's something we carried forward from our current zoning ordinance, and it was raised to us that that does not make a whole lot of sense. So we are proposing to just eliminate the portion that says, if you have any setback, it needs to be 10 feet. So it would be a zero foot setback, and then you could provide an additional setback from there. And then finally, in the residential high density zone, the intention was to align this zone and its development standards with the mixed use zones, but we did not quite hit the mark there. So this was raised to attention by one of the planning commissioners, and we are going to go ahead and revise the side and rear setbacks to align with the mixed mixed use zones. So I know that was a speed run. Does anyone have any questions on any of those?
Yes. We do. Okay. Councilman Vengregg.
Can you explain the problem of the alignment with the RHD and the MX zones? Like, what was the issue? Because I saw that there was conversation about the lack of conformity, but I'm trying to understand what because I know they are different. What is the problem that is trying to be solved?
The setbacks are just rather different, and they're not as flexible in the residential high density zone. I will have to go back and pull up the specific
You're saying the residential high density is not as flexible, meaning there's so what this is trying to do is make the residential high density more flexible from a development perspective, much like the MXZones.
Correct.
Good. That's the I thought it was actually going the opposite direction. So perfect. That answers my question, and I'm comfortable with the change.
So when you put numbers on RMD infill, then doesn't it just become 10 or 15?
Right? Oh, this is an excellent question. So what we are proposing is that based on the type of use, you could have more or less dwellings per lot. So, for example, for single family dwellings, you could have one dwelling unit per lot. For a multiplex, you can have five dwelling units per or four dwelling units per lot unless it's otherwise specified in the plan.
For townhouses, you can have a row of six, and for cottage courts, you can have eight. This is actually something that we saw in Salt Lake City's ordinance, and it really got to a question that we had had about how do we ensure that the development will still kind of fit in the scale of the existing neighborhoods. So it's not it's not exactly equivalent to density. It's more regulating through lot size and then number of dwelling units that can be accommodated on a lot. And so if you have if you have one single family dwelling, then you could have a lot that is 2,000 square foot minimum area.
If you have four multiplexes, you take the four of the multiplex and multiply it by the minimum lot size per dwelling unit minimum lot area per dwelling unit of 2,000 and get yourself to eight an 8,000 square foot lot. Staff prefers this?
Yes. Okay. I will yes. If you need to change your mind because it is now 12:30 in the future, that's fine. It does. The door is open. It just seems like it is making things more complicated, but a little messier. Okay. And then the the setbacks, the the mixed use zones, those are ones that I was like, oh, I would like more information or a deeper level of explanation as we get into the draft of what are the cons here? I see the pros, but are there I always think about unintended consequences. So what are potential unintended consequences with this approach?
I don't honestly think that we foresee any unintended consequences, particularly with eliminating the the zero foot, but if not zero foot, 10 foot. That is that just makes good sense. If you can have the zero foot, you should be able to have two foot or five foot or seven foot and not automatically be bumped out to 10 feet. With the the rear and side yard setbacks that vary based on whether or not they're abutting residential residential uses. They currently don't account for the intensity of the development, and we are recommending to revise them so that they would account for the develop the intensity of the development.
So it would be a 25 foot side yard or rear yard setback, which is an increase. So a greater 25 foot setback when the proposed development is greater than 50 feet tall, when the uses that are proposed are something other than single family dwellings, townhouses, cottage courts, or multiplexes, so things that are a bit taller, a bit more intense, and when they are abutting a single unit zone. And this is combined with the step back provisions that you all have seen a while ago now, but it's what I referenced just maybe ten minutes ago related to
Okay.
And then in the
previous SOAR meeting, there was some discussion about cottage courts removing language, but now I'm hearing a lot of cottage living options here. I'm just saying there was a couple of meetings ago, or maybe it was December, there was something that was removed from language about the cottage clusters. Do you remember that? I do remember Yeah. But now I'm hearing more cottage, so now I I just wanted to flag. So we don't have the space to do more cottage clusters.
We we can follow-up on that. Yeah.
Thank you. I think it was December meeting, but it was a couple meetings ago. Okay. Colleagues, I know it's late, but just wanted to see, do we have general energy preliminarily to support these additional planning commission recommendations? Those in Who generally generally support? Raise your hand. Generally. Generally. We also reserve the right to change our mind given it's 12:30. Okay.
I had a couple quick questions for you, and and I know we're gonna talk about the schedule. But we talked about updating the zoning chart to include heights so that it's clear. I've heard discussion about people understanding what is state law versus not state law. Is there any way to asterisk that or not? We're trying to be as clear as possible with the public so they know what has changed. So I'm just curious. What can we do to be more transparent?
What I can tell you is that with the revised staff draft, what we are proposing to do is provide an additional document that goes through all of the substantive changes and any technical corrections that might not immediately make sense in an effort to, really increase transparency there. So for anyone who's interested to see what has changed from the current staff draft to the revised staff draft. There will be notes on that.
And will that also indicate major things related to state law? For example, I can think of two. One is near the metro. There's a there's state law changes that have happened there. Faith based facilities, has been state law changes. Those are two general big ones that maybe we can just include in the upfront summary.
I think that including that in the document that we're preparing, probably that's not the correct, like, not the right location to include it just because it really is the changes from the current staff draft to the revised identifying was already incorporated into the staff draft. So that's not to say that we cannot do that. It might be it might be a bit of a challenge. So I wouldn't say that we'll have it with the release of the revised staff draft, but perhaps that's something we could work on over time.
If you could at least include a foot a footnote or two. Those are the major ones that I know we've discussed so that at least the public can see why is mayor and council doing that. Okay. So we talked about height. And then I some comments about uses. I think you'll get to that with that's maybe another discussion. Correct. But I wanted to make sure that we're thinking about that as well. April 27?
Yes. We will discuss that with Article six during our second work session on the changes in the articles.
Okay. Let's go to the next steps, adoption schedule.
Alright, so this is the more detailed adoption schedule. We are currently at April 13 with our first public hearing and work session. As noted a number of times during this during this evening, we will be producing a revised revised staff draft zoning ordinance and zoning map published to Engage Rock ville next Monday. And then we do have a number of work sessions following that all in a line. We'll have our second public hearing on May 4.
A week after that and second work session. A week after that, we'll have our third work session. And the following week after that, the fourth work session. So those, again, are going to cover all of the articles within the zoning ordinance. We'll be going through all of the key changes that are identified in the highlights document, which really are framing out the major substantive changes from our current ordinance to the proposed staff draft.
Two weeks after that May 18 meeting, we are scheduled to release a final staff draft. This will be a similar update incorporating more of mayor and council's guidance, which we've gotten through those three work sessions I just went over, with additional, I am sure, technical corrections, minor policy changes, etcetera. And that is tracking us toward adoption on July 6.
Okay. Thank you. I have some overarching comments that I've heard from my colleagues and some that I've myself, so I just wanted to flag a couple of things. One is April 20, the revised draft from staff. Thank you for that, and thank you for the work that you're gonna do over the next seven days to make this happen.
I do wanna note that between the release of that and the public hearing, that only allows for fourteen days for an extensive big document. I do have concern about that being the only time we have a public hearing. I do public needs three to four weeks to really digest this. And so there are a number of ways we can handle that. One thought is to have another public hearing that we can add into the schedule so that we're allowing the public to really have time to go through it and then share their feedback with the mayor and council. I just wanted to flag that and see if that's a possibility.
We can definitely add up a public hearing. I'd recommend May 11.
Okay. Colleagues, are you supportive of this?
It can't be longer.
Additional public hearing? Okay. Okay. Thank you.
Other Just real quick. I'm sorry. Maybe the eleventh or the eighteenth. But we'll we'll plug one in.
We'll do the balancing.
Okay. Yep.
Between the two meetings. The other thing I wanted to flag is we're adopting right after a major holiday. I have concerns about that because for transparency in the public in tracking what we're doing. I know that we also talked about potentially leveraging June 29, but I will note that that next meeting is really important because that will be the next time that we are seeing the final draft altogether. There's gonna be a lot of comments and questions. Mhmm. I think that we ought to really look at that date.
Yep. What I'd recommend let's get through May if it's okay, all the work sessions and decide how comfortable you guys are with adopting on July 6 or June 29 or something after that,
if that's okay.
Okay. Colleagues, any questions or comments to add? Who's still awake?
right. I think we can move on and just want to say thank you very much to you and the team for all of the work on this and thank you for all the community engagement. We really appreciate it. Thanks for hanging in there with us tonight. Yes. And I appreciate all the residents sharing their feedback as well. Okay. We're going to try to get through this quickly. Mock agenda. We reviewed it.
I know
it is adjusted because we added the budget. Old new business. Great. Motion to adjourn. Councilmember Vallery.
Madam Mayor, I move to adjourn.
Councilmember Bouchard?
Second.
All those in favor? Aye. Thank you.
This transcript was automatically generated from the official public meeting video and is presented unedited. It reflects remarks made on the public record by elected officials, staff, and public commenters. Transcript accuracy may vary; view the original recording for reference.