May 5th 2025 and we'll begin meeting 12-25. Please join me as you're able in the Pledge of Legion. to the United States of America and to the Republic, which stands for Nation under God, God, indivisible visible liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Miss Sarah Telet-Ferrell. We'll now move to agenda review. Are there any changes? Madam Mayor and council members, we did revise the agenda for the mock agenda to include the 45 minutes for District 17 presentation for next week's agenda. Thank you. Tune in next week. Mr. Mahalek. Mayor Ashton, members of City Council. Good evening. I think we're all recovering from a super busy weekend. We're all out in force. You know, we had skate jam, we had the Native Plant Sale. We had the Arts Festival, Don Tom, people work everywhere, including the council and people in this room. But boy, staff was out in spades working with our not for profit partners to making this all happen. I just want to acknowledge all their hard work. Reckon Park team, police department, public works, everybody was out there. It was really cool to have such a wonderful weekend. I also want to acknowledge the Reckon Park team again for being a finalist. When we stress again, a finalist for the National Gold Medal Award for Excellence for Reckon Park Department. That is a national award and is from the American Academy for Parks and Recreation Administrators. We all know that we have an amazing Reckon Park team, but when you have a national organization of peers that recognize the City of Rockville for their amazing team, that's not worthy. And that's why I'm announcing you two tonight. Maybe the one the whole thing. Stay tuned. We'll find out. And then lastly, next, not next week, there's about the Thursday after May 15th is bike to work day, you know, prod tradition in Rockville, are doing all kinds of activities, including a number of dead stops throughout the city. There'll be opportunities to have drinks and snacks and t-shirts and other fun giveaways. And we expect thousands of people to participate in that and a people are interested. They can go on to our website and find out more. It's all I have, Mayor. Thank you. Thank you so much. I know I speak on behalf of my colleagues one more. So an echo that thanks you gave to staff. Incredible work all weekends. We were out there with you all and really appreciate not only the speak on behalf of my colleagues, one I want to say echo, an echo that thanks you gave to staff. Incredible work all weekends. We were out there with you all and really appreciate not only the day of work that they did, but all the planning and even rescheduling due to rain in Mother Nature. So thank you for that. I also wanted to note, in addition to bike to work, there's bike to school. And on that note, wanted to also thank Rockville City Police Department and Rockville Bike Hub for working with Mary Val to start one of our first school education programs for students to learn about safe biking. And since you talked about big events, hometown holidays will be back in Rockville Town Center. So, feel free it's okay. So we're super excited about that. And I also want to acknowledge the work. You'll see some nice art blooming around town center. So please enjoy. We'll now move on to community form. This is the time for everyone to share their feedback, ideas, and testimonies before the mayor and council. Please address the mayor and council in a civil and courteous manner, as well as be respectful to members of the audience. Everyone will be allowed three minutes, and we ask that you stick to your time. There is a stop clock in front of you. Please use it. Please state your name and whether you live in the city of Rockville, you will hear an audible beep at the end of your time. Please wrap up. We welcome you to join and I know I'm going to call from folks who have signed up in advance. I also want to acknowledge that people have sent in written testimony. If you would like to speak after those who have signed up in advance, please raise your hand. First, welcome for Mayor Susan Hoffman. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Members of the council, it's wonderful to see you. It's wonderful to be in this room. It's always been one of my happy places. So good evening. I come before you this evening as a person proud to call Rockville my home as a resident of nearly 37 years, who has and continues to serve our fellow Rock villains and as an activist concerned with a matter before the mayor and. During the period of time I had the honor to serve as both mayor and council member the mixed use retail and residential rockville town center was developed. The town center got off to a strong start and thrived. Over the ensuing years town center experienced some ups and downs, including the Great Recession. The internal facing design proved to be a challenge. The market has shown that the ratio of residential housing to retail proved to be less robust than was required for Rockville Town Center to thrive. In recent years, attention has been paid to the declining economic health of Town Center. Community outreach conducted by the Marin Council, City staff and citizens associations throughout Rockville have shed a light on this important investment made by the city. In summary, the overwhelming consensus underscored and highlighted during our most recent election supports the need for additional residential housing adjacent to town center and along Rockville Pike Route 355. Personally, I am delighted at the clarity with which my fellow residents understand the issue and are prepared to move forward. However, the proposal now before the mayor and council does not reflect the most recent zoning decisions in supportive Rockville Town Center, nor the recommended solutions developed to strengthen the economic well-being of town center. In fact, it will result in a failure to improve its economic viability and will return Rockville to its weakened anti-business reputation. In particular, I'm very concerned about the rezoning of mixed-use commercial and mixed-use transition properties in the West End area to a new mixed-use residential office zone, which could apply either height transition requirements or layback slopes to adjacent Rockville Town Center properties. This rezoning and application of either height transition requirements or layback slopes to adjacent Rockville Town Center properties will be most problematic because it will reduce the use of Rockville Town Center properties for the residential density, which the Marin Council has already established for these town center areas and zones. These high transition proposals seek to weaken the great work, the council, and city staff have done to plan for the future of Rockville Town Center. I also am very concerned about any expansion of height transition requirements or layback slopes to adjacent Rockville Town Center properties where no such setbacks or layback slopes exist under the current code. We cannot take steps forward towards increasing the necessary density of Rockville Town Center but then only take steps backward through expansion of height transition requirements or layback slopes to adjacent Rockville Town Center properties. I'm running out of time, so I will cut to the chase. In this current economic climate, why would Rockville want to send a message to existing property owners that we would limit their use of their own property and deter people from investing in Rockville. I respectfully urge you to oppose this rezoning. Thank you. Thank you. Next, welcome William Mega. Maya. Maya, thank you. William, Maya 804, Leverton Road, which I am a Rockville resident. I want to thank the Mayor and Council for reaching out to staff and having the get together on the 26th of April at the Hungerford Civic Association to discuss the ZOR and map amendment process. And I would ask that you consider the email that was sent to you on the 26th of April, which I now understand has been received based on the listing in the quick reference guide tonight. So changing the 27 acres of Woodmont Country Club property along Wooten Parkway from R400 to RMD 25 is not appropriate if the future access points cannot be the existing curb cuts in Wooten Parkway. As I said in my emails, some history back in late 1990, staff strongly recommended that the future curb cuts be limited, one of which was the added was the exit from the office or from the shopping center. And then when the city had to pay an extra turbulent amount of money to Woodmont Country Club for the cutoff parcel which became the townhouses, they of course rezone that so that the townhouses could be built and then had to provide access to those townhouses. I spoke with the mayor at Sunday's Village Gathering and now know that by March 20th email to you regarding seeing your reference credit has been received by staff and the staff apparently was working on a response which I did receive late this afternoon. Mayor and council needs to have a policy that communications to you are acknowledged in a timely manner such as when you do an online report of concern and use the city's form center you've got to reply back that has been. And many times that reply also shows who it's being sent to for their action. The Refuse Collection Resolution on page 45 of your staff document says the service charge may not be reduced or suspended for vacancy or any other reason. What is the meaning of the any other reason and is that condition in all resolutions that you pass that set rates for collection of funds from property owners? Any questions? Thank you very much. Welcome, James Murdock. Hey there, how's it going? So I am a rock for resident I live in the twin brook community right off pinnaburg Ave and we are property of butts up like red against rockery park and over the last couple of years the bamboo infestation that's taken over the park has just gotten incredibly out of hand and it's like encroaching into like neighboring properties as well as my own. And I've been, I reached out to the Forrestview Department City Rockville. They referred me to the county. County weed warriors basically said we can't handle it. Even if we train you on how to remediate it, we're not to let you just because of dangers with this plundering and the nature of the park and people using it. And from there, I've sent a letter to the Office of the Attorney General basically asking for help and they referred me back to the County Executive Office. And then I followed up with them a couple times and I'm just getting no answers. So I was basically just coming here to ask to see, are there any programs for remediation, especially specifically concerning Rock Creek Park and the bamboo infestation or the resources that I could participate in to help remediate that? That was basically it. Just wanted to ask for help. Thank you. I'm just going to, for these kinds of questions, see if a member of staff, is that Barack Matete, can meet with you in the back. Yeah sure. Perfect thank you for your testimony. Yeah thank you. Welcome Jeffrey Gantz. Good evening mayor and council thank you once again for allowing me the opportunity to address you regarding the Montreux neighborhood. I first want to thank you all for listening. It is obvious that steps are being taken based on our testimony that we've been given here, whether it's increased enforcement on Evelyn and Rollins, listening from the zoning and trying to work with us on that, but there's still work to be done. I feel like we are a neighborhood under attack with so much going on. We've got rezoning. We've got congressional complete street study. We have the East Hal Pine and East, I mean, Hal Pine Road and East Jefferson Street bike lane study going on. There's a lot going on, none of the new conjunction with one of another, all separate, but all important to our neighborhood because they all impact our neighborhood. We're about to have Wegman's opening June 25th, I believe it is, creating more traffic in our area. The recent traffic studies show that traffic has increased in our neighborhood. Speed is a problem and you all are taking steps to address it, but unfortunately I don't think it's enough. That said, in regards to the rezoning, the Martha Terrace property is still being recommended for this increased zoning new designation. Under no circumstances, should this property on Martha Terrace be allowed to be increased from its current zoning designation? If you haven't been there in person to see this property, please come visit our neighborhood. I know there's a meeting I believe going on May 15th for a walking that's going to be a long Rollins Avenue, but while you're there, check out the Martha Terrace property. If you were living in the single family homes there, you would not want the development across the street that is being proposed to be allowed in that neighborhood. The Martha Terrace street doesn't allow for the increased traffic. Rollins doesn't allow for the increased traffic. Evelyn Drive doesn't allow for the increased traffic that this zoning would create. The congressional towers and Rollins park apartments, it's gonna happen, I get it. Martha Terrace should not under any circumstances. Just appealing to you once again, to hear us about this, come visit us about this, come see us about this, because it would be a detriment to our community and our neighborhood and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead because in redoing the sidewalks on Techner Court and Techner Way, they have raised the aprons of the driveways to actual curb level heights. So if you can think about that when you're backing your car out of your driveway, and you go thunk right down into the street, but more importantly, it is a danger to our children. In fact, I know of one child that was hurt over the weekend. I'm just waiting for my children who are 12 and 9 to take a header over the curb into my driveway as they're not as careful as say a vehicle. And so I have reached out Ken Brinkking out to my house. Dan Stevens was there today. But I'm not the only one. Apparently there's a little informal canvas. There were two people who, two elderly couples that were trapped in their homes for two days because notice really was lacking about this entire project. So while we certainly recognize that sidewalks need to be upgraded, things need to happen infrastructure. The engineering of this project leaves a lot to be desired and it is really affecting the quiet enjoyment of our homes and it's also I think creating a public nuisance. Or and you know, it's it's a real problem and as the council I think it's important for you to know what the Department of Public Works is doing. I'm hopeful that, you know, the folks you can wear out in my house today will help us work with a solution, but it's not just me. And so while I don't really want to speak for all of my neighbors, I'm the only one who's here tonight. So I really would ask you to, you know, ask the Department of Public Works to rethink what they've done, because I think it's gonna add wear and tear to my car extra alignment, all of those things. Not to mention the fact, my back is already starting to hurt after a weekend of driving over the curb, basically. So I appreciate the effort so far that the staff at DPW has put in, but really it shouldn't have happened this way. We should have had notice. There was no notice. And it's, it's a real, in my, it's a real fail. So, thank you. Thank you. If you'd like to speak with a number of staff, there will be someone in the back to work with you and answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Yeah. Welcome, David Weinstein. Hello again. It's the Montrose Association. We're back. Really, I'm here just as Jeffrey said to say thank you. First of all, Councilmember Shaw came out for a walk. We had a nice walk with her. Thank you. I know Councilman Jackson you're coming out. And fortunately I will be out of town and a previously scheduled trip, but welcome to the neighborhood. It's obviously you've been listening. I've been sitting in my office listening to the police cars and my spinal gets wider and wider every time they pull somebody over. So thank you all for that. and policing that stop sign that people are running. I'll let the others in my neighborhood speak about the zoning. You're all well aware of our concerns about the traffic and the density and having a tall building across the street from some of these single-family houses. But really thank you all for listening and for continuing to participate with us. We greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. And just to note, we do listen actually after the meeting I met with our city manager to say please go out and schedule a meeting and do the enforcement. So all of us the entire body. We listen to all testimony and try to make sure that this follow up. So it's obvious you have been. We thank you. All right. Welcome Susan Zemsky. Hi, I am a rock full resident clocking in at almost 40 years. I also would like to thank the people that we reached out to do a walk in the neighborhood as Jeff mentioned and for those of you who haven't gotten to us or maybe we should get to you, we would really like to duplicate that. The concern is about the development in section 10, on the Martha Terrace, the lower portion of that large Polynjur property. It's currently designated as residential, which we don't have a problem with, But we do have a problem with higher density, higher height, and more traffic on streets that really were not built for two-way traffic. If you come to visit us, you'll see you come down the street, and somebody's coming towards you, and you have to pull over, and it's like a little dance that and creates a traffic back up and not so safe sometimes. Again, we don't want the over development, we appreciate working with the staff and we look forward to welcoming them for a walkthrough and I hope I be able to host it. Thank you for listening and thank you for the staff for all the meetings that we've had with you, the responses to our needs and that you're there. And we are very proud to live in the city. And we really want to retain the culture. I think one of the challenges is on three sides of our designated neighborhood is county neighbor, is county. And there's a huge amount of development going on completely around us, where in the federal plaza in the back, where the panera is, you might be familiar with that. They've already approved a large apartment building there. Wegmans, and there's a big, fast piece of property next to Wegmans that is also going to be developed, and people are cutting through our neighborhood. And it's not that we're not welcoming. It's just not built. The streets were not meant for that. So again, I want to thank you and I want you to consider not just what is, but what's happening around us. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome to Tasha Horwitz. Good evening Madam Mayor and Council. I want to thank Council Member Shaw for coming out to the neighborhood. I'm a Montrose resident of Rockville. One of the things that I wanted to bring to your attention was in the actual comprehensive plan for zoning area 10. It specifically says at the beginning of the text about zoning recommendations to re-zone the strip along the west side of East Jefferson Street designated as CRM in the land use policy map from RMD25 residential medium density to MXCT mixed use corridor transition. And then it goes on a little bit more and it talks about some other things. What I think is important is that at the very beginning of that zoning recommendation, it specifically says we're talking about RMD25 to MXCT. And later it talks about the whole parcel, but I think it's really unclear if the intent of the comprehensive plan was to have the section that they're talking about that's originally zoned, we believe, I think it's R75, which is residential homes just like mirrored across the street from them. So I think what happened, but I could be wrong, is that when the comprehensive plan was moving forward and someone's creating the maps and we're thinking about what this area is supposed to look like, that it's a very large document, there were probably a lot of hands on it. it. I really don't think the intent was for that small parcel on Martha Terrace to be zoned mixed use commercial. We do appreciate that the rest of the plot, the city zoning officials met with us last week. It was amazing. They have added a density requirement to that zone, which I believe they're going to present with you to you this evening. We completely appreciate that that helps our neighborhood get a better sense of like how many people are we talking? How many units are we talking? But again, we just keep coming back to this idea that we just don't think that small parcel of land was really intended to be included in this mixed-use rezoning and this new zone because it just again we welcome you to come visit our neighborhood. It just doesn't make any sense to put the same kind of density on that smaller parcel that we see in the other parts of the property. So I encourage you just to take an extra look at zone 10, read that zoning recommendation and just see for yourself if maybe we need to rethink the interpretation of that text. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes the list of those who have signed up in advance. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Welcome. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Members, my name is Ashley Hoover. I'm the pastor at Jerusalem Out Pleasant, 21 wood lane. Here to speak, you should have received a letter just wanted to thank you for it, receiving our letter and also to lift up just a few points from our letter. Excuse me. We're in our 190th year as a church within the Rockfield community and we're writing to request the zoning for our properties on both wood lane and also on the 11th to be not to be re-zoned and keep them at the MXT zoning as opposed to re-zoning them to RO and in the bill location to keep it at we have a lot of areas that we can make sure that we can make sure that we can make sure that we can make sure that we can make sure that we can make sure that we can make sure that we can make sure that we can make sure that we can make sure that we can make sure that we can make sure that we can make sure that we can make sure that we can make sure that we can make sure that we can make sure that we are seeking just to have this maintainer. further development within our community. I'll just skip down to the very end that we are seeking just to have this maintain our current zoning. We've been very active in the community as well in feeding programs and community outreach and so we want to like to continue to have an opportunity to maintain the current zoning for our location that we might do other improvements in the community with that and improve land. Thank you. Thank you very much, Reverend. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Okay. Thank you all for your testimony. Again, if anyone wants to talk to staff and they'll be in the back, so you need help. We'll now move on to our next part of the agenda. We have several items. Hold on here. For consent agenda. Okay, does anyone want to pull or ask questions about any of these? Are you willing to approve all of them at once? Colleagues, Council Member Valerary. Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd like to pull and I apologize. My internet is also going down. The one regarding permitting fees. Thank you. Don't wear this hat. I think it's a, is a. Thank you. Okay, colleagues, can we get a motion to approve B for E and just to note what we are approving on consent, a resolution to amend master fees for a community planning and development services. That is what is going to be pulled. B would be the adoption of a resolution to close completed capital improvement projects. There's a list and a brief book, adoption of a resolution to establish a equivalent residential unit rate calculating storm water management and utility fees for settlement control and storm water. Item D, adoption of resolution to establish a service charge rate for municipal refuse collection and establishing a charge for unreturned refuse and recycling courts. Item E, adoption of resolution to declare the official intent of the mayor and council to reimburse expenditures for certain projects from the proceeds of a tax exempt obligations under U.S. Treasury income tax regulation. Section 1-1502. So we have B through E to your proof that we have a motion. Councilmember Shaw. We have a second. Summon. Thank you. We have a second. Councilmember Fulton. All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. All right. It is unanimous. All right. Now we'll move back over to item A, which relates to community development and planning fees. Thank you Madam Mayor. So I generally on face don't have an issue per se with a minor inflationary increase. I do have a question though. If this is a inflationary increase, I think it translates still to residents in for an increased fee. What is level of service that they are getting. And I think that we unfortunately are struggling through the perception that the permitting process is is is is on our ass is non responsive. I know that you know, we all realize on the day is that a very important part of economic development is a seamless permitting process. So I wanted to kind of get a sense from a Mr. City manager. How are we looking at achieving some of those economic development goals in regards to, you know, making our permitting residential or commercial permitting process improved so that when folks do see things like a modest increase again makes sense, but if the services are not getting better, I don't necessarily know how we can, in some ways, justify that. Thank you for the question. We've done multiple things, Council Member Vellieri, many of which is with the help from this council. If you recall, we had a number of work sessions over the past year related to fast, and again, those fast improvements are identifying ways for us to streamline our development review process cut out some unnecessary steps to make it a little bit more seamless, smoother and actually shorter. And I know council supported most of those recommendations. In addition to that later on tonight, hopefully you'll be adopting the budget and we'll be adding staff to allow us to do quicker inspections and building permit reviews, which will also speed things up. So we're doing those things in a comprehensive way to make sure that our development review process is not only very predictable, but very fast, efficient, and also provides good customer service. Thank you. And just as a point of clarification, if it's okay, this is across the board permitting, like we're looking at not only small scale and larger commercial permitting, but also residential and inspections and so forth. That's correct. Thank you. Thank you. This is an issue after my own heart. I always hear that the time is money and people want to move things forward. So I appreciate all the efforts that staff has undertaken with our requests to really see how we can streamline and improve and make this process better. I know I've been in touch with you, but just for the public's awareness, I wanna make sure that the review times are also updated. So it would be helpful to have those go into effect by July 1 if possible, and send an email to you and my colleagues as a follow up from early communications in March and April about that. And if nothing else, also to note on that review times that does a link to the Quick Start guidelines as well, so that people knows that there's a fast program that they can apply to. I recently encountered folks who missed that and did not apply to that program. Any comments, Mr. Cedmander? Okay, so good. You're good with all those things. Perfect. All right. Now, will anyone make a motion to approve consent agenda item A? Council Member Vellieri. I move to adopt A. Do we have a second? Council Member Jackson, seconds. All those in favor? Please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Excellent. Thank you. It's unanimous. We'll now move over to action item 11A, which is a mayor and council briefing on project plan amendment PJT 2025, 0,00021, an application to amend the plan development for Rockville Center to permit a change of use from office to residential, and old commercial, up to 550 dwelling units at 255 Rockville Pike, and the PD-RCI Plan Development Rockville Town Center Inc. Welcome. Welcome, Kimia, to present an update, and I believe the applicant might be, or are you gonna just do the update alone? Good evening. The applicant should be attending. I haven't seen them in person. Okay, I was looking as well. If you need us to take a break at some point after to make sure the applicant is here, let us know. Sounds good. Thank you. I see some I see him just arriving. All right. Just about time. Just on time. There we go. All right. Good evening, everyone. I'm Kimi Anzal Plagarian, a principal planner with community development and planning services. This is a project plan amendment briefing for 255 Rockville Pike. The purpose of this briefing is to introduce the proposal to the Mayor and Council and provide an opportunity for preliminary feedback. The subject property is located at 255 Rockville Pike. It is bounded by Monroe Street, Rothville East Middle Lane and promenade Park to the south. And on this graphic aerial image of the subject property and surroundings, you can also see the Rockville Metro pedestrian bridge. Some project information, again, the subject property is located at 255 Rockville Pike. It is located in planning area one of the town center. The land area is about 2.5 acres. The current land use is office, commercial and residential mix. And the zoning is PD RCI, plan development, Rockville Center Inc, with the equivalent zoning district of MXXTD. The applicant is proposing to amend the approved PD plan development to permit additional uses. Currently there is an office existing on the site and the existing approval includes office and a commercial component that in the original approved PD would be a retail or and or restaurant. They are proposing a phased redevelopment of the existing office building to construct a multi-family building with up to 550 units with a maximum height of 217 feet or the adaptive reuse of the existing office building to allow additional commercial uses. The pre-application meeting for this project was filed on December 20th and the area meeting that was associated with that was on October 29th, 2024. The project plan amendment and concurrent level 2 site plan application was filed on March 7th. The post-application area meeting was held on March 18th. The Planning Commission briefing was held on April 9th, and the applicant deer scene meeting was held on April 24th. The next steps are to finalize the review of the Project Plan Amendment, Application, and Level 2 Site Plan Application. The Planning Commission would then make a recommendation. The Marion Council would proceed with a decision, which would include a public hearing, discussion, and possible adoption. Then the planning commission may consider a decision on the site plan application. That concludes the presentation. Thank you. Thank you very much. Do you want to have us ask questions at this point or does the applicant want to share some opening statements? The applicant also does have a presentation. Perfect. Thank you. Welcome, Miss Talion. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Just waiting to make sure they've got the presentation cute up. Mayor members of the council, it's nice to be with you. My name is Bob Elliott. I represent the ownership of 255 Rockville Pike. I am also a Rock Villain. For the record while we're talking, it's 5.5.25. We're talking about 255. Say that 10 times fast. So, Kimmy gave a great overview of the project. You see the existing building here, view from roughly the metro station. Keep this image in the back of your mind. This will come back up in a few minutes. And go ahead, Kimi, go to the next slide, please. We acquired the property officially on, I think March 18, 2024. At auction, we were the buyer at the second auction. So this is a property that was originally the, or most recently, the county's permitting office until 2021. It went vacant, had been dark, the prior owner out of New York attempted to repurpose the building, did not find a buyer, defaulted on their loan, and ultimately gave it back to the bank, where it went to auction twice before we acquired it. Being a rock villain and hoping to make something happen here, my firm acquired it with the idea of doing residential. For obvious reasons, we can go to the next slide, Kimia. It's a great anchor to the east end of the town square. It's obviously immediately opposite the metro station. The bridge from the metro actually lands on our property and via an easement You can you go through that property along the southern edge the building down onto Montgomery Avenue, which is not quite on axis, but reasonably close you pass by the movie theater You would make a right-hand turn up towards the town square So there is sort of this ultimate urban connection for the possibility of this building it goes through Promenade Park Park, which is again of interest to us. But how do we reinforce that main spine? How do we enhance the visitor approach? These are the kind of things that we were looking at. How do we make a better experience for rock villains for visitors to the city of Rockville? And so next slide, Kimia. So when we acquired the building, our hope was to do the piece on the left, which is roughly 300 units of multi-family. This is five stories of stick built. I'm going to show you a diagram in a second, but the idea is to repurpose the existing building. This is actually the last existing piece of the old Rockville Mall. There are two, those two floors of office, originally the mall, retail mall. They were converted into office building when the county government occupied it for roughly 20 odd years. Our original plan was to take down those two levels, leave the three levels of existing garage, one of which is entirely blow grade. Roughly 440 parking spaces, then come back atop that with five levels of wood frame housing. Wood frame being more cost effective and concrete. You will see in the project plan that we are proposing two phases, one of which we think could ultimately be built today, and then one that may ultimately be able to be built in the future, sort of a more signature tower that would be closer to the Metro. You all are aware of the fact that Rockville and Womada have been an extensive discussion about the possibility of adding height and density. And of course, most recently, you have done the town center plan, which of course ultimately speaks the possibility of additional height even for this site. 217 feet is what was vested as part of that PD many, many years ago. So the PD, just as a quick reminder, was roughly 450,000 feet, roughly 37,000 feet of which could have been retail. So the envelope that was planned for this site could have been significantly taller. The markets changed a lot in less than 15 months. Most recently, I know let's call it the last 100, 110 odd days. It's nearly impossible to predict what the construction market is in this country, or maybe for the next three and a half odd years. When you've got to do the trades for a building that's got 15 different disciplines with project parts and pieces, it makes like buying a car and manufacturing a car look easy. So we are asking for something a little different. This shows the possibility of a repurposing of the existing building, taking the building and converting it from an office use into a retail use. What that retail use may be is yet to be determined. Our hope is in working with the your planning and zoning department to identify what the most theoretically intensive set of uses may ultimately be for that so that we can plan for the transportation component accordingly. Because effectively what happens here is that once you tip over probably 60 or 70,000 odd feet, we create a trip count that ultimately gets into the idea that we have to do a trip count analysis for this property. That will take some time. This was not originally on the radar for what we wanted to do. Our hope and our strong preference would obviously be to do residential. But something needs to happen with this building and sooner is better. So we are asking for a modification of the plan from what we originally asked, which was the multifamily, and what I will spend the vast majority of the rest of this time talking about. But this is a fairly simple change in use from an office entitlement with 40,000 feet of retail retail into the possibility of 160,000 for you to retail. So that building you saw at the beginning is effectively what it may be. There may be some modifications to entrances or the exterior or it may get some embellishments or a paint job or something else. We don't know what that may be, but we are optimistic that we could make something happen here. And candidly, a significant retail presence wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing while I personally rather see it happen around the town square and around the park and around the ice rink every year, bringing life to this city and to pops this along the metro station would be a good thing in our opinion. So this is a change in plan from what we originally came to you about, but it is part of the project plan nonetheless. Next slide, Kimia. So this is the thesis of why we bought the building. So in the upper left, you see the project as it is. Those two floors in red would be the two floors that we intend or intend to remove. You would take those two off and you get to the lower left drawing which leaves you with 440 parking spaces on three levels, two of which are partially above grade and one of which is entirely below grade. On top of that is part of not just this project plan but we've also submitted a first phase or sorry, a level two site plan for this first phase of the project plan which is plus or minus 300 units five stories stick built three courtyards along the promenade and two that face towards the west. And then we are also as part of this project plan suggesting that there is ultimately a second phase that could be built over a portion of that sort of little l-shaped wing there, that orange tower that could ultimately rise from that, that ultimately would allow for another 250 units. In the upper right of that lower right drawing, you also see the original PD drawing, which kind of shows you that volume. That was the original PD.D. plan that could have potentially been added to this property in rough of the same place that we are showing a tower. So while we don't believe it, that can... is economically viable today since we're here, since we're in front of you, we're looking for speed to market, we thought it would be easier to come through with everything at one time. So, and so here is a plan. You see this kind of, we'll call it a three shape with a little sort of dog leg, that little piece off to the side is ultimately where there could be that vertical tower. The courtyard's face to the west, sort of towards the town square. We're showing one that is more of a landscape courtyard one that might be a pool. Along the southern edge there along the promenade, we are showing a potential courtyard to create some relief along that sort of edge to create some interest along the promenade. Next slide, Kimia. And these are a series of different vignette views showing you, the view from the metro, from north on Rockville Pike, but sort of just to give you a sense and a flavor for what this building may look like from a massing perspective. And if we go to the next one, I think we show the first phase and the second phase sort of combined from those sort of same views or similar views. So you get a sense for how that impacts things and how that maybe relates to 51 Monroe over off to the right side. Next slide. So again, this sort of shows you the thesis of the design, which is those three levels of gray, are the existing parking garage upon which we set the building. You see sort of this is the upper drawing as a section through that sort of three. You see three sort of smaller five-story vertical towers in the middle of that is an amenity court because in order to connect those two courts, we've allowing our expectation is that the amenity sort of those public spaces being business centers or game rooms, et cetera would be an opportunity for residents on both sides to kind of flow through between that and the pool. The lower section, oh nevermind, we'll keep moving forwards. Well, so we're back. Same point. Okay, all right. So here we go back to the architecture, the upper drawing you see that there is sort of that vertical tower element that kind of separates that. You see kind of the two masses on either side. Elevations are a little receptive here. Those are actually set back fairly significantly in plain because of the L shape site. But what we're trying to do is break down the size and scale of these blocks into something is a little more digestible. The vertical element there of that tower sort of calls attention to itself along the pike. The lower elevation there that appears to be the elevation through middle lane. And again, the piece where those two sort of white verticals are are much closer to you. And the piece on the left is significantly further back. It's the lower portion of that sort of open triangular space along Rockville Pike. So again, elevations are a little deceptive. As we get into sort of future presentations, we will actually show you real renderings associated with this, but at this level, at this moment, this is all that we're required to show. Let's keep going. And this shows you, the upper one shows you the three elevations of those sort of ends of the three there. We're trying to identify that and show architecture that is all related, but create sort of three different visual elements along Monroe Street. And the bottom rendering shows you the courtyard along the promenade. So the two pieces that directly front the promenade and you can kind of see that's kind of ghosted there in the background that obviously sets back inside the courtyard, but that's the that's the prominent elevation. I believe that's oh project schedule. So from a project schedule perspective in the fourth quarter we made most of these submissions. We're now through the first quarter where we made that post application meeting. second quarter we briefed planning commission. I think it was three odd weeks ago now. We're here before you tonight. After that is the recommendation for the Project Plan Amendment. And then obviously further hearings with both you and the planning commission for approval by you on the project plan and approval by the planning commission for the site plan. Now all that takes us probably into the third quarter of 2025. From that moment, we then have to actually go into architectural design and planning for whichever scheme that may be. Assuming it was much more of the apartment building, that's probably at least six to nine months of significant architectural design, planning for that, permitting for that, budgeting for that, et cetera, which takes us into 2026, which again, as we're all aware, is anyone's guess where we'll be at that moment. So that's where we're at. Thank you for the opportunity. In front of you, I'm of course happy to answer questions. I know Madam Mayor, you sent a number of them to Kimia and John earlier today. I'm happy to answer any of those, either reading from them or if you'd like to ask them directly. I would just say thank you very much. We really appreciate the opportunity to consider adaptive reuse. Ultimately, we want the space filled. It doesn't do anyone good. Are the city good to have it vacant? So just wanted to start saying thank you for thinking of creative ideas to invest in the city. We really appreciate, I know the entire council really values economic development and housing and I think this project could help with either and both of those. So I know you may not hear this often, but thank you for considering the project. I did have a couple of questions that I shared earlier. We kind of proactively answered some of them in terms of the height and why not doing the phases now. And I understand that there's a lot of national uncertainty in terms of the materials cost for doing projects like these. So I understand that you're planning ahead, but that the timing of things are not clear given you have to finance all this. So I just wanted to acknowledge that. I was wondering, given the challenges on uncertainty at the national level, have you been in touch with our team about potential programs at the state county or city level to help move a project forward? We did move forward with goals, housing, plus you. Housing goals for Rockville Town Center. I think we all want to see more housing here in the city. And the way that's done well, supporting our current and new residents. I know that changing to retail is maybe an intermediary step, but I just wanted to see if you've had a chance to connect and learn more about what could be given the challenging financing for these kinds of projects. Well, I'm not aware, so this is largely market rate housing, which ultimately has probably a 15% MPDU requirement. I'm not aware of any supplemental programs that would allow us to receive funds for that. There's, to my knowledge, no pilots, tips or anything that's available, either currently at the, well, the county may be taking something through right now that may allow for adaptive reuse redevelopment, either on an accelerated basis or to receive pilot funds for taking that sort of incremental tax component and abating that over a period of time. I don't know if you've been following that with to consider. I would advise, and I think one thing it sets rock fill apart, and I'd be remiss if I don't say this, is the fact that the council's decision, whether they want to follow through and do something similar, you could take very similar legislation to that. I think that's good legislation to consider. I would advise, and I think one thing it sets rock fill apart, and I'd be remiss if I don't say this, is the fact that and I think one thing it sets rockville apart, and I'd be remiss if I don't say this, is the fact that, and not everyone may agree with me on this, but the fact that you have not capped rent increases for the city of Rockville, actually makes Rockville, as well as Gathersburg, two sort of prime development opportunities within the county. So my opinion is that the county is largely redlined for development opportunities because that makes us significantly less attractive than delivering new residential either just across the river in Washington DC. It just makes the investment community very layer of coming to a city if they don't know what that rent growth may be even if it's new development even if it's 23 years out. So I just I offer that is when you consider legislation whether or not it's good for the city or bad for the city. It's important to consider what those benefits may be to the city and I'm obviously a rock filling and I want to make things happen so I just I'm appreciate the fact that you all have not enacted that, but I would say, take a look at that because I do think it would be a good thing. And do you think a project like ours might qualify for the same sorts of partial adaptive reuse of a project for either accelerated timeframe but also me after the site which you want to do with the tax component of that? Okay, thank you. I will just put as a request for staff just to scan state-level programs that might help. I know that there was a site readiness program that went as five acres, this one is three, but maybe there's something else we can dig up even working with Medco or Tedco. So we'll just do some homework as well to see what we can do. And thank you for sharing your feedback on what you're experiencing on your side from national to local. The other question I just wanted to ask, and have others but I'll pause so others can ask questions as well. We did approve the Rockville Town Center Master Plan. I noticed that this document references the 2014 PD now with the Master Plan for Rockville Town Center there's greater height for that phase two. So I'm wondering as before you go to planning commission and this proceeds with that lower height If you are interested or are you aware of what the higher-high opportunities are? So when we filed that had not been finalized so First I had despite the fact that you have them entitled or have changed the regulations for the town center our project is still subject to the PD component Which the moment does cap at 217, which I think was higher than it was previously. I believe under the new legislation we could go to 235, possibly 335, should we decide to increase the MPDU requirement from 15 to 20%. Obviously, when and if that were to happen, if we were to build that second phase, we would think that we might actually consider that whether that would be at 335 or even, I could say 317 under the existing piece, right? We might be able to get an extra floor between 317 and 335. But I would anticipate that when and if that went to site plan, that one could very easily modify the project plan at that time, I don't believe what we submitted to you today effectively caps us at going to only 217. I believe that we'd be allowed to kind of increase that extra 100 feet under your existing regulations, regardless of whether we said 217, 235, or it'll also be that plus 100. Thank you. And I think that base height in the plan is a little slightly higher than what you have in the PD. Just confirm for staff and the terms of the process do they have to make noted this in a site plan for approval. Oh, can they come back during phase two and very easily with less no additional time added make the change. I will have to verify with the zoning manager how it would work with the PD and the exist the new Rockwell Town Center heights so we would be able to get back to you on that. Thank you. Yeah, we're trying to, this council is trying to streamline make things easier and faster. And we're happy to make the modification of the letters. Thank you. Colleagues, any questions? Councilmember Ralary. Hello. So I have two questions. I'll start with the fun one first. So you talked a lot about, and I love the idea of the courtyard is to kind of open up because it is kind of just a very brutalist wall in there. Are you thinking about any sort of similar aesthetic change on the Raphael pike side as part of the new proposed redevelopment. So the Raffle Pikes side is a touch more challenging. County is currently planning BRT, two different phases, one of which is going down Veers Mill and up towards the college and one that goes from Bethesda up towards the college. So there are two BRTs phases that will be running right in front of our property. Working with the city and the county, we believe that both new BRT stations will be located on the north side of middle lane. County has asked us to accommodate a very significant stormwater management facility on our property. To the tune they had asked, I think, roughly for 2,400 square feet of stormwater, we have created a plan that we have shared with both the county and the city that shows a traffic circle and a turnaround that allows for about 1,700 feet of stormwater a fairly significant redesign of the landscaping and sidewalk treatment there, as well as, I think, for the benefit of our fire department, allows the fire department to actually enter onto the property and exit off the property in a very safe manner, which is not actually capable right now on the existing 255 design. So we have taken a lot of different things at a consideration, but because all of those items are moving parts and pieces, by the way, I've left out the state because this is technically a state road. Everything's easy in development. So we have a concept. It has been shared. We would anticipate that that would ultimately be enacted, whether it's by us or perhaps by the county because this is kind of one of those first mover moments when, and if we have a design, about the only eight or first eight or ten feet are actually off property and most of this other land is actually ours. So we are, we made it very clear to both city planning as well as county planning, we're team players, but no one party should dominate this discussion. You're using our land, our land needs certain things, particularly access, the address for this property is 25 Rockville Pike. It has and will remain the primary entrance for this building. We have a garage entrance there and a potential for a significant pedestrian entrance there. We're open to giving them the stormwater, the county's stormwater facility. We're open to working with the BRTPs and making sure we create a nice green and land, appropriately landscape site as long as we retain the access we need. So a complicated answer to your question, but yes, we are working on that. It's a complicated project, so I appreciate that. Not to add to the complication and it's my last question. I think the struggle on the challenge, you mentioned several of them, which is that it's the state road that Rappel Pike 355 is state road that we often have to work with the county. But in looking at the safety considerations of middle lane and 355, which I've been following for a while now, the width of the sidewalk on middle lane, talking to me about what possibly we could do to change the width. I'll be very direct. When we started looking at this opportunity, we came to planning and zoning out of the gate and said, this is kind of one of those weird chicken and egg situations except the fact that the building's been there first. And unfortunately, just another side of that wall is a parking ramp. And moving that parking ramp and moving the building isn't really an option. That said, we have been working with the transportation team to potentially remove the transportation lane there. So it's currently three lanes, two lanes through one right-hand turn lane. Remove the existing right hand turn lane, create one through lane, one through right hand turn lane, and widen the sidewalk. So that could exist. That would create some additional relief along that frontage. And ultimately, what do you do with that blank Louvert wall? The Louver and the air air intake is ultimately needed, but could one paint that? Could one make it a little more artistic? Could one remove the louver, thin it out? I'm not necessarily saying that one wants to look at the inside of a parking garage, but there are a lot of different artistic treatment one might be able to use, whether it's decorative metal. Look at the screening of what's happened in parking garages over the last 10, 20 years, and you see some incredibly gorgeous, sometimes backlit decorative structures. One would like to think that that provides a fairly unique opportunity to make something perhaps of more of an artistic statement. A lot of that will ultimately get refined as part of this process, but yes, we are looking at middle lane, yes, we have identified ways to solve that problem. Ultimately, this is the challenge is it's not just us, it's the city and it's not just the city, it's the state. So we hope that the city will have our back in terms of suggesting that we remove that lane and sort of puts its pressure to state to to say it's really important to us that we as long as they agree that the flow through to the metro station is appropriate that we could remove the transit lane and widen the sidewalk. That's wonderful. Thank you. Yep. Thank you. Dr. Miles. Thank you Madam Mayor, echoing the thanks for the presentation. Dr. Miles, I'm sorry. I think we We just need to get your audio up a little bit. Okay. Are you able to hear me now? That's much better. Thank you. It is. Okay. Thanks for the presentation. I had a couple of questions. The first looking back. The residential that it was the height was 83 feet. Is that because it's stick built? Correct. Under the existing code you can go to 85. Fire truck access. In fact, the way what limits that? Understood. Second question is, it may be more staff, how politics is running pretty hard over here is curious how those student generation numbers were generated. It's a perennial question we have with regard to new development of housing in particular. As an example, the principal of a school that feeds us, that from which students from Pike and Rose come with, they said they were going to get 10 students. They ended up with three bus loads. So I'm just curious how that student generation numbers were generated, that's all. I'm not sure at this point that we trip over that and I can't speak to necessarily how we do trip generation on that, but I think it's probably the fairly standard formula on that, which is a little housing that generates less children than say townhouses are single family. But. Thank you. Dr. Miles, do you have any other questions? Okay. I do not thank you. Thank you, Councilman Van Greck. Thank you so much for what you're doing for the city and the project. So I understand you're looking for kind of a change in what you're looking to do for your first phase here and more focusing on the retail. And so it's optionality, to be clear. Okay, so it's one or the other. So that's my question. What you're looking for us is the ability for you to decide whether you're going to start with one or the other. Correct. And to do one or the other, because one, the retail may end up shelving the residential opportunity for a decade, depending on what the retail component could do. And so that's an excursion. If you go with that alternative proposal, that retail, is that still going to allow you to do some of these other project parts that you're talking about with the residential and the tower, or will that preclude that because of the retail bill that you're doing? The way we're thinking of this, we would say they're either or at this moment. With the right opportunity, and I don't know what that might be if there was a significant of retail, one could plan for three floors of residential over retail scheme, but that's just too too much optionality at this point. So based on current market conditions and candidly, some interest along the way from various parties from time to time, we kind of forced ourselves to go back and say, what if we didn't adaptive reuse? And what if we get a more significant adaptive reuse than just the 40,000 feet to play out? We don't know if it would be a single user or multiple users or what have you and One of the biggest challenges is trying to figure out what that general retail use may be what that trip generation could be One large single user doesn't generate theoretically doesn't generate nearly the trips if I did five or six different smaller retail components in there So we are going to take the approach that we go for the maximum transit volume that could be there so that we plan accordingly, which ultimately means that we probably have to study roughly 16 intersections and a 4x4 grid, which will be a lot of fun because we get to go all the way down towards Fairs Mill Road. So you can imagine, is it ideal? Of course, it's not ideal, but if that's where the market is today, we'd like to do something ahead of 2028. I mean, honestly, we just can't handicap where things will be. So not our preference, but when we were already in and we had the necessary interests, we came to planning staff and we appreciate their flexibility and suggesting the fact that we have a project plan that allows for some level of optionality. Gotcha. So what you're saying is, listen, as financial changes can happen on a monthly basis right now. What you're saying is you want to break ground by 2026. You want to start the construction? We like to start something with money. And you need the options and the flexibility to do that given the market environment. Correct. Got it. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Fulton. Thank you. I think you might have answered this, but I just want to clarify. You're sort of dropped a date your trigger date your pick option A or pet option B is somewhere pre-2020-26 Don't know to be quite candid. We may first off to be clear at the moment. We don't necessarily have a retailer and we're still a few years from the residential. We will probably start, we will continue in a retail marketing effort and the same time we're continuing the residential piece. And until we have a direction one way or the other, we probably just keep advancing both things to meet the market and to be ready to do anything. It's not ideal, but we are blessed to have investors that allow us to be nimble enough to consider two different things at one time. Because the most important thing we can do is to move forward. I appreciate that. And I actually should have started with thank you for this. I love that we would do anything there. So, you know, I'm grateful. But just so that if you choose the retail, the market is right, the investment, that effectively precludes the housing though anything is possible in the long run. But it does effectively. In our opinion, at this particular moment, yes. That's not to say that it's impossible to do something else. But based on our current plans and based on these ideas, it's residential or adaptive reuse. Just to get into that hybrid, I can't give them a plan and I can't get a site plan approved for that. So let's go with the two options, one of which we know and one of which I was in the process to ask for from the beginning. That's kind of where we're at. I appreciate the complexity and I appreciate your agility and flexibility in it. So thanks. Okay. Can I ask about one option three? Sure. Just to build on the comments on my colleagues. So you have an option that looks at the phase one which is housing. If for example, you need, if you need to do retail first and couldn't you put that phase to to be housing in the future, that column in the future? Isn't that a possibility? Of course, it's a possibility, but we'd have to entitle it slightly differently at that moment, right? You wouldn't know exactly what that would look like. Is it possible? Certainly, it's possible, right? We're largely reusing. I'd have to look at where we cut off the footprint, but it's possible to do the retail and then add that second phase. But first off, our site plan is really about the first phase, five-story, stick-built piece. So any second phase site plan would actually probably really need to create a new set of drawings around that option, which at that particular moment to my mind, you would basically come forward exactly as we're doing now, modify your project plan and your site plan for an entirely different vertical tower and if that was the option. So you do kind of what we're doing in reverse, but you'd say, okay, great, I've done the retail and now I'd like to add this piece over here. I want to modify my project plan again, and I want a new site plan all the same time. That's the way I would, under your current zoning and code, and the way you entitle things, that would be the way I would do it. Just out of curiosity, is there any option to improve our processes that that could be easier to do. Well, maybe that's another discussion. I would be like, you know, I went to school in Texas, there is no zoning. So, you know, that's really your option and that doesn't truly exist in this region to basically eliminate formal zoning. But that's, you know, being flexible is the first step. But that's a level of flexibility that can't be, I don't think you all are prepared to give up. Thank you. Does staff have any comments on this option three of is there a possibility to have that approved with this option one and two? At this time, so as Bob mentioned, the project plan is coming into allow for an expanded variety of uses and this level two site plan more pertaining to the phase one. So it would really just depend on the intensity of that phase two with the tower coming in if it were to be a mixed use, whether it be evaluated as a just as a site plan and would go straight to planning commission or as a project plan. Thank you. I just would appreciate if staff can see a way forward to have the optionality approval for an option three that we would eventually get housing if they have to go to retail first. Sure. Mr. Mahalik, is there anything else you want to add here? Okay. I just can't remember sure. comment. Yeah, I also want to echo my colleagues and thank you for your presentation. I will share that living in that community. There are a number of residents that are interested in retail and more retail in their community. So I think either choice is a win and I appreciate your presentation. Thank you. I just have a few quick questions. I know this may take time and there's a lot of uncertainty with financing and tariffs, etc. Even if it does take time, are you committed to working with the city to maintain the safety of the pedestrian access point that promenade? I know before you helped us get some lighting fix there, but I just want to make sure that things take time that we're thinking about our current residents and the safety. Absolutely. I mean, we weren't even aware that the lights were out. We tried to talk us, we brought a building without instruction manual. It didn't come with a building engineer. It came with nothing. So figuring out where things were, we've had some issues fairly recently. We've been working with your permitting team and the Fire Marshal has resolved a bunch of issues in the building, and we appreciate that. It's a learning challenge to come forward with a building that really has been occupied in three years and doesn't have anything to tell you about how to work it. So it took us a little while to figure it out. You know, we've got a valve that goes to the executive office building in our building. And we have the elevator controls, the power for the elevator that goes off the promenade. All of this is kind of just intermingled and most of it's been eliminated, but some of it's still there. So it's the old mall. It's got tentacles and it reaches deep into, you know, other parts of this city. So it's an interesting building down as your own teams of fire department people who used to work in this building would tell you. It's a challenge. Well, we appreciate your willingness to meet the challenge. The other question I had that relates to, if as this takes time, how do we at least make it the best we can for residents and people who are visiting now, you have in the past been offering the building for parking. Do you plan to continue that? I mean, it may bring revenue to you in the process, but also supports the public. Sure. We, the first level of that garage is currently part public parking. It is pay-by-phone. You can go in there anytime. We have used lower two levels to park one of the local car dealerships. It is our intention to sort of continue operating that garage until we, it becomes an active construction site. So we will obviously continue to work with you on that. I would tell you anecdotally the fact I think we're a little over-parked in the city of Rockville. I know that you all have plans to reduce or go towards parking minimums. I don't think those are a bad thing because I do think you have enough parking. I think the big challenge is going to be ensuring the fact that when buildings get built that they have the requisite amount of parking to make them Financeable and bankable at the end of the day. I think generally speaking you've got that now, but that doesn't require the old school thinking that everyone's driving. Thank you. We had a long conversation about that in Rockville Townsend and Master Plan. So we came to some resolution. The last question I have for you and then I have one for staff. I think you mentioned potentially screening just to make it visually appealing. I know that this is whether, you know, you know it or not. We know it, but it is a gateway. And so people come to Rockville Townsend and they see a block now. And so if there is any opportunity to put art or screening or something, I would completely support that. I would help beautify our community and help be an entree into the Rockville Town Center. I don't think we disagree. We're big believers in public art. Part-time art is myself. So we do like that. We like the fact that it would make it more interesting and more appealing for people. So yes, we will continue to work with you on that and try to make this the best that we possibly can for the city. Thank you. The last question I have for staff and if you have feedback on streamlining and things that you want to share, I know staff is going through a process now. Please share with the city. staff this project is going to require a county wanting to do BRT which we support the stormwater from state and county. So as a city going to continue or will be an intermediary, so it's not like going in three different directions. That's exactly what we plan to do. Mayor Argo wants to get with the county, the state, city and the developer in the same room and try to work out these issues collectively in a way that has benefits for all parties. Thank you and I know early on there was a little bit of not. People just asking for things separately and so I appreciate the efforts to to streamline and make it one stop shop. Okay. Dr. Miles may have raised. Miles. Sorry, I look right at him so I can kind of see these. Thank you. Sorry about the last minute, but I should just an echo. Some things my colleagues said I'm getting in the weeds about sort of student generation numbers, but more broadly appreciate the flexibility and going between a retail or possible. housing use. I mean my personal preference would be like something large to track folks off the pike that would be not only for you but also for Townsend or more broadly. So I certainly support the flexibility that you have outlined. That's all. Thank you. And for those listening, there is a section on student generation. There is a grid number of spaces at Bell Elementary and Julius West and with Crown will be space at Richard Montgomery. I know Crown is a big part of that. So thank you very much to staff. Thank you to you and good luck on the process. Keep us posted. Thank you very much. You will see me again in a couple of months. All right. Thank you. It's have a good night. Excellent. So we're now moving on to the section of our agenda focused on budget. We worked very hard over the past several months with staff. To put together a budget, we did balancing, we did public hearings in forum. And now this is the culmination of all that work. By law, we have to approve a budget in the month of May. And so we are here to do that. I want to thank the entire city team who worked on the budget. I know it's many departments who pulled us together under leadership of Mr. Mahalek as well as our esteemed finance team who keep us in AAA bond rating status. So thank you for that. Welcome Ms. Ken Francisco and Stacey Webster. Good evening Madam Mayor and members of the Council. In accordance with the city charter, the mayor and council must adopt the budget at the fund level. The ordinance on attachment one sets the FY 2026 property tax rates operating budget and capital budget for each fund. The tax rates and budget figures presented in the ordinance are reflective of the mayor and council's direction throughout the budget process. All property tax rates remain the same as an FY 2025. The total operating budget of 175.5 million increased by 7.1 million or 4.2% from the FY 2025 adopted budget. The total FY 2026 CIP budget of 120.7 million increased by 1.2 million or 1.1% from the adopted FY 2025 budget. The CIP budget generally fluctuates from year to year depending on the number and type of projects that are funded. Tonight we ask that the Mayor and Council adopt the budget ordinance through the following actions. First, the motion to amend the ordinance as shown in attachment one, seconded and passed, and then proceed to adopting the amended ordinance. The budget functions as a policy document, a financial plan, and operations guide, and a communications device. The FY2026 adopted budget provides resources that ensure the continued provision of essential municipal services and includes key enhancements that will advance the strategic initiatives of the mayor and council and their established focus areas of public safety, economic development, and housing. This agenda item includes all pieces of public testimony received during the budget process, along with the final budget priority survey report and the final Mayor and Council Q&A document. I'd like to thank you Madam Mayor and Council members for your diligence and hard work throughout this process given the economic uncertainties facing jurisdiction throughout the region. Strategic resource allocations are critical and this budget includes general fund additions to reserves of more than 1.1 million that is budget revenues exceeding budgeted expenditures. This offers operating capacity that will be an added cushion for the city if we begin to see any reductions in revenues and will serve as a resource to address emerging community needs, the potential for higher costs for equipment and supplies and other forthcoming initiatives that are under the mayor and council's consideration. As we look ahead to fiscal year 2026 staff will continue to update the mayor and council on financial performance along with any revenue or expenditure adjustments that may be required. We think- the fiscal year 2026 staff will continue to update the mayor and council on financial performance along with any revenue or expenditure adjustments that may be required. We thank you again for your leadership and I'd also like to thank the city manager and the budget team for their efforts over the course of this budget process. With that I'll hand it over to you Madam Mayor. Thank you. I just wanted to note as we adopt the ordinance appropriate funds on levy taxes for fiscal year 26 that we are not increasing taxes. It is remaining flat and we have not raised taxes in the city of rockville for more than 20 years. So I just wanted to at least acknowledge that so people when they see the title here is talking are aware. Thank you. I also just wanted to thank you again. I did have one quick question. As I was looking through the document, I was trying to figure out where we have the Federal Workers Program in here outlined. We discussed that as a placeholder. And so you will see that item come to you on June 2nd as part of the final budget amendment for fiscal year 2025. Okay, so you're gonna do it through budget amendment after we have the work session. Correct. Okay, that's fair. Council member Van Gregg. Just one note, I know it brought it up last year, but I'll just make a note because we've talked about it during this budget session. I presume even though it's not part of this budget document, we're gonna be doing assessment of the police department salaries together with what other jurisdictions are putting forward in their budget just to make sure that we're still in competitive salaries. We will be doing that after July 1st when we can look at all the other city's budgets. Excellent, thank you. And I know you committed to that and thank you for restating. Councilor Jackson, do you have a question? I know. There was a note here on Talbot on page 94, Talbot Street, just to make Talbot Park. I know we talked about accelerating that given that LBI money. I just want to tell you at least put that on the record again. The accelerated funding for the Talbot Street Park is included in the budget ordinance and that funding is there, perfated. I saw it there, but it didn't necessarily say accelerated so from the additional time and when we get the budget book, there'll be some adjustments to the KPIs we discussed as well. That's correct. Thank you. All right. Colleagues, we have the budget before us. Anyone want to move forward? Councilman Van Graek. Madam Mayor, I move to amend the budget ordinance as modified in attachment one to appropriate funds and levy taxes for the fiscal year 2026. Thank you. Do we have a second? Council Member Larry seconds. All those in favour? Please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Wonderful. Thank you. Now we need to move to adopt. Council Member Fulton, would you like to help? Sure. I move to adopt the amended budget ordinance to appropriate funds do it right now. And I should have done it earlier. It's public service recognition week this week. Public servants are going through it right now. And we bet some great opportunities. We have a budget. We know that there's a lot of uncertainty. And so if there are any changes on the county state or federal level that we need to revisit, I know we have budget amendment opportunities. But please keep us posted as that evolves. We've done it earlier. It's Public Service Recognition Week this week. Public servants are going through it right now and we bet some- I'm going to take the opportunity because it's appropriate to do it right now and I should have done it earlier. It's Public Service Recognition Week this week. Public servants are going through it right now and we've got some great ones here, particularly the ones at Helper Passes' budget. So thanks to you guys and thanks for everybody that works at City for Public Service Recognition Week. Thank you very much. Can we second that? We all agree. Colleagues, we have another work session. Would you like to take a break? Okay. Five minutes. Let's do five minutes. Welcome back, Rockville. Today is still May 5th, 2025. We are reconvening meeting that 12-25 and we're beginning to talk about our last work session item, which is zoning ordinance rewrite, new zones including town center, revisions to existing zone standards, height transitions, and the comprehensive map amendment. I'd like to welcome Holly Simmons as well as Jim Wasselok. I know you have a team of folks who've been helping you who may speak as well. Welcome. Thank you so much and good evening, Madam Mayor and members of the council. For the record, I'm Holly Simmons, Deputy Zoning Manager with Community Planning and Development Services. Can I ask that you get a little closer to the mic? Or pull it to the mic? Is that better? That's better. You can pull it to the mic. Perfect. Let's do that. All right. So we're here before you this evening to have the third work session on the zoning ordinance rewrite and the comprehensive map amendment. Before we dive into things, we do want to go over the presentation outline. So we'll be starting with an overview of the project timeline where we've been, where we're going. Review of the project timeline, where we've been, where we're going. Review of the previous work session on January 27th. We will dig into new zones, specifically focusing on town center and our high density residential zone that is proposed. Then we'll transition to building high transitions to residential zones from higher intensity zones, revisions to existing zone standards, and we will wrap up with a follow-up from that January 27th work session, a bit of information on the Comprehensive Map Amendment that was requested by you all at that work session. So to go over the project timeline, as you'll recall, we kicked off this project back in fall of 2023. We've gone through a number of phases since then. We've had the two work sessions that I referenced earlier. We began drafting our current phase in January, and now we are at our third work session. So we'll have two more work sessions, one in July and one in September, before we do a public release of the ordinance in December, tracking toward adoption in spring of 2026. At our previous work session, we dug into the comprehensive map amendment and all of the proposed re-zoneings that are addressed in the comprehensive plan that was adopted in 2021. If you'll recall, we received general support for most of the areas that were identified during that work session with a need for a bit of follow-up, some more information, additional outreach, etc. So now we'll be focusing in on those topics that I went over. And when we talk about the new zones, we really are focusing in town center here. Are you able to see my cursor? Seems like maybe not. Hmm. Oh, assuming you're talking about the circles spaces? Yes, the circled spaces. I'm going to see if I can think through really quickly how to get that cursor because that will be important later in the work session. Let me see if I can turn it into a laser pointer. There we go. All right. You did it. Thank you. So first we're going to focus in on the new zones and I did want to note that the way that we're going to approach this work session is very similar to how you all did the town center master plan work sessions where you chunked up different topics. You go through the topic and have the questions at the end before moving on to the next topic. So we have those five things that we're really going to dig into. Within this new zone section we will be looking at the town center master plan zones and ending with some questions and then going into the residential high density zone and ending with some questions before moving on to the next big topic. So starting out with new zones for Town Center we are proposing what we're calling a family of mixed use transit district zones. So you'll recall that you all adopted the town center master plan back in January. We followed that with a zoning text amendment to implement floating zones in the interim between the adoption of the town center master plan and the adoption of the zoning map amendment. That and that allows the development pursuant to the town center master plans recommendations, but we are looking for more permanent solution. Resoning those areas in town center master or town center through the comprehensive map amendment. So we've identified the mixed use transit district as the most walkable transit oriented zone. So we thought that this would be appropriate to adopt the use and development standards for the entirety of town center, but have three different zones that would vary based on height and those would correspond to the heights identified for three character areas in the town center master plan. So you can see those here. On the left side of this table you see each of the character areas, the edge character area in orange, core character area in pink, and the Maryland 355 corridor character area in yellow with their proposed zones next to them. MXTD 85 200 and 235 respectively. Those numbers correspond to the base heights that were recommended in the town center master plan for each of those character areas and you can can see the bonus heights as well. Those also would be implemented through this zoning. At the same time outside of town center, we are proposing to implement that MXTD 235, which has that 235 foot base height at areas within Twinbrook and Shady Grove that are currently zoned MXTD. So this would effectively raise that base height from 120 feet with a 30 foot bonus to 235 feet with a 100 foot bonus. This would be consistent with that zone in town center. and it also would allow for that 100 foot increase to apply not only to affordable housing but also to champion projects. So we thought that this would help to make these areas continue to be competitive with the town center as well as other areas that are transit oriented outside of the city in the larger county. We also think that this is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and the Climate Action Plan, which direct the densest development toward transit oriented areas within the city. So to finish up on this section, we have two questions related to the family of mixed use transit districts. The first is a family of MX-TD zones varied by height appropriate for town center, so really focusing on those zones within town center. And the second is should the MX-TD 235, that highest height zone be applied to the MX-T at Twinbrook and Shady Grove. Thank you very much. I just want to start off before we go into these questions to say thank you for the work on this. I know that we've had a number of sessions and this is very detailed work on your behalf with lots of maps and community outreach. So I wanted to really appreciate the deep efforts of staff on that. Before we get deeply into other items and the questions, I did wanna make some comments that one, we are talking about the zoning ordinance we write a Rockville Town Center. However, if anyone is listening, we did do a floating map so that if someone wants to move forward with what we approved in the Rockwell Town Center Master Plan, that is possible now. We still, in terms of our rules and procedures, have to go through the process of officially analyzing and creating these zones. But I just wanted to say if anyone is watching, you can still move forward with Rockwell Town Center Master Plan activities as long as it's an alignment with the Rockwell Town Center master plan. In addition, the comprehensive plan, there's a floating zone there as well. And so while we're building, you can still move forward on those projects. So I wanted to clarify in case anyone is questioning or has concerns about that. I also just wanted to note that in most cases, we've given property owners additional opportunities to do things with their property and you can see we've created these three different transition zones within Rockville Town Center. In some cases, they recommend to down zone or remove uses. And so I think this body will talk through those. One of the concerns that I will just share up front, and I spoke to Mr. Mejelik about this several weeks ago, is that there is a historically black church that is in within the Rockville Town Center. We've heard from some of the folks at Jerusalem, and they, you know, Jerusalem not pleasant, I'll say the full name, United Methodist Church. However, we're proposing to, or staff has given the option to down zone their property. And I just wanted to know, and I've shared this before, the state law has really looked at how do we help faith-based institutions do more with the land that they have? How do we allow them to contribute to solutions for affordable housing? And so I think this is not aligning what they intend of what we've seen in some estate law. I also think to remove property rights from a church that has seen a lot of historical challenges with how they've been treated. I think it's just not the right thing to do. So I wanted to open up and say that. What it would mean potentially is that we would not move forward with rezoning that property and keep it as it. So I wanted to at least cover that and take that off the table. Does anyone have any? Is it folks support this? Council Member Larry. I absolutely support this. And I think it is a good way to not only support expanding housing options, but also a good way to honor where the church has been and to correct historical wrongs to the extent that we can. Thank you. And we'll go to the questions but I just want to clear this up. Council member Fulton absolutely I agree with everything the mayor said we shouldn't be taking away uses from the church or any other property in the city but I do like I want to clarify yes it's staff proposal but it's staff's proposal because it is clearly required. It's recommended in the comprehensive plan that was passed. So I agree we shouldn't enact it but it wasn't didn't come out of nowhere. It was in the comp plan but I agree we shouldn't be downloading the church or any other property. Council member Fengrat. So I agree wholeheartedly. I mean I think this is definitely something that we shouldn't be doing but I don't want to necessarily just talk about this property here because what we're talking about in here, and I know I understand it's a staff recommendation with regard to down zoning numerous properties throughout this area surrounding town center and including town center. There's a number of properties. So the church is absolutely right and I agree with everything the mayor is saying, but I don't want to lose sight of some of these other properties that are also being down zone to residential and office where they have use as well. So I think this is something I know I've spoken about it before and others as well. I understand things might be part of the comp plan, but the idea of taking away people's rights that have significant use of the property when they purchased it and they have been using it for many times decades is not something that we as a body should be doing. And so not only do I support what the mayor is saying here with regard to this property, but I actually believe that that should be applying throughout what we're doing in the zoning-ordinary right. Yeah. And then to clarify that is the comment I made about removing uses and that was particularly I think of the MXT to MXRO. R.O. It is exactly right. And so I just wanted to say 100% with regard to use, but I think I want to look out for those people who also aren't here and testified because this is an important aspect of property use that I don't want to take away from folks, let alone the church which I think shouldn't have it taken away as well. Thank you, Councilmember Jackson, then Councilmember Shaw. Thank you, Mayor. So I don't want to lay with the point. I agree with my colleagues and with you, Mayor. So, cut me a grain with you. Thank you, Councilmember Shaw. I strongly agree with my colleagues and I think this move will also look to reconcile some issues, historical issues. And on that note I think we also need to look at expanding our equity lens when we're zoning in general as well as applying and displacement lens for residents as well. Thank you, Dr. Miles. Thank you, Madam Mayor. As a general law support anything that increases density, particularly with regard to housing in places that make sense. That's a one more board with you all, no significant deviation between how I feel and what you all have articulated as far. That's it. I'm on board with you all. No significant deviation between how I feel and what you all have has chiquillated as far as all. Thank you. All right. So now we'll move on to your questions. So is a family of MXT owns varied by high appropriate for town center, which I think most of us have sort of already weighed in with the Rockville a mass Master Plan. But I'll just say can we do a thumbs up on the first one? Okay, yep, you're good there. Should MXTD 235 be applied to MXTD Properties at Tuberand Brook and Shady Grove? Thumbs up? Okay. All right, can I just throw in one comment here? So we're talking about twin-break and shady grove. There are other shopping centers and I know I've talked to staff about this that maybe someone wants to do something with and put a mixture of mixed use and housing. I'm thinking about various mill and other places. This does not do anything for them. Is staff thinking about those as well? Actually on that. Council Member Vellieri. Thank you. On that point, we are really using the term transit and metro transit kind of interchangeably, because if we were expanding it to an actual just transit district, we might be including some of the high use corridors like Bears Mill, which hopefully sooner rather than later, we'll get the BRT as well. And each of those stations could have the possibility of having more opportunities as it's greater utilization. So yeah, I wouldn't want us to get kind of away from looking at transit as not just Metro, but that we have other good things coming on the horizon that I think would be applicable. We do know where some of the stops are going to be on Beersmell as of nine o'clock tonight. But we could at least, you know, plan for that sort of flexibility to really use it as a way to revitalize some of that corridor as well. What is the height allowance at the neighborhood shopping centers? I wouldn't say neighborhood really because we're, mean there's some parts that are very commercial but Can you just give us a general understanding of that? I'm sure Madam Mayor happy to The twin book shopping center at Virzmo road and Atlantic Avenue is in the MXN C zone That's not recommended to change in the comprehensive plan that allows up to 45 feet in height That is also as we know one of the proposed station sites at Atlantic and Veer's Mill. I will say that the Complan actually does recommend up-zoning where the station sites are proposed in the BRT along Veer's Mill. So there's one at Edmiston Drive that's recommended and there's another one at Twin Brook Parkway. So our comp plan has recommended that up zoning occur to the MXN season. Granted that's not nearly as tall as the MXTD family, but it does recognize that the fierce male BRT is coming. So even with approval what the zoning are, and so you're right, those stations near transit where you have the shopping centers would still be 45 feet. Yes. Okay. Well, I've shared my feedback. I don't know if anyone has any comments on this. I just wanted to see if anyone wants to weigh in. Do you want staff to look at this option? Could we given the comprehensive plan? I'm seeing some thumbs up. Yeah, yeah, support. OK, yes, yes. Dr. Ma, OK, it looks like the unanimous yes. I know we won't solve this tonight, but at least you can come back to us. OK, so we're answered those questions. Thank you. All right. So moving on to the new zone that focuses on residential high density. This is something that also is recommended in the comprehensive plan. And you've seen reference to this before at that January 27th work session. This is proposed to be applied down in planning area 10 in the areas where there are the Rollins Park and congressional towers communities currently. So we have more specifics at this point in time. We are proposing that there would be a density in this high density residential zone of 50 dwelling units per acre that's roughly between the densities of Gathersburgs and Montgomery County's highest residential only zones. We're also proposing a maximum height of 75 feet, which is consistent with the RMD 25 zone, which occupies most, but not all of that property. And then we're also particularly in response to consign- 25 zone which occupies most but not all of that property. And then we're also particularly in response to concerns from community members who we've talked to back in December and then again just last week. We're proposing there be a transition area where within 100 feet of the property line when confronting or abutting so either next to or across the street from single unit residential, the height is limited to 45 feet, which is generally consistent with what is there currently maybe actually even a little bit less than what the RMD 25 would allow in that area. So you can see here, where those heights would apply, the blue area, down along Rollins Avenue, and up on Martha Terrace. Those are proposed to be those 45 foot heights. And you can see an example image of what that would look like outlined in blue here. So kind of four story. And then in the purple area, all the rest of this site except for the 200 foot width along East Jefferson Street, which is proposed to be MXCT, all of the purple area would be 75 feet. And you can see that in the purple right here. Both of these images are taken from the area in and around that proposed resowning and the purple is actually an image of congressional towers. So that'll give you an idea of what that really would look like. We do understand from speaking with the community members that they have strong concerns related to this portion of the property right here, which is currently zoned R-75. That's the only portion of the focus area that is not R&D-25. It's currently occupied by the private clubhouse and pool for the community. So I think they have serious concerns about increasing the height there, increasing residential units generally and just seeing that property specifically change. So our question for this topic is are the density and height transitions recommended for the residential high density zone appropriate? Can I ask a question just in terms of the Martha's terrace? Just to able to ask some questions to you can you show that map of Martha's terrace? I know I've been back there to a little tighter. Do we have the infrastructure with staff suggest doing anything from in terms of the road to accommodate additional density and make it safe. We'd have to dig into it and really what type of redevelopment would be there. And then figure out the traffic generation. And if that suggests that the road would need to be improved or modified, we certainly do that. But it's too early right now to determine what we would want to do with the road without knowing the traffic volume. Thank you. Councilman Frank Rack. Councilman Jackson. I along the lines, I mean, all we're doing here is talking about the zoning because any particular project that we would necessarily approve we could address any either infrastructure needs or any other issue as needed. All we're doing now is saying what could be done without addressing any particular project. Is that right? Yes, that is correct. Thank you, Council Member Jackson. No, it's similar comment. Council Member Larry. That is similar comment. So, and I appreciate making that point. I think it's always important. And I think that that was the whole point of the comprehensive master plan sessions as well. It is not what is going to come before mayor and council tomorrow, but it's the kind of rock bill that we want for the future. I think that a lot of the concerns that we heard and hear from the community in and around Montrose are existing issues that they feel with the current infrastructure. So I don't even think, you know, and I appreciate like, you know, digging in on what might be coming in that one corner. But to the extent that we can address some of the current challenges that they're facing, I think that would probably be a little bit more helpful in the moment because we've definitely addressed, you know, the enforcement struggles of getting people to comply with stop signs, go figure. But if there are things that we can do for their traffic for their road structure, that could ease some of these concerns now, I think would be really, really helpful. That was my first main point, but a quick secondary question is the community center and the pool that they are concerned about in that corner? Is that private to the community? Is that attached to a particular development? I think our understanding is that it is associated with the development at Congressional Towers and Rollins Park, but it does seem that the community in the single family dwellings also has access to it, and they value it. OK, that makes sense. I was just trying to get a sense of it was, I didn't think it was a public pool. But yeah, no, I think if there are existing challenges on Rollins, which we know that there are some, and already challenges on Martha's terrace, then we should look at those now, but I don't think that should preclude what could come into this area 20 years from now. Thank you. Council, Michelle. I see you, Hen. Do you have any comments about this area? I'm still thinking through it, but I would like to see more information around traffic. Mr. Mehillon. A little off topic, Mayor, but just to address what Councilmember Valerian and Shaw just mentioned, we've been out in the community and the residents acknowledged it today quite a bit with additional traffic enforcement education, writing a lot of tickets, et cetera, had some community neighborhood sessions to talk about some ideas preliminarily. But I want everybody to know that we've also put in for council of governments studies to do a neighborhood-wide traffic study. We're optimistic we're gonna get that. And even if we don't, we're gonna continue to look for improvements to do traffic calming in and around the neighborhood even without development to Councilmember Larry's point to Councilmember Shal's point. So we're out there outside the zoning. Don't we can't address traffic in the in the neighborhood right now? Thank you. Thank you and I think it's worth mentioning that at all the projects especially the areas that we're seeing potential trouble that you would be looking at traffic and infrastructure and what improvements are needed. That's correct. Okay. So, colleagues, we have a question before us. Can you put up the question again? Are the density and height transitions recommended for the RHD appropriate. So thumbs up. Are you good? Council Member Shaw? Okay, so you're watching for more information. So we need to give direction. Are you good with where we are? Okay. All right, so thank you very much. I'll just know I do want to get, make sure that we're looking at the traffic and infrastructure to support the comments of the community. Yeah. So next up are height transitions. First, we're going to go through and kind of look at what we're dealing with currently kind of problem identification. And I'll go through that a little bit slowly. It can be a little bit difficult to understand what's happening here, which is part of the reason that we are proposing to change this. We'll go through what we're dealing with currently and then transition into our proposal for the zoning ordinance rewrite. Currently within the zoning ordinance, we have a number of provisions that aim to provide transitions from lower intensity uses, single family detached houses, townhouses, et cetera, to higher intensity uses. So one of the most well-known perhaps in the city of Rockville is the layback slope. So this is shown before you in this image, which we pulled from the zoning ordinance. You could go and look it up yourself if you wanted to spend some time with it. But what you're seeing here on the right hand side of this image is a small, small box that's designating a single unit detached, semi-detached, or attached, or townhouse. And then you have a property line running kind of right down the middle of the picture, and it's showing you that from that property line of a single unit detached, semi-detached, attached, or townhouse dwelling, you have a line that rises from that property line at a 30 degree angle and buildings on that adjacent property or confronting property whether it's right next door or it's across the street. They are not allowed to be built taller than that 30 degree line. So that applies specifically in our mixed use industrial and in some cases the RMD 25 zone but it does not apply to the MXT or the MXC because those zones their height is a little bit lower than this. So to illustrate the issue we did a case study looking at 400 North Washington Street. To give you a little bit of background on this property, we're looking at Martin's Lane along the Northern border, North Washington Street along the east, North Street along the south, and then on the western border we have townhouses within the RMD10 residential medium density 10 zone. So because they are next door to that RMD10 zone, a layback slope is applied to the property going from the West to the East. The width of the property is 200 feet and currently its zone is MXNC or mixed use neighborhood commercial and it's proposed to be within that MXTD mixed use transit district 85. The allowable height currently is 45 to 65 feet and that MXNC zone and it's proposed to be 85 with 135 foot bonus. And we note at a baseline that as currently applied, that layback slope would prevent development in accordance with the town center master plans recommendations. So to show that a little bit more clearly, you can see that same property up here at the top. We've got the direction of the layback slope, that yellow line going from west to east. And along that line, we've drawn points that correspond to this table down here. So I'm going to go through this kind of step by step. On the left hand side, we have the distance from the abutting property line. So the first arrow you see is at 78 feet right here. And with the layback slope, the allowable height would be 45 feet. That's the first time in this property that you're even getting to what is currently the base height with that MXNC. Prior to that, for the first 78 feet into that property, you're inhibited by that label below 45 feet. And if you're trying to imagine this in stories, how tall would this be, it's about four stories. So the next point at 147 feet into the property, that's where you're getting to your proposed base height of 85 feet. So for the whole way up into from that Western property line to 147 feet into the property, you're not able to achieve the base height that is proposed with the MX-TD85. And only for the very last portion of the property, it's about a little over a quarter of the property. Are you able to achieve anything above 85 feet? However, at no point on this particular property with the layback slope applied, would you be able to max out that bonus height that would get you 235 feet? Thank you. Can I ask you, I just, are any colleagues interested in this current proposal? Should we go to staff's fix for this? I think, okay, can we go to your fix? Move on, absolutely. So what we've proposed to solve for this problem is a more modern height transition that would balance the need to have appropriate transitions from lower intensity uses to higher intensity uses, but also respond to the recommendations of the comprehensive plan, the town center master plan, the climate action plan, et cetera, and really move the city more toward the mayor and council's housing production goals as well. So with this proposal, any buildings of 50 feet or greater would need to step back 10 feet from the from the facade of the building after the second story. So if you have a building that's up to 50 feet, this doesn't apply. But as soon as you're building hits 50 feet or it gets higher than that, you have to start looking back at that second story and you go back 10 feet from that outermost facade of the along the property line that a buts are confronts single unit residential in a residential zone or a couple couple other instances as well. And then for those buildings that are above 50 feet, they also were proposing would need to step back an additional 10 feet at 85 feet or above. So if there... for those buildings that are above 50 feet, they also were proposing would need to step back an additional 10 feet at 85 feet or above. So if they're wanting to make use of that bonus height, then they would have another step back as well. So 10 feet after the second story, 10 feet after 85 feet, but it doesn't apply at all if the building is less than 50 feet. We're proposing that the height transitions would apply to all of the MX zones except for the MXT and the MXC because again, their heights are rather constrained already. It would also apply to the RMD residential medium density 25 and then our heavy industrial and light industrial zones as well. And it would apply when those properties in this column are either abutting or confronting properties developed with single unit duplex or townhouse dwellings in any of these zones listed over on the right hand side. So those are all of our residential single unit and residential medium density zones except for RND 25. Can I ask one clarification to an earlier comments on MXNC? I was looking at the paper. It actually says max base height of 45 moving to 65. So just to clarify, I think we said 45 before, but 65 is possible. It's. It's 45 by right, but there is a bonus of up to 65 feet total that is permitted based on the provision of public use space over what would typically be allowed. Okay. That's how it's currently currently written. So this last slide before we get to the questions for Marin Council really applies to an alternate proposal to staff's proposal. So you can see here on the left hand side an example of how this would apply in town center. So you can see all of planning area one in yellow and then properties where this step back provision would apply on any portion of the property are shown in pink and then the specific facades where they would apply are shown in red in these areas. But we understand that Marin Council may also be interested in seeing a transition from MXT or the proposed MXRO. So we wanted to show that option as well, although this is not staff's proposal. So again, same symbology to show the town center properties, the properties to which the step back would apply, and then the frontage with the step backs, if it were to apply from the MXT or the proposed MXROs. You can see there's quite a bit of an expansion there. However, we do not, we don't recommend this simply because those properties have existed as they are as generally commercial mixed use some small amount of residential and have served as kind of a transition a built in transition themselves for a number of years. So our first question is are the height transitions that we propose appropriate and should a height transition apply from the MXT or MXRO zone. Thank you. Can we go back to the previous map? Is there anyone interested on the map on the right? I'm just looking. Okay. I think you have your answer. Councilman Van Grapp. Well, I just want to clarify that I'm definitely interested in a map on the right. I actually have the concern with the height transition zones overall. I think if we're truly going to be committed to actually the residential density and this whole mayor and council really had a very significant goal to what we're talking about in the Units and Town Center. And even with the red lines that exist and potential, you know, future adjustments, every unit could make a difference. And even with the height transitions of it, and I completely understand staff, I appreciate the detail of the staff went through here is fantastic. Well, you guys have really went through with what we've done in the past, alternative, which is absolutely better than what we've had in the past. My concern is if we're truly going to be utilizing every available residential density unit that we can, high transition zones are concerning. And I also would say if we're going to have them, I would only apply them to the residential zones, not the residential medium density. I think that that is a density that if we're good to apply it at all, it should only apply to residential, even though overall, I don't think it should be applying at all because I think we'd be restricting the ability for us to have residential density. That being said, the detail of what the staff put together here was absolutely fantastic. And I give the staff a lot of credit for the detail and the preciseness of all the information they provide. Thank you Councillor Vellore. Okay, First Love State Ditto on this is extremely helpful and and I love maps. I love data but I really love maps and this is actually really helpful. As a slight not not really a counter point to my colleagues, comments just now, we could get more units if we expanded and re-zoned more equitably across the city. Right now, the majority of the re-zoning is occurring on the east side of the city, or through the 355 corridor. So, you know, I and maybe we should do a strap-hole on that. I am always struck in these conversations, generally and then broadly, that we are trying to just consistently and I'm all for density, do not get me wrong. But we're trying to accomplish every single one of our housing goals in just these little bit areas and not having what I think is a more difficult conversation, which is how do we get increased density across more parts of the city, where frankly there are more more open space. So I just want to throw that out there. That's just Marissa's minute. But I just think like because I hear what you're saying, totally, I totally hear what you're saying. But I think in order to do that, I think we have to look at the city as a community and not as East and West. And I also note that we just talked about coming back to us with some of the neighborhood shopping centers as well because those are all over the city. So that would be helpful. That would be helpful. Dr. Miles. Thank you Madam Mayor. I have support staff's recommendations on this. Thank you. Go down. Council Member Shaw. Council Councilor support staff's recommendation. Councilor Michele. Councilor Michele. Thank you, Mayor. I support staff's recommendation. Councilor Fulton. I would apply any height transitions only to the residents, only the much narrower set of properties. Just so they can clarify, can you note which ones would be the only residential, how that would change the map? This is just for consideration. I know there's majority potential for us, so I just want to check. I think the think the red line on the southern border of Richermock and we high school would continue. Those are still single-family homes adjacent. So I guess is this any different? Was what was mentioned by our colleagues any different than what your staff is already proposing? Yeah, the very northernmost red segment, there's townhouses that are budding the one property. So that segment of the red line would go away. I would note also that the layback slope currently and these transition heights, if they were adopted, would apply outside of town center as well to any property that up buts in case a residential zone if that is if that is the direction that mayor and council gives. Councilmember Fulton. I really appreciate that clarification because I think it's going to make it it is a much bigger impact than just shown on this map which again to councilmemberis Point, would apply across the city and allow for greater density and more housing and units all across the city, not just here, if we only applied it to the narrower, residential only, right? Thank you. I support staff recommendation, however, I do think it might be helpful for us to do a little road tour Because we would be helpful to see the maps on where we could get additional housing And how that would work So I've mentioned this to Mr. Mahalic, but if we could do a Not that we're you know get the senior bus or one of the buses and go out and see the properties and see how that would impact. Where could we get additional housing? How does that about some residential areas so that we can see it firsthand together? I don't know. I know that some of my colleagues are open to this, but just want to see, are you guys open to a trip like that? Councilor Falton. Well, clearly, I'm into the road trip, but is the road trip going to mean that we're not providing the needed direction on this till we do the road trip? Otherwise, why are we doing a road trip? Well, I think that for now, this majority just of staff's recommendation but potential to add pending the road trip. So, Councilmember Jackson. Thank you, Mayor. I might have spoke to you too quickly. So I I have support staff recommendation, but I would not put it to anything but residential. Thank you. Okay. Does anyone else would you guys be okay with the road trip? Yes. Okay. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right, so moving on to our proposed revisions to existing zone standards, we do have a number of existing zones, as you know, and some of them we are proposing to change. The first thing we wanted to address before we really get into that though, is some information on the Housing Expansion and Affordability Act. So this is state legislation that is already in effect. It went into effect on January 1st of this year. So if a project came in tomorrow and they wanted to make use of these provisions, we would accommodate them, although it's not currently reflected in our zoning ordinance. So what the Housing Expansion and Affordability Act does is establish qualified projects which if they meet certain criteria, so these are not every project within the city, but if they meet certain criteria, they would be able to receive specific benefits. So the two qualified types of qualified projects that would apply in the city are those that are located within three quarters of a mile of specifically passenger rail stations or Those that are controlled by a nonprofit or located on land owned by a nonprofit So if they qualify under the first criteria that locational factor within three quarters of mile of rail transit If they provide 20% of housing units that are deed restricted affordable for 40 years, then they would get a 30% height bonus on top of whatever the base height is for that zone that they are located within. Same story with the second option for qualifying. If it's a nonprofit and they are providing 25% of housing units that are de-restricted affordable for 40 years then they also would get that 30% height bonus regardless of where they're located within the city. These are slightly over what our current MPDU requirements are at 15%. The last question about this. Yeah, absolutely. I will say thank you for bringing this back because I I know I was trying to say, let's align what sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I state law. I just, I've, we've experienced it where there's someone wants to do something. There's kind of using our original zoning, but not necessarily applying the overlay of state law. So I just, there's, there, this is the law of the land. And at least in this state, why wouldn't we just put it forward so that any applicant can see what's allowable? Is the question why wouldn't we just have a line in the zoning ordinance that says for any qualified projects under the housing expansion and affordability act. Go look at state law will apply it basically. Right. I know that Nick Dumay is on the line. I might defer to him if he's available. Councilor. Go ahead, Mr. Dumay. Go ahead. Thank you. Yeah. I'm having to answer the question. So, you know, in certain cases, where state law is kind of ancillary to zoning, like it affects the way that property is to be developed, but it doesn't go to the core of what zoning does. I think references to state law generally in the code makes sense. In this case, because state law really does affect some of the core aspects of the zoning of property like height, like you know, locational criteria. You know, my recommendation would be to incorporate this into our code and Miss Simmons and I and other members of the community planning development services have discussed ways of doing it. And we have some ideas that we'll be bringing to you later, but I don't think it's going to be overly complicated to incorporate this. It does mean that we would have to monitor state law, but we can both incorporate these provisions and include a provision elsewhere in the code that notes that to the extent state law changes, state law governs, which of course it does, but we could just acknowledge that. So I think we could accomplish kind of the best of both worlds, but for these restrictions or requirements, I would definitely recommend that we incorporate them into our code. Thank you. That's my option one. I think that makes the most sense as to cleanness and clearest, and we have to monitor state law anyway. So it just makes it so that everyone can see and they don't have to know and compare to very lengthy codes. So Councilmember Fulton. I think you just helped me understand. I want to do the thing that makes it easiest for people. But which means I don't think I would want, and maybe no one's recommending this, just a go see state law. No. I wouldn't want it. So they don't have to go somewhere else. We actually write down the law there and, if state law supersedes, go look there. Yes, I'm very much in favor of that. Thank you. That was Plan B if we couldn't do it. But so, is everyone okay with this? Gonna have to struggle. Councilman Bashal has a question. I just have a question. And I know that we're gonna talk about our MPD use. We're gonna have a work session on that. I support and advance that discussion, support increasing the amount of affordable housing with our MPD use of like 20% instead of 15. Can you talk to me a bit how that would, this would work with that? So what the state law says if is for any jurisdictions that have a requirement over and above what they are requiring, which actually we it's equal to or greater than which we actually already meet that what state law requires is 15% off the bat for qualified projects in that first category. But then they say if you're equal to if your current requirements are equal to or greater than that, which are, they're 15% and they're de-districted for longer than what the state is requiring for qualified projects, then you bump up to 20%. So I actually, I don't believe that it would impact this because it says, if you're over and above, you go from 15 to 20%. Thank you. And the nice thing is it says minimum of 40 years. So we would be able to apply our MPDU laws of 99 years. Council Member Vellieri. No, and that is a good, I going to be on a singular theme this evening. Would it be possible? I know Anderson, this is a state law, I'm not trying to change the state law, but and Deble, I don't want to change this one. I know. Good luck. That Rockville could have in addition to how the Housing Expansion and Fortability Act applies here could also use the same metrics to say located within three quarters of a mile of a BRT station. Because that's not uniform across the state. And I get it because there's light rail other things but you know if we do want to encourage folks and we do want more folks living by transit I would love to see like a a random a rocket a random that would apply this but to within three quarters of a mile from a BRT station. Thank you. So the last thing that I would mention on this slide and it's actually not shown here, but for any single unit residential only zones for qualified projects, you're able to develop multi-famil- or multiplex missing middle housing types if you're a qualified project. And I think it's important as you go back out to the community so that people know this is state law. And it's approved at the state legislator. So before we get into information on the RMD infill our missing middle housing zone, which is where we will focus most of this section, we did want to address two other revisions to existing standards that we are proposing. The first is a revision to the height in our light industrial zone, increasing the base height from 40 feet to 60 feet. We think that this will do a good job of supporting some of the comprehensive plan recommendations related to creating thriving industrial areas and ensuring regulation support the retention and growth of industrial uses. And it will absolutely allow more flexibility for limited and highly sought after land within our light industrial zones. We also wanted to note that we are proposing to revise our design requirements specifically in our mixed use zones. There are quite a lot of design requirements that developments currently have to meet. However, they're kind of a mixture of guidelines and requirements. So they use words like must, required, permitted, and then they also use words like should. So it's a mixture of things you must do and things that are suggestions nice to have aren't legally enforceable. So we wanted to clean that up and really increase the clarity and the specificity and therefore the enforceability both to clarify for applicants what's required of them and also for staff how we actually implement our design requirements. With that creating a little bit more stringency around those design requirements that relate to things like facades, architectural treatments, etc. We're also planning to add provisions for alternative compliance. These you may be familiar with because they are part of the East Rockville design guidelines already, but they allow a little bit of flexibility for designers and architects to meet the intent of the design requirements, but maybe in a different way, adapting to their site, adapting to their style, but still ensuring a high level of quality design, either equal to or greater than what the design requirements actually stipulate. Moving into some of the questions. Sorry. Of course, Council Member Valarri, can we go back to the previous slide. Can you give me an example of, you gave some great, it's very clear on the light industrial, which I would pause it. We do have a lot of residential by light industrial. So that is something for my colleagues to consider as well. Can you share an example of a design requirement revision that SAP is proposing? I can. Sorry to be on the spot. No, no, that's not a problem at all. It should be on page 461 of the agenda packet. Let me just. I think they speak to entrances making the clear invisible from the pedestrian sidewalk. There's one of them for that. Exactly. Yeah, that is the example in here. So the current example, okay. So building design must include design elements which clearly indicate to customers where the entrances are located with and which add aesthetically pleasing character to buildings by providing highly visible customer entrances. entrances. We're really trying to get rid of words like aesthetically pleasing or visual character, make it clearer what we're talking about when we mean those things. So that's proposed to be revised to the primary building entrance must be clearly defined and accessible. Primary building entrances must include design features such as canopies, onnings, or porches that enhance the pedestrian experience and offer shelter. Okay. I appreciate that because I was really trying to wrap my head around, especially around commercial buildings, what we were really talking about. So I appreciate that clarity. Thank you. Can I ask a question just to understand how this would apply? I'm thinking about a couple of industrial sites right now where the entrances are actually hard to find. If they were to do a modification to their building, they were just trying to, you know, maybe expand some space or something minor. Would we ask them to break the walls and put an entrance and I just want to make sure we're not putting, we're thinking about allowing people to update their properties and not for going all updates because they can't comply. I think most of the guidelines would kick in when there's new construction or major. New construction, not. Major. Not retroactive to properties. And also not if they try to do a minor adjustment to the property. No, not at all. Perfect. Thank you. Councilmember Fulton. I'm going to use your phrase. I would be remiss if I didn't say that we should I'm generally not in favor of any design standards. And I think we should be really careful to and I know this is the intent but anything that's about aesthetically pleasing or assuming what somebody wants to look at as opposed to making the building accessible and safe, I would personally would want to steer very clear from. Thank you. I do appreciate that staff is actually trying to change the language so that it's not aesthetically pleasing, but you're asking for what you want and focusing on the accessibility. I know that staff also is looking at some factors like blocking and massing as well. I believe is one of the topics. Councilmember Van Gragg. Yeah, and I just want to echo that because I agree there needs to be clarification. and I think in my review of of the existing zoning you guys are 100% on the mark because there's some confusing language is whether something is mandatory or whether something is allowed to be done and That's that clarity is necessary that being said given some of the testimony that I know that we've received from a number of communities I I would reduce the musts, especially when it comes to aesthetic or specific type of material use, because those are the big concerns that we've heard from the community. To echo what Councilman Rufalton was saying, clearly there are some of the musts with regard to access areas, and not crowding, and potentially some concerns regarding keyhole properties that we clearly should have because it's good for the city and planning that being said to the extent we can reduce some of the moths that the community generally is come to us with concerns about That would be some of echoing what councilman reflux said Thank you. All right. So getting into the residential medium density in Philzone. This is what we call our missing middle housing zone, missing because we haven't seen much of this type of development middle because it is development in between single unit detached up to mid rise apartments. This zone currently allows single unit detached and other house scale dwellings. So duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and townhouses. And we're proposing to add in cottage courts, which I've shown you images of before, but we'll see them again in just a moment. And then we're also proposing to allow, or to revise a few of the other development standards. This is really informed by the Comprehensive Plan Recommendations, but also through Marin Council's social justice initiative. We've reviewed APA, the American Planning Association's Equity and Zoning Guide, and they encourage developing or expanding this type of zoning that does allow for a diversity of housing types. And we've also spoken with community members. We've had a focus group of affordable housing organizations. We've spoken one on one with a number of small builders. And all of that has gone into informing the standards that we are proposing along with looking at some precedent research of other communities that have implemented zoning of this nature. So if we're proposing the development would be allowed on lots of any size, no minimum lot size standard. Also having very limited design standards, mostly to respond to community feedback around wanting them to have interaction with the street, etc. And then we're proposing that the height for cottage courts would be 30 feet tall, duplexes and triplexes would be 35 and fourplexes would be 40, with a front setback of 15 feet, a side setback of 5 feet, but it could be reduced if there is a total of 10 feet between the two side setbacks, and then a rear setback of five feet. Showing some example images, these are actually taken from Louisville Kentucky. On the bottom left you see a duplex, what that could look like in space, two side-by-side attached units with parking to the rear. A fourplex up in the top middle so two units side-by-side with two units on top of them and then a cottage court down in the bottom right and these images you've seen before we have our stack duplex up in the bottom right. And these images you've seen before, we have our stack duplex up in the top left and then going clockwise a quadplex, a cottage court over in the upper right hand corner, bottom right hand corner, another cottage court looking out from the porch of one of the dwellings, a fourplex, and then over in the bottom left-hand corner, a side-by-side duplex. So our question for the RMD infill is do you continue to be supportive of the RMD infill zone as proposed? Thank you, Councilmember Fulton. So my answer to the question is yes. My question is I'm sorry and I probably must sit and supply there where are these zones? So some of their there are some R&D infill properties that have already been re-zoned right at the Rockville Metro station, along Reading Terrace and Park Road, and trying to think of the other streets. I stone street as well, no? But the, the comp plan recommends extending all along the Irres Mill Road because of the BRT coming. And then expanding the existing R&D infill areas at the Ruckville station as well. Sorry, is the map up right now where these zones are? Some of these areas, yes, this is the map of all of the proposed rezoning from the comp plan, but some of them, I was just circling. So Jim was talking about these ones right here at the Rockville Metro and then also portion of these, most of these with some nodes of that mixed-use neighborhood commercial that are along Fierce Mill, as well as a few properties up in Lincoln Park. So late in the game to say this, and I just off from my colleagues, I would love at a certain point to see if we can expand that zone to more areas of the city than where it's currently listed. Thank you and I just a comment on our tour potential tour but some of the neighborhood shopping zones might be an area where we also get at that. Council move, I'm glad. Yeah, that was actually gonna be my comment, because not only do I, am I supportive of the RMD infill, I think there's an opportunity for us to expand it. I mean, I think every housing resource talks about, especially in our area of the country, this is a missing area. And we're talking about expanding certain areas, just as Council Member Valera was talking about, in certain areas to a focus of a heavy, heavy residential concentration. we're talking about expanding certain areas, just as Council Member Valerius was talking about, in certain areas to a focus of a heavy, heavy residential concentration, whereas this is an area that we can increase our housing units throughout the city in a reasonable level in that missing middle. So to the extent there's a degree to expand that area, not only do I support them, I've double supportive, because I think it can be increased. Thank you, Councilmember Valeray. So of course I support that too because I basically said it earlier, but I think that that's really where we can be most strategic to, right, in getting our overall supply. Because I think that when you know I'm sitting here looking those, you know, the opportunities are endless. I think that people can be extremely creative in the way that the properties appear. So I too would double triple support it. And as this was my example of of there's a lot of zone changes happening in one part of the city and we can do more across more. I will say, however, that I share my colleagues' concerns and I wouldn't need to see exactly how limited those design standards would be. because I think that part of the reason that this the infill works in other areas and jurisdictions is because people have had the flexibility to be creative in how their approaches. So I would be really concerned with any design standard. So I'd want to learn more about exactly how But yes, I would love to see this spread out across the city. Thank you. I was just going to know at Massachusetts, they actually have done a nice job of not just putting block buildings. They've done a nice job of making them look like they flow into the neighborhood. And so they look like homes, and then you go in and there's six units there. So, and then Council Member Larry, this goes to the point of how you were also getting at the BRT, the BRT, the BRT that you were talking about, that's in the Townsend and Master Plan. And sorry, the Comprehensive Plan, Council Member Jackson. Thank you, Mayor. I support us to have recommendation. I would like to study more other areas of the city. I think it's a great idea, but I think, you know, we just need to understand the pitfalls and the opportunities to expand this to other areas of the city. So maybe maps and part of our roadshow, our road tour. Yeah. Councilor Pachon. I also agree. I had a question. This would also cover garden style apartments as well. As proposed, it would cover up to a fourplex. So four units together would be a little bit smaller scale than a garden style apartment. Okay, I still support this. Thank you. Dr. Miles. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I support this too. That's all. So our final topic area for the night, refresh on the comprehensive map amendment. So I think we've dealt quite sufficiently with the planning area for recommendation that Marin Council wished to revisit. We can provide a bit of Information here, but I think we have direction on this one. I think we covered this already excellent So the next one we wanted to come back and provide a bit more information on was the proposed resounding in Lincoln Park So if you'll recall the the current zone for these properties are are60 and they're proposed to be the RMD infill. So what we're looking at here is North Stone Street along the eastern border of these properties. We did reach out to the Department of Public Works with the questions that you all raised back on January 27th regarding infrastructure. And DPW did say that they anticipate any traffic increase would be well distributed in the street grid. They think that Ashley Avenue would continue to function as designed. And they provided some information regarding right of way improvements that they're currently pursuing in this area. And and that is included in attachment two to the staff report. However, we did want to note that we also had the opportunity to meet with the Lincoln Park Civic Association a second time on April 12th and just generally community members expressed very strong concern about these proposed resoundings. Certainly, equity considerations were raised not for the first time in this process. And so while we've noted that the APA Equity and Zoning Guide does support establishing new districts with more flexible housing standards, it also notes, and this is actually a quote, however, if the residents of historically disadvantaged and vulnerable neighborhoods want to preserve single household zoning to discourage speculative investment and displacement, those desires should be respected. So we've committed as staff to continue meeting with the community members, but we also think that the comprehensive plan recommendation should be viewed in light of the Marin Council's social justice resolution and the equity-related information from the American Planning Association. Can I also just make one of the comment for context? So it's not just all single family on Stone Street. We actually have these stone-to- Street Master Plan opportunity there. And so there's projects to potentially bring in apartment as well as other type housing types in that community already. So there's zoning you can't see it on this map but it's lower on that block and very enclosed to Metro. So I just wanted to since the comment was made about single family I wanted to know there is some additional density that's built in on the MCPS properties which were hopeful to move and have a partnership with Habitat for Humanity. Consumberful, Tim? I'm so sorry to catch this. Can we go back a slide? Because I want to be crystal clear and transparent with everybody because we did talk about this early on but not in this context, not with this map. It's my understanding I just want to be super sure that the majority of this body is not in favor of making it either of these changes and leaving both of those properties as MXT. I wanted to make sure we were transparent with everybody with the map. Thanks. Did you want to sense do you have the mic talk about the Lincoln properties? Do you have any comments on this map? Not right now. Okay, all right. Anyone else have comments or questions about this map? Consumber, Van Graek. So I just wanna clarify because I know that we've heard some concern with regard to this property from the community has there been the opposite reaction to the community. Like have there been some in support of this? Is it mixed or is it the only reactions we refer? I civic association and that's where we heard the concerns. I don't think there was a balanced at that particular meeting. Okay. And I think we heard people who are not part of the civic association who testified as well. The Lincoln Park Historic Foundation. I will just say I have traveled Ashley Avenue regularly is it is not there's not enough infrastructure there. I just I have concerns about about this one this area and I know that we're trying to build density on Stone Street and that which I fully support. I just have concern about this corner. Colleagues, comments. We need to weigh in. Come, did you want to say something? Consum of a Larry? Oh, yeah. Oh no, you caught my question, which was, I think the assumption that Ashley Avenue is working just fine, I don't think that's necessarily, and I say that as someone who lives in the neighborhood with a very similar street that's a major artery with that down the middle. So I think that there are improvements that can occur. When you presented this to the Civic Association, did you present it as as infill or as R60? Like were you looking forward saying this is what we're proposing? What do you think of the proposed or were you talking within the context of what it is zone right now? We were talking with them specifically about the proposed rezoning, so we spoke with them back in October. I believe the first time and then we went back to them in April. In April, April 12th. It seems like longer ago than it was. But both times we were focusing on the comp plans recommended rezoning and the second time we came back with additional information so some of the standards that we showed you all this evening we presented to them at that meeting. Yeah, okay. That was my question in my head. I will say that at many community meetings It's very easy to get feedback from people that maybe have misgivings about a project and not always easy to get feedback from folks that really like an idea. So I guess if anybody is watching me ramble, please email us if you like ideas as well as if you don't like ideas. I I can see this area being I think it's a little tricky and but I do want us to do this right because it not only does the community need it but I love I'd love to just see a better use of of all that space in the Lincoln Park community so thank you. Just as I'm going to go down the line just to get feedback from my colleagues, but just point of clarification. In terms of state law, what's the, and I did not measure this, I apologize, but what's distance between, how would state law apply to any of these properties that we just discussed? The housing expansion and the affordable the act. I don't think it goes up that far, but I just want to check. Three quarters of a mile. It's close, but I don't. Can we check that? Because that might make us a move point. That would be very helpful. We could actually look at that one of the addresses and search. Councilman Jackson and then I'll go to Councilman Shaw. Thank you, Mayor. I've listened to this discussion and I'm just uncertain. I want more information about Ashley Avenue and about the traffic patterns. I do support the arm d-emphil, but I'm just not convinced right now that the zone should change at this time. So I'm going to punt just because I want more information about it. Council Member Shah, then Dr. Miles. I also agree with Council Member Jackson and getting more information. Dr. Miles. Thank you Madam Mayor. Would like more information and I do share your concerns about the current state of Ashley. I have infrastructure therein in what exists on the other side, although this amendment ser't necessarily address what's on the other side, but that's our stand. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Fulton. I'm sorry. I actually don't have enough to weigh in on this one right now either. I think I need to understand it a little more and get more information like struggling to look at maps right now to see what's currently in all of those places sounds like a good Rocho Yes, so it looks like parts of this would be 0.7 miles like right at the edge of the property But not all of it would be go up to 0.75 so I just if staff could get back to us with more information that would be helpful. Council member. Sorry. Um, what, what is happening there in the middle of the map? Like it's some industrial I think. Is it industrial? I think that's where you see the bridge, the pedestrian bridge. Is that where the bridge is? And then there's some industrial and pedestrian bridge. Okay, so actually part of that is the bridge space. But there's houses on the one side south of the bridge. So I think it's right here. I see you got your answer. Okay. And then you have a industrial here. Gotcha. Okay. Cool. Never mind. Councilman Van Grat. So I've heard much like staff has heard from people in this area including some of the people who are right in this area and around this area and universally it's been pretty negative with regard to what we're doing here. I currently do not support this that being, to the extent we hear from different property owners in this area that actually do support it, my support could, my view could change. So, but currently everything in front of the community members and staff relayed is there's a concern. And when an entire community, including some of the property owners have a concern about it, that's pretty universally something that we need to take account of. Councilmember Fulton. I do want to ask one question for clarity. We have heard a lot about Ashley of and it not being wide enough and not being a challenge and hopefully we can do something about it. We just had a conversation about an area in Montrose where the road wasn't sufficient to meet the expected traffic and one of the responses to that was any development we can use to fix some of the road issues. Would that also be true here? Can I just say something for you? Just if you can clarify, some of that stuff is not in our control fully because it abuts county property. Mr. Mejellik please. Thank you mayor as you look at Ashley Avenue on the map right now the little bit you can see the the south portion of it if you well. Is in the city. It's built the city standard just on that side but the north side is. The budget is not going to be a good idea to provide the city's budget. The budget is actually the city limits, not in the city. We don't have right of way going into that area. So right now it is a substandard roadway relative to city standards. But if and when entire length of city standards with curb gutter and sidewalk, which would make it much more in compliance with city standards and provide a greater level of service for the neighborhood. Thank you. That's really helpful. Appreciate it. You have another question on that. Okay. Can I ask one more question to add context? That land is not land that would be like other places that we've talked about in the Montrose community. That had previous gas On it So they might be some mitigation. It's not necessarily like you're gonna get housing there right away. It has some issues I think from historically of how the land has been used is that right? I don't know if I would go that far. There's a lot of unknowns on that property unknown. That's a better way to put it. Thank you. But not generally it's less control in terms of what the infrastructure improvements can be due to the unknowns. All right, team, any other questions? Are you good? Oh, yes, we have. I apologize. One more one more proposed rezoning to follow up on this one is up in the King Farm and Shady Grove planning area proposed to be resowned to MX CD mixed use corridor district from MX E mixed use employment. There is a height differential here. We're going from an allowable 120 feet with MXE to 75 with MXCD. So the question on January 27th was just wanting to better understand the use permissions within the MXE and the MXCD. So the information that we have is that the MXE is more flexible when it comes to industrial uses. For example, alcoholic beverage production, light industrial, self storage, whereas the MSED is more flexible when it comes to auto-oriented and residential uses, examples being car washes, apartments, and townhouses. And that ends this section. I think we've answered some of this question, but our question was, are there any remaining concerns or questions related to these specific resoundings? And I think we heard it along the way. But there's more. Sorry, I was trying to jump in on the previous slide. I guess I'm confused. I don't see what would preclude having a taller building along 270. That's it. I feel like we're kind of giving up an opportunity unless people really want a view of 270. And maybe you do, I'm no shame. But I think it makes almost more sense to have the greater height there. I understand the flexibility, but having more height along to 70 to me makes more sense. Thank you, Council Member Van Gregg. So I was when we had this discussion back in January, some of my concerns dealt with that exact flexibility. And I guess coming back to that issue and I appreciate staff clarifying the questions, why are we making this change here? Because Justice Council Member Villiers said we have the height. We're downgrading in the height, but I understand is there a reason why we're looking at these different commercial areas to focus the flexibility? Is there a need in this area for that? What is the purpose of this adjustment? Because as we talked about, this isn't necessarily a down zone or an up zone. It's a adjustment zoning because you're not necessarily, neither one is it necessarily heavily more desirable than the other because they focus on different areas. Where did the need occur that staff is suggesting? It really comes from the comprehensive plan. I will say that this section along with the card drive and also across 270, along research Boulevard currently is all MXE, and the comprehensive plan recommended that the other side of 270 be retained to be focused on employment uses, and this Picard Drive corridor become more remixed use residential retail area so that it's more compatible with King Farm and the other areas on this side of 270. So that's it's really comes out of the comprehensive plan recommendations. Can I ask a follow-up question to my colleague? This property just to confirm is this the property that has affordable units? I said the apartment building was this is a different one. There is the flats of shady grove. So it was so effectively affordable more affordable as I understand it. Was it I know that I'm just reflecting there was discussions about trying to support garden style or affordable units so that we're more in displacing people in certain ways. Was that the intent of this? I just am trying to understand. I don't think so. I think it's more recognizing that all of our zones were more mixed use in orientation and that this one should be more focused on providing residential, providing retail opportunities, contrasting with the other side of 270, which has kind of larger office buildings and is more employment based. Councilmember Fulton. I know. So confused. I appreciate what is there a way to have it both ways here? Like. I appreciate what council member Valeria was saying about. Seems to me you want to all buildings around 270 for a whole lot of reasons. So can we get the use requirements but raise the height limitations at least closer to 270? Is there value in that? Tell me. Councilor Frank Rack. I mean, one opportunity is, I mean, the Mixview Transit District does provide that flexibility. I know it's an adjustment outside of the areas that we were talking about for that area. I mean, do we have a zoning that covers that that has the 120 but has the flexibility more than the MXCD? So currently the MX TD does have 120 foot height limit and it has that flexibility. In this instance, the comprehensive plan is really clear about what the recommendation is and it says specifically rezone from MXE to MX CD, which does create some constraints there. The thing that I think we could consider if it's Marin Council's direction is to increase the height of the MXCD zone. We could also choose like we did earlier with the property at Drew's month pleasant to not go with, just stick with the current zoning. Correct. Which gives us the higher height, doesn't change it from what the proper young is expecting and I'm also open to discussing it on our road trip maybe on the road for it councilmember Jackson thank you mayor curiosity. So if you change the MXCD zone the heights, what would that mean? The use standards would stay the same. All of the other development standards would stay the same. but it would change the height for that zone throughout the city. It would not just be on this property, it would be on any zone that is, or any property that is zoned MX CD in the city of Rockville Thanks Thank you, but the thing is that we can continue to have residential units on MXC And it stays keeps 120. It seems like a clean easy thing To just keep what what it has. And that allows compliance with the massed comprehensive master plan, just the thought. But who was first? I'm sorry. I missed. Councilman Van Greck. Just a follow. I'm missing. I guess what I'm worried about are there certain things that people would want to do with that property to help us that we're missing because if we were to stick with MXA versus MXCD. One thing that I would say that's different for Picard than research is there are larger parcels on research. We're actually seeing residential interests on research and not the card. So I'm not sure there's anything in particular other than there's just a series of five acre lots along here. So that's it's probably what you'll end up with as a series of five acre developments. Thank you. Councilmember Fulton and then Councilmember Shaw. I support the mayor's recommendation. That does seem like the cleanest thing that keeps the heights and keeps what I'm understanding is every likely use. You're not taking off the table. So I think I would support that for now. Councilasad. I'm leaning towards supporting the current zone. I just had a question about the MXCD. It's intended for major highways, and it's along 270. So is there anything special about that that we should add to the current zone. We know, the primary part of where the city where it's located is the Long Rockville Pike away from the metro station areas that hold between Town Center and Twin Brook is all Mxcd. So we do have some Mxcd properties oriented toward 270 as well, so that exists under development currently. So I'm not sure there's anything necessarily that we would have to add or modify with the current zone to address it. Thank you. All right. Dr. Miles, did you have a chance to weigh in on this one? I didn't have an associate myself with you and, uh, customer defaulting on this one. Okay. Well, you win favor. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Yes, so we're good. All right, I think we're good. We are good. Does anyone have anything else I want to raise? Council member Larry. Not anything new, but I do, I don't know if we need to thumbs up or whatever, but I would like to explore more in-fell zoning as some of my colleagues have also addressed, cause I think even just beginning that conversation would be helpful. Thank you very much. Just to note, I think that what we put together is great, but we also have to put together plans at some point of how we're gonna to educate would be investors, landowners, about what's possible as well as following up with our residents and community members. All right. Thank you very much. We are now moving on to Mac agenda. Agenda item 13, Mac we reviewed the discussion this morning. It is posted on our LPT meeting. Does anyone have anything else they would like to add? Okay. Dr. Miles, I see your hand. You're good? Okay. Old New Business. Council Member Vellieri. Okay. Sorry. I've been doing a lot of talking. So today we received an email about the resources that Womada is sharing with jurisdictions around the Better Bus Network. This is a strategic realignment and consolidation and so forth. When I clicked on the link, I saw that and also got feedback from the community as well that there are signs up all along the Verizmila that the Q series of buses is going away on June 29th. The Q series is Walmart or Run Metro bus, and it is one of the most well utilized bus routes, set of bus routes in the city. I sent an email expressing my concern and wondering what's gonna happen magically on June 29th for all that ridership. I would like to put forward to my colleagues a bit is okay to direct staff, maybe to direct staff, to draft a letter indicating that we have concerns with regards to this corridor in particular and the suggested improvements, scarecodes around that to the Q series roots. This is for a variety of reasons, a really bad idea to down zone. The area with for buses because we have not only a lot of folks who do not have access to a car per census data, but we also have a lot of RM students who utilize the Q series bus to get to and from school. school. So I'm a little confused. They seem to indicate that BRT will fix it. BRT is not coming on beer's mill for at least a couple years if we're lucky. So I would love my colleagues support to direct staff to write a letter to Womata on this point and you know maybe we can get to a point of meeting and finding a better solution. But I feel like we have to move fast because the signs are up and people are really concerned. Thank you. So last year, this came upon us where we were potentially going to lose the T2, which was a major connector bus for homes and employment. And we drafted a letter. So there's precedence for us doing this as a body. I would encourage us to do this, just so we can make sure that we are aware and advocating for the bus service BRT. I think it's 70% design. And last I checked from the budget book when I asked the question. So there's still significant time before it comes. And it doesn't make sense to lose service before. So I just want to do a straw policy where my colleagues are in this. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions from staff for clarification? Okay. Thank you. And last week I mentioned the idea of sending a letter to some of the affordable housing H.O.C. and the MHP. I just also wanted to note that for awareness of my colleagues, MCEA and MCPS and MCPS Foundation are interested in those kinds of projects to see how they can support teacher housing. So I wanted to note that and I have also let Mr. Mahalek know that they are interested in collaborating on better understanding our MPDU programs in doing an educational seminar. All right, anything else? All right, seeing none, do we have a motion to adjourn? And I'll just say, Philly, Cinco de Mayo. All right, motion? Who wants that you guys want to celebrate here? I move to adjourn. I'm from Fulton. Second. All right. Made and seconded by Fulton and then Jackson. All those in favor, please face your hand and say aye. Aye. All right, thank you.