2026-09-23 - Planning Commission

00:03.39] Good evening Rockville. Today is Wednesday, September 23, 2026. This is meeting 11-26 of the City of Rockville Planning Commission. [00:14.90] I am the Chair of the Planning Commission. I

am joined in chamber by Commissioners [name], [name], [name], [name], and [name]. [00:27.18] Tonight's meeting is being conducted in person and virtually by Webex. [00:31.44] Tonight's agenda includes

two reviews on waiver application and then followed by our regular scheduled Commission items. [00:39.85] So before we proceed, does any Commissioner have any questions or thoughts? Okay, hearing

none, let's proceed. [00:47.70] Our first agenda is Review and Action A. Waiver Application 2026-322-WAV to permit a 14.5% reduction in the required parking spaces, including a 26.4% reduction in the

required commercial use spaces. [01:07.83] At 2277 Research Boulevard, located in the MXE Zone, [name] Office Research, LLC, [name] is the applicant. [01:22.32] So [name], is there a presentation from

staff? [01:26.43] Yes, there is, Madam Chair and members of the Commission. Just by way of introduction, the waiver applications that are on your agenda this evening relate to the same property on

Research Boulevard. [01:36.97] And they are the project is being processed under the prior zoning ordinance. [01:42.21] And because of that, and the way that code was written, the approving authority

for the actual site plan amendment application is the chief of zoning. [01:50.75] But the approving authority for these two waivers are the planning, Stova Planning Commission. [01:56.13] So you're

seeing these as standalone waivers. You will not be seeing the site plan application. [02:02.35] So I just wanted to make that clear. And [name] is here this evening to make the staff presentation.

02:11.65] I'm going to go ahead and swear him in, if you could identify yourself for the record. [02:18.27] [name] with Community Planning and Development Services. [02:21.59] And will you provide

truthful testimony this evening? [02:24.70] I will. [02:25.92] Thanks. Please proceed. [02:26.99] All right. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the Commission. As [name] indicated, the present item

is a waiver for a parking reduction for the subject property located at 2277 Research Boulevard. [02:46.68] As you can see, the subject property is outlined in blue from this aerial image shown on the

screen. [02:59.75] It is located in Planning Area 15, corresponding with the Falls Grove and Research Boulevard area. The site is approximately 20.56 acres, located in the northeast corner of Research

Boulevard and its intersection with West Gooty Drive. [03:18.78] As you can see, the site immediately abuts I-270, and the property is currently improved with three multi-story office buildings,

centrally located on the site and surrounded by surface parking. [03:34.06] The land use designation for the property is OCRM, corresponding with Office Commercial Residential Mix, and the zoning for

the property is MXE, corresponding to the mixed use employment zone. [03:48.15] So as [name] indicated, the subject property was previously approved by staff, and just for some additional background,

the property is subject to an original use permit approval approved by the Chief of Planning at that time in January of 1987. [04:15.53] That approval authorized the construction of two new office

buildings. As you can see, the site plan on the screen, those two new office buildings were those located centrally on the site addressed as 2273 and 2275, and those were to accompany the already

existing office building at 2277 Research. [04:40.65] As you can see, it was improved with quite a bit of surface parking, and many of those site conditions remain on the property today. [04:50.74] So

as [name] indicated, the property is subject to a major site plan amendment, which has been filed by the applicants. With that project proposal, the applicant proposes to remove the existing building

located at 2277 Research in order to implement a multi-phased redevelopment of the site, [05:20.68] most notably the construction of 131 residential units in the northern third of the site. You can

see the proposed site plan and layout on the screen here. [05:34.93] And so the residential component of the redevelopment will largely encompass what is proposed to be at Phase 1A. The second phase,

known as Phase 1B, will notably be interior alterations to the two remaining office buildings located centrally on the site in order to convert the ground floor office space into restaurant uses

06:04.27] to fully transform the site from a office to a mixed use site. [06:10.23] So to implement the proposed redevelopment, the specific request before you tonight is a parking reduction to

permit a 26.4% reduction in the required commercial spaces for the proposed uses. [06:30.66] This is equivalent to a 14.5% overall reduction for parking over the entire site. [06:41.89] This request

would allow 762 spaces to be provided in lieu of the required 1,035, representing a 273 space reduction for the commercial uses. [06:54.95] So in staff's review of the proposed request, it's noted

that the zoning ordinance authorizes the commission to reduce the required parking if one or more criteria are met. [07:11.68] In staff's review, it found that three of the six criteria were met,

notably the first being criteria B, that there are three or more bus routes in the immediate vicinity of the site. [07:27.99] There are three ride-on bus routes that give access to the subject site,

and those bus routes further provide connectivity to other transit options, most notably the Rockville-Wamata metro station and also anticipate connections with the future BRT proposed in the city.

07:52.00] Staff did also find that the request met a criteria E, where there is a bikeway in close proximity to the site, and the applicant demonstrates that the uses in the proposed development are

conducive to bicycle use. [08:08.18] The applicant does propose a large shared use path along the frontage of the property. [08:16.17] Implementation of that new shared use path would provide

connections to existing bicycle facilities in the area, notably an existing shared use path along West Gudy Drive immediately to the site's south, and a bike lane on Shady Grove Road, which is to the

north of the site and connected by existing sidewalks. [08:39.33] Staff does find that the proposed uses and site improvements will enhance both pedestrian and bicycle movements, again along the

external part of the property, as well internally with the proposed improvements, notably the public streets and associated sidewalks, allowing for greater internal connectivity. [09:03.60] And

finally, criteria F for any other good cause shown, from the analysis provided by the applicant, it has showed that the required parking for the office uses exceeds the actual observed utilization.

09:18.10] And in conjunction, and as noted in the staff report, the newly adopted zoning ordinance reduces the required parking for these commercial uses and allows for reductions where requirements

exceed demand. [09:34.07] And so that analysis has been provided consistent with the expectations of the new zoning ordinance and lower parking requirements. [09:43.42] Finally, the proposed

redevelopment will implement land uses and land use mix envisioned by the comprehensive plan. [09:52.61] So following the commission's decision on the requested waivers tonight, review of the site

plan amendment will be finalized, and as [name] indicated, a final action on that site plan will come from the chief of zoning and finding that all the necessary findings have been made. [10:16.64]

The staff does recommend that the planning commission approved waiver application 2026322 WAV and adopt the resolution of approval attached to the agenda packet and provided to the commission via

email. [10:33.00] And with that, that concludes staff's presentation. [10:36.45] Thank you, commissioners, do we have questions for staff. [10:39.77] Yes. Yes. [10:41.99] If I may. First of all, you

made some references to the current zoning ordinance, but I think we're reviewing this under the prior zoning ordinance. That's correct. [10:53.78] So why did you refer to the present zone, just

relative to the new parking requirements that the new zoning ordinance implements they're much lower for commercial uses. [11:05.42] And so, in terms of the future expectations for commercial uses

this reduction would be in line with three per thousand square feet versus two per thousand square feet, right. [11:16.42] I'm sorry, the new ordinance requires two spaces per thousand square feet of

office versus three and the old. Yes, that's correct. [11:27.11] And the applicant is asking for 1.66 for office. That's correct. Yes. Okay. [11:35.99] And when you said that the required parking is a

thousand thirty five spaces. Does that that includes a reduction for shared use that does how much of the residential parking is available to the public in terms of can the office workers use the

residential parking. [12:02.33] I don't believe that's anticipated. They're separated and not. So why would they get a benefit for shared use? [12:11.67] It's it's allowed under the code for a mix of

uses on site. And so that's just how the code is structured. [12:22.85] You don't didn't think there was some assumption in the code that there actually be the possibility that parking spaces could be

shared. [12:31.64] I think it anticipates that. But in this situation, the way that the site is laid out, it's it's not not foreseen. [12:41.16] It anticipates it but doesn't require. That's correct.

So I guess you don't know about the survey that was done for parking spaces by the applicant to you. [12:59.32] Not more than what was presented in the pack reserve some questions for the applicant on

that basis. [13:05.76] Understood. But I understand. Thank you. And thank you. And I want to follow up. So the [name] provide us a comparison with a new code requirement read in the email. [13:20.79]

They send this afternoon. So in that what is provided doesn't need parking reduction. It's even you see it's the current code standards. Right. Yes, that's correct. [13:32.62] Okay. That's good. Good

to know. Thank you. And then for the so as I read that there is a two seven eighty six parking space provided. [13:43.68] But in your presentation, you mentioned the seven sixty two number. So I just

want to make sure this the fourteen point five percent reduction is associated with seven sixty two. [13:56.21] That's correct. Right. But the applicant is willing to provide twenty four more just in

case if they can. [14:02.62] So the the just to clarify, the applicant is is proposing to provide seven hundred and eighty six spaces, but they're asking for a further reduction of twenty four spaces

to get to the seven sixty two. [14:17.60] And that flexibility is or the reasoning for that is flexibility during construction if they find that if through infrastructure, public roads, that

additional existing parking spaces have to be removed, they have that flexibility to do that. [14:34.32] So the actual requested number is seven sixty two for the applicant is with their current light

layout proposing to provide seven eighty six. Okay. Got it. So so we approve forty point five percent reduction. [14:48.51] But in reality, the reduction might be fourteen percent because they provide

some more. So the fourteen point five is the maximum reduction they're anticipating. [14:58.91] It may actually be less than that because of, you know, that flexibility of the difference between the

seven eighty six and the seven sixty two. Thank you. [15:09.00] Any other questions? Okay. And does the applicant have a presentation? Good evening, Madam Chair and commissioners. [name], I'm counsel

to the applicant. [15:28.89] We're happy to be here tonight and we're appreciative of [name] and the rest of planning staff's assistance on this project. [15:36.14] I think we started talking with

staff in early twenty twenty five. I might have even been before then we completed the pre application meeting process towards the end of, I guess, last year. [15:51.47] You know, then we filed some

of the applications in the spring. So it's been a long time and some of this discussion about new ordinance, old ordinance. [15:59.52] We did consider I think a lot of this would we wouldn't be here

tonight if we were going under the new ordinance, but we were so far along in the process that it would have created a lot of sort of unnecessary work to kind of transition to the new ordinance.

16:16.78] But I do agree with staff that it's helpful context is what we're requesting is in line with sort of what this body and the mayor and council adopted in best practices for parking demand

and recognition that the workplace environment has changed dramatically without we all commute and work. [16:35.07] [name], before you get too much further, I do need to swear you win. Sorry, you've

identified yourself for the record, but will you provide truthful testimony this evening? Yes, I will. Yes. Thank you. Proceed. [16:45.30] But to get to Commissioner [name] questions, I was going to

have our traffic engineer who prepared the parking demand analysis can can explain sort of how the parking works. [16:57.60] And I don't know that shared parking in this instance is the right way to

describe it because the residential is parked at 100%. There's no reduction at all. There's, you know, on street spaces on the new public streets. [17:10.90] There's that are available to anybody in

that community as well as the spaces within the units themselves, but he can explain sort of the calculation. Thank you. I will side with [name] for the record. [17:25.61] And will you provide

truthful testimony this evening? Yes. Okay, we'll go over a couple things. It does get a little complicated with this one with everything that's going on there's a lot of numbers there's a bunch of

different ways to look at this. [17:38.47] So we did do, I'll start out with the parking study that we did. So we went out we counted for a full day, we identified what the peak demand out on site

was, and that rate we then looked at the occupied square footage of office so we coordinated with the owner and found out how much was actually least and being used. [17:55.75] So we took the peak

number of parking spaces that we observed, we divided it by the occupied square foot to come up with a rate of what's the demand for occupied square foot, and then we just assume that the buildings

100% occupied in the future, when we look at that, based on that rate. [18:10.56] So that rate was around 1.58 spaces per thousand occupied square feet. And typically when we come up with a

recommended parking ratio we don't just use that number will bump it up a little bit because you need to be able to find a space. [18:23.44] So ideally you shouldn't have to go more than, you know,

let's say 20 spaces before you find one when you're circulating so we bump it up by 5%, essentially, to come up so that rate was 1.6 and I'd have to look at 1.66 that's the 1.66 rate so we are not

actually proposing to park that low, we are actually proposing to park the office higher than that, which I'll go through here in a second. [18:45.33] So the 14 and a half percent that's being

referenced, since this is all one site plan, that 14% is being looked at as that whole number of everything. [18:55.84] As Matt said, we are proposing to park the residential at 100% and that is

through driveway spaces, garage spaces, on street visitor parking requirement. [19:06.08] We're not assuming any of that gets used by the office or these small restaurant uses that will be over in the

commercial area. [19:15.10] So that's why analysis gets a little complicated is because that's 100%. So we are just looking at percentages in our report on the commercial side what we're asking almost

for a like commercial reduction percentage, if you will. [19:26.31] So, when we do that, we are proposing to provide, so there's two numbers in here for the 700s and I want to get them wrong here, but

we are proposing to provide a number slightly higher than the reduction we're seeking right so the plan currently has more spaces than we're asking for a reduction for. [19:46.33] Because, and that is

what's planning to get built but as we said, as we go through this process of actually laying stuff out spaces move you need buffers or what have you may lose a few more in that process. [19:56.96]

So, at the end of the day, when we look at the ratio for the office, it comes out to around 1.98 right around there at the number that we're proposed to put on the ground, right. [20:11.47] If you

factor in the reduction or sorry the the additional buffer that we're asking for comes out to around like 2.05 or 2.07, which is that's why that was being referenced with the new code is just to show

that that is generally in line with the two that's going to be required that is required [20:26.82] with the new code so, but we're not going to use that we're just just for comparison purposes of

what that is. So the parking ratio at the end of the day that we are proposing will be higher than that 1.66. [20:40.52] So the overall demand that we forecast for the office and the restaurant uses

that will be out there. And for the restaurant uses we are just assuming the code parking requirement as their demand, if you will. [20:52.08] We are parking at higher than that expected future

demand, which is still a reduction from the code amount, if you will. So we're not going to be a 1.66 will be actually up closer around two for that office. [21:04.46] That makes sense. We never, we

don't usually try to go as the absolute lowest on the rates. Is it clear? Hopefully clear. [21:18.75] To me, I mean, I've used a lot of these numbers before. So I understand that. I hope everybody

else does the where I was getting out before was the reduction for shared use is something in the code. [21:34.70] And it's not your routine. I was just asking staff about its applicability in this

case. [21:43.36] So we do we do site some shared use, but not for the residential. And so we're in the text here through all of this. It does say that somewhere in there for the restaurant and the

office. There's a little bit of shared use. [21:54.83] So some office workers may walk down to lunch and those those Parkers, they don't have to park right because they're already there. [22:02.30]

But I think you get the benefits calculated on the total square total number of spaces with regard to the percentage reduction because of multiple users. Correct. Or am I wrong? [22:18.21] So it does

provide a little benefit. It wouldn't get us all the way down to the reduction that we're seeking. So we provide both analyses because we want to show if we just take the baseline code rates, forget

shared use for a second. [22:29.23] What's the reduction that we're asking from that right if we're not going to factor in shared use. Then we say let's factor in shared use to what we can, which is

the office and the restaurants. And here's where we would be with shared use requirement. [22:42.69] We are asking for X percentage reduction beyond that. So you can kind of see what would what would

be normally just a provable on its basis right because you allow the shared use. We're asking for lower than that. [22:52.82] So that's why there's a lot of numbers because we want to just I want to

provide them all so that you can get the clear picture of what you're approving versus what would have sort of rolled through naturally. [23:03.38] The only other question I really have is with an

occupancy of 45 percent. I wonder what kind of of remaining tenants you have. Do you have people who have excess space just because it's cheap and easy to get. [23:20.84] You know, do you have the

unusual users in there making up your 45 percent occupancy. Well, that I believe I don't want to do something correctly from my I believe one of the buildings is more or less empty like tenants have

consolidated. [23:38.21] So it's not just that I believe it's not just that all the buildings are sort of like really sparse right. It's that one building is empty. [23:46.09] Yeah, yeah, one building

is going to be demolished. [23:49.12] Yes, yeah. [23:54.78] Good evening. I'm [name]. I'm technically the applicant. I'm a representative of the ownership. And will you provide truthful testimony?

Yes, I will. Thank you. [24:05.24] So right now the the oldest building, the one that we're intending to tear down is 100 percent vacant. There's no tenants remaining in there. We had a tenant that

moved out late last year. [24:19.72] So that building is now currently 100 percent vacant. The other two buildings, we've actually had a little bit of success getting some additional occupancy in our

two biggest tenants, our capital bank and enterprise. [24:34.74] They both renewed, which was good news for us. And we and we brought in some additional tenants that are there generally for, you know,

three, five, seven year leases other than the two big tenants, which I think are 10 year renewals. [24:47.83] So I don't know what our overall occupancy is, but I'm the two of the two buildings that

are going to remain. We're probably in the 75 percent range right now. [24:59.43] And we also had a office shared use like a Regis took a whole floor. [25:06.48] So again, we think that'll bring in

additional space, additional tenants to the building. And again, our hope is to create some restaurant space on the ground floor. [25:18.90] Start can start to activate that space and hopefully that

will lead to future redevelopment. We believe that will be successful and then we'll obviously have to come back for additional uses beyond that. [25:29.99] That's kind of one. A is the residential

one. B is converting the part portion, a portion of the ground floor, not all of it into into restaurant spaces. [25:43.29] Any other questions while I'm up here? So you mentioned the shared office.

This is like a we work co-working that kind of it's Regis, which is the largest co-sharing. [25:56.29] It's not. It's not we work. They operate a little bit differently. It's more of a club thing for

we work, but it is a Regis office sharing. [26:05.35] So they'll have multiple tenants coming in for short, short stays. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. Thank you. [26:15.42] Come on,

you're good. Believe it or not. No, I believe just let me say something basic here. Yeah. The risk of having too few spaces in this instance, because this is an isolated site, not near other

residential falls on the applicant. [26:37.78] The applicant is willing to take a risk of less than than code parking. Who am I to complain? I mean, that's the basic philosophy I have with this. Just

so you know, please come to the microphone. [27:05.12] Perfect. Well, that would be great news. I can start adding ballet parking. We can, you know, actually, if you have that kind of activity in the

site, that would actually be pretty welcome right now. Right now, enterprise is our biggest parking user that we they're actually storing cars there. Right. [27:20.19] So that'll go away. We have that

on a kind of a short leash too. So that hopefully that will go away soon. Just had one clarification question. And this is really first maybe for all of you. [27:33.98] Isn't this part of a larger

over time development, right? This is just the first part in the research boulevard is we've approved something else there. And so perhaps it's a little isolated now, but it may not be in the future

if we're looking forward kind of far out forward, but I just want to make sure I'm remembering this correctly. [27:54.22] There are multiple applications that are pending in the research boulevard

corridor. That is true. So we might not affiliate that might be a short term year. That may be short term. Right. That's the case. [28:09.29] It's still their own residential will buffer the

residential to the north or to the west. I get my directions confused. And, and there is a subdivision to the north that we have on our illustrations that I want to talk about when we get to the

waiver, the other waiver. [28:33.53] We do have goody goody drive is on our south side and 270 on our east. I will say as it sits today, it would, to your point, it'd be pretty undesirable to try to

park off site to walk over here on a daily basis. [28:45.74] Quite an endeavor. Okay. Yeah, hopefully, some of the workers can afford to leave in the townhouse nearby so they can walk to work.

29:00.00] Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. So hearing no, so we finished this question. So is there a motion for this waiver? I move to approve the resolution to approve the parking reduction

application 2026 322 WAV. [29:19.43] And I think that's all under the new format we're using. I think that's all I need to actually, Commissioner, if you could use the proposed motion that's on the

screen, that would work perfectly would not just be so much easier. [29:30.67] Thank you, [name], if I'd followed instructions the first time. I move approval of waiver application 2026 322 WAV and

adoption of the resolution of approval attached to the agenda packet and provided by staff. [29:48.16] Is there a second? I'll second. Oh, in favor say I and raise your hand. Okay, the motion is

passed. So, [name] I noticed you send out a draft resolution for this. [30:02.58] So is this a new protocol that we will follow. Yes. As you take actions, even though this application is not under the

new code. [30:15.78] The new code does require that for your actions that you should accomplish those via adoption of a resolution. Whereas before I would issue a letter of approval that incorporated

all of your findings and the conditions. [30:30.66] Now you will be seeing that actual document and US chair will be signing those resolutions. Okay. Thank you. [30:40.21] So this, if this weren't to

pass, you guys would have done that work for no reason. Just want to be clear. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the resolution, hopefully, in theory, you know, brings forward the staff report same same text.

30:56.63] So, right. And so we'd be furnished with all the information we should be able to be well informed and make the right decision and hopefully it aligns with what you guys are recommending

anyways, but I just want to make sure I understood that. Thanks. [31:07.74] Quick follow up. So this commission, at least the time I have served on here, has a lot of changes sometimes in the middle

of a meeting. So I'm assuming you're going to have an active file on your laptop that we can update. [31:21.84] We made sure we have the word version. All right. Just making sure. [31:24.84] And to

follow up, for this question. So if this motion doesn't pass, do we have a resolution showing it's not passed? [31:35.04] You may not have it at the meeting that you are take that action. But of

course, you would stipulate the reasons for not approving an application. [31:46.35] And then we would put together a resolution and bring it back to you at the next meeting for your final adoption.

Okay. Okay. That's clear. Thank you. [31:54.81] So let's move to next item item to be waiver application two zero two seven four one zero to wave certain street design elements required by section

twenty five twenty one sixteen B of the subdivision regulations in association with redevelopment at two two seven seven research. [32:19.39] We are the office research LLC [name] is the applicant.

It's like there are staff presentation. Yes, Madam chair. [32:34.62] There is again this waiver is for the same property as the prior waiver. And [name] is here to make the staff presentation. Thank

you. Thank you, Madam chair. [32:48.22] So continuing with this same subject site for twenty two seventy seven research boulevard as [name] indicated. This is a waiver from the city's subdivision

regulations under the previous zoning ordinance to facilitate the redevelopment project. [33:06.31] So to again highlight this is the subject property shown in blue on the screen. The components here

are the same. Just want to highlight that the post layout and project site plan does allow for waivers under the previous zoning ordinance to facilitate new subdivision and redevelopment. [33:45.14]

And specific to that section twenty five twenty one sixteen before relates to the street and public infrastructure requirements for subdivisions. [33:58.65] Specifically, it notes that streets must be

continuous and in alignment with existing roads as far as practicable and compose a convenient system to ensure free circulation and vehicular and pedestrian traffic. [34:12.65] In order to implement

the proposed redevelopment and site layout, the applicant does request a waiver from this particular provision to provide non continuous street design. [34:25.64] And as we'll see, it will allow for

the multi phase redevelopment concept presented by the applicants. [34:33.64] So here is a detail of the proposed site plan and layout. As you can see, there are several new public streets proposed

specifically for the residential component of the project. [34:51.29] As noted here, streets B and street C will not be continuous, but will terminate most notably on the eastern side of the streets.

There will be continuous pedestrian connections. [35:08.29] New sidewalks will connect to have connections to the existing commercial buildings, but the actual roadways will terminate. They will be

terminated by temporary bollards, which can be removed for emergency access. [35:25.27] So it's only the vehicular component that won't continue, but there will be pedestrian and emergency access

provided for these new streets. And as noted in the staff report, the reasoning for this request is really to allow for the implementation of the different uses on site. [35:49.01] Notably, continuing

the public streets would require the applicant to remove additional parking spaces, which as the commission decided that the parking requests was necessary to implement the commercial uses. [36:05.01]

And so to avoid that conflict, the applicant is seeking this subdivision waiver. So the specific findings for a waiver from these requirements include findings that there is undue hardship that will

result in firm strict compliance. [36:29.06] Additionally, the public health, safety, aesthetics or general welfare will not be impaired so that substantial justice is done. And finally, the waiver

will not be contrary to the intent and purpose of the plan or the zoning ordinance. [36:44.41] So in review of these findings, staff has found that undue hardship would result with the conflict to the

proposed office uses and future planning of the site, giving the multiple phases and different uses proposed on site. [37:01.98] Furthermore, the proposed layout does allow for safe pedestrian

vehicular and emergency service access as noted. Furthermore, the waiver will allow for implementation of uses envisioned by the comp plan as noted and required by the findings. [37:24.40] And

finally, staff did find that this particular waiver would allow for a diversity of uses on site, flexible site design and orderly development, all purposes expressed by the zoning ordinance.

37:38.94] So finding that the required finding has been met, staff does recommend that the Planning Commission approve waiver application 2027, 410-WAV and adopt the resolution of approval attached

to the agenda packet and provided by staff. [37:55.97] And with that, that concludes staff's presentation. [37:59.31] Thank you, [name]. Any questions to staff at this point? [38:08.22] I've got a

quick one. So given that this, I guess, Street C especially is now a dead end on both sides, is there sufficient space to U-turn or turn around a car if you are down at the end of the road and realize

you can't go any further? [38:23.76] Yes, staff does believe there's adequate turning movements will provide for vehicle access. As you can, it may be hard to see from the screen, but the Street C

will also connect to a alley that loops around to the north. [38:39.41] So there will be a way to circle around where you don't necessarily have to make a U-turn, but we did analyze the turning

movements and they do appear to be adequate. [38:51.58] Thanks. Will Street C connect to the subdivision to the north? [38:58.80] To the north. No, it's not proposed to. Why not? [39:02.86] So in

review of the adjacent development, we did look at trying to provide that connection. [39:10.13] However, the master plan does not require a new public street through this area, through either of

these developments. [39:19.19] Staff didn't recommend a public access easement to allow for future road to go in at a certain time, but that was not settled by the applicant. [39:29.31] And that

development was determined to be adequate with the private roads that they proposed. [39:36.38] So now you have to tell me about private roads. Well, first of all, does it even line up with the

private road? It didn't look like it to me. [39:47.21] It's not directly aligned, but they will have emergency access for, they will implement the similar temporary bollards so that you can have

emergency vehicles access. [40:04.05] I mean, looking at the illustration you have on the screen, it looks like the subdivision to the north barely touches the pavement width of Street C. [40:19.36]

Yes, that's correct. So how can a vehicle do that? [40:25.95] I believe that with the proposed materials, a vehicle could traverse that area. [40:34.03] You know, it's not directly aligned, but a

vehicle could gain access. [40:39.82] Wouldn't it be more convenient to the public if they did align? [40:43.52] Perhaps, but it was not a requirement. [40:49.86] Unless it's made a requirement in the

subdivision process. [40:53.98] Potentially, yes. I mean, it seems to me that we're creating a scattered work of streets that will not serve these residents well. [41:08.97] And I need to know a

little bit more about private streets. No street plows on a private street? A city street plows? [41:18.46] Generally, no. That's how you handle them. [41:21.77] No garbage collection? No, that's all

privately handled. So it has to be private and they have to do U-turns or something like that? [41:31.65] That's correct. [41:33.48] Because there are a lot of dead-end private lanes in this. And

sometimes there are not. [41:40.85] There was a better illustration that at least below Street B, you have a turnaround on the northern boundary of the property where the private streets connect.

42:01.47] See what I'm talking about? [42:03.20] Yes. [42:05.93] All right, now why doesn't that occur on the south side where you have a long dead-end that could be connected if you deleted the last

southernmost units and put a private lane to connect so that you had some circulation in the area? [42:29.82] Commissioner [name], are you referring to the neighboring property? [42:37.37] No, on this

property, yeah, just right here, there is a private lane. [42:46.03] Okay. [42:47.09] It's an alleyway. [42:48.09] Right. It's all private lanes are alleyways. But it allows some circulation, God

forbid, there's a delivery truck somewhere and you wanted to get around it. [43:01.89] The building? [43:03.15] Yes. [43:07.21] You connected this to this down here. [43:10.29] Oh, and just took out

that last unit? [43:12.89] That took out the last unit to give some circulation to that whole quadrant. [43:17.33] I mean, I feel okay not introducing that alley. [43:30.59] I think in the future, I

don't know for how long, there might be a future connection to the east, no east, south face if office building could be redeveloped or something. [43:46.35] But I think that alley is not too

critical. But I do see your point of the streets see the northern portion of why it doesn't align with the northern development. [44:04.54] Well, I think primarily it's because those are private

streets. [44:10.99] You recall when you consider the compatibility funding for that property, those are two over two units. [44:17.27] Access from private streets, like most other two other two units

that you've approved over the last several years do so intersecting a public street into a private street. [44:30.99] It's just not designed to handle that type of traffic. [44:35.36] If we wanted to

extend, wanted to do that, we would extend the public street through this property, but it was not. And that property has already been approved. And there were certainly are pet and bite connections,

but not vehicular connections between the two developments. [44:57.50] Thanks for clarifying. So you mean from from the northern private street and there are pedestrian connections to this? [45:06.94]

An emergency, yes. [45:09.35] An emergency. [45:10.27] I'm still wondering how an ambulance is going to get through one foot of paving that that is in line with a private street and a public street.

45:22.16] One foot of pavement, this is pavement two right here. That's the private alley that comes around the back. This is all pavement, right? That's a private alley. [45:35.80] Oh, so that'll be

paved as well. That's that is a private. And that's a private alley, by the way, that gives access, which is a good thing. [45:44.88] And I learned that today. [45:47.88] We find all those private

alleys provide circulation. OK, so now we can focus on street C and street B. [45:56.41] Well, again, on C, are there going to be barriers that prevent vehicular access? [46:04.79] Yes, there are

going to be removable bollards that can be removed for emergency access, but otherwise will remain to constrict vehicular access. [46:15.19] I'll make sure there's on this side. Good. OK, good for

now. [46:27.78] Well, look, the waiver seems to be for a cul-de-sac, correct? Is it anything more than the cul-de-sac? [46:40.23] Well, because it's non-contiguous to the rest of the property, I

guess. But my complaints are really more with the subdivision design than they are with that particular waiver. [46:57.26] But but I wouldn't approve the subdivision. So and I don't know how to

communicate that to the decision maker of the subdivision. [47:07.79] You can certainly have your your personal opinion, but it's not you're not the approving authority for that. Right. [47:19.77] But

that's not the subject of what we're talking about here, right? I mean, that's not within the jurisdiction of the planning commission. [47:26.21] And so you could write a letter to [name]. [47:34.71]

Yeah, it seems like to see is connected through the Addis. There is a circle there. So the street B has a dead end. [47:43.77] So I think the most of the circulation works. And I believe [name] said

the emergency vehicles have sufficient turning. Right. [47:56.91] I just don't wish to annoy or future residents with how many times they have to wait for the delivery truck or wait for their people

or get used to doing K-turns or whatever they have to do to turn around. [48:18.38] We can do better with circulation than what this subdivision. OK, so maybe we can hear from the applicant if

applicant have any anything to say or present. [48:29.87] Good evening, [name] on behalf of the applicant. I'm good. OK, so we we've been at this, as I mentioned, a long time. [48:45.25] And I think

[name], the length, the number of layouts that we've gone through, I can't count how many times we've redesigned this to accommodate staff in terms of the street B with the bollards. [49:01.30] I'm

talking internal to the site we control because we don't control the applicant doesn't control. That's other developments of the north that has private roads. [49:09.46] So there's nothing we could do

about that. We could we would have granted the applicant would granted an easement to allow for that connection for the public street to continue. [49:17.58] But they don't have public streets, but

internal to the site. The applicant didn't have any issue with street B or maybe even street C, but certainly street B connecting to the commercial uses. [49:30.18] We had no problem with that. That's

what we proposed. But transportation staff did not like the vehicular connection. They did not want vehicles cutting through from the residential to the commercial. [49:42.68] And they made that very

clear to us a number of times. So this was the what we came up with the design and I'm going to call it in sort of an interim condition and the hardship to the applicant would be we don't know what's

going to happen on the rest of the site yet. [49:59.29] Because some of that's going to depend on, you know, it's going to all depend on factors beyond our control, you know, that in terms of the

market today and all the uncertainty that that all developers are facing in this country. [50:12.62] You know what happens next? I don't know. But when we figure out whether there's more commercial or

more residential, then that'll dictate the type of street infrastructure that's provided. [50:24.83] So if staff had told us we have to continue street B and street C through the entire site, we'd

have to kind of guess at, you know, what's the what level of road design is provided. [50:37.01] And it would conflict with existing parking and drive aisles that serve the office building just fine

today and probably impair obligations to tenants and things like that. [50:49.23] So this is sort of for the time being what we came up with that we think works well, allows for pedestrian

connectivity between the mix of uses. [50:58.34] And in the future, when we figure out what can happen on the rest of the site, whether it's more infill residential or more retail, hopefully the

office buildings, the occupancy improves and that can that can stay. [51:11.54] Then we can figure out how to kind of continue these roads. But it wasn't under the code. It says continue them as

practicable. And I don't think it is practicable to continue them any further than we have. [51:23.24] So was there a street A that connects C to B and goes further west? [51:34.69] Street A is the

main road that's not labeled, but we did. I mean, I'd have to defer to [name] and [name] [name] but I think at one point we probably did have a connection and I'm directionally challenged to

commissioners. [51:53.70] I guess we'll call it the southern part of Street B where it stops going towards 270 to Street C, but it didn't meet transportation staffs, DPW standards for one reason or

the other. [52:08.85] The public roads, even just going to these secondary residential streets, it's very onerous to meet all the requirements. [52:16.01] Like it becomes the right way, becomes much

wider and it creates a lot of challenges to kind of fit this in. [52:24.24] So for like the 131 units that we have, I think we probably started out with a lot more density than what we're showing

right now. [52:31.52] And once you start factoring in the open spaces in the public roads, which are all good things that benefit the future residents and others, it becomes very challenging to make

it all work. [52:43.73] And we think that this layout and I think staff agrees is going to work well. So the connector between Street C and Street B is not a public street. [52:56.96] It is. I'm

talking about to the south, not the that's a public street, Street A, the main thoroughfare. Yeah. Yeah. [53:06.13] I was talking about previous iterations of this. We had another, I think, I guess,

East West connection. [53:14.37] I could be wrong, but there were there was a lot of, you know, we we went through probably 10 options on this over the past couple of years. [53:21.74] So so there are

three public streets in this subdivision. Correct. [53:25.80] And then the alleys, which are pretty in my experience, pretty typical for any of these local jurisdictions that service just sort of the

entrances to the units themselves. [53:36.02] But the public streets are sort of the main connectivity for people to get in and out of this community. [53:41.30] And if I can ask staff, City of

Rockville doesn't have any limits on how many units can be on a private alley. [53:49.81] I'm not aware, but that may be a component of new requirements that the city is considering. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. [54:07.52] Any other thoughts? Yeah, I think compare this developer brings three public street that have the snow plowing all those service compared to the northern properties or private

street. [54:24.70] I think the public street brings more benefit. So I'm supportive of this. And I think it's, as he said, it's an interim scenario. And so that gives a base for future extension or

something. So I'm comfortable with this layout. [54:44.46] I will just put on one thing that I like about this is that the public or the private alley lane, what are we calling it? Private alley that

goes along to 70 here creates a little bit of a buffer. [55:01.81] If I remember correctly, no such buffer existed in that in that development to the north that their units were right up against to

seven. [55:09.77] So this gives a little breathing room to those units and makes them, I think, a little bit more desirable. So I like that feature. [55:16.80] So hearing no more discussion, is there

a motion to motion? Is there a motion? I move approval of waiver application 2027 for 10 and adopt an adoption of the resolution of approval attached to the agenda packet and provided by staff.

55:46.79] I second. Oh, in favor, raise your hand and say aye. Aye. I'll say aye with a comment that my objections are to the subdivision out of the jurisdictions of this waiver. [56:01.66] Okay,

sounds good. So [name], how do we transfer the [commissioner] comments? I think that's been communicated. [56:12.80] So it will be in the resolution. Yeah, it's outside of the scope of this

application. It doesn't, it doesn't pertain to this. [56:21.51] So it shouldn't be included in anything. Right. Unless the Commission as a whole wants to include it in the resolution. Otherwise, no.

56:30.33] Well, your opinion is communicated to the approval. Sorry. I'm trying. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. [56:40.63] The motion is passed. Thank you. Okay. Let's move to our next regular

agenda item. [56:55.19] Commission items. [name] there are staff liaison report. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the commission. [57:04.19] Your next meeting will be 3 weeks from tonight on

October 14th. Right now we have a number of items lining up for that meeting, including the annexation plan for the Winx property on Westmore Road and the mandatory referral for Redgate. [57:24.91]

And also a site plan for a bank pad site at the Falls Grove Village Center. So a fairly robust agenda looking ahead to the 28th. [57:35.27] We also have a mandatory referral for building here in town

center 260 East Jefferson Street being retrofitted for electric vehicle charging. [57:48.35] I did want to note that your November meeting because November 11th would be the normal meeting date. That

is a holiday being veterans day that we had set your meeting date for November as November 4th. [58:05.10] So I just wanted to highlight that for you. [58:10.97] [name] you say the regular day would

be November 11th, but since it's holidays, you'll move it to November 4th. Right. Okay. So October only have one meeting. [58:22.56] Yeah, November and December. Traditionally, you only have one

because the second meeting will be during a holiday week. So October, do we have two meetings? Yes, you have a meeting on the 14th and the 28th. [58:36.99] Mr. Can I ask a follow up question? The

mandatory referral for the Redgate. Can you like spend a minute explaining what that might be? I'm just not aware or familiar. [58:49.34] So Redgate, as you know, was the golf course, the municipal

golf course and is being converted to public park facility. So the application constitutes location character and extent of that park design as being complying with the comprehensive plan as you know,

as any public project would. [59:13.91] Thank you. [59:16.38] Oh, I did note that the historic designation for Martins Lane that you saw in July, Mayor Consul did adopt designation of that

property. And with that, I don't think I have anything else to add. [59:41.20] Thank you. Any questions? Okay. So any old business? No. Okay. I have a new business. [59:55.38] So, we're invited to the

proclamation. [60:00.00] I will be declaring October 2026 as national community planning month in Rockville by the Maryland Council on Monday, October 5th at 5.30, so I will be there and any

commissioners can be there. [60:17.99] No. [60:21.78] Okay, October 5th is Monday at 5.30 at the City Hall. Okay. Okay, great. So we have four counts. Okay, I will give them a tentative four people.

60:41.06] That will be great. Thank you. And, and I think Commissioner [name] suggest a seat rearrange for our sitting here. We're in alphabetical order. We're also in age order, which I don't know,

it's a little. [61:03.03] I'm okay with that. It's a little awkward. There's no problems on the left side. It's a little awkward that we're in age. I had not noticed that. [61:12.09] I think it's a

good change. So shall we just shuffle one person from this side to this side to flip who is willing to move to this side. I'm too old to flip. [61:27.54] I mean, I don't feel stronger. I don't care.

I'll move. That's fine. Do you want to swap seats Commissioner [name]. Well, either with you or Commissioner [name]. [61:39.82] It doesn't matter. I'm just asking who you want to sit next to more I

guess then me or him. I would love to sit next to either or both of you. Let's figure this out in between me. [61:48.17] Well, we need some reshuffling. So you do know the position of honors on the

right. Right. So, so those to the right. So I think I'm hearing you say you would like that honor. [62:08.81] It's nice to be on the right of the room, but well, I'm expecting next meeting we will

have some seat arrangement. So let's I think we leave it up to the chair. I think we let's just let's just let [name] handle this. [62:23.34] Yeah, we will defer to I think we should switch seats with

every agenda item. [62:28.34] We should switch seats with every agenda item approving and see you back for putting that motion up and I didn't see it. I hope we don't need a motion for this but yeah I

support Commissioner [name] and move to this side and you can pick who you want to move. [62:50.09] Yeah, you three make a deal. Yeah, we're gonna figure it out. All right. Sounds good. [62:58.41]

Okay, so, so that's a tool business. So we have one minute to approve. Yes. Yeah, that's the September 9th. Yeah. So, I have one change. [63:13.98] So, the beginning of the request for private addy,

you said the chair sent asked for a motion to remove the item from the consent agenda. Did I ask for a motion or a request. [63:27.41] I think [name] said, only need a request, not a motion. Yeah. So,

then the [commissioner] request last meeting. Any other revisions commissioners? Where was the minutes that I should be reading because I must have missed them in a separate email. [63:53.47] Who's in

a separate email? It was about mid afternoon today. Today, I didn't get insufficient time for me. Okay, then maybe we can vote next meeting. So, Commissioner [name] can read it. [64:07.91] Yes, since

you'll participate in that meeting. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, I think we got a correspondence. So any additional correspondence from. [64:25.79] Okay. All right. Then we are ready to occur. Is

there a motion to adjourn? I make a motion to adjourn. [64:33.79] >> Second. [64:35.48] >> All in favor say aye. [64:37.02] >> Aye.