Mayor And Council Talk About Development And Zoning For A Change (Mayor And Council Meeting 11-15-2010)
Nov 16, 2010 7:30 - 0 Comments
As always, when Rockville’s Mayor and Council meet, we try our best to provide a useful recap of the key points. This week’s meeting (November 15) featured lots and lots of talk about development and zoning!
Here’s our rundown.
City Manager’s Report
City Manager Scott Ullery had two items.
First, a NORAD drill will go on between Midnight and 2am Tuesday. Things could get loud. Secondly, the MC meeting is streamed live on the website but there are intermittent problems. (I was able to link in no problem. Whew.)
Appointments
Dr. Karen Becker was appointed as a member and chair of the Animal Matters Board.
Citizens Forum
Anyone can speak at Citizens Forum. The best way is to call ahead at 240-314-8280, but typically if you just show up you can speak too. If you speak, please consider sharing your remarks with Rockville Central so we can consider publishing them in full.
Carl Harger: Talked about problems he sees with mortgages and foreclosures.
Susan Prince: Speaking in capacity as president of WECA, though not at WECA’s direction. Thank you for organizing the Communications Task Force. Two issues when it comes to development review. 1) Difficult for average citizen to get a handle on the process. It seems to go so quickly. 2) No mechanism for addressing citizen concerns about particular projects. When a citizen raises a concern in an area meeting, there is no incentive for the developer to address the citizen’s concerns.
Jack Gelin: Rockville has grown from a small city to a large city. But we have a bureaucracy that has grown and is no longer needed. Citizens feel alienated. Loss of citizen empowerment can only be solved if you take seriously the Communications Task Force recommendations. They are serious recommendations from serious people.
Proposed Zoning Amendment: Pumphrey Funeral Home
Last month, the Mayor and Council heard pros and cons about allowing the Pumphrey Funeral Home to build a parking lot on the lot next to their main building. This would be a “nonconforming use” that would be intended to alleviate parking problems in the neighborhood.
Tonight the Mayor and Council considered the issue and provided direction to staff on whether to move forward on the it.
Councilmember Mark Pierzchala asked whether there is anything that would prohibit the Mayor and Council from taking the step. (The Pumphrey attorney said no.) He said he is voting for the measure for safety reasons.
Councilmember John Britton said he thought this was an intensification of use, but not a new use. He disagrees that an additional parking lot would change anything about the type of use Pumphrey’s makes of its property.
Councilmember Bridget Donnell Newton said she was not inclined favorably to the proposal, that adding a parking lot is definitely a new use. She also pointed out that in her view the not enough had been done to creatively come up with other ways to mitigate traffic and parking (for instance, parking at Julius west Middle School or Rockville Presbyterian Church).
Mayor Phyllis Marcuccio said she cannot support the measure for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that there is no turning back. If the property changes hands in the future, the new owner will still have a parking lot. This would be a change from a residential lot to a more commercial lot.
Councilmember Piotr Gajewski spoke up to say that in his view Pumphrey’s had been a good neighbor and wanted to make sure that others did not think differently. (Other members of the Mayor and Council agreed that Pumphrey’s is a good neighbor.)
The motion passed 3-2 (Britton, Gajewski, Pierzchala yes, Marcuccio, Newton no).
More Talk About Zoning, Part One: Communication Task Force Recommendation on Development Review Process
Commission members Noreen Bryan and Elise Gussow presented recommendations from the Communications Task Force, specifically about the development review process. They focused primarily on a set of recommendations about alternative dispute recommendations. This raises a number of issues, while the idea also garnered agreement. Councilmember Britton pointed out that the Planning Commission is, in theory, the body where citizen disputes over development play out – he said this raises the issue of whether we need to rethink our approach to the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Newton pointed out that much of the negotiating give and take begins at the first meeting between staff and developer. They develop a relationship, compromise, and reach agreements. By the time it gets to the Planning Commission, it becomes a done deal. She supports an ombudsman role supported by development fees, to insure that meetings are fair and minutes are accurate. “Lately all we get is the far left and the far right. It’s a little like Capitol Hill.”
Councilmember Britton replied “The Planning Commission should not be afraid of denying applications. It should never be a done deal at the Planning Commission.”
Mayor Marcuccio wondered aloud whether this was too much to expect from volunteer Planning Commission members.”
Councilmember Gajewski said that if the Planning Commission is broken in any way, it needs to be fixed. He suggested that it may be time to begin thinking about compensating members of the Planning Commission. The key, in his view, is ensuring quality people are serving. He also said he was skeptical that a body with teeth could be created that would address disputes after the Planning Commission has reached its decision. He said he likes the idea of an ombudsman, a professional person whose job is to be a contact person for everyone other than the applicant.
Councilmember Pierzchala said that each individual recommendation may make sense, but all together it seems like a bureaucratic mass. He also said he is skeptical of the ombudsman idea. “How does a citizen have a voice?” he said, “is the real question.” He said he would rather focus on procedures.
The report contains many recommendations, and the discussion ranged widely. However, a number of decisions did come out. The Mayor and Council voted unanimously to make the following recommendations:
- Change the City’s “Development Flowchart” to clearly show where citizen input fits in, and to make that point relatively forward int eh process;
- Ensure the City continues to provide all the pertinent documents to citizens when requested, including online (as they now do);
- Make DRC meetings open to the public (and alert them that they are taking place);
- Urge the Planning Commission to abandon the “three minute rule” as it is seen as overly restrictive to citizen input;
- Create a Citizens Implementation Committee to work with staff, board/commissions or others on implementing Task Force recommendations;
- Change the initial public process so that the Pre-application Area Meeting would occur prior to the Pre-application DRC Meeting;
- Change the procedure for the the Post-application Area Meeting so that it is attended by City staff to answer questions but is conducted by the applicant;
- Ensure minutes of all Area Meetings are taken by an objective outside source and paid for by the applicant;
- Ensure that the notice of filing include the date of the DRC meeting; and
- Spell out that public notices should include: the brochure (already implemented), information on the Planning Academy, anticipated timeline, location map, site plan if appropriate, and a brief project description (i.e. 3-4 pages).
More Talk About Zoning, Part Two: Communication Task Force Recommendation on Development Review Process
The next item on the agenda was rooted in an April 26 memo to City staff by Councilmember Pierzchala. His memo sought to clarify a number of issues in the new Zoning code. This kicked off a review by City staff, and a number of clarifications between Councilmember Pierzchala and staff. At the end of the day, there were a number of issues on the table for the Mayor and Council to consider:
- Clarify the terms “dwelling” and “kitchen.” (Currently, the presence of a kitchen defines a “dwelling.” That means that you can establish a dwelling just by adding a kitchen.)
- Eliminate height waiver for senior housing in small zones but keep it in large zones.
- Simplify and streamline the review process.
- Review all special exceptions for institutional uses in residential zones.
- Add photos or graphics in development review documents.
- Clarify what is a “minor” amendment.
- Simplify review of small-scale projects.
- Update sign provisions.
- Various technical corrections.
- Improve the review process (the final five bullets above).
Staff will draft language that implements these changes and bring it back to the Mayor and Council.
Councilmember Pierzchala brought up a number of issues that he felt still could use some discussion from this memo.
The first is the definition of family. Currently it is
“An individual, or two (2) or more persons, all of whom are related to each other by blood, marriage, domestic partnership, adoption, guardianship or other duly authorized custodial relationship, or a group of not more than five (5) persons all of whom are not related to each other by blood, marriage, domestic partnership, adoption, guardianship, or other duly authorized custodial relationship, living together as a single housekeeping group in a dwelling unit.”
Councilmember Pierzchala would like to reduce the 5 down to 3. “Five unrelated people is piling on,” he said.
City Attorney Debra Yerg Daniel pointed out that this change may tend to cause problems when it comes to equal treatment, as well as the Fair Housing Act. The Mayor and Council did not take action on this issue.
Another issue related to mixed use zones. In such zones it is possible for a zone to go 100% to one use (for instance, residential). Councilmember Pierzchala asked whether the City wanted to require mixed use in such cases.
The response from City staff was that it might be most prudent not to try to control the market. Today, mixed use is in vogue. Down the road, the market may change. By requiring mixed use, this could get in the way of later appropriate development.
Attorney Daniel also pointed out that courts have decided that what is explicitly state din a zoning ordinance controls, notwithstanding what a city’s master plan may call for.
Councilmember Britton said he would not like to mandate mixed use on a per-lot basis, but wants to devise a way to require mixed use in larger areas. Staff will work on this.
Councilmember Gajewski expressed some concern about changing the zoning ordinance so deeply while it is still so new. “Will every new mayor and council make changes like this?” he wondered.
The next Mayor and Council meeting is November 22, 2010.
Leave a Reply
Comments are closed
