Subject
title
Work Session on FAST 2 improvements to the development review and permitting process.
end
Department
CPDS - Development Review
Recommendation
Staff recommend that the Mayor and Council receive the presentation, discuss, and provide direction on the proposed action items.
The following feedback is requested from the Mayor and Council to guide next steps:
• Do you support the proposed changes to site plans, project plans, road code waivers, and right-of-way agreements?
• Do you agree with requiring a single neighborhood meeting prior to the submittal of a site plan or project plan?
• Do you agree with the proposed changes to notification requirements?
• Do you support the change to the Comprehensive Transportation Review (CTR)?
• Do you support the change to the schools test?
• Do you support the actions to improve the building permit review process?
Discussion
Background
The City has been working on changes to the development review and permitting processes for a number of years. In October 2018, the Mayor and Council endorsed an important City project entitled FAST (Faster, Accountable, Smarter, and Transparent - Improvements to Permitting and Development Review Processes). This name reflects expected results among the Mayor and Council, staff, and stakeholders.
In 2018, the Mayor and Council reviewed and supported a FAST Project Charter to guide the successful completion of this project. This “roadmap” identified desired outcomes and a path to achieve them through specific Action Items (see Attached Fast Phase 1 Project Charter).
Staff developed and implemented a work plan based on the project charter and presented it to the Mayor and Council in November 2019. Initial actions included staff reorganization, regular engagement with customers, and improved digital notification procedures. Then several changes were implemented to the Development Review Committee, including standardizing comment protocols and establishing interdepartmental coordination, and CPDS and DPW staff worked together to develop and implement a Customer Bill of Rights. Since the implementation of these items, staff has received positive feedback on improvements in our service to our customers.
With the shutdown of City Hall because of COVID, electronic plan review became the next priority. Both development review and permitting implemented digital application intake, plan review, and online payments, first through an improvised process and later through the MyGovernmentOnline (MGO) permitting system. The Mayor and Council approved two Zoning Text Amendments (ZTA) because of FAST, the first in 2021 allowing for concurrent review of project plans and new exemptions from site plans for minor appurtenances and the second in 2022 to calibrate tree requirements for townhouse developments.
Most recently, staff has continued improving processes and configuring new permit types in the MGO system. Development Review timeframes have been established and made public. Also, the draft Forest and Tree Preservation Ordinance (FTPO) update includes multiple FAST action items. Finally, action items that require amendments to the zoning ordinance have informed the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite (ZOR) project.
Of the 37 original action items, 18 have been completed. 7 more are incorporated in the draft FTPO revisions, and another 6 require changes through the ZOR. The remaining 6 will be accomplished with the full implementation of a unified permitting software system, updating procedures guides and documents, and through updates to the Comprehensive Transportation Review, discussed later in this report. With the conclusion of most of the FAST Phase 1 items, now is the time to reassess processes and develop any additional actions necessary through a second phase of FAST.
Discussion
In anticipation of launching this next phase of FAST, staff established an internal working group, which developed a statement of purpose and outcomes as shown in the draft charter (Attachment FAST 2 Project Charter). The team also assessed the development and permitting process and created a list of priority items to improve. In addition, the team engaged external customers through a survey and a listening session, and staff met and received feedback from both REDI and the Chamber of Commerce. Although the focus of the Charter and this report are on items in need of improvement, participants noted several things that Rockville does well such as the willingness of the City to focus on improvements and the responsive staff who are significantly better than our nearby jurisdictions including Montgomery County.
To meet the goals of FAST, Rockville’s processes must be competitive with those of other jurisdictions in the region, so staff has begun comparing Rockville’s processes to those of surrounding jurisdictions. Part of the effort with FAST 2 will be to continue to compare similar processes in other jurisdictions. Based on these steps, important elements to examine are overall timeframes, number of meetings, and number and types of mailed notices.
Overview of the proposed updated Project Charter
The first five sections of the Charter explain the importance of the FAST initiative in meeting City goals for Economic Development and Housing and detail the Faster, Accountable, Smarter, and Transparent approach. They also provide information about the project approach and schedule.
Section six, “Key Issues and Recommended Action Items,” lists the main issues identified by the staff working group and feedback from customers. Following each issue is a recommended action item or items that will address the issue. This report provides additional background and detail on the issues and actions. The action items should be viewed as a starting point. Any changes to regulations such as zoning or Chapter 21 will be subject to more detailed analysis, public review, and separate Mayor and Council action.
Issue 1: Numerous items require Planning Commission and/or Mayor and Council approval. Limited administrative approvals.
To put this issue in context, it is important to understand the planning process. At the highest level, the comprehensive plan is a statement of where and how the city wants to grow. It makes recommendations on zoning and development standards. Area plans such as the Town Center Master Plan provide more specific recommendations about where and how to develop, sometimes even focusing on specific sites. All of these policy items have been completed with robust community participation and approval by the Mayor and Council. The city is fortunate that Rockville 2040 was adopted in recent years (2021) and the Town Center Master Plan is expected to be adopted this year/early 2025. These policy plans and documents inform the residents and those who are interested in building our community where new growth should occur and the type and intensity of this growth based on recent community feedback, the Planning Commission’s recommendations, and the Mayor and Council approvals. These documents provide a level of certainty to those wanting to invest in and build our community.
Zoning is a legally binding implementation tool for the policies outlined in the comprehensive plan and its associated master plans. The city is again fortunate that it is going through a comprehensive rewrite of its Zoning Ordinance (ZOR). With the ZOR, the community and the Mayor and Council solidify its directions provided within these plans. Specifically, the eventual adoption of the ZOR will inform residents and the building/development community of the specific requirements that all new developments need to consistently meet. In exchange for meeting all these significant requirements, the city will approve your development plan. To staff recollection, every development plan that has gone through the city’s process in the last decade that has met all the city’s requirements has been approved with little to no changes. Because of this, one can draw the conclusion that these decisions have been administrative/technical type decisions and not discretionary decisions. Specifically, the Planning Commission has confirmed with staff that the plan meets all requirements and then routinely approves the plan in just one meeting. However, if applicants are requesting a waiver/modification, then there is discretion involved on whether to grant these.
In Rockville, most development projects are subject to the site plan or project plan process that must be approved by the Planning Commission or Mayor and Council with very limited administrative (staff) approvals. Staff review is a thorough process, often taking three or more rounds of review. These reviews are technical in nature because the policy decisions have already been decided with the Comprehensive Plan and the expected development standards in our zoning ordinance and other codes. While the zoning ordinance allows for Level 1 site plans to be approved at this stage, under the current regulations, most projects (i.e., Level 2 site plans and project plans and their subsequent amendments) are then subject to the Mayor and Council and/or Planning Commission approval. The Mayor and Council and Planning Commission rely on the staff’s technical analysis of non-discretionary zoning standards, such as compliance with height and setbacks standards, and on staff’s recommendations regarding more discretionary zoning standards, such as consistency with the master plan or compatibility with surrounding uses.
Discretionary standards often function as a tool for situations where non-discretionary standards and requirements are not clearly defined or are otherwise lacking. These types of approvals may be more appropriate in jurisdictions that have an outdated Comprehensive Plan or zoning ordinance. An overreliance on discretionary approvals adds delay and costs to proposed projects and creates a climate of uncertainty and unpredictability for both applicants and the community.
The city and the nation are in a housing crisis and staff believes that approvals of development plans to build more housing needs to be a sure thing if the city’s requirements are met. Administrative approvals are key to providing affordable housing and ensuring equity in planning. To allow more administrative approvals, standards should be clear, and objective, and lead to predictable outcomes. Along with the proposed process changes recommended below, staff will recommend associated changes to standards through updates to the Zoning Ordinance, the Road Code (Chapter 21), or other regulations, where necessary to achieve this. Once these changes to these regulations are made, then approvals should be administrative. A more detailed description of the issues and staff’s recommendations for specific processes follows.
• Site plans - Rockville allows relatively few to be approved administratively. Although the code allows for administrative approvals through the Level 1 site plan process, in practice few projects qualify as Level 1 site plans under the current criteria. A review of site plans processed over the last five years found that of the 20 applications filed, only one met the criteria to be processed as a Level 1. The other 19 required Planning Commission approval. All 19 Planning Commission approvals that met requirements were approved in one meeting with no substantive changes. Also, the section of the code that determines if an amendment is minor is not clear, difficult to administer, and requires site plan amendments for small projects such as minor changes of use.
• Project plans - Projects in Rockville require approval from the governing board more frequently than in other jurisdictions such as Montgomery County. Developments subject to a project plan first receive a staff review; then proceed to the Planning Commission for a preliminary review and recommendation; and finally require approval from the Mayor and Council. Initial briefings with both the Mayor and Council and Planning Commission are also required. This process is protracted, leading to inefficiencies and redundancies. Applicants report that these additional steps increase risk and have resulted in projects not moving forward.
• Planned Developments (PDs) - Even though the zoning ordinance defines equivalent zones that can be applied to development or redevelopment in Planned Developments (PD), proposals that differ even slightly from the approved PD are required to follow this extensive project plan process.
• Special Exceptions are uses that are only allowed under certain conditions. They are subject to a multi-step process including two area meetings, a Planning Commission Recommendation, and approval by the Board of Appeals. In some zoning districts, this process is either prohibitive or disproportionate to the impact of the proposed uses, for example, daycares, schools, and nursing homes.
• Road Code Waivers are required anytime a proposed roadway section does not meet the city’s full standard. Chapter 21 requires waivers to be approved by resolution from the Mayor and Council in open sessions. The road code waiver is typically included in the staff report for project plans but adds another step in the process for site plans. The most common requests for road code waiver are for overall and/or paving widths. The waivers almost always get approved with little to no changes from the staff’s recommendation.
• Right-of-way (ROW) Agreements are required where private improvements are proposed within the public streetscape and can add an additional step to the development process. Currently, ROW agreements and easements must go to the Mayor & Council for approval and to authorize the City Manager to execute on their behalf. Amendments to Chapter 21 propose to allow administrative approval of certain ROW Agreements. Common examples to be delegated to and approved by the DPW Director include private amenities/architectural encroachments such as awnings, signs, outdoor dining, and seating; temporary construction and maintenance activities such as sheeting and shoring; and minor private improvements on single-family residential lots.
Action Items:
1. For all processes, consider changes to the approving authority where a different body or process could ensure that all requirements are met while reducing time, cost, and risk.
2. Adjust the approving authority for site plans as follows:
• Designate the Planning Commission as the approving authority for site plans that request modifications to development standards such as setbacks, building height, buffer width, or other similar items.
• Allow for administrative approval for site plans that meet all standards and requirements.
3. Change the focus of the project plan to be for large multiphase developments (for example on sites greater than ten acres) to gain conceptional approval, including Adequate Public Facilities (APF) for the entire project with subsequent site plans to be approved administratively unless relief from development standards is requested. Streamline the process to be achievable within six months (currently 1.5-year average).
4. For properties within a Planned Development (PD) zone, provide the option to develop either (a) according to the PD or (b) through a PD amendment subject to Planning Commission approval. Currently, property within a PD must follow the more extensive project plan process even when developing under the equivalent zone.
5. Allow certain changes of use such as changes to similar commercial uses or changes from higher impact uses to lower impact uses to be processed through the Occupancy Permit process without triggering a site plan amendment. This action would significantly reduce the requirements for certain changes of use that do not produce the need for improvements on the site.
6. Allow the Planning Commission to delegate final plat approval to an administrative officer as allowed by state law.
7. As identified in the Historic Resources Work Plan, review and add an Administrative Level Certificate of Approval (COA) into Chapter 25. Assess Historic District Commission applications and develop a proposed list of Administrative or Staff-Level Approvals.
8. Convert most special exceptions to conditional uses to yield a shorter, less costly process.
9. Chapter 21 (Road Code & ROW Agreements) - allow staff additional flexibility by further delegating more common approvals to the Director for efficiencies and approve some waivers based upon criteria.
Issue 2: Lots of required public meetings
Public hearings and neighborhood meetings are an effective opportunity for the public to comment on a proposed application. However, for some projects, multiple public meetings and approvals are required above and beyond the public hearing. For example, a project plan followed by a site plan could require 9 or more public meetings (see Attachment x).
Some of these meetings are redundant or provide limited value. For example, for most applications, two area meetings are required, one prior to submitting the application and another after the application has been submitted. These meetings generally provide the same information. In addition to extending the approval process and delaying projects, these meetings require interested members of the community to navigate multiple notices and devote their time and resources to attending meetings where they may have limited ability to provide input. Removing redundant public meetings can streamline the approval process while focusing public input on the appropriate meeting.
For comparison, Montgomery County requires a single preapplication neighborhood meeting. In Gaithersburg, a similar meeting is recommended but not required.
Action Item:
1. Streamline the process by combining the preapplication and postapplication area meetings into a single meeting with the neighborhood.
Issue 3: Notification requirements are overly reliant on mailed notices.
Rockville values community feedback. To ensure that anyone interested in an application is aware of it, the zoning ordinance contains several requirements for notification, including posting a sign on the property, electronic notice to homeowners and civic associations, and mailed notice to property owners and residents within a distance ranging from 500 to 1,500 feet depending on the application. These distances are much greater than in surrounding jurisdictions. At the time of the adoption of the zoning ordinance, this was thought to be the most effective way to provide notification. However, since then options for electronic notice have expanded while conventional mail has become less important. In practice, this requirement results in properties far away from a project that may not be impacted receiving multiple mailed notices because each public meeting requires notification, and as noted above, there are multiple public meetings. This is expensive and cumbersome for applicants, and the multiple notices could be confusing for the public. Projects with notification lists of hundreds or thousands of people may have little if any participation in area meetings and public hearings. Also, each notification requires several documents including information about the project, a plan, an area map, and the City’s “Citizen’s Guide to Development Review”, which adds to the expense. Finally, applicants report that notifying tenants is difficult. The recommended actions will result in effective, equitable notice that is less burdensome for applicants.
Action Items:
1. Require mailed notification for area meetings and public hearings before the Planning Commission and Mayor and Council.
2. Adopt similar notice distances as Montgomery County (adjacent and confronting property owners) or Gaithersburg (200 feet).
3. Encourage residents to sign up for online notification or through social media for those who want to do so.
4. Improve our notifications of public meetings on the city’s webpage by creating a central location for all notices.
5. Improve posting sign requirements.
Issue 4: Projects take longer than other jurisdictions, with different processes
Feedback from customers as well as preliminary benchmarking indicates that certain processes in Rockville take longer than in other jurisdictions. An example of this benchmarking is attached. For projects subject to a project plan, the average time from pre-application submittal to site plan approval is over two years, longer than a comparable project in Montgomery County or Gaithersburg. As part of FAST 2, staff will benchmark other processes and look for additional efficiencies and best practices. Note that while benchmarking can provide useful information, exact comparisons are rarely possible because of differences in regulations, procedures, and tracking methodology.
The City’s Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and Standards (APFO and APFS) require that the capacity of schools serving a proposed residential development be analyzed and a finding of adequacy be made as part of the development approval. Based on the current test, projected school capacity at each level (ES, MS, and HS) must be found to be at no more than 120% of program capacity in the test year (five years out from the date of action on the application) including students generated by the new development, in order to be found adequate to serve the new development.
If a level of school is projected to be over capacity in the test year, then that attendance area is in moratorium for a full year, and new residential developments cannot be approved in that area. In 2020, Montgomery County replaced their mortarium provision with a three-tiered Utilization Premium Payment, where the payment required increases with increased levels of overutilization. Our current ordinance may halt the development of needed housing to achieve the city’s residential housing goals. However, staff believes that school capacity issues still need to be addressed and recommend that Mayor and Council update our current APFO to replace our mortarium provision with an alternative approach that will enable MCPS to adequately and effective plan for new schools and capacity.
Action Items:
1. Benchmark key processes to similar processes from other jurisdictions to match or exceed the most effective and efficient processes. In addition to benchmarking, examining other jurisdictions’ processes provides an opportunity to identify and implement their effective practices.
2. Change the schools element of the Adequate Public Facilities (APF) ordinance to be consistent with Montgomery County or other best practices to replace the moratorium provision to address school capacity issues in a different manner.
Issue 5: Comprehensive Transportation Review (CTR) requirements extend application processing timelines for small projects without providing actionable benefits.
The CTR requires an analysis of transportation elements and traffic impacts based on the number of trips generated. If a development generates 30 or more trips, all components of the Transportation Report are required. If a development generates less than 30 trips, the report shall contain only an introduction and proposed transportation features on site. However, there is no provision for an exemption for very small projects or those that will have little to no impact on the traffic on surrounding roads. Since these minor projects never require any traffic-related mitigation, the production of a transportation report is not beneficial, and it results in additional expenses for the applicant and an extended application timeline to allow for staff review of the reports.
Action Items:
1. Develop new thresholds for transportation report requirements through the CTR, allowing for de minimis cases where qualifying small or minor projects would be exempt from the requirement of submitting a transportation report.
2. Clarify the transportation report requirements for all types of projects through the CTR.
Issue 6: Variety of guidelines separate from the code.
There are several guidelines that are referenced in the code - Landscape, Lighting, Screening <https://www.rockvillemd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/244/Landscaping-Screening-and-Lighting-Manual-and-Resolution>, Environmental <https://www.rockvillemd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/28793/Environmental-Guidelines?bidId=>, and bicycle parking <https://rockvillemd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/10870/Rockville-Bicycle-Parking-Guide_final?bidId=>. There are several issues with these. Some of the requirements need to be updated. Some are unclear on who is responsible for enforcing them. In some cases, provisions in the guidelines differ or conflict with code requirements.
Action Items:
1. Incorporate guidelines as requirements into relevant sections of the City code, as appropriate.
2. For others, update the guidelines.
Issue 7: No single point of application, multiple applications required.
Applications are currently received in a variety of ways - by email, through the city website, or through the City’s permitting system. This requires applicants to navigate the various ways of submitting and receiving feedback, which makes the process more confusing and less transparent. It also requires staff to navigate multiple systems that do not communicate with each other. Also, a single project often requires multiple separate applications, each with its own fee.
Action Items:
1. Complete virtual One-Stop Shop by including all development and permitting applications in a comprehensive system.
2. Where possible, streamline the process by combining separate applications and fees.
Issue 8: Incomplete information and resources for customers
Information for applicants is not complete. While there are a variety of application checklists and some submittal guides, there is no start-to-finish process guide, which makes it difficult for applicants to understand the process and timelines. Also, requirements and other information are not easy to find on the website. Updating the Development Review Procedures Manual <https://www.rockvillemd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/549/Development-Review-Procedures-Manual> is an outstanding action item from the first phase of FAST and should be completed once the new processes in FAST 2 are established.
Also approved plans such as use permits and site plans are not available online. Improving access to these would be more transparent for the public, particularly by providing property owners and potential developers with better information about their property.
Action Items:
1. Update guidance documents such as the Development Review Procedures Guide and application checklists. Update the City’s website to make this information more accessible.
2. Post information such as approved site plans, use permits, and other information online for the public to access.
Issue 9: Building Permit Review Process:
In the past year, some building permit reviews and approvals have been delayed due to significant increases in permits. Due to work loads, the “Quick Start” program is no longer offered. A new building plans examiner is being trained to ensure staff consistently meets published review targets. Although the timing of reviews and approvals have significantly improved, staff still needs to make changes to the process and our internal coordination to consistently meet targeted review times. Staff understands that the city should reinstate a program for expedited reviews for certain applications. Staff believes that the previous “Quick Start” program was limited and rarely used.
Action Items:
1. Consistently meet published review targets.
2. Ensure we are on par or faster than neighboring municipalities building permit process.
3. Build on the current expedited process for residential sheds and fences, which are currently reviewed by CPDS within 3 days of submittal.
4. Develop and implement an effective “Expedited Review” program.
Mayor and Council History
In October 2018, the Mayor and Council endorsed the original FAST Project Charter. In May 2019, the Mayor and Council endorsed an updated list of action items. Based on this, staff developed and implemented a work plan and presented it to the Mayor and Council in November 2019. The staff has provided updates by memo since that time.
Public Notification and Engagement
In anticipation of launching this next phase of FAST, staff established an internal working group, which developed a statement of purpose and outcomes as shown in the draft charter. The team also assessed the development and permitting process and created a list of priority items to improve. In addition, the team engaged external customers through a survey and a listening session, and staff met and received feedback from both REDI and the Chamber of Commerce.
Next Steps
Based on feedback from the Mayor and Council, staff will finalize the action items and develop a work plan and schedule for each item. The action items, which are conceptual at this point, will be fully developed through the appropriate process such as the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite or edits to other ordinances.