Planning Commission Memo
MEETING DATE: August 14, 2024
REPORT DATE: August 7, 2024
RESPONSIBLE STAFF: Katie Gerbes, Comprehensive Planning Manager
SUBJECT:
title
Discussion and Instructions to Staff on the Draft Town Center Master Plan
end
BACKGROUND:
The 2024 Town Center Master Plan (“Plan”) is an update of a document by the same name that was adopted by the Mayor and Council in 2001. The Plan builds on the visions, goals and policies noted in the Planning Area 1 chapter of the Rockville 2040 Comprehensive Plan (“Comprehensive Plan”), recent studies and reports compiled on Town Center, and an extensive community outreach effort to create an updated vision for Town Center that meets the needs of Rockville’s residents, business community and the market. This Plan will serve as an amendment to the Rockville 2040 Comprehensive Plan, superseding the recommendations outlined within Planning Area 1 of the original Comprehensive Plan document, as published in August 2021.
The resounding themes found throughout the Plan are to create a flexible regulatory environment that allows Town Center to thrive by enabling by-right development and allowing the market to dictate the “highest and best” land uses over the next two decades. The Plan also prioritizes the development of additional residential housing units with a particular emphasis on affordable and attainable housing units. The final theme throughout the document is for Town Center to become a vibrant local and regional destination where people can live, work, and play for years to come.
Public Hearing & Testimony
The Planning Commission hosted a public hearing on the draft Plan on July 10, 2024. At that meeting four individuals testified on the plan. A high-level summary of the comments heard at the public hearing is provided below:
• Support for elimination/reduction of parking requirements to attract developers and reduce car dependency to meet climate goals and enhance pedestrian safety.
• Support for increased density and enhanced zoning flexibility to allow more diverse range of housing and commercial options.
• Support for increased residential supply, especially affordable housing, to help mitigate housing crisis - 2,000 new residential units by 2040 may not be ambitious enough.
• Suggestion for creation of incentives to adapt empty office buildings into residential uses.
• Suggestion for a Business Improvement District (BID) or urban district to create a coalition of major property owners.
• Suggestion for task force including Chamber of Commerce, Montgomery College, Montgomery County Government, and the City of Rockville.
• Concern regarding retaining major employers and meeting economic development goals.
• Concern regarding noise, traffic, and crime in Town Center and request for a Town Hall type of meeting with Mayor and Council, Chief of Police, Planning Commission, Morguard and department heads.
• Request for additional data regarding retail sales, crime rates, pedestrian counts, parking utilization rates, etc. to be included in the Plan.
Commission members agreed to hold the public record open until September 11, when the Planning Commission is scheduled to approve the draft Plan and make a recommendation to the Mayor and Council. Ahead of the September 11 meeting, staff will include all testimony and feedback received to date in the staff report. At the September 11 meeting, staff will also provide any additional feedback received between the publication of the staff report and the meeting date.
DISCUSSION:
At the July 10 meeting, the Planning Commission brought up several topics that they would like to see additional data on and/or discuss at greater length during the work session. This section of the staff report provides additional information on each of those topics.
Height - Proposed Height Limits, Nearby Jurisdictions and Bonus Height Program
Proposed Height Limits
The draft Plan recommends the creation of two different character areas for Town Center and modifying the maximum allowed height within each of these character areas (page 41). The “Core” character area proposes a height limit of 200 feet. Building height of 200 feet is currently the tallest allowed height in the City by right, located in the Twinbrook Quarter project, through the “Champion Project” designation.
Most of the properties within the core character area are currently zoned MXCD or MXTD. MXCD zones have a maximum height of 75 feet; MXTD zones have a maximum height of 120 feet, with the potential of up to 150 feet if approved by the Mayor and Council. There are also four planned development zones within the core character area. The tallest of the maximum heights for any of the planned development zones in Town Center is 235 feet within the PD-RCI zone, although the tallest building to date in that zone is the BLVD Ansel apartment building, which sits at 173 feet. The tallest building within the core character area is 51 Monroe Street, which sits at 225 feet.
The “Edge” character area proposes a height limit of 75 feet. Current heights allowed within this corridor vary between 35 - 75 feet. Most of the edge character area is zoned MXNC, which carries a maximum height of 45 feet by right. The only part of the planning area currently zoned for 75 feet is the College Square townhouse complex along the northern edge of the planning area. The tallest buildings within the edge character area are 110 North Washington Street and 600 Jefferson Plaza, both of which sit at around 65 feet tall.
Additionally, the Zoning Ordinance currently includes the “layback slope” provision which is intended to provide an appropriate transition between single family homes and denser development. This provision would apply to nearly all the land within the edge character area and would require that buildings not penetrate a slope line of 30 degrees from the abutting single-family property. With this provision, some parcels within the edge character area may not be able to develop up to the maximum height or may have to transition into that height through setback.
Maximum building height of 75 feet in the edge character area was proposed as a “happy medium” between the denser “core” of Town Center and the smaller scale, single family home neighborhood to the west of the Planning Area. Per the International Building Code, a height limit of 75 would allow most Type II, Type III, Type IV and Type V construction to take place, which are the construction types most likely to be seen in this area. Some occupancy classifications within the International Building Code would allow up to 85 feet of height within the Type II, Type III and Type IV construction types. Construction types describe the materials and how a building is constructed and range from Type 1 (steel and concrete) to Type V (wood) construction types. Typically, Type 1 construction is the most expensive and the cost decreases as you go down to lower construction types. A table of the different construction types and their height limits is below.
|
Construction Type |
Description |
Range of Allowable Building Height (varies by occupancy classification) |
|
Type I - Non-Combustive Fire-Resistant Construction |
Concrete columns, beams and floors |
160 feet - unlimited |
|
Type II (Non-Combustible) |
Steel columns, beams and deck/floors |
55 - 85 feet |
|
Type III (Hybrid, Non-Combustible/Combustible) |
Concrete tilt up construction with wood roof |
55 - 85 feet |
|
Type IV (Heavy Timber) |
Wood beams, columns |
65 - 85 feet |
|
Type V (Wood Frame Construction) |
Wood or metal stud construction |
40 - 70 feet |
Staff believe the 200-foot height limit in the core is adequate to meet the likely demand in Town Center; however, staff are not opposed to a taller height limit. For the edge character area, staff do not recommend heights taller than 85 feet.
Nearby Jurisdictions
Staff also reviewed the height limits that other nearby jurisdictions impose in districts or zones of a similar development pattern, such as downtowns or central business districts that have a significant mix of residential, office, and retail uses. The other jurisdictions researched include the cities of Gaithersburg and Frederick, as well as Montgomery and Prince George’s counties.
Gaithersburg
Gaithersburg has several different zoning districts permitting a high intensity of residential, commercial, and/or employment uses, with varying limits on height. For example, in the E-1 Urban Employment zone, a maximum height not to exceed 85 feet is permitted, and in the H-M Hotel-Motel zone, a maximum height not to exceed fifteen (15) stories is permitted.
In its MXD Mixed Use Development zone, Gaithersburg uses a floor area ratio (FAR) calculation of density, rather than having concrete height limits. There are other regulations limiting building height as well, such as limiting the heights of buildings adjoining residentially zoned properties to being no taller than the distance the proposed building is from the adjoining property.
In its CBD Central Business District zone, the city prescribes a by-right height limit of four (4) stories, with the option for the city council to waive that limit by resolution and permit a height not to exceed nine (9) stories.
Frederick
The City of Frederick imposes a height limit of 75 feet on buildings in its DBO/DB Downtown commercial and residential zoning districts. However, the city does permit higher buildings of up to 90 feet in height in its GC General Commercial and its M1 and M2 industrial districts.
In addition, the Frederick city code permits the development of a Mixed-Use Employment center (MXE) as a floating zoning district within the M1 and M2 zones. The MXE allows limited multi-family residential development alongside a mix of other uses, though buildings are not permitted to be higher than the 90 feet allowed in the base M1 and M2 zones.
Montgomery County
Montgomery County permits a maximum height of 300 feet in its CR Commercial Residential zoning district. The CR zone is probably most similar to Rockville’s Town Center area, as it is intended for larger downtown, mixed-use, and pedestrian-oriented areas in close proximity to transit options such as Metro, light rail, and bus. Areas of Montgomery County with CR zoning include Bethesda, Friendship Heights, Silver Spring, Wheaton, North Bethesda, White Oak and Germantown.
In Montgomery County, additional height may be permitted under certain circumstances identified in the county code. For example, additional height may be allowed with the provision of more MPDUs (moderately priced dwelling units) than otherwise required. Additionally, the sector plans for some areas of the county allow for additional height. The Bethesda Downtown Sector Plan establishes the Bethesda Overlay Zone (BOZ) to allocate density within the planning area. This overlay zone establishes a cap on total density within the area to 32.4 million square feet of existing, approved and new development. Development within the BOZ is eligible for a density bonus which would allow height in excess of the base zone of 300 feet if certain public benefits are provided; however, the sum of all development within the BOZ is capped, meaning that some properties may not be able to develop to the maximum allowed height.
Current Tallest Buildings in Montgomery County
|
Name |
Address |
Location |
Height |
|
The Wilson & The Elm |
7272 Wisconsin Avenue |
Bethesda |
341 feet |
|
Market East Tower |
11351 Woodglen Drive |
North Bethesda |
289 feet |
|
Washingtonian Tower |
9701 Fields Road |
Gaithersburg |
275 feet |
|
One White Flint North |
11555 Rockville Pike |
North Bethesda |
266 feet |
|
National Naval Medical Center |
8901 Wisconsin Avenue |
Bethesda |
264 feet |
|
Chevy Chase Bank East Tower |
7501 Wisconsin Avenue |
Bethesda |
250 feet |
|
Chevy Chase Bank West Tower |
7501 Wisconsin Avenue |
Bethesda |
250 feet |
|
The Grand |
5801 Nicholson Lane |
North Bethesda |
228 feet |
|
Three Bethesda Metro Center |
3 Bethesda Metro Center |
Bethesda |
223 feet |
|
Clark Building |
7500 Old Georgetown Road |
Bethesda |
215 feet |
Prince George’s County
In Prince George’s County, the Regional Transit Oriented - Low Intensity and High Intensity (RTO-L and RTO-H) zones are intended “to provide lands for high-intensity, vibrant, mixed-use centers” that are walkable and bikeable and well-connected to the regional transportation network. The RTO-L and RTO-H zones are both divided into Core versus Edge areas, with different development standards for each.
In the RTO-L zone, there is a maximum height of 126 feet for the edge area and there is no maximum requirement for the core area, “provided that those portions of the structure on the front façade greater than 50 feet high are set back from the minimum build-to line or front yard depth an additional 0.5-foot for each 1 foot (or major fraction thereof) the height of the portion exceeds 50 feet.”
In the RTO-H zone, there is a maximum height of 182 feet for the edge area and there is no maximum requirement for the core area, “provided that those portions of the structure on the front façade greater than 75 feet high are set back from the minimum build-to line or front yard depth an additional 0.5-foot for each 2 feet (or major fraction thereof) the height of the portion exceeds 75 feet.
Although these two zones do not dictate a specific maximum height requirement, building heights are regulated by the necessity to provide building step-backs once the structures reach a certain height. Because of this flexible requirement, maximum building height may differ depending on the circumstances of each development.
Bonus Height Program
The draft Plan recommends a height bonus program whereby in exchange for the creation of additional Moderately Priced Dwelling Units or other deed-restricted affordable housing greater than or equal to 20% of units, additional building height would be granted (page 41). The draft Plan proposes up to 50 feet of additional height for properties within the “Core” character area and up to 20 feet of additional height for properties within the “Edge” character area.
There was much deliberation between staff on how to organize the bonus height program and what should qualify for additional height. Initially, staff were proposing to create a “menu” of options whereby if a designated number of options from the menu were pursued, additional height would be granted. This would be structured similar to how the LEED program is, where different elements have assigned point values and certification is given once a point threshold is met. Many of the elements suggested on the menu of choices included sustainability related items.
Ultimately, staff decided to shift the program away from a menu of options and instead solely focus on housing. The reason for this is twofold. First, if the creation of new housing units within Town Center truly is the highest priority for this Planning Area, a bonus height program structured around additional housing aligns with and incentivizes that vision. Second, technology and best practices for sustainability are always changing. To create a “menu” approach would require that staff identify and codify the specific features that would qualify for a bonus. This could result in implementation issues in the future when newer or better sustainable features are available to the market, but the Zoning Ordinance doesn’t reflect these practices and only lists those that were deemed as desired when the Plan was adopted. This could result in the bonus height program quickly becoming outdated or unusable. Staff recommends retaining the bonus height program as an incentive for housing only.
Several nearby jurisdictions have also instituted bonus height programs to promote the inclusion of additional low or moderately priced dwelling units in residential projects, including Montgomery County and Arlington County and the City of Alexandria in Virginia.
In Montgomery County, for development with moderately priced dwelling units (MPDUs) and other income-restricted housing, “the height limit of the applicable zone and master plan does not apply to the extent required to provide the MPDUs. The additional height is calculated as the floor area provided for MPDUs above 12.5% divided by the average residential floor plate area, where each whole number and each remaining fraction allows an increase of 12 feet.”
Arlington County permits an increase in height of residential buildings when proposed to provide low or moderate income housing. This option requires approval by the County Board and allows an increase in height of no more than 60 feet beyond what is permitted in the base zoning of a development. When such requests are under review, the code also requires that the County Board find that “the applicant’s site layout and proposed building heights have been designed in a manner to establish effective transitions to lower density residential neighborhoods using site topography, landscaping, architectural façade treatments, graduated building heights, increased setbacks, or other similar measures.”
The City of Alexandria allows an increase in height for residential buildings through the special use permit process, which requires approval by the City Council, when the applicant commits to providing low and moderate income sale or rental housing units in conjunction with the project. The regulations state that “the building height may not be increased by more than 25 feet beyond the height otherwise permitted.” The number of low or moderate income units required must be equivalent to at least one-third (1/3) of the increase achieved by the bonus.
Housing - Goals, Occupancy Rates, Housing Policy, Terminology, and Unit Types
Housing Goals
The draft Plan establishes a goal to develop 2,000 new residential units within Town Center over the lifetime of this Plan (page 41). The Rockville 2040 Comprehensive Plan sets forth a citywide goal of developing 8,000 new residential units by 2040, meaning that approximately 25% of those new housing units would need to be developed in Town Center.
The Town Center Planning Area is 0.4 square miles, representing 2.9% of the land area of Rockville. Town Center currently has 3,231 existing residential units. Adding 2,000 additional units to the Planning Area would represent a 61% increase in the number of housing units within 20 years.
According to an analysis performed by City Staff in July 2024, there are 5,468 new residential units in the development pipeline citywide. Of these, 61 are detached units, 734 are attached units and 4,673 are multifamily units. If all of those units are constructed as planned, the existing pipeline would fill 68.3% of the citywide housing production goal of 8,000 units.
Of those units in the development pipeline, 608 are proposed in Town Center, meaning an additional 1,392 units would need to be developed to hit the 2,000-unit goal. A full breakdown of this pipeline is provided as Attachment B.
Many members of the public have testified that they would like to see a goal higher than 2,000 new residential units. At the work session, the Planning Commission should discuss if they would like to revise this number in response to community feedback. Staff believe that 2,000 is an appropriate and achievable number given the small size of the planning area and the limited sites available for redevelopment. If the Planning Commission desires a higher goal, staff would advise that the goal not be higher than 2,300 - 2,500 units, as staff’s analysis is that a goal higher than this is unlikely to be realized.
Occupancy Rates
The draft Plan provides a table listing the vacancy rate of multifamily residential buildings in Town Center from 2019 to 2023 (page 74). For convenience, that table is duplicated below:
|
Year |
Number of Buildings |
Number of Units |
Average SF per unit |
Asking Rent PSF |
Vacancy Rate |
|
2019 |
4 |
1,141 |
932 |
$2.20 |
3.8% |
|
2020 |
5 |
1,211 |
927 |
$2.13 |
6.0% |
|
2021 |
5 |
1,211 |
927 |
$2.34 |
2.1% |
|
2022 |
7 |
1,611 |
893 |
$2.41 |
9.0% |
|
2023 |
7 |
1,611 |
893 |
$2.50 |
5.1% |
This information is gathered from CoStar, a database of commercial real estate information. Since CoStar only collects information on commercial buildings, the table above only reflects rental housing units - it does not reflect any fee-simple housing units.
In the multifamily housing market, a vacancy rate between 5% and 10% is generally desirable and an indicator of a stabilized property. Throughout the five-year period analyzed, the greatest vacancy rate within Town Center is 2022, when the vacancy rate was at 9%. However, 400 additional units also came onto the market in 2022, so this higher vacancy rate is likely a result of the lease up period where these two new buildings were working to stabilize with their initial residents.
For comparison purposes, with the exception of 2022, the average vacancy rate for Montgomery County as a whole is greater than the vacancy rate of Town Center. This is also true for Pike & Rose. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, the nationwide multifamily vacancy rate is 6.5%, and Maryland’s multifamily vacancy rate is 7.3%. Town Center’s vacancy rate is lower than the state and national average.
Unit Types
During the July 10 meeting, Commissioner Sun indicated the desire to see language within the Plan speaking to the diversification of unit types within Town Center to meet the community’s diverse needs. The draft Plan does not currently have any language specific to the inclusion of diverse unit types. The Planning Commission should discuss if they would like to add any language on this topic into the Plan.
Housing Policy
At the July 10 Public Hearing, the Commissioner Pitman noted concern that land values near the Rockville Metro Station are high, and that high cost of land would inevitably translate to more expensive housing units, should that land be redeveloped. During the July 10 meeting, she indicated the desire to see the Mayor and Council consider nontraditional housing policy solutions that could address housing affordability in a different way. At the work session, the Planning Commission should discuss the desire to transmit any feedback to the Mayor and Council relative to housing policy options that could increase affordability.
Terminology
The Plan uses multiple terms to describe different types of housing and introduces some housing related terms that may not be common knowledge for the layperson. These terms include: affordable housing; market rate housing; moderately priced dwelling units; naturally occurring affordable housing; and housing affordability. Staff recommend adding definitions and explanations of the differences between these terms into the Plan - see Attachment C, Staff Suggested Edits, for additional details.
Comparisons to Competitors - Competitor Visions, Catchment Areas
The Economic Development chapter of the Plan (page 72) draws some comparisons between the Town Center Planning area and nearby centers of Pike & Rose in North Bethesda and Rio and Downtown Crown in Gaithersburg. During the outreach and engagement period of the planning process, members of the community made many references between Town Center and these nearby shopping and dining destinations.
To be clear, the Plan does not recommend that any of these competitors are any better or worse than Town Center. Similarly, staff do not recommend that Town Center emulates any of these areas - Town Center is its own, unique destination and should have its own, unique identity. The comparison data provided in the Economic Development chapter are provided simply as a lens to view Town Center in relation to what is happening elsewhere in the market.
The retail (Table 4, page 74) and office (Table 6, page 75) comparison tables show the supply and vacancy rates in Town Center to the rates experienced at the aforementioned competitors. The draft Plan does not currently show a similar table for multifamily rental housing, so staff recommend the following table be added to the document. This data does not seem to indicate that people are fleeing centers in the area to live in a more suburban or rural environment.
|
Center |
Multifamily Housing Supply (units) |
Multifamily Vacancy Rate |
|
Pike & Rose |
1,014 |
6.9% |
|
Downtown Crown |
923 |
2.5% |
|
Rio |
784 |
3.3% |
|
Montgomery County |
106,495 |
6.0% |
|
Town Center |
1,611 |
5.1% |
Competitor Visions
Commissioner Espinosa expressed the desire to see the different vision statements for the competitor areas to understand how those areas describe themselves and how those visions may compare to Town Center. The following vision statements were pulled directly from the websites of the competitor shopping centers.
• Pike & Rose describes itself as, “The premier destination for shopping, dining, living, and working in North Bethesda, MD.”
• Downtown Crown describes itself as, “Energetic mixed-use and lifestyle destination providing customers with both nationally recognized brands and unique first-to market dining shops and services. This development is the retail component of Downtown Crown, a 180-acre master-planned community focused on creating the premiere live-work-play community in Montgomery County, MD.”
• Rio describes itself as, “Gaithersburg’s premier shopping and dining destination, ideally situated in the heart of Montgomery County.”
Catchment Areas
Table 5 (page 74) describes statistics within the catchment areas for Town Center and its competitors identified in this report. A catchment area refers to the geographic area within a 1.25-mile radius from the center of each competitor. The purpose of calculating the catchment area is to provide a comparison of equal amount of geographic space, regardless of the size of the actual development referenced or any political/jurisdictional boundaries.
People are most likely to visit the retail and restaurant establishments within close proximity to their residence or workplace. As can be seen in Table 5, there are nearly double the amount of people living within 1.25 miles of all the competitors with Town Center. With such a comparatively low number of residents within the catchment area, there may be not enough people in proximity to support the existing retail within Town Center, which may explain the higher vacancy rate in Town Center than elsewhere.
Parking - Minimum Parking Requirements, Utilization
Minimum Parking Requirements
The draft Plan proposes making some significant modifications to parking standards in Town Center. Action 2.1.1 (page 44) proposes eliminating minimum parking requirements within the Planning Area for properties located within a ½ mile radius of the Rockville Metro Station. This is consistent with recently approved Montgomery County regulations.
The elimination of parking requirements does not mean that no parking will be developed as a part of future development projects. The elimination of parking requirements simply removes a mandate placed on the developer to provide a specific parking count. Instead, each developer will be responsible for determining what they feel the market requires for development in the area and will construct their projects accordingly.
In some cases, perhaps those immediately adjacent to Metro, this may mean that very little parking is included as a part of the development. For other cases, parking is likely to still be included, but may be at a number less than what the current Zoning Ordinance requires. An accurate and market appropriate parking count is required in order to underwrite nearly all development projects. If the financier of a project does not believe sufficient parking is provided, they will not fund a project and it will not be built.
Action 2.1.2 (page 44) proposes an analysis of and potential modifications to parking requirements for properties within the Planning Area that are outside of the ½ mile radius to Metro. This Plan does not say what specific modifications should be made to the Zoning Ordinance for these properties. Instead, a complete parking analysis and utilization study should be completed, and code requirements modified based on the study’s findings.
Parking, particularly in structured garages, is an incredibly expensive component of development projects. A 2022 analysis completed by WGI Engineering estimates that the average construction cost per parking space nationwide is nearly $28,000. For a project with 200 parking spaces, $5.6 million is spent to construct a structured parking facility. This number does not include land values, administrative time, engineering dollars, etc. which further raise the cost of parking. This cost is then passed on to consumers in the form of higher rents. Eliminating unnecessary development expenses is key to increasing affordability.
In cases where there is higher demand for parking than supply provided in any given development, those with vehicles should utilize public parking garages available in Town Center, acquire permission to park in existing private parking garages and/or shift their mode of transportation away from automobiles and onto active or public transportation. Staff recommend retaining Action 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 in the Plan.
Utilization
The City owns three parking garages within Town Center known as Garages A, B and C. A management agreement is in place whereby Morguard is responsible for maintenance and administration of these garages. Morguard in turn contracts with Colonial Parking to manage these garages. In total, these garages provide 1,688 parking spaces, 973 of which are unrestricted and open to the general public.
Morguard recently provided staff with data on these three parking garages and their utilization for May and June 2024, which can be found in the table below. These numbers indicate that there is plenty of capacity within the existing public parking garages to meet increased parking demand that may come into Town Center.
|
|
Average Occupancy Rate |
|
|
May 2024 |
June 2024 |
|
Garage A |
50% |
40% |
|
Garage B |
20% |
18% |
|
Garage C |
39% |
40% |
Public Spaces
During the July 10 meeting, Commissioner Sun indicated the desire to see public art integrated into the Plan and how to incorporate additional wayfinding and signage into the Plan. Action Goal 6 (page 56) and its related policy and actions call for implementation of a comprehensive wayfinding program within Town Center. The existing recommended actions within the draft Plan do not currently mention public art. The Planning Commission should discuss if they’d like to see any recommended actions added to address public art, or if they’d like to see any changes made to Actions 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 (page 56) to address wayfinding concerns.
Student Generation Data
Student generation rates for Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) are calculated by the Montgomery County Planning Department. The student generation rates are based on the numbers of students residing within each school zone, broken down by residential dwelling type and grade level. Dwelling types include single-family detached, single-family attached, multi-family low-rise (structures up to four stories in height), and multi-family high-rise (structures that are five stories or higher).
There are multiple factors which may affect student generation that are considered by Montgomery County when developing the generation rates. These factors include the time of occupancy of a unit; the number of bedrooms in a unit; and the date of construction for multi-family housing - multi-family housing built in 1990 or later generally produces fewer students than older construction. MCPS also geocodes all students several times per year, providing an up-to-date understanding of where students are living throughout the school year.
Rockville Town Center is located within an Infill Area as determined by MCPS. Infill areas are generally seeing a higher rate of new housing construction, and the predominant housing type being built in these areas is multi-family. The first table provided below shows the overall student generation rates, by housing type and grade level, for Montgomery County infill areas as a whole, which are the rates the City uses when reviewing new housing development. The second table shows the actual student residents for the Richard Montgomery school cluster, which includes the schools that students in Town Center are zoned to attend.
Montgomery County Projected Student Generation Rates by Housing Types (July 2023)
|
Unit Type |
Elementary |
Middle |
High |
K-12 |
|
Single Family Detached |
0.202 |
0.096 |
0.141 |
0.439 |
|
Single Family Attached |
0.161 |
0.087 |
0.126 |
0.374 |
|
Multi-Family Low-Rise** |
0.065 |
0.030 |
0.040 |
0.135 |
|
Multi-Family High-Rise*** |
0.039 |
0.016 |
0.018 |
0.073 |
Richard Montgomery Cluster Actual Student Generation Rates by Housing Types (FY2024)
|
Unit Type |
Elementary |
Middle |
High |
K-12 |
|
Single Family Detached |
0.168 |
0.099 |
0.155 |
0.422 |
|
Single Family Attached |
0.143 |
0.076 |
0.102 |
0.321 |
|
Multi-Family Low-Rise** |
0.154 |
0.081 |
0.118 |
0.353 |
|
Multi-Family High-Rise*** |
0.023 |
0.014 |
0.018 |
0.055 |
**Multi-Family Low-Rise includes units in structures up to 4 stories in height.
***Multi-Family High-Rise includes units in structures 5 stories or higher.
It is unlikely that any new single-family detached or single-family attached housing units will be constructed in the Town Center area in the future. Staff expects most new construction to be multi-family high-rise, with the potential for multi-family low-rise in the designated edge areas.
A comparison of the tables shows that Multi-Family High-Rise developments in the Richard Montgomery cluster generally produce the same or fewer students than what is expected overall for designated infill areas in Montgomery County. However, there are more than 2.5 times as many students generated by Multi-Family Low-Rise dwellings in the Richard Montgomery cluster than in Montgomery County infill areas as a whole.
Priority Parcels - 400 N. Washington Street
The draft Plan identifies six priority parcels and outlines the specific type of development and land uses desired on said parcels (page 3). At the July 10 meeting, Commissioner Fulton expressed a desire to see the surface parking lot at the intersection of Martins Lane and North Washington Street, 400 North Washington Street, added to the list of priority parcels. A prior, internal draft of the Plan included one recommendation tied to this parcel, which read, “Acquire the property, or a portion thereof, located at 400 North Washington Street to develop this property into an extension of North Street Park.” This recommended action was nestled into the Parks, Recreation and Community Facilities chapter of the Plan. The Planning Commission should discuss if they would like to see this or a different recommendation regarding the 400 North Washington Street property be put back into the Plan.
Metro Station Concept
One edit to the draft Plan since its initial release in April 2024 is the inclusion of an updated vision for the Rockville Metro Station property (page 32). On May 6, 2024, the Mayor and Council voted to endorse “Concept 1” for the Rockville Metro Station. This concept envisions the Metro Station as an iconic gateway and multi-modal hub that enhances the experience of downtown Rockville and maximizes safety for users. Unlike other concepts previously considered by the Mayor and Council, this concept focuses redevelopment exclusively on property owned by WMATA, largely the surface parking lots on the east and west sides of the railroad tracks. Early analysis of the concept anticipates the potential to develop 1,850 sf of retail frontage, 1,200 residential units and 10,000 sf of open space in addition to a train hall and transit plaza that would serve as gateways between the various transit services provided on site. The draft Plan has been updated to include this endorsed concept as the desired vision for this area.
Though this concept has been endorsed by the Mayor and Council, they are actively seeking feedback from the community and Planning Commission on this vision. At the meeting, the Planning Commission should discuss if they have any additional feedback on the concept design, and if they are comfortable incorporating it into the draft Plan.
Staff Suggested Edits
Over the past several months, staff have collected feedback from the greater Rockville community on the draft Plan. As a result of this feedback and further internal reviews, staff are proposing a series of edits to the draft Plan. These edits are provided as Attachment C. At the work session, staff would appreciate direction from the Planning Commission to make these changes.
PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Since the draft Plan was released in April, staff have been utilizing Rockville Reports, City social media channels, emails blasts and newsletters to inform the community about the opportunity to review and provide comments on the draft Plan. The city continues to collect feedback on the Plan through a feedback form posted on the project page at www.engagerockville.com/towncenter <http://www.engagerockville.com/towncenter>. As of the date of this staff report, 23 individuals have completed the feedback form. The Engage Rockville page also has a feedback form specific to the Rockville Metro Station Concept. As of the date of this staff report, that form has five responses. All survey responses submitted on Engage Rockville are provided as Attachment D.
Additionally, staff hosted two public meetings focused on Town Center. These meetings took place on June 18 and June 24. At these meetings, approximately 40 people learned more about the draft Plan and provided their commentary to staff.
Per the Maryland Land Use Article, which governs the process by which comprehensive plans and their amendments may be drafted and adopted, notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission to be provided in a newspaper of record. Advertisement of the July 10 public hearing was provided in The Washington Post on June 27, 2024. Four individuals testified at the public hearing and one individual provided written testimony in advance of the public hearing.
At the meeting, the Planning Commission elected to keep the public record open. As of the date of this staff report, staff have received three additional pieces of testimony. A matrix of all feedback received on the Plan as of the date of this staff report, along with staff’s response to the feedback is provided as Attachment E. Attachment F provides a packet of all feedback received on the Plan this far in their original form.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS:
The draft Plan was introduced to the Planning Commission on June 26, 2024, and a public hearing was held before the Commission on July 10, 2024. The Planning Commission has been briefed on the project two prior times: the project proposal was presented on February 8, 2023, and the Community Engagement Report was presented on October 11, 2023.
To date, staff have presented to the Rockville Bicycle Advisory Committee, the Rockville Pedestrian Advocacy Committee, the Transportation & Mobility Commission, and the Environmental Commission to solicit feedback from those bodies. The Transportation & Mobility and Environmental Commissions have both provided a letter with their comments to the Planning Commission. These letters can be found in Attachment F.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommend that the Planning Commission hold discussion and provide instructions on the exact changes the Commission would like to see incorporated into the Plan. Staff have provided some suggested changes to the Plan in Attachment C and will be looking to the Planning Commission to endorse those changes. Additionally, the Planning Commission may direct staff to make any other edits to the Plan as outlined in this document or as the body desires.
NEXT STEPS:
The Plan is scheduled to come before the Planning Commission again on September 11, 2024. Ahead of that September meeting, staff will provide the Planning Commission with a new draft of the Plan that fully incorporates all edits discussed during discussion and instructions. If the Planning Commission finds the latest draft to their liking, the Plan may be approved and transmitted to the Mayor and Council at the September 11 meeting, which would initiate the final step in the planning process.