City of Rockville - File #: 24-1465

• File #: 24-1465
• Type: Worksession
• Status: Agenda Ready
• File created: 12/13/2024
• In control: Mayor and Council
• On agenda: 12/16/2024
• Title: Second Work Session on the Town Center Master Plan

Subject

title

Second Work Session on the Town Center Master Plan

end

Department

CPDS - Comprehensive Planning

Recommendation

Staff recommends that the Mayor and Council hold a work session to review, discuss, and provide direction on the draft Town Center Master Plan.   

Change in Law or Policy  

The adoption of the updated Town Center Master Plan will serve as an amendment to the Rockville 2040 Comprehensive Plan, replacing the existing Planning Area 1 chapter in its entirety.   

Discussion

Background  

On December 9 the Mayor and Council held a work session on the draft Town Center Master Plan. At this session, nine different areas were discussed in depth and direction was provided to staff on many of the discussion points. There were four remaining topics areas that warrant additional research, discussion, and direction. At the conclusion of the December 9 work session, two additional work sessions were scheduled - one for December 16 and the other for January 6. 

At the December 16 work session, staff proposes the housing unit goal, the creation of an additional Transit Oriented Character area, building heights, and bonus height program as the main topics. At the January 6 work session, the discussion will focus on parking and any other items that need to be adjusted. 

Housing Unit Goal

During the December 9 work session, the Mayor and Council discussed the Plan’s 2,000-unit housing goal by 2040 and requested additional information to better make an informed decision on whether this number was sufficient or should be increased.

There was a question of how staff settled on the number of 2,000 units as a recommended housing goal for Town Center. Staff utilized submitted development applications, existing but unutilized entitlements, and early conversations with developers on potential projects to generate a list of likely development in the coming years. An additional 600 units were added from the potential Metro station redevelopment. The Metro station redevelopment is expected to accommodate approximately 1,200 new units. However, because only a portion of this site is in the Town Center Planning Area (the remaining portion, on the east side of the tracks, is located in the East Rockville Planning Area), only half of the potential number of units were added to the total for Town Center. Together, these various developments totaled approximately ~1,600 new units. Staff added in 400 new units to account for other projects that may come, bringing an estimate for 2,000 housing unit. This calculation took place in January, when the Plan was being drafted. The table below shows the latest applications/entitlements for each of the listed properties; the estimate of units in the pipeline with these updated numbers is closer to 1,900. Based upon several Mayor and Council members desiring a higher aspirational goal, staff recommends establishing the goal of 3,000 units. 

Redevelopments Considered for 2,000 Unit Housing Goal

Property Address	January Estimate	December Estimate
622 Hungerford Drive	48 units	48 units
414 - 416 Hungerford Drive	291 units	291 units
220 E. Middle Lane	240 units	240 units
41 Maryland Avenue	100 units	147 units
255 Rockville Pike	300 units	550 units
Metro Station	600 units	600 units
Total	1,579 units	1,876 units

Base Building Height

Current Allowed Building Heights

The height that is allowed to be constructed on any given property is established in the Zoning Ordinance; each zone has different development standards that need to be followed, including maximum building height. At the December 9 work session, a question was asked about the maximum height currently allowed throughout the planning area. The map below shows a zoning map for Town Center, along with a legend that provides the zone and maximum height currently allowed within each zone. 

Existing Zoning & Associated Maximum Building Heights

The maximum height allowed in planned development (PD) zones varies from PD to PD. There are four PDs within Town Center, each with the maximum heights ranging from 75 to 235 feet. 

Edge Character Area

At the December 9 work session, Mayor and Council discussed the base and bonus heights for each of the character areas within the Plan. At the meeting, there seemed to be interest from the majority of the Mayor and Council to only have one character area along the western edge of the planning area, where there are currently two character areas: the transition and edge. As a result, staff recommends modifying the character areas map to eliminate the transition character area and revert the land within the transition character area to the edge character area, as depicted in the map below. At the December 16 work session.

Proposed Map of Edge Character Area

 Given the proposed modifications to the edge character area, the Mayor and Council must decide the height limits within the newly redefined edge. Staff presents the following options for consideration (see table below). Staff recommends the 75 feet of base building height with 50 feet of bonus height to address concerns about the transition to the west while also allowing for taller buildings through the inclusion of additional MPDUs to get bonus height. 

Edge Character Area Heights for Consideration

Base Height	Bonus Height	Notes
75 feet	25 feet	This was the edge heights in the September draft.
75 feet	50 feet	This was the transition heights in the September draft.
100 feet	25 feet	New option for consideration.

Transit Oriented Character Area

During the December 9 work session, Mayor and Council expressed interest in seeing a new character area developed along MD-355 that allows heights above and beyond the 200’ proposed in the core character area. Staff recommends the creation of a new character area to accommodate this goal. Staff has prepared three options for the Mayor and Council to consider for the geography that should be classified within the character area tentatively known as the “transit oriented character area.” 

•                     Transit Oriented Scenario 1 shows all property within a ¼ mile radius of the Metro station and with frontage on MD-355 being reclassified into the new zone. 

•                     Transit Oriented Scenario 2 shows all property within a ½ mile radius of the Metro station and with frontage on MD-355 being reclassified into the new zone. 

•                     Transit Oriented Scenario 3 shows property throughout the entire planning area with frontage on MD-355 (with a few additional parcels that align with consolidated parcel ownership) being reclassified as the new zone. 

Staff recommends proceeding with a slightly modified version of Scenario 2 that incorporates the entirety of the block bounded by Monroe Street and Monroe Place and includes 20 Baltimore Road and 90 Church Street - the only two parcels on the east side of MD-355 and south of Church Street that are not yellow in the Scenario 2 map. At the work session, staff will be seeking directions from the Mayor and Council on which map aligns with Mayor and Council’s vision for this area. 

Transit Oriented Character Area - Scenario 1

Transit Oriented Character Area - Scenario 2

Transit Oriented Character Area - Scenario 3

Along with determining the parcels that will be included in the Transit Oriented character area, the Mayor and Council should determine the base building and bonus heights associated with this newly created character area. Staff presents the following options for consideration. Staff recommends this new character area have a base height of 250 feet with up to 50 feet of bonus height. This provides an increase over the existing heights allowed in the core character area and brings total developable height to 300 feet, consistent with Montgomery County’s highest zone. 

Transit Oriented Character Area Heights for Consideration

Base Height	Bonus Height	Notes
200 feet	100 feet	Existing core base height with increased bonus.
250 feet	50 feet	Increased base height with existing bonus.
300 feet	0 feet	Allow maximum height by right.

Impact of Rezoning on Tax Assessments

Staff has communicated with the Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation (SDAT) to understand the impact of a property being rezoned on the real property tax assessment of the parcel. According to SDAT the underlying zone of a property is not a factor in the tax assessment. Assessments are calculated by using, “verifiable sales for comparable properties of similar use, type and style.” Reassessments of property take place every three years, or when there is a change of use (as opposed to a change in zone) or new construction on the property. Should a property be rezoned to allow different land use, the tax assessment for that property will only be impacted if that property chooses to change the land use/undergo new construction, and those improvements will only impact that parcel’s assessments. SDAT reiterated that they cannot formally make predictions about future tax assessments for any given property seeing as they follow trends, not forecasts. 

Layback Slope Provision 

The Zoning Ordinance establishes the concept of a “layback slope” that intends to ease the transition between higher density zones and single unit detached, semi-detached and townhouses. To aid in the transition, the layback slope creates a calculation that limits building height on top of the base building height allowed by the underlying zone.

Section 25.13.05 of the Zoning Ordinance says, “building height on a confronting property cannot penetrate a layback slope line of thirty (30) degrees, beginning from the closest ground point of the lot line of any property in any residential zone where single unit detached, semi-detached, attached, or townhouse development exists or such development is recommended in the Plan, without regard to intervening roads or other transportation facilities as shown in Figure 13.1.” 

Figure 13.1 in the Zoning Ordinance

Furthermore, this section goes on to state, “This layback slope requirement does not apply to: (i) areas adjacent to the MXT zone; (ii) nonresidential historic sites in the mixed use zones; (iii) sites in single unit detached residential zones developed or recommended for nonresidential uses; (iv) areas adjacent to Metro rapid transit or railroad right-of-way that are north of the Veirs Mill Road intersection with the railroad right-of-way; (v) areas within a PD zone; (vi) areas adjacent to the MXC zone; or (vii) any area within the Rockville Pike Core Area. 

Map of Properties Impacted by Layback Slope

Any desired modifications to the layback slope provision of the Zoning Ordinance would need to take place through the ongoing Zoning Ordinance Rewrite project; modifications to zones that are in effect citywide is outside of the scope of the Town Center Master Plan. 

If the Mayor and Council have concerns about the transition of height to properties west of the planning area, staff recommends expanding on the language of Action 3.1.1, which calls for the creation of building design standards that apply to Town center. Action 3.1.1 currently reads:

“Create building design standards for Town Center and incorporate these standards into the zoning ordinance by adoption of standards into the updated zoning proposed in Action 1.1.1. Standards should address streetwall character and design features including, but not limited to, building materials, building envelopes, first floor activity generators, upper story façade setbacks, cornice integration, fenestration, placement of entries, and appropriate transitions to adjacent properties; all of which emphasize pedestrian orientation and human scaled design.”

Upper-story facade setbacks and transitions to adjacent properties are referenced within this recommendation; however, staff recommends strengthen this language to “…and appropriate building height transitions to adjacent properties.”

Bonus Height Program

One question from staff needing direction from the Mayor and Council is what improvements should make a project eligible for bonus height? The Planning Commission approved draft provides two avenues to get bonus height - providing 5% additional MPDUs and/or providing 5% more open/public use space than existing requirements. In the September draft, this is a tiered system where a portion of the maximum bonus height is given for each of the qualified improvements, but a project must provide both to get that maximum bonus height number. Staff’s original proposal in the April draft was that only MPDUs qualify for bonus height in order to prioritize and create a higher incentive to address the community’s need for more affordable housing. 

This topic was discussed in detail by Mayor and Council at the December 9 work session. It seemed that the majority of the Council was interested in having 5% additional MDPUs be the only qualifier for bonus height; however, a few members of the body seemed to be interested in retaining green space in some way. At the December 16 work session, staff will be seeking direction from the Mayor and Council on this item. 

Parking

Justification for Elimination of Parking Minimums

During the December 9 work session, discussion ensued about the justification for the recommendation to eliminate parking minimums. The rationale for eliminating parking requirements is rooted in the high cost of developing structured parking. 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. 

Parking continues to be a burdensome cost to develop new buildings, particularly housing units. The main reason for this is that the cost of developing parking gets passed onto building users in the form of increased rents/sales prices. When parking is “right-sized” to include only what is truly needed and in demand, especially near transit station, the reduction of parking spaces directly results in lower costs to the end user. The elimination of unnecessary development expenses, such as excessive parking, is key to affordability. In cities across the country, residential density is more attainable when parking requirements are reduced or eliminated. Increasing residential density and number of housing units, including affordable housing, is a key goal of the Town Center Master Plan and the elimination of parking requirements will help to achieve this goal. 

During the December 9 work session, Mayor and Council requested a list of sources citing trends towards reduction and/or elimination of parking minimums and the associated impact on housing costs, specifically increased affordability. Staff has provided a list of articles explaining this trend, including local, regional, and nationwide case studies, which is attached as Attachment 2 - Parking Reduction Research. 

Montgomery County ZTA 23-10

During the December 9 work session, Mayor and Council also requested that staff provides numbers from Montgomery County on proposed developments’ parking after eliminating parking requirements went into effect near transit centers.

According to Montgomery Planning leadership, there are 10 total proposed and/or approved development projects within the area that allow no minimum parking. Of these 10 projects, 4 are within a Parking Lot District and have no parking requirements, and 3 are amendments. All 3 remaining projects provided more parking than the 0 required by the ZTA. Two of these projects, Loehmann’s Plaza and MHP Amherst, provided more parking than was required before the ZTA went into effect; 89 vs. 82 and 461 vs. 197, respectively. 

Case No.	Project Name	Parking Spaces Required Pre ZTA 23-10	Parking Spaces Required Post ZTA 23-10	Proposed Parking Spaces
820240040	Springvale Terrace	123	0	55
820240120	Loehmann’s Plaza	82	0	89
820250010	MHP Amherst	197	0	461

Additional Information Requests

Additional requests for data and information on parking were requested by the Mayor and Council on December 9. Staff is collecting the requested information and intend to provide it for robust discussion at the January 6 work session. 

Other Discussion 

Residential Building Ownership

During the December 9 work session, a request was made for information regarding the number of developers that own residential property in the planning area. The following table lists the 7 multifamily residential buildings in Town Center and associated ownership.

Multifamily Rental Buildings in Town Center by Ownership

Residential Building	Owner
Beall’s Grant	Montgomery Housing Partnership
Brightview West End	Brightview Senior Living
The Met Rockville	RST Development/Jefferson Apartment Group
Fenestra	Morguard
Main Street Apartments	RST Development
BLVD Ansel	Comstock
BLVD 44	Comstock

Mayor and Council History

The Mayor and Council approved a project charter for an update to the Town Center Master Plan in January 2023. Since the project was initiated, staff has provided periodic updates on the project via email. The Mayor and Council hosted the first public hearing on the Plan on October 28, 2024, and second public hearing on December 9. The first work session before the Mayor and Council also took place on December 9. 

Public Notification and Engagement

Extensive public outreach efforts have been underway for the Plan since April 2023. The project’s “outreach and engagement” phase took place between April and September 2023. During this period, staff estimates that approximately 1,000 individuals provided feedback of some kind. A full analysis of feedback received during the outreach and engagement period, as well as descriptions of each engagement methodology, can be found in the Community Engagement Report, available on the Engage Rockville website.    

  

Since the draft Plan was released in April, staff has utilized Rockville Reports, City social media channels, email 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 the project page at www.engagerockville.com/towncenter <http://www.engagerockville.com/towncenter>.   

  

Staff hosted two public meetings focused exclusively on Town Center that took place on June 18 and June 24.  All of these meetings were added to the City calendar, publicized using the city’s typical communication avenues, and open to the public.   

 

Throughout the Planning Commission process, 31 individuals or organizations provided written comment to the Commission with their thoughts on the draft Plan. The Mayor and Council hosted two public hearings on the Plan, one on October 28 and the other on December 9. At these meetings a total of 12 individuals testified and 17 pieces of written testimony were submitted. 

Boards and Commissions Review

The draft Plan has been reviewed by many different boards and commissions since it was released at the end of April 2024. Between May and September, the Plan was presented to the Rockville Pedestrian Advocacy Committee, Transportation & Mobility Commission, Rockville Bicycle Advisory Committee, Environmental Commission, and Planning Commission.   The Transportation and Mobility Commission and Environmental Committee provided feedback on the draft Plan in the form of written letters.  

  

The draft Plan has been through a thorough review process before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed and discussed the Plan on five dates between June and September 2024. Ultimately, on September 25 the Planning Commission passed a resolution to approve the draft Plan and transmit it to the Mayor and Council, initiating the Mayor and Council’s formal review process.   

Next Steps

The Mayor and Council are scheduled to hold an additional work session on the Plan on January 6 and are tentatively scheduled to adopt the Plan on January 13, 2025, to meet the required deadline.