City of Rockville - File #: 24-1467

• File #: 24-1467
• Type: Worksession
• Status: Agenda Ready
• File created: 12/16/2024
• In control: Mayor and Council
• On agenda: 1/6/2025
• Title: Worksession on the Town Center Master Plan - Part III

Subject

title

Worksession on the Town Center Master Plan - Part III

end

Department

CPDS - Comprehensive Planning

Recommendation

Staff recommends that Mayor and Council hold a work session to review, discuss, and provide final 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   

Mayor and Council have hosted two work sessions on the draft Town Center Master Plan - the first work session took place on December 9th and the second work session took place on December 16th. 

The December 16th work session focused on the housing unit goal, the creation of an additional character area along MD-355, building heights, and bonus height program. The January 6th work session will focus on completing the boundary of the “MD-355 Corridor” character area and finalizing the parking section of the Plan.

MD-355 Corridor Character Area

At the December 16th work session, staff introduced the concept of a third character area focused on increasing heights and development intensity along the MD-355 corridor. This area was initially referred to as the “Transit Oriented” character area. During the December 16th work session, Mayor and Council expressed their desire to see this area renamed as “MD-355 Corridor” character area. Throughout this staff report, this character area will be referred to by its new name, MD-355 Corridor. 

On December 16th, Mayor and Council agreed that heights in this MD-355 Corridor character area should be 235 feet of base building height with up to 100 feet of additional bonus height. Mayor and Council did not, however, determine the boundary of this character area. Staff are seeking direction from Mayor and Council on January 6th as to which properties should be included in the new character area. To inform that decision, Mayor and Council requested two pieces of additional information from staff. 

Adjacent Zoning

During the December 16th work session, a question was asked about the zoning of the properties along MD-355 north and south of the Town Center planning area. Zoning for properties adjacent to the planning area is provided in the map below. Single family residential zoning (R-60 and R-200) is shown near the northern portion of the study area. MXCD zoning is shown near the southern portion of the study area along MD-355. A legend showing the zoning categories and their associated maximum building height is also provided. 

Town Center and Nearby Property Zoning 

Layback Slope Applicability 

Another question brought up during the December 16th work session is whether the current layback slope provision within the Zoning Ordinance applies to properties on the eastern edge of Town Center’s boundary because of the zoning of properties in Lincoln Park and East Rockville along the east side of the railroad tracks. 

According to the city’s Chief of Zoning, these Town Center parcels would not be required to meet the current layback slope provision. A series of exemptions from the layback slope are stated within Section 25.13.05 of the Zoning Ordinance (see excerpt below). Properties that are “adjacent to Metro rapid transit or railroad right-of-way that are north of the Viers Mill Road intersection with the railroad right-of-way" are exempted from the layback slope requirement. 

Section 25.13.05: “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 Viers 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.”

Potential Boundary of Character Area 

The December 16th staff report provided three options for Mayor and Council to consider when determining the boundary of the MD-355 Corridor character area. At that meeting, there was interest in Scenario 2 and Scenario 3, though no consensus reached. The following maps show staff’s three scenarios. The only change to these maps from December 16th is that staff have incorporated the missing properties along Church Street and Monroe Place within the new character area for uniformity and consistency throughout the block as discussed by Mayor and Council.   

MD-355 Corridor Character Area - Scenario 1: ¼ Mile Radius

MD-355 Corridor Character Area - Scenario 2: ½ Mile Radius

 MD-355 Corridor Character Area - Scenario 3: All Properties Along MD-355

Staff recommends the parcels identified in Scenario 2 be classified as the MD-355 Corridor character area for the following reasons: 

•                     This scenario provides a transition between the edge character area along the western border of the planning area from the highest density development in the MD-355 Corridor character area. Scenario 3 provides no transition of the core character area between the edge and MD-355 corridor. 

•                     These properties are the most likely to see intense development given they are within reasonable walking distance of the Rockville Metro Station. 

Parking 

Beyond the boundary of the MD-355 Corridor character area, the other main policy within the Plan that needs direction by Mayor and Council is the recommendation to eliminate minimum parking requirements within Town Center. 

Goal 2 and Policy 2.1 call for making modifications to the parking requirements within Town Center to be reflective of the neighborhood’s proximity to mass public transportation, to increase residential density, and to better align with requirements of Montgomery County and other peer jurisdictions in the region.  Action 2.1.1 (page 44) proposes to eliminate minimum parking requirements within Town Center. 

The rationale for this recommendation is to lower development costs, improve walkability and increase multimodal transportation, which reduces carbon emissions and vehicle congestion. Together, they can help Rockville meet our climate action and housing goals.

Parking continues to be a burdensome cost to developing new buildings, particularly housing units. 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. If a below-grade parking garage is built, the cost can be even higher. According to the Montgomery County Department of Transportation, constructing underground parking can cost between $70,000 and $100,000 per space. A reduction in the amount of parking that a development requires may provide significant cost savings for projects that must either construct structured parking or use valuable land area for parking spaces. 

In most all cases, 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 when near a transit station, the reduction of parking spaces directly results in lower costs to the end user based upon staff’s research. Staff believes that the elimination of unnecessary development expenses, such as excessive parking, is important to keep rents/sales prices down. 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. 

Numerous municipalities around the country have been reducing or eliminating minimum parking requirements as one strategy to encourage more housing development, especially in areas near transit corridors, where there may be other transportation options for some households to use other than vehicles. Town Center, with its proximity to the Rockville Metro station and several planned BRT stops, is one of the most transit-oriented neighborhoods within the City.  

Although the potential number of units is unknown, the elimination of parking minimums is expected to generate the construction of more housing units by making developments more financially feasible and better able to take advantage of under-utilized properties in Town Center. 

Social Equity Analysis

It is anticipated that revisions to minimum parking requirements would have a favorable impact on equity and social justice in the City of Rockville if there is an increase in the supply of housing in the City, and especially of affordable housing units for low- and moderate-income households that may be cost-burdened or at risk of housing insecurity. However, it is unclear at this time what the exact number of additional housing units may result from eliminating minimum parking requirements, as well as how many of those units would be considered affordable by City standards. 

The creation of any additional housing would also produce more MPDUs through the City’s standard requirements. In addition, project developers may be more likely to take advantage of the bonus height program, with its resulting 5% increase in MPDUs, if there is more flexibility permitted in providing the number of parking spaces expected to be needed for each development, rather than what is mandated by the City. 

Even if it is a small impact, the provision of additional affordable housing units in Town Center would narrow housing disparities in the neighborhood and reduce inequities for cost-burdened households in Rockville.

Regarding access to parking, long term parking agreements are available through several of the parking garages already existing in Town Center. These spaces would be available to all who need them, regardless of where a person may live or their income level. In the instance where a future development may not provide enough parking and demand is high, there are ample other parking areas nearby where monthly passes can be purchased to serve that development’s users. 

Garages A, B & C

In past staff reports, staff provided occupancy rates for Garages A, B and C in Town Center. These garages are owned by the city, leased to Morguard and managed by Morguard's parking contractor, Colonial Parking. In mid-December, staff had a call with Morguard leadership to learn more about operations and occupancy within these garages. Morguard will be providing updated average occupancies numbers for each of their garages. At the time this staff report was produced, this data had not yet been received by staff. Staff will present findings from Morguard on updated occupancy numbers during the January 6th work session. 

Morguard also confirmed how these numbers are generated. A daily report is issued showing the number of cars that have entered the garage each day. The calculation provided to staff does not account for how long any given car is in the garage, simply the number of cars that entered over a 24-hour period. The average occupancy rate is generated by dividing the total number of tickets issued each day by the number of spaces in each garage, then averaging those numbers together over the entire month. As a result of this methodology, the percentages for average occupancy of each garage are likely on the high side - in reality, the amount of each garage occupied at any given time is likely much lower than the numbers provided in the chart above given that the parking reports to not account for turnover of parking spaces. 

During the conversation, Morguard also reiterated from an accounting perspective, the three garages are a liability to the city rather than an asset as the debt service on the garage exceeds the revenue generated from parking fees in any given month.  Eliminating parking minimums around these and other underutilized parking garages will, hopefully, increase their use.

Montgomery County Case Study - ZTA 23-10

During the December 16th work session, Mayor and Council asked to see additional information about the three projects in the pipeline within Montgomery County that qualify for no parking minimum because of ZTA 23-10. The location and unit count/type of each of the three projects are listed in the table below. There was also discussion as to if the public sector was a partner in any of these projects. Montgomery County owns a portion of land utilized for the MHP Amherst project and is contributing their land in exchange for a future community park as a part of the development. This project is much different than the others because it has a significant amount of area dedicated to performing arts which would require adequate parking.

Project Name	Location	Unit Count / Unit Type	Parking Spaces Required Pre ZTA 23-10	Proposed Parking Spaces
Springvale Terrace	Silver Spring	237 senior housing units	123	55
Loehmann’s Plaza	North Bethesda	84 market rate units	82	89
MHP Amherst	Wheaton	359 mixed income units, 42,000 sf performing art and cultural center, and 15,000 sf office space	197	461

Additional Research/Case Studies

In the staff report for the December 16th work session staff provided a bibliography of articles, case studies and academic research conducted on the impact of the removal of parking minimums on housing affordability (see Attachment 2 - Parking Reduction Research for 12/16 Work Session). During the work session, Mayor and Council asked for additional research on the links between parking and housing affordability, as well as the impact that reduced/eliminated parking minimums may or may not have on small businesses and economic development. This additional research is provided as Attachment 3 - Parking Reduction Research for 1/6 Work Session.

Jurisdictions in the region, like Cambridge, MD and Fairfax County, VA, have successfully reduced or removed minimum parking requirements. The parking amendment in Fairfax County took effect January 2024, so it is too soon to analyze the impact on proposed parking and parking built in new developments. 

Parking Forecasts

During the December 9th work session, staff were asked to investigate parking forecasts for Town Center that reflect parking impacts should vacancies currently existing within the Town Square development be filled. The table below shows the retail square footage for each "block” of Town Square, along with the number of parking spaces approved for that amount of commercial space when the project was developed. The table does not include the residential components of Town Square, as the Fenestra Apartments and Palladian Condominiums have their own parking garages that are not accessible to the public. 

Town Square Development Summary by Block

Block	Retail Space	Parking Spaces
1 & 2	70,071 sf	225
3A	-	0
3B	35,973 sf	0
4	19,642 sf	630
5	46,137 sf	122
Total	171,823 sf	977

There are currently 1,688 parking spaces within Garages A, B and C. The number of unrestricted spaces that are available to the public out of the 1,688 total spaces varies based on other agreements Morguard has with outside groups at any given time to lease excess parking spaces. For example, a recent agreement was executed whereby Tesla leases several hundred parking spaces as temporary storage for vehicles being serviced by the Tesla maintenance facility nearby. During a recent conversation with Morguard, representatives reiterated that many of these short-term agreements can be modified easily should demand change and they have no concern about parking availability in any of the garages for leasing new businesses to fill existing vacancies.  

Options for Parking and Staff’s Recommendation 

Based on past discussions with Mayor and Council on the proposal to eliminate parking minimums, staff presents four options for the body to consider at their January 6th meeting. These options are: 

•                     Option 1: Retain the proposal in the approved Plan where parking minimums are eliminated throughout the entire planning area. 

•                     Option 2: Revert to the proposal in the first draft of the Plan, where parking minimums are eliminated within ½ mile of Metro and ¼ mile of bus rapid transit, then evaluate if minimums elsewhere need to be modified. 

•                     Option 3: Align parking minimums to each character area. Staff proposes eliminating parking minimums within the MD-355 corridor and core character areas and reducing minimum parking requirements in the edge character area by 25%. 

•                     Add On: An additional item that could be added on to any of the proposals outlined above is to require a property owner to submit a “parking plan” along with the development application. The purpose of this additional document would be to provide a statement of justification explaining how the owner determined the amount of proposed parking and how they believe it will be sufficient to foster a successful project. Information provided in this “parking plan” should include the number of units/breakdown of land uses within a project, how the proposed number of parking spaces was calculated (including handicap spaces), anticipated mode share of project users and comparable evidence demonstrating the proposed parking will be sufficient. 

Mayor and Council may also include other options or variation of them. Staff recommends Option 3 for the following reasons:

•                     This option eliminates minimum parking requirements in the areas of Town Center that are closest to the Metro station. Due to the transit-oriented nature of these sites, these parcels have access to convenient alternative transportation options that are likely to be utilized by a portion of their patrons. 

•                     This option eliminates minimum parking requirements in parts of Town Center that already have an excess of existing public parking options that would be available to patrons of any future development in this area.

•                     This option retains some requirements for onsite parking for development in the edge character area, helping to protect potential spillover parking impacts on the neighboring community. 

At the January 6th work session, staff is seeking direction from Mayor and Council on how parking should be addressed in the Plan. 

Other Requested Information

Moderately Priced Dwelling Units - Distribution by Unit Type

Due to the range of housing needs of different households, from families to couples, single individuals, or other living situations, some Mayor and Council members asked for a breakdown of Moderately Priced Dwelling Units (MPDUs) in Town Center by size (i.e., 2-bedroom units versus 1-bedroom units versus studio units). The table below shows the breakdown of unit types by count and percentage. 

MPDUs in Town Center by Unit Type

Unit Type	Unit Count	Percentage
Studio	24	7.8%
1 bedroom	249	81.3%
2 bedroom	33	10.7%
Total	306

Mayor and Council also asked whether the City could dictate the unit split for MPDUs to accommodate these various household sizes. The Department of Housing and Community Development, which regulates and tracks MPDU development in the City, has stated that the breakdown of unit type in new developments currently is negotiated with the developer when creating the MPDU program agreement and is not specifically dictated by code. Additionally, development application examination by the Planning Commission includes a review of "the number of MPDUs to be provided, dwelling unit type, and location in the subdivision." The department has an interest in making requirements, such as unit split, more standardized when rewriting Chapter 13.5.

Mayor and Council History

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. Mayor and Council hosted the first public hearing on the Plan on October 28, 2024, and second public hearing on December 9th. The prior work sessions before Mayor and Council took place on December 9th and December 16th.  

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. Mayor and Council hosted two public hearings on the Plan, one on October 28 and the other on December 9th. At these meetings a total of 12 individuals testified and 17 pieces of written testimony were submitted.  Since the December 9th public hearing, three additional pieces of written testimony have been 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 Mayor and Council, initiating Mayor and Council’s formal review process.    

Next Steps

Mayor and Council are tentatively scheduled to adopt the Plan on January 13, 2025.