Rockville Planning Commission finds 2 Research Place conversion compatible, requires noise compliance before occupancy

The Rockville Planning Commission on April 8 voted to find a proposed conversion of the office property at 2 Research Place compatible with adjacent uses, adding a condition that required noise‑mitigation measures be demonstrated before occupancy.

Chair Meng Sun opened the meeting and described the agenda item: the commission was asked to make a compatibility finding because the MXE zoning calls for commission or mayor-and-council review of certain residential uses. Planner Christopher Davis told the commission the site is about 2.8 acres, is currently designated office, and previously had a Level 2 site plan approved in June 2023 for multi‑building life‑science development; that approval expired in June 2025. The applicant now proposes to demolish the existing office and build 68 two‑over‑two condominium units. "Staff recommends that the planning commission find that the proposed construction of 68 2‑over‑2 condominium units at 2 Research Place is compatible with the adjoining and confronting uses by means of landscaping and screening," Davis said, recommending the finding subject to the conditions in the staff report.

Applicant James Soltes described years of rising vacancies and falling market rents at Research Boulevard that prompted the shift from a previously approved life‑science plan to residential. "We've been corporate residents in the city for over 40 years... The building has been about roughly 38% vacant now for 3 years," Soltes said, explaining the decision to pursue a residential conversion.

A central focus of the commission’s discussion was noise mitigation along the property’s east edge, which abuts I‑270. Commissioners pressed the applicant and staff about whether the plan called for a "noise fence" or an 18‑foot noise wall, how far the wall would extend and whether it would tie into an expected mitigation wall on adjacent Rock Center property. The applicant said he had coordinated with neighboring owners and their acoustical engineer, but that the neighbor had not filed its site plan and that, if necessary, the applicant might build additional walling and seek reimbursement later. "We will comply exactly with those parameters for noise," Soltes said.

Some commissioners urged stronger, specific timing or off‑site requirements (one suggested deleting the two units closest to the wall or imposing a 30‑foot minimum distance), while others cautioned that the commission should not impose requirements that apply to property outside the applicant’s control. After debate the commission agreed to an edited condition, presented by staff, that requires the applicant to demonstrate compliance with the applicable noise regulations and that measures needed for noise compliance must be constructed prior to occupancy of any unit where such measures are necessary for compliance. Davis explained the staff wording would tie the requirement to the county‑level guidance cited in the report: "the applicable noise regulations, including MNC PPC's staff guidelines for the consideration of transportation noise impacts and land use planning."

Commissioner Jeff Zients moved approval of the finding with the staff report's conditions plus the added timing language; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. The commission did not adopt a requirement that the neighboring parcel construct its portion of a sound wall before occupancy of the applicant’s units; instead the condition requires that the developer demonstrate compliance with noise standards prior to occupancy, allowing for on‑site mitigation alternatives if necessary.

Under the process described at the meeting, the Level 1 site plan will undergo final review by the city’s zoning chief; if the site plan complies with the conditions and applicable development standards the chief of zoning will issue the final decision and permitting may proceed. The commission’s action was limited to the compatibility finding; the chief of zoning will review the detailed site plan and the acoustical calculations during Level 1 review before occupancy permits are issued.

A visiting land‑use planning student provided brief public comment but offered no substantive testimony on project details. The commission then moved on to routine business, heard a staff update on the zoning ordinance rewrite and upcoming mandatory referrals, approved minutes, and adjourned.