Planning Commission Memo
MEETING DATE: February 11, 2026
REPORT DATE: February 5, 2026
RESPONSIBLE STAFF: Holly Simmons/Jim Wasilak
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and Work Session No. 4 on Zoning Text Amendment TXT2026-00271, the Draft Zoning Ordinance and Map Amendment MAP2026-00126, the Comprehensive Map Amendment; Mayor and Council of Rockville, Applicants
BACKGROUND:
This is the fourth in a series of Planning Commission work sessions during the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite (ZOR) and Comprehensive Map Amendment (CMA) adoption process. The first three work sessions were conducted on January 14, 2026; January 28, 2026; and February 4, 2026, respectively. Additional project background was provided in the staff report for the January 14 work session.
The following materials can be accessed via the project webpage, engagerockville.com/zoningrewrite </..//../Users/jwasilak/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Olk/Attachments/ooa-1d340a77-5d6d-4c19-8c0b-7e34da7eaf70/bbdbd9684547e8f9dbda59cb5224eff2c980bef333dc67027e9aa014b917da61/engagerockville.com/zoningrewrite>:
• Highlights: Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance
• Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance Table of Contents
• Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance (full text)
• Staff Draft Comprehensive Map Amendment
The Planning Commission is scheduled to make a recommendation to the Mayor and Council on February 25, 2026.
DISCUSSION:
Zones
Floating zones
Currently, the City’s Zoning Ordinance includes a set of ‘Comprehensive Plan floating zones,’ which may be applied through an optional map amendment process that was established in 2023 (Sec. 25.14.35). Since 2023, these floating zones have provided a path for development consistent with the land uses and zoning recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan (and later, the Town Center Master Plan) prior to citywide rezoning proposed through the Comprehensive Map Amendment.
Comprehensive Plan floating zones do not automatically apply to specific properties. Instead, they may be applied to properties consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, in order to implement the Land Use Policy Map. Applicants seeking to use a floating zone must receive approval through the floating zone map amendment process, which includes both a rezoning and a concurrent Project Plan application.
Because the Comprehensive Map Amendment implements the Comprehensive Plan’s land use and zoning recommendations, the Comprehensive Plan floating zones were not retained in the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance.
Zoning Map Amendments
The Zoning Ordinance (both the existing ordinance and the Staff Draft) include processes for changing the zoning designation(s) of a property or area as depicted on the zoning map for the City. In the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance, these can be found at draft Sec. 25.5.3, and include the following types of zoning map amendments:
• Local map amendment. A map amendment affecting a single, contiguous site that is typically sought by the owner or other person having a proprietary interest in the site. A local map amendment may include multiple lots or parcels.
• Sectional map amendment. A map amendment affecting a section of the City. A sectional map amendment is a type of comprehensive amendment as defined by Maryland case law.
• Comprehensive map amendment. A map amendment affecting the entire City. A comprehensive map amendment may rezone some or all areas of the City and reconfirm the zoning in other areas of the City.
One Commissioner raised questions about the map amendment processes, specifically:
• Should map amendments include required findings?
• Should owner consent be required for local map amendments?
Findings
Currently, the Zoning Ordinance does not include findings for zoning map amendments; however, it is typical for the grant of a local map amendment, which are generally initiated by a property owner and resulting from a change or mistake, to be based on certain findings. As such, staff propose including the following findings for local map amendments only. These findings have been adapted from those required for local map amendments in Montgomery County.
1. Substantial change in the character of the neighborhood since the original zoning or comprehensive rezoning, or a mistake was made when the existing zoning was applied; and
2. The requested zone is compatible with the surrounding area.
Owner consent
Owner consent is not required for zoning map amendments because zoning is a policy decision made by the Mayor and Council for the benefit of the community as a whole. While property owners own their land, zoning classifications are set by the City and may be updated over time to reflect adopted plans, changing conditions, and community goals.
Rather than requiring owner consent, state and local law provide procedural dues process through public notice and public hearings. This provides property owners and other community members the opportunity to review and comment on proposed zoning map amendments prior to adoption. Requiring owner consent for zoning map amendments would limit the Mayor and Council’s ability to implement adopted plans and policies intended to advance city objectives.
Development Standards
Transition Heights
As supported by the Mayor and Council on May 5, 2025, and the Planning Commission on May 28, 2025, the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance incorporates an updated requirement for height transitions between single-unit residential and higher-intensity uses. These provisions are intended to ensure appropriate transitions between higher-density development and single-unit detached neighborhoods, while balancing policies from the Comprehensive Plan, Town Center Master Plan, and Climate Action Plan regarding intense development around Metro stations, as well as housing production goals.
Relevant information excerpted from the staff reports for the May 5 Mayor and Council and May 28 Planning Commission work sessions is included as Attachment 1 - Height Transitions.
Bonus Height
In the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance, bonus height may be applied in three instances:
• MXTD family of zones. The MXTD-235, MXTD-200, and MXTD-85 implement the character areas recommended by the Town Center Master Plan. Bonus height in the MXTD family of zones is available for projects that provide affordable housing over the minimum required, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Bonus Heights Applied to MXTD Zones
|
Proposed Zone |
Character Area |
Base Height |
Bonus Height |
|
MXTD-235 |
MD-355 Corridor Character Area |
235 feet |
100 feet |
|
MXTD-200 |
Core Character Area |
200 feet |
100 feet |
|
MXTD-85 |
Edge Character Area |
85 feet |
50 feet |
• Champion Projects. The Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance provides a 100-foot bonus height to Champion projects, representing an increase over the bonus height currently permitted for such projects.
• Housing Expansion and Affordability Act (HEAA). Pursuant to State law, qualified projects as defined in the State’s 2025 Housing Expansion and Affordability Act are entitled to additional (or bonus) height. For clarity, this is reflected in the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance.
Relevant information excerpted from the staff reports for the May 5, 2025, Mayor and Council and May 28, 2025, Planning Commission work sessions is included as Attachment 2 - Bonus Height.
Minimum Lot Area versus Density
Residential zones use different standards, such as minimum lot size and maximum dwelling units per acre, based on the intended development pattern of each zone. Single-unit residential zones rely on minimum lot size and dimensional standards to shape development form and scale, with density occurring as an indirect outcome of those standards, as opposed to a fixed requirement. The City’s medium- and high-density residential zones allow a wider range of housing types, making density limits a more effective and less prescriptive way to regulate overall development intensity.
The order in which the residential zones are presented in the existing Zoning Ordinance and in Staff Draft Article 7 is based on regulatory intent and anticipated development patterns. The RMD-Infill zone serves as a transition between single-unit residential and medium- to high-density residential zones. It allows small-scale ‘missing middle’ housing types including multiplexes, townhouses, and cottage courts, in addition to single-unit detached dwellings. Unlike the RMD-10, RMD-15, and RMD-25, it does not allow apartment buildings. The RMD-Infill’s placement within the zoning framework reflects considerations of form, scale, and intensity, rather than density alone.
In response to one Commissioner’s questions related to the RMD-Infill, staff further reviewed the proposed standards for the zone, specifically, those related to the proposed density of one dwelling unit per 2,000 square feet. Based on a review of similar zones in other jurisdictions, staff recommend revising this standard to a minimum lot area requirement to better reflect the intended development pattern. Staff also recommend adding standards that clarify the number of dwellings permitted by form, as shown in Table 2. Per-form dwelling unit caps help ensure that infill development in the RMD-Infill zone occurs at a scale and pattern similar to surrounding single-unit neighborhoods, regardless of housing type.
Table 2. Recommended Maximum Number of Dwelling Units by Form
|
Use |
Maximum Dwelling Units per Lot |
|
Single-Unit Detached |
1 |
|
Multiplex |
4 (Unless recommended otherwise by the Plan) |
|
Townhouse |
6 |
|
Cottage Court |
8 |
Recommendation: Revise the RMD-Infill density standard to a minimum lot area standard and specify the maximum number of dwelling units per lot based on form, as shown in Table 1.
Frontage and Setback Requirements: RMD-25 versus RHD
One Commissioner raised questions regarding the frontage and rear setback standards for the RMD-25 zone and the RHD zone. The development standards intentionally differ between these two zones, because the RHD is a new zone that was modeled more closely on the City’s existing Mixed-Use zones.
Upon further review, staff recommend revising the RHD side and rear setback standards to align with those in the Mixed Use zones. Staff also recommend revising the language of the front setback requirement for clarity and accuracy. These changes will allow more consistent treatment of development in the RHD zone and greater sensitivity to situations where the RHD zone abuts or confronts residential property. For comparison purposes, development standards for the RMD-25, RHD, and the medium- to high-intensity Mixed Use zones, as contained in the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance, along with the proposed revised RHD standards, are provided in Table 3.
Notes on Table 3:
• Standards informing the updated RHD zone recommendation are shown in red.
• All zones included in the table are subject to the transition heights of draft Sec. 25.7.3.8(a)(1).
• Setbacks based on ‘residential property’ apply when the abutting or confronting property is zoned R-400, R-200, R-150, R-90, R-75, R-60, R-40, RMD-Infill, RMD-10, or RMD-15 and is developed with single-unit detached, townhouse, or multiplex dwellings.
Table 3. Proposed RMD-25, RHD, and MXTD-85 Standards
|
Standard |
Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance |
Updated RHD Recommendation |
|
|
RMD-25 |
RHD |
MXTD ‘Family’; MXCD, MXCT |
|
|
Lot Frontage |
100 ft. |
10 ft. |
10 ft. |
10 ft. |
|
Front Setback / Setback Abutting Public Right-of-Way (Min.) |
25 ft. |
• Abutting or confronting a lot zoned for and developed with single-unit residential uses: 25 ft. • All other locations: 10 ft. |
None |
• Confronting residential property: 25 ft. • Confronting nonresidential property: 10 ft. |
|
Side Setback (Min.) |
• Townhouse, multiplex, small apartment buildings, and cottage courts: 8 ft. • Apartments of seven or more units: 10 ft. |
10 ft. |
• Abutting residential property: 25 ft. • Abutting nonresidential property: None required. 10 ft. minimum if provided |
• Abutting residential property: 25 ft. • Abutting nonresidential property: None required. 10 ft. minimum if provided |
|
Rear Setback (Min.) |
25 ft. |
10 ft. |
• Abutting residential property: 25 ft. • Abutting nonresidential property: None required. 10 ft. minimum if provided |
• Abutting residential property: 25 ft. • Abutting nonresidential property: None required. 10 ft. minimum if provided |
Sign Regulations
The Zoning Ordinance includes regulations related to signage in the City. The Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance modernizes and reorganizes regulations to provide clarity, usability, and consistency across zones while ensuring compliance with requirements for ‘content neutrality.’
Key changes to the sign ordinance (draft Article 10) are as follows:
1. Significantly reorganizes the article for ease of use. In the Staff Draft, permitted signs are clearly identified and regulations for each zone are housed within the sign types.
2. Exempts certain signs, including directional signs and signs regulated by Chapter 21.
3. Ensures regulations are content-neutral (i.e., regulating sign size, location, or design, rather than the text, color, or images on a sign). This revision is necessary to align with first amendment requirements enunciated in recent federal court opinions, including the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision Reed v. Town of Gilbert.
4. Introduces new sign types, including A-frame signs, window signs, and building-mounted banner signs, and associated regulations. The current Zoning Ordinance is silent on these signs. By including them, the Staff Draft creates a clear framework to both allow and regulate their use.
5. Eliminates different regulations for real estate, temporary noncommercial, and yard sale signs and regulates them as temporary freestanding signs. Temporary freestanding sign regulations vary by zone and associated use type. Of note, the Staff Draft allows up to three temporary freestanding signs on lots with single-unit detached dwellings, townhouses, and multiplexes without a permit.
6. Prohibits certain signs, including feather flags and electronic message centers (unless they are pedestrian-oriented). These prohibitions are intended to support a more cohesive streetscape, while still allowing pedestrian-oriented LED signs to support wayfinding and on-site communication.
7. Consolidates sign types for consistent regulation of signs in the Industrial and Mixed Use zones. Permitted sign types are identified as section headers in Division 10.3 (i.e., A-Frame sign, building sign, temporary building-mounted banner sign, etc.).
8. Expands the scope of repairs allowed for nonconforming signs. Allows repainting, refacing, and electrical repairs so long as repainting does not include a change of copy.
9. Eliminates sign concept plans (which regulate content) and optional sign packages (which have only been used once) while requiring a new comprehensive sign plan be submitted prior to permit where two or more signs are proposed on a site.
10. Revises and updates the required approval findings for a sign variance. Findings focus on effective signage and compatibility with structures on the site, as follows:
a. The Chief of Zoning may approve a sign variance, with or without conditions, only after making all of the following findings:
i. Strict application of this Article would preclude effective signage on the site.
ii. The variance application proposes a sign or signs that are compatible with the major structures on the site.
Planned Development Adequate Public Facilities (APF) Validity
Prior to March 16, 2009, developments with special provisions for development standards and allowed uses were approved through several types of special development procedures, including comprehensive planned development, planned residential unit, preliminary development plan, and the I-3 zone optional method. Under these procedures, each development was governed individually by approval documents, which outlined standards and uses that often had little or no relation to the underlying zoning. With the 2009 update, these special developments were placed in individual “Planned Development” (PD) zones.
At the same time, provisions to address APF in these PD zones were introduced. The current Zoning Ordinance outlines the following:
• APF determinations for planned developments remain valid for either:
o The time stated in the original approval, if stated explicitly; or
o “[T]wenty-five years from November 1, 2005” (i.e, November 1, 2030), if not stated explicitly.
• The Mayor and Council may extend the APF validity period for planned developments by five years, based on certain findings. (See Sec. 25.20.04.b.)
The Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance retains the November 1, 2030 PD APF expiration date but updates the extension process to align with broader policy established in the Staff Draft. Under the Staff Draft, the APF validity period for planned developments would be subject to two consecutive two-year extensions approved by the Chief of Zoning, rather than a single five-year extension approved by Mayor and Council.
Transitional Provisions
The Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance includes transitional provisions to ensure an orderly and fair transition following adoption of the new ordinance. These provisions establish a limited option for certain pending applications to proceed under the existing ordinance, at the applicant’s option. In the Staff Draft, to qualify for the transitional provisions, a complete site plan application must have been submitted within one year prior to the new ordinance’s adoption; a written request must be submitted to the Chief of Zoning within two months of adoption; and the application must be approved within one year following adoption. Staff currently propose to widen these eligibility criteria to (1) include project plans as well as site plans; (2) expand the provision to complete applications submitted within eighteen months before the new ordinance’s adoption; and (3) require applications to be approved within two years of the new ordinance’s adoption. This approval window aligns with typical development review timelines and limits the transitional option to applications that are actively advancing under the existing Zoning Ordinance, balancing fairness to applicants who have made investments under the existing ordinance with the City’s interest in timely implementation of the new zoning regime.
While it is necessary to provide fair and predictable transitional provisions, staff anticipate that most applicants will choose to develop under the new Zoning Ordinance, as the Staff Draft generally streamlines development review processes, right-sizes requirements, and increases flexibility.
Follow-Up from January 28 Planning Commission Work Session: Use-Based GFA Restrictions
During the January 28, 2026, Planning Commission work session, Commissioners requested a complete list of uses in the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance to which use-based GFA restrictions apply. In response, the full list, including a comparison of treatment in the current and Staff Draft Zoning Ordinances and an explanation of the rationale, is provided in Attachment 3 - Use-Based Gross Floor Area Restrictions.
Additional Updates
As part of the ongoing review of the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance, staff have identified several items requiring correction. These include the items outlined below.
Pipe stem lots
During the October 6 Mayor and Council work session, Mayor and Council supported allowing pipestem lots (which have been expressly prohibited by the Zoning Ordinance since 2006) to increase options for housing diversity. As such, this prohibition was removed from the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance; however, frontage requirements that would allow for pipestem lots were not included in the Staff Draft. To address this, staff intends to add language requiring that frontage for pipestem lots must be adequate to provide access and an ingress/egress and utility easement ensuring that every lot has access to the street.
Bicycle Parking
Staff are updating the bicycle parking location and design standards based on knowledge gained through recent site plan inspections. Revisions include:
• Required clearance between bicycle parking spaces and an adjacent curb or wall.
• Requirement for short-term spaces to be at the same grade as the sidewalk or at a location that can be reached by a bike-accessible route.
• Requirement for long-term spaces located within a parking garage to be located on the same level as the entrance to the garage or accessible by an elevator.
• Requirement for long-term spaces located within a room to be located on the same level as the entrance to the building or accessible by an elevator.
Driveways/Drive aisles
Staff are updating the driveways and drive aisles requirements to ensure existing policy is retained, including a narrower width requirement for interior driveways that have no adjacent parking spaces.
Cluster Subdivision Overlay zone
Cluster subdivisions are currently shown on the City’s zoning map; however, because no Cluster Subdivision Zone exists in the current Zoning Ordinance, this layer was removed from the Staff Draft zoning map. Upon further consideration, staff has determined that it most advisable to add a Cluster Subdivision Overlay Zone to both the CMA and the ZOR, for record-keeping and transparency. Zoning Ordinance language will retain the existing minimum lot areas, as well as the existing policy that determines applicable setback and width requirements for lots within existing cluster subdivisions.