Subject
title
Amendments to City Code Chapter 21, Streets, Roads, Rights-of-Way, and Public Improvements and the Comprehensive Transportation Review
end
Department
PW - Engineering
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Council discuss and provide direction on the proposal to amend City Code Chapter 21, Streets, Roads, Rights-of-Way, and Public Improvements, and the Comprehensive Transportation Review regulations.
Change in Law or Policy
Changes will be implemented through amendments to the existing Ordinance (Chapter 21) and the revised Comprehensive Transportation Review (CTR) superseding Resolution (No. 15-18).
Discussion
The purpose of the work session is to obtain broad policy direction from the Mayor and Council on revisions to Chapter 21 and the CTR. Staff identified ten key topics with questions for the Mayor and Council to consider. Although separate documents, Chapter 21 and the CTR are presented together for efficiency and as revisions to both were recommended through FAST2 initiative.
FAST (Faster, Accountable, Smarter, and Transparent - Improvements to Permitting and Development Review Processes) was endorsed by Mayor and Council in October 2018 with the principal objective of facilitating housing and economic development through efficient and streamlined processes. Updating Chapter 21 and the CTR are specific action items of the FAST2 initiative, and the proposed amendments are designed to improve procedural efficiency and provide applicants and prospective developers with greater predictability of requirements. Chapter 21 and CTR revisions will establish clear code authority, authorizing administrative authority as may be appropriate for streamlining workflows, and creating CTR exemptions for small-scale developments will advance FAST goals.
Expected outcomes of the Chapter 21 and CTR rewrites include:
• Modernize a code that hasn’t been significantly revised since 1958 and rewrite using plain language to produce a well-organized, accessible, and easy to use ordinance.
• Improve and streamline workflows and approval processes by:
o codifying current practices
o establishing administrative approval authority
o incorporating FAST principles
• Improve safety and convenience by incorporating Vision Zero principles and accessibility standards consistent with City policy.
• Support high-density, modern urban development consistent with Zoning Ordinance Rewrite.
Chapter 21
Chapter 21 of the Rockville City Code regulates the City’s streets, roads, rights-of-way and certain public easements by establishing requirements for the design of road sections and the permitting, construction, installation, repair, and restoration of infrastructure, including public and private improvements located in rights-of-way and easements.
Staff proposes comprehensive amendments to Ch. 21, colloquially referred to as the “Road Code,” to advance the City's priorities of public safety, affordable housing, and economic development by modernizing development standards, improving accessibility, and streamlining the approval process for projects that are consistent with current planning and engineering practices. Revisions are proposed in synchronization with the recently adopted Zoning Ordinance Rewrite (ZOR).
Chapter 21 does not regulate special events that temporarily occupy roads (Chapter 12), sediment control and stormwater management facilities in right-of-way (Chapter 19), solid waste collection along curbs (Chapter 20), traffic, on-street parking, traffic control devices and signage (Chapter 23), or water and sewer (Chapter 24), though the codes often work in tandem, as they relate to public infrastructure or private improvements within rights-of-way and easements. Chapter 21 also does not regulate the driveways, drive aisles, or other vehicular surfaces on private property (Chapter 25), nor does it establish requirements for transportation adequacy (Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and regulations of the Comprehensive Transportation Review).
This report and July 27 worksession focus on the following key topics.
• Private Streets
• Private Improvements in Rights-of-Way
• Easements
• Primary Access
• Road Code Waivers
• Street Classifications
• Street Closings
Private Streets
The existing code is applicable to all City streets, but it is silent on the permissibility of privately owned and maintained streets. Newly added language will require all new streets to be public, except where specifically authorized to be private. Private streets will remain subject to the provisions of Chapter 21, including requirements to meet standards and specifications and obtain permits. Staff are proposing to codify the current practice to require a public access easement for all private streets.
Private streets create a burden on private HOAs due to their maintenance requirements such as snow removal and paving; create difficulty enforcing city standards like street trees and create inequity of tax-paying property owners. DPW current practice has been to only allow privately owned and maintained alleys where the use, and the HOA’s responsibility, of alleys can be limited.
Staff propose to codify the current practice for when a private street would be acceptable, limiting private streets with some flexibility for developers. Staff proposes allowing private streets for the following uses:
• Residential alleys,
• A government, higher education, military or similar type, non-residential campus,
• Two or more residential apartment buildings, and
• Within a mixed-use zone that does not, in the present or future, benefit the public with transportation network capacity, utility services, nor provide necessary access and circulation for residential uses
Private Improvements in Rights-of-Way
The code does not currently allow private improvements within City right-of-way unless granted an exception by the Director of Public Works. Current practice is to issue a permit and obtain a Right-of-Way Agreement from the Mayor and Council.
As the City urbanizes, developers are more frequently seeking to install private improvements in the right-of-way. This is particularly true in commercial business districts where buildings are not required to be setback from the right-of-way line. The types and examples of private improvements can vary greatly in terms of permanence, size, and impact. Examples of permanent private improvements include architectural elements such as awnings, balconies, or projecting wall signs; electric vehicle charging stations; and urban streetscape amenities and furnishings. Streetscape furnishings may include items such as bicycle racks, fences and rails, hardscaping, landscaping and plantings, amenity lighting, litter and recycling receptacles, outdoor dining and seating furniture, non-traffic signs, stormwater management facilities, underground structures and vaults.
Private improvements may be categorized as either temporary or permanent and may be proposed either through a development plan (i.e., a project plan, site plan, use permit, or amendment thereof) or standalone permit application. Temporary improvements are typically associated with private construction and maintenance activities, such as sheeting and shoring of a structure abutting the right-of-way or construction staging and laydown areas for space-constrained sites. The Department does not otherwise permit materials or equipment to be stored within the right-of-way.
Similar to Mayor and Council approval of EV charging stations in right-of-way and use of template agreements approved by the City Manager, staff propose to codify the approval of temporary improvements, awnings, signs, and Business District roads with balconies.
At the request of Mayor and Council for the 41 Maryland Avenue development, staff from the Departments of Public Works, Community Planning and Development Services, and Recreation and Parks carefully examined and developed recommendations of when balconies can be allowed in the right-of-way. Staff recommends allowing balcony encroachments in Business District streets under certain conditions, i.e., a ten-foot sidewalk where the projection does not exceed four feet past the property line. Staff believe this limitation will not impact street trees and other public infrastructure.
Given the more routine nature of these private improvements, staff recommends establishing administrative approval using template agreements, similar to EV charging stations.
Similarly, staff recommend establishing administrative approval with a template agreement for specified urban streetscape improvements (bicycle racks, fences and rails, hardscaping, landscaping and plantings, amenity lighting, litter and recycling receptacles, outdoor dining and seating furniture, stormwater management facilities, underground structures and vaults) within the right-of-way as shown on a development plan.
Easements
The Code doesn’t specify the process by which easements are approved, executed or abandoned. Staff proposes to codify current practice of bringing all easement abandonments to the Mayor and Council for approval. Staff proposes administrative approval for all other grant of easements and agreements.
An easement is a recorded grant or dedication by the owner of land for the use of all or a portion of such property to the public or others, for a specific purpose. An easement must be provided to the City where public infrastructure is proposed on private property and outside of right-of-way. Easements are routinely necessary for both private development and CIP work.
Current practice is to have Mayor and Council approve all bilateral easements and right-of-way agreements. Abandonment of existing easements releases a City’s interest or responsibility and is therefore recommended to require the approval of Mayor and Council.
DPW has worked with the Office of the City Attorney (OCA) to develop standard language and templates for the most common types of easements and agreements. By eliminating non-value-added stages from the current process, projects which require standard easements and agreements can be further streamlined in support of FAST initiatives.
Administrative approval is proposed for acceptance of easements and agreements for public access, infrastructure, improvements, stormwater management and stream improvements, and temporary construction as reviewed and approved by DPW and in a form approved by OCA.
Primary Access
Staff proposes to change the alley definition to allow its use for primary vehicular access, under certain conditions, and to establish a maximum length, up to 250 feet, where a lot is only accessible from an alley.
Chapter 21 currently defines an alley as a right-of-way that provides secondary access for vehicles to the side and/or rear of abutting properties. To align the provisions of Chapters 21 and 25 to allow primary access from an alley when residential units front a common open space, it is necessary to redefine an alley.
When the only vehicle access to a lot is via an alley, the alley must support all vehicular traffic that may have otherwise used an abutting street. Staff therefore recommends applying a maximum alley length of 250 feet and requiring a pedestrian connection from all lots to an intersecting public right-of-way, since alleys do not have sidewalks.
Additionally, the Code requires a road for any site with vehicular access leading to or connecting with two or more other record lots. To encourage housing density, staff propose to allow the use of shared private driveways to single-unit detached, townhome or multiplex units as envisioned by ZOR. A shared driveway that does not exceed 150 feet in length maintains fire department access requirements while avoiding the burden of greater street classification and dedication requirements for right-of-way.
Road Code Waivers
Currently, the code requires all roads to connect to other roads or end in a cul-de-sac. Staff propose to allow alternate layouts by either connecting to a public access easement (PAE) or ending in a turnaround area, such as a T or hammerhead. Administrative approval would allow a dead-end alley without a turnaround if less than 150 feet.
While cul-de-sacs suit suburban, single-family detached dwelling subdivisions built in past decades, the City’s landscape has shifted towards urban redevelopment and repurposing of existing and smaller sites, on which greater housing density is often sought. Dead-ends are generally not supported as a matter of preventing unsafe backward (i.e., reverse drive) vehicle movements. However, to accommodate the constraints of infill redevelopment, amendments to Ch. 21 would provide flexibility for alternative termination at an acceptable turnaround, e.g., a T or hammerhead area, or connection to private drive aisle or driveway with a PAE. Staff also proposes to codify administrative approval of dead-end residential alleys without a turnaround up to 150 feet. The proposed dead-end alley length was determined in coordination with fire department and refuse and recycling access requirements and would replace the Department’s current practice of allowing no more than four townhouse units to be sited on the dead-end.
Street Classification
Staff proposes administrative approval for road classification instead of the unique and lengthy process in the existing code. Additionally, staff proposes to create a new classification for emergency access drives because there currently is no classification or standard detail for them.
All public and private streets are functionally classified by Article IV of the Road Code and in coordination with adjacent land use and zoning, which is separately adopted by Mayor and Council with Comprehensive Map Amendments. Currently, where new or reconstructed streets are proposed, either by private development or capital improvement, they are directly associated with known land uses. Therefore, street classifications in the City are more routine and administrative in nature.
The process in the current code requires the Mayor and Council to make a recommendation to the City Manager, who produces a report back to the Mayor and Council, to hold a public meeting, and adopt a resolution. Aside from being entirely unique, this is not practical to development project schedules because the planning and design of any subdivision layout requires an early understanding of street widths and minimum requirements.
Staff therefore recommends administrative approval of street classifications in support of efficient and streamlined development.
Ideally, all neighborhoods would have at least two points of access, constructing new development adjacent existing neighborhoods often leads to resident concerns of traffic, as could be the case between Tower Oaks and New Mark Commons. While a few emergency access drives exist in the City, there currently is no classification or standard and the details have been established on a case-by-case basis. A standard roadway section detail will be developed in coordination with the Department of Public Works, Inspection Services, and Fire Marshal’s Office.
Street Closings
Staff proposes to clarify the street closing process which is ambiguous and creates overlapping responsibilities.
The process to temporarily close a City street, alley or sidewalk is most often at the request for private construction in or immediately adjacent to the right-of-way and through the issuance of a Public Works Permit and approval of a maintenance of traffic plan. If the temporary closure is related to a block party, parade, marathon or other scheduled event, a separate and distinct process to obtain a Public Events License is regulated by Chapter 12 and coordinated by and between the Department of Recreation and Parks and the Rockville City Police Department.
However, temporary closures for private construction use, e.g., storage of materials, or outdoor dining, is less clear in the code. The code establishes that the Mayor and Council may adopt a resolution to temporarily close public ways for a period of up to 18 months, but these closures are inherent in the Director of Public Works authority. For example, the temporary closure of roads to allow for outdoor dining areas within certain rights-of-way during the COVID-19 pandemic was permitted by the Director of Public Works.
Therefore, staff proposes for Mayor and Council to retain authority of permanent road closings and temporary closings longer than two years with a right-of-way agreement where the temporary closure is associated with private uses or improvements. Staff also recommends administrative approval of all other closings.
Comprehensive Transportation Review (CTR)
The Comprehensive Transportation Review (CTR) implements the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) for transportation and ensures development allows acceptable traffic flow adjacent to the site.
This report and July 27 worksession focus on the following key CTR topics:
• Capacity Mitigation
• Transportation Reports and Analyses
• Transportation Improvement Fee
On October 4, 2004, Rockville’s Mayor and Council adopted the first CTR and subsequently updated the regulations in August 2018. The CTR applies to new development, redevelopment, and specific change of use applications, and lists the transportation and mitigation requirements for those applications.
The purpose of updating the CTR is to simplify the document to policy level issues and separately publish guidelines, to streamline certain requirements for smaller development projects, and adjust thresholds for the Transportation Improvement Fees.
Capacity Mitigation
The current CTR requires capacity mitigation on any intersection that the development application proposes to add more than 10% capacity to that intersection, even if the intersection is projected to operate at acceptable thresholds with total traffic.
The proposed CTR eliminates the need to mitigate capacity for an intersection when the development is adding more than 10% capacity to that intersection but the projected level of service with total traffic is within acceptable thresholds.
Reports and Analyses
The current CTR requires that all applications, including those with less than 30 peak hour net trips, submit a Transportation Report. For developments generating less than 30 peak hour net trips, a limited on-site report is required to summarize site access, site frontage transportation features, and on-site parking, pedestrian and vehicular facilities.
The proposed CTR recommends the following changes to this requirement:
• Applications with 30 or less peak hour net trips and up to 50 total peak hour trips (prior to the reduction of any vested or credited trip - if applicable) are not required to submit an on-site report. Staff will continue to review, under requirements of Chapter 21 and Chapter 25, frontage and onsite multimodal access routes, etc.
• Applications with 30 or less peak hour net trips and more than 50 total peak hour trips (prior to the reduction of any vested or credited trip - if applicable) would be required to analyze two intersections closest to the subject site. The purpose of this analysis is to identify potential issues but will not be used to require capacity mitigation.
Transportation Improvement Fee (TIF)
The CTR currently requires all applicants adding 30 or more peak hour net trips to pay a Transportation Improvement Fee (TIF). The TIF is used by the City to fund multimodal improvements (e.g., bus shelters, sidewalk extensions, etc.), to provide transportation information and services to employers and commuters, to enhance transportation services for seniors and persons with disabilities, and to monitor employer Trip Reduction Plans to ensure compliance with trip reduction goals. The fee is not to be used to increase automobile capacity. Staff recommends lowering the threshold of trips from 30 to 10 peak hour net trips, or greater than 50 peak hour total trips, in order to more equitably collect contributions from small-scale developments or minor changes of use. Staff are not recommending a change to the fee established by the CTR resolution which is dependent on the size of development.
The proposed CTR recommends the following changes to these requirements:
• All applicants with more than 10 peak hour net trips, or 50 peak hour total trips (prior to the reduction of any vested or credited trip) are required to pay at occupancy the applicable TIF.
Mayor and Council History
This is the first time the Mayor and Council are considering these items.
Public Notification and Engagement
Staff will schedule a virtual public meeting in August 2026 to present proposed updates and to receive feedback from the development community and other stakeholders. Staff have scheduled a Public Hearing with Mayor and Council on October 26, 2026.
Boards and Commissions Review
Staff have scheduled a briefing with the Transportation and Mobility Commission for August 25, 2026. Members of the Rockville Bicycle Advocacy Committee and Rockville Pedestrian Advocacy Committee will also be invited to the joint meeting. Staff will return to the TMC, RPAC and RBAC on October 27, 2026, after the drafts are introduced.
Next Steps
Following this worksession, staff will draft amendments to Chapter 21 and the CTR incorporating Mayor and Council guidance. Both items are scheduled to be brought back before Mayor and Council for Introduction and Worksession on September 28, 2026. The Ordinance and Resolution are tentatively scheduled for adoption on December 7, 2026.