Planning Commission Staff Report
MEETING DATE: January 14, 2026
REPORT DATE: January 7, 2026
RESPONSIBLE STAFF: Holly Simmons/Jim Wasilak
SUBJECT:
title
Public Hearing and Work Session No. 1 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
end
BACKGROUND:
Project History
In 2023, the city began a comprehensive rewrite of the city’s Zoning Ordinance. This project, known as the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite, kicked off shortly after the adoption of the Rockville 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
On December 1, the Rockville Mayor and Council voted to authorize staff to file Staff’s recommended draft of the zoning text amendment to revise and replace the city’s Zoning Ordinance; and to file Staff’s recommended draft of the comprehensive map amendment to revise and replace the city’s zoning map. Commonly called “authorization to file,” this action began the formal adoption process.
In conjunction with the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite, the city’s zoning map will be updated through a Comprehensive Map Amendment that will implement the rezonings recommended in the Rockville 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The ZOR and CMA are undertaken concurrently but will be adopted separately, as a Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) and Comprehensive Map Amendment (CMA), respectively.
DISCUSSION:
January 14 Work Session
This work session is the first in a series of work sessions that the Planning Commission will hold during the adoption process prior to making a recommendation to Mayor and Council.
The topics for the Planning Commission’s adoption work sessions are derived from three sources: Mayor and Council members, Planning Commission members, and staff. The January 14 work session will cover the following topics:
Table 1. January 14 Work Session Topics
|
Topic |
Source |
|
Historic preservation (briefing) |
Planning Commission |
|
Comprehensive Map Amendment: Planning Area 12 (Tower Oaks) and Planning Area 10 (Montrose and North Farm) |
Mayor and Council |
|
• RMD-25 development standards |
Staff |
|
Parking and Loading |
Planning Commission |
|
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Division |
Planning Commission |
|
Amenity space |
Planning Commission |
Ultimately, the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the Mayor and Council.
Brief Book Materials
The following items are provided as attachments to this staff report:
• Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance Public Comment Digest (Attachment 1)
• Staff Draft Comprehensive Map Amendment Public Comment Digest (Attachment 2)
• Visualizing Density: Example Site Plans and Elevations (Attachment 3)
The following materials can be accessed via the project webpage, engagerockville.com/zoningrewrite <https://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
Historic Preservation
In 2023, the Rockville Historic District Commission, and subsequently the Rockville Mayor and Council, endorsed the 2023-2033 Historic Preservation Work Plan (HPWP) as an internal document designed to update and modernize Rockville’s preservation program. This document laid out 40 work items across six different themes. Work Item A within the HPWP called for making updates to the Zoning Ordinance to address the following:
• Streamline and clean up existing code;
• Prepare a zoning text amendment regarding the local designation process and local designation criteria;
• Prepare a zoning text amendment regarding administrative Certificate of Approvals;
• Develop a new section on delisting procedures;
• Prepare a zoning text amendment on parties of interest and required owner consent; and
• Prepare a zoning text amendment regarding demolition by neglect.
Since the HPWP was endorsed two years ago, the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite project has been flagged as the primary vehicle to make these updates.
The following bullet points outline the issues with our current code regarding historic preservation that have been flagged in the HPWP, followed by staff’s proposed revisions to solve these issues.
• Issue: Historic preservation regulations are currently located across several different articles of Chapter 25. As a result, there are many cross references to different articles, and it can be difficult for the user to follow along and understand all regulations regarding historic preservation
o Solution: Create a new article to house all regulations tied to historic preservation. This would make these regulations easy to find in one consolidated location.
• Issue: The Historic District Commission (HDC) utilizes nine criteria when evaluating a property for local historic designation. For a site to be locally designated, the site must display at least one of these criteria, as agreed to by the HDC and the Mayor and Council. These criteria are not codified in our Zoning Ordinance; instead, the code references outside documents where these criteria can be located.
o Solution: Create a new section codifying our nine designation criteria. This will be more user friendly and provide a stronger legal connection between the criteria and designation. Additionally, staff propose requiring that beyond meeting at least one of the designation criteria, the site must also display integrity to be designated. This would prevent a structure that may meet a designation criterion, but is in a severe state of disrepair, from being designated.
• Issue: There is currently a restriction that a Certificate of Approval (COA) application may not be submitted within one year of an identical Certificate of Approval application being submitted and denied by the HDC. The intent behind this is to prevent applicants from consistently submitting the same application repeatedly, hoping that it may eventually get approved. There is no limit, however, on consecutive Evaluations of Significance. This means that if the HDC or Mayor and Council deny an application for historic designation, an applicant may immediately file a new application, starting that process over. Conversely, this also means that every time there is a proposed demolition of a structure, it must undergo a full Evaluation of Significance, even if one was recently completed for the property.
o Solution: Add in a regulation that a site or structure may not be reviewed for potential historic designation if it was previously evaluated for historic significance in the preceding five years. The one exception to this rule is that the property owner may file one application for an Evaluation of Significance within the five-year period.
• Issue: Nearly any exterior alteration to a designated historic site is required to come before the Historic District Commission for review and approval prior to being implemented. There are very limited exceptions where staff can administratively approve work to historic properties; these exceptions are limited to fences, signs or diseased/hazardous trees. The requirement for all other alterations, even those that are minor in nature, to come before the HDC takes considerable staff time to review the application and write a staff report, and delays the property owner from making these enhancements to their property.
o Solution: Create a process whereby staff may administratively approve a Certificate of Approval (COA) for certain work deemed to be minor or common. COA applications must still be submitted, but in certain instances, staff could sign off on the COA without bringing the case to the full HDC. Staff propose that the following work may be administratively approved:
§ Construction of an accessory structure, such as a shed;
§ A minor alteration to plans already approved by the HDC;
§ Replacement of an existing driveway with different materials;
§ Installation or replacement of minor landscaping features;
§ Installation or replacement of exterior light fixtures;
§ Minor paving work, such as walkways or sidewalks;
§ Installation of storm doors and windows; or
§ Installation of utility meters or devices.
• Issue: There is no way to remove a property from the historic district overlay zone. As a result, structures that no longer exist and/or have lost all of their historic integrity must remain as designated historic sites, as there is no process to remove them.
o Solution: Create a process for removal from the historic district overlay zone if a site/structure has lost the physical characteristics that justified its designation, known as “delisting.” Delisting would only be allowed in very specific circumstances, and only the Mayor and Council or the property owner may file an application to remove the historic designation. The process for removing a site/structure from the historic district overlay zone would be similar to the process for designating a site as historic: it would require a review and recommendation by the Historic District Commission, the filing of a sectional map amendment, and Mayor and Council approval.
• Issue: Currently, anyone may file an application to nominate a property for historic designation. The applicant on the designation nomination does not need to be affiliated with the property in any way. In the past, third parties have filed applications for designation for properties they have no affiliation with.
o Solution: Revise the code so that only the property owner, Historic District Commission or Mayor and Council may file an application nominating a property for historic designation. If a third party is interested in seeing a site be designated, they should appeal to one of the aforementioned parties and petition one of those groups to file a nomination.
• Issue: Property owners are not required to consent to the designation of their property as historic. As a result, there have been properties that are designated against the wishes of the owner. Furthermore, the lack of a requirement for owner consent has been flagged by the HDC, Planning Commission and Mayor and Council as problematic during recent nominations.
o Solution: Revise the code to address property owner consent with historic designations. The initiation of a filing of a sectional map amendment will require the majority of the Historic District Commission to vote in the affirmative, unless the owner of the site or structure has opposed to the designation in writing, in which case the vote must be unanimous. This would establish a higher bar for those properties where the owner actively does not consent but would still allow designation to happen in a circumstance where a truly exceptional historic site/structure was at risk of being lost forever.
• Issue: The term “demolition by neglect” is defined in the Zoning Ordinance, but there are no other references to the term, and it cannot be enforced. Demolition by neglect of historic properties is defined as, “failure to maintain property, or any component thereof, located within a designated Historic District Zone so as to jeopardize the historic integrity of the property.”
o Solution: Revise the code to expressly prohibit demolition by neglect and allow a municipal infraction to be issued in cases of demolition by neglect.
The changes outlined above address the six work items in the HPWP tied to the Zoning Ordinance and calls for updates to the code to enhance Rockville’s preservation program. While doing this review and drafting a new historic preservation article, staff have made several other recommendations that are not tied to the HPWP, but staff believe should be implemented.
• Issue: All structures, regardless of age or condition, must undergo an evaluation of significance before they can be demolished. The results in extensive staff time spent researching property history and drafting reports to the HDC chronicling the property’s history. Additionally, requiring all proposed demolitions to come before the HDC for a full Evaluation of Significance adds time and an additional barrier onto the redevelopment process. In many cases, it is clear to staff early on that the property does not meet any of the nine designation criteria, yet a full report and vote of the HDC is still required. For context, in Fiscal Year 2025 nearly 40% of the HDC’s cases were Evaluations of Significance for the purpose of demolition. In Fiscal Year 2024, 50% of the HDC’s cases were Evaluations of Significance for the purpose of demolition.
o Solution: Evaluation of Significance applications will still be required to be submitted for all proposed demolitions but must only come to the HDC if the structure is located within a historic district, is identified in the Historic Building Catalog, or is determined by staff to potentially meet at least one of the designation criteria. In other cases, staff will review the application and property history and can administratively sign off on the Evaluation of Significance when it is clear that the property does not meet any of our designation criteria or does not display integrity.
• Issue: Certificates of Approval expire one year from the date that they were approved. It is not uncommon for COAs to expire before the applicant has completed the work, requiring them to stop and receive a new COA before continuing.
o Solution: Extend the expiration date for Certificates of Approval from one year to five years. This would allow the applicant more time to make their improvements, especially amidst a changing economic climate, and put COA approval timeframes in line with other approvals issued by CPDS.
• Issue: Rockville is a Certified Local Government (CLG) by the National Park Service. This means that we have committed to upholding certain standards and practices in our preservation program. Our CLG Agreement requires that HDC Commissioners hold certain qualifications to be eligible for their roles, but these qualifications are not listed anywhere in our code.
o Solution: In the section of our code that authorizes and gives powers to Approving Authorities, add in the required qualifications for Historic District Commissioners per our CLG Agreement.
• Issue: Our current code provides a list of reference documents that can be consulted for design review during the Certificate of Approval process by the HDC. One of these documents is from 1977, and as such is outdated and no longer reflects the diversity that exists within Rockville’s historic districts.
o Solution: Remove Adopted Architectural Design Guidelines for the Exterior Rehabilitation of Buildings in Rockville’s Historic Districts (1977) from the list of documents to consider when reviewing design for Certificate of Approvals.
The Historic District Commission reviewed all of these proposed changes and provided feedback to staff at their July 17, 2025, meeting. The Commission was overwhelmingly positive about these changes and endorsed them. The Mayor and Council were presented these proposed revisions at their meeting on October 6, 2025. Like the Historic District Commission, the Mayor and Council was largely in favor of these revisions. The only modification requested by the Mayor and Council was to alter staff’s original proposal for owner consent in the historic designation process.
The proposal presented to the Mayor and Council in October stated that if the property owner consents, in writing, to the nomination, a majority vote of the HDC is required to file a sectional map amendment and a majority vote of the Mayor and Council is required to rezone the property to the Historic District Overlay Zone. If the property owner does not consent to designation, or is silent on the matter, a unanimous vote of the HDC and Mayor and Council would be required.
The Mayor and Council did not feel that a property owner failing to provide comment on a proposed designation should carry the same weight as a circumstance where the property owner actively opposed designation. As a result, the staff draft of the Zoning Ordinance revises these requirements so that if the owner consents to or is silent on the proposed designation, a majority vote is required. If the owner does not consent to designation, a unanimous vote is required.
Comprehensive Map Amendment: Planning Area 12 (Tower Oaks) and Planning Area 10 (Montrose and North Farm)
The Rockville 2040 Comprehensive Plan includes recommendations to rezone certain properties that are intended to implement the goals and objectives for land use outlined in the Plan. These recommended rezonings underwent an extensive public engagement process during the Comprehensive Plan, and further targeted engagement has occurred with this project.
During the development of the draft Zoning Ordinance and CMA, staff reviewed the recommendations for rezoning with the Mayor and Council and Planning Commission at work sessions. The Staff Draft Zoning Map reflects these discussions.
It should be noted that Maryland courts have affirmed that the Land Use Article requires that zoning regulations, subdivision regulations, and similar statutes must “further, and not be contrary to” provisions of the jurisdiction’s comprehensive plan that implement visions set out in Land Use Article Section 1-201 as well as the elements of the plan addressing development regulations and sensitive areas. This includes the Plan’s zoning recommendations. As such, a significant effort of the ongoing project is to rezone properties as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan through a Comprehensive Map Amendment (CMA).
At their December 1 meeting, Mayor and Council identified two recommended rezonings for further discussion during the adoption process. The sections below highlight these recommended rezonings. While elements of this information have been provided in past staff reports, some information is new or updated.
Planning Area 12 (Tower Oaks)
Figure 1. Property Proposed to be Rezoned - Planning Area 12
Background: Adjacent to the New Mark Commons neighborhood is a 9.75-acre property that is zoned R-90 and is currently undeveloped. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the Mayor and Council “Rezone the northern parcel from R-90 (Single Unit Detached Dwelling, Restricted Residential) to RMD-25 (Residential Medium Density)” (Rockville 2040 Comprehensive Plan, 368). The current R-90 Zone permits single-unit detached dwellings on lots of 9,000 SF minimum. The RMD-25 Zone would permit additional residential unit types at a maximum density of 25 units per acre. Staff notes that the Plan recommendation affords maximum flexibility to achieve residential development of the property, although there are significant site constraints.
Staff conducted outreach to New Mark Commons residents, who have expressed a number of concerns related to the potential development of the property, including that it may increase traffic, impact existing wetlands, or be out of character with the adjacent neighborhood; and an ad hoc residents group has formed and circulated a petition. The New Mark Commons Board of Directors also submitted comments stating that the board has discussed the rezoning proposal and established no position on the matter. Comments are located in Attachment 2 - Staff Draft Comprehensive Map Amendment Public Comment Digest.
Conclusion: Mayor and Council have requested consideration of an alternate proposal for the property (e.g., rezoning to RMD-10, RMD-15, or the Mixed Use Transition (MXT) zones); however, the wording of this specific Comprehensive Plan recommendation does not provide flexibility for alternate interpretations or proposals. The proposed rezoning is consistent with adopted policy and the broader city goals of increasing housing opportunities. The RMD-25 Zone will also allow greater density and eliminate minimum lot size requirements, enabling development to be clustered in ways that can minimize environmental impacts and enhance the protection of sensitive natural features.
The following table, which includes high-level information related to three recent development projects, is intended to assist in visualizing 25 dwelling unit per acre density. Site plans and elevations for each project are included in Attachment 3 - Visualizing Density: Example Site Plans and Elevations.
Table . Visualizing Density - 25 Dwelling Units Per Acre (DU/acre)
|
Development |
Zone; Max Height |
Density |
Development Pattern |
|
Farmstead (King Buick) |
MXCD; 75 feet |
18.18 DU/acre |
Townhouses and 2-over-2s |
|
5906 Halpine Rd |
MXNC; 45 feet |
23.84 DU/acre |
2-over-2s |
|
Northside (Potomac Woods) |
MXCD; 75 feet |
31.03 DU/acre |
Townhouses and multifamily |
Finally, as noted above, Maryland courts have affirmed that the Land Use Article requires that zoning regulations, subdivision regulations, and similar statutes must “further, and not be contrary to” provisions of the jurisdiction’s comprehensive plan that implement visions set out in Land Use Article Section 1-201 as well as the elements of the plan addressing development regulations and sensitive areas.
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Comprehensive Plan’s recommended zone (RMD-25) for the property. The Planning Commission may consider revisions to the RMD-25 Zone development standards to address compatibility concerns (see page 10 of this staff report).
Alternate option: The Planning Commission may recommend not adopting the Comprehensive Plan’s recommended zone (RMD-25) for the property at this time and the R-90 Zone would remain in place.
Planning Area 10 (Montrose and North Farm)
Background: The Plan also recommends rezoning a portion of Planning Area 10 (Montrose and North Farm). The area is currently zoned RMD-25 with one parcel zoned R-75 and contains existing apartment communities known as the Rollins Park Apartments and Congressional Towers. The Plan recommends:
“Rezone the strip of land along the west side of East Jefferson Street, designated as CRM in the Land Use Policy Map, from RMD-25 (Residential Medium Density) to MXCT (Mixed-Use Corridor Transition), to allow for redevelopment with a mix of commercial and residential uses. […] A new, higher-density residential zone, limited to residential uses, is appropriate for the remainder of the site to permit new investment and upgrades, though it should not result in resident displacement (See also Policy 4 of the Land Use Element) [emphasis added]” (p. 356).
While the Plan recommends MXCT for the strip of land along the west side of East Jefferson Street specifically, the recommendation of a “new, higher-density residential zone” for the bulk of the area offers more flexibility. Following community engagement and staff consideration, a new, high-density residential zone was developed for this location, to be known as the RHD (Residential High Density) Zone. This original proposal is included in the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance.
Written testimony provided by the property owner's attorney has indicated that the recommended residential density for the proposed RHD Zone would not be sufficient to spur redevelopment of the property in accordance with the Rockville 2040 Plan recommendations. Staff subsequently consulted with the owners as to what level of density would allow for redevelopment to be economically feasible and have outlined an alternate proposal that is intended to meet the Plan recommendations while taking into account feedback received from the community.
The alternate proposal would entail changes to both the Staff Draft Comprehensive Map Amendment and the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance. Maps showing the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance proposal for the RHD zone and the alternate proposal for the RHD zone are shown below. Tables comparing the development standards for the two proposals are also included.
Staff has not yet conducted outreach to the Planning Area 10/Montrose community related to the alternate proposal. If supported during the January 14 work session, staff will engage with the community, so the Commission receives their input. .
Figure 2. Staff Draft CMA Proposal
Figure 3. Alternative Proposal
Table . RHD Development Standards Alternatives
|
Standard |
Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance Proposal |
Alternative Proposal |
|
Density (Max.) |
50 dwelling units/acre |
100 dwelling units/acre |
|
Bonus Density (Max.) |
30% increase in allowable dwelling units per acre |
30% increase in allowable dwelling units per acre |
|
Lot Size (min) |
N/A |
N/A |
|
Lot Frontage (Min.) |
10 ft. |
10 ft. |
|
Front Setback (Min.) |
25 ft. when abutting or confronting a lot zoned for and developed with single-unit residential uses 10 ft. in all other locations |
25 ft. when abutting or confronting a lot zoned for and developed with single-unit residential uses 10 ft. in all other locations |
|
Side Setback |
10 ft. |
10 ft. |
|
Rear Setback (Min.) |
10 ft. |
10 ft. |
|
Building Height (Max.) |
75 ft. |
150 ft. |
|
Transition Height |
When abutting or confronting a lot zoned for and developed with single-unit residential uses, buildings are limited to a max. height of 45 ft. within 100 ft. of the property line. |
N/A |
RMD-25 Zone Development Standards
The RMD-25 Zone development standards are one final item for consideration in the discussion of both the Planning Area 12 and Planning Area 10 proposed rezonings. The Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance proposes to update and modernize the standards of the RMD-25 zone, including replacing antiquated setback requirements with height transitions consistent with those proposed for the mixed-use zones and reducing the minimum site area to address existing nonconformities. Please note that the RMD-25 Zone standards impact not only the subject properties, but all properties zoned RMD-25.
Recommendation: Staff recommends all Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance standards, except that the front setback should be an amended version of the Current Zoning Ordinance standard, as follows:
“Where the property abuts or confronts single-unit detached dwellings, 25 ft. from a public street or property boundary, plus 3 ft. for each 1 foot of building height above 45 ft.”
Alternate option: Planning Commission may recommend retaining the development standards contained in the current Zoning Ordinance, in whole or in part. (This would not apply to the Staff Draft maximum bonus density, which is required by State law.)
Table . RMD-25 Development Standards
|
Standard |
Current Zoning Ordinance |
Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance |
|
Density (Max.) |
25 DU/acre |
25 DU/acre |
|
Bonus Density (Max.) |
N/A |
30% increase in allowable dwelling units per acre [Note: This applies only as outlined under the Maryland Housing Expansion and Affordability Act.] |
|
Site Area (Min.) |
2 acres |
0.75 acres |
|
Lot Frontage (Min.) |
100 ft. |
100 ft. |
|
Front Setback |
25 ft. from a public street or tract boundary, plus 3 ft. for each 1 foot of building height above 45 ft. Main buildings must be set back from each other ½ the height of the building, plus 3 feet for each 1 foot of building height above 45 feet. |
25 ft. |
|
Side Setback |
10 ft. or one-half the height of the building, whichever is greater. |
8 ft. for townhouse, multiplex, small apartment buildings, and cottage courts 10 ft. for apartments of seven or more units |
|
Rear Setback (Min.) |
15 ft. or one-half the height of the building, whichever is greater |
25 ft. |
|
I-270 Setback (Min.) |
N/A |
50 ft. |
|
Building Height (Max.) |
75 ft. |
75 ft. |
|
Transition Height |
See front, side, and rear setback standards, above |
Subject to the mixed use massing and height transitions of draft Sec. 25.7.3.81 |
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Division
Planning Commission members identified the new Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Division (draft Division 8.3) as an area of interest. In the current Zoning Ordinance, bicycle and pedestrian facilities requirements are addressed in various locations in the Zoning Ordinance, most notably the Parking and Loading Article and the Mixed-Use Zones Article. The Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance relocates relevant requirements to one location for ease of use and transparency.
To further Vision Zero, the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance also includes the following changes to bicycle and pedestrian requirements:
• Require bicycle parking for both principal and accessory uses. In the current Zoning Ordinance, bicycle parking requirements are calculated only for the principal use on a site, unlike vehicular parking requirements, which are calculated for all uses on a development site. The Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance requires bicycle parking for all uses on a site, principal and accessory.
• Update and right-size minimum bicycle parking requirements for individual uses. The consultant team performed a comprehensive review and update to both the short- and long-term bicycle parking requirements to align with best practices.
• Clarify bicycle parking location requirements. Bicycle parking requirements are simplified, and location requirements no longer vary by different development patterns (e.g., “buildings having one entrance;” “buildings having more than one entrance;” “multiple buildings or entries within a campus setting;” and “sites with more than one primary building, with exception to an institutional campus”).
• Add new design standards for short-term bicycle parking. Short-term bicycle parking design standards were developed in coordination with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator. These include requirements for support, locking, and materials.
• Ensure flexibility by allowing applicants to seek a waiver from requirements.
Following the release of the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance, staff identified potential enhancements for the long-term bicycle parking requirements, though no specific changes are proposed at this time. If changes are identified after the January 14 work session, staff will update the Commission at a later work session.
Parking and Loading
The Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance modernizes parking and loading standards to align with transit accessibility, sustainability goals, and evolving mobility patterns. The updates generally introduce flexibility to encourage more efficient land use and multimodal access while introducing new provisions for electric vehicles, pedestrian safety, and sustainable infrastructure such as solar canopies. New/increased standards for pick-up/drop-off and commercial loading have also been added to address staff-identified issues. During the August 13 Planning Commission work session, greater detail on the regulatory context was provided and preliminary changes were discussed.
Key changes are as follows:
• Eliminate minimum parking requirements within ½ mile of Metro or ¼ mile of Bus Rapid transit. Eliminating parking minimums as described is anticipated to encourage transit use, reduce housing costs, allow for more density and associated walkability, and increase equity.2 The policy is also consistent with Montgomery County’s parking regulations and would expand citywide the application of the policy adopted by Mayor and Council through the Town Center Master Plan for areas within Town Center. Finally, it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s housing, transportation, and climate goals. No additional ADA parking is proposed to be required.
• Right-size minimum parking requirements for individual uses. The consultant team reviewed and updated the parking table to a) align with best practices, and b) base minimum requirements on objective unit measures that are knowable at the time of entitlement. Unit measures such as “number of employees” or “number of work vehicles” were generally replaced by gross floor area.
• Update minimum parking requirements by:
o Revising how/when minimum parking requirements apply, to increase flexibility. CPDS, DPW, and DHCD staff coordinated updates to the provisions that describe when the minimum parking standards apply, with the goal of introducing flexibility for redevelopment projects where minimum parking requirements are proposed to increase by a limited amount.
o Providing by-right ‘adjustments’ to required parking ratios to support city goals and policies, similar to Montgomery County. To account for conditions not addressed through the minimum parking requirements and to align with city goals and policies related to EV parking, affordable housing, and Vision Zero, the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance introduces by-right adjustments, as outlined below. Because the proposed adjustments are by-right, they will also reduce uncertainty and risk for developers to a certain degree.3
§ EV parking. The Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance proposes that each EV parking space would be equal to two required parking spaces, for up to 10% of the required parking spaces. This would align with recommendations of the EV Readiness Plan, allowing flexibility for the retrofit of existing parking spaces to EV accessible spaces (which typically require the conversion of one parking space to an access aisle), and incentivizing the development of EV spaces.
§ MPDU apartments. The Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance allows the parking requirement for MPDU apartment dwelling units to be reduced by 50% to lessen the cost of developing MPDU units. This would be more consistent with Montgomery County’s requirements (which allow a 50% parking reduction for all MPDU units) but limit the reduction to products where parking is typically provided in a common area, resulting in an equitable outcome.
§ Bicycle commuter facilities. The Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance allows parking requirements to be reduced by 10% for developments that provide additional enclosed (indoor and locker) and secure bicycle parking spaces equal to at least five percent of the number of vehicle parking spaces provided; and shower and dressing areas for employees.
§ Pick-up/Drop-off (PUDO). The Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance allows one on-site PUDO space located near an entrance be equal to two required parking spaces. This is intended to assist with curbside management and pedestrian safety by encouraging the development of rideshare/delivery spaces in convenient locations, outside of the flow of traffic.
o Outlining a new process for requesting reductions to the required parking ratios. Where a developer seeks to construct parking spaces below the minimum, the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance allows the Approving Authority to permit such requests if they are justified by a parking demand analysis demonstrating that the minimum required parking for the proposed development exceeds the practical demand for the proposed uses. The Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance also proposes a de minimus reduction of up to 10% without a parking demand analysis. This proposal would allow a path for all projects to seek a parking reduction based on demand, or to make use of the low de minimus threshold and would be approved in conjunction with the development application.
o Allowing greater flexibility in shared parking ratios, consistent with Montgomery County. The ZOR proposes to replace the Zoning Ordinance’s current shared parking model, which was developed for the 2009 update, with the Urban Land Institute’s (ULI) Shared Parking model.4 ULI’s model is updated periodically (most recently in 2020) and is considered an industry standard. It is also used by Montgomery County and is considered user-friendly by the applicants that CPDS staff consulted with.
o Removing provisions allowing for the deferral of providing required parking. These requirements are underutilized even with the current minimum parking requirements.
• Loosen maximum parking requirements, while expanding the zones in which they apply. Capping the number of parking spaces allowed on a lot promotes efficient land use and supports sustainable development patterns. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance includes parking maximums only for the MXTD and the MXCD; however, these maximum requirements are extremely inflexible, as the minimum required parking amounts also serve as the maximum allowed parking. The Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance builds flexibility into the standard, raising the maximum to 125% of the minimum parking requirement, while also instituting maximum parking requirements for all MX zones, all I zones, and the RHD, RMD-25, RMD-15, and RMD-10. The proposed parking maximums work in conjunction with the proposed reduction in parking minimums. Reducing the minimum number of parking spaces required for a use will give developers the option to reduce the number of parking spaces on a lot; adding parking maximums will serve to control the overdevelopment of parking. Where a developer seeks to construct parking spaces above the maximum, the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance allows the Approving Authority to permit such requests if they are justified by a parking demand analysis. This process provides flexibility while ensuring that large parking lots provide only the parking necessary for the reasonable operation of the use.
The following table, prepared by the consultant team, compares the parking maximums in the proposed Zoning Ordinance to similar regulations in other cities.
Table 5. Comparison of Maximum Parking Requirements
|
City |
Maximum Threshold |
Adjustment Mechanism |
Code Section |
|
Rockville, MD: Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance |
125 % of minimum |
Approving Authority approval of a parking demand study. |
Draft Sec. 25.8.2.6. |
|
Washington, D.C. |
100,000 sq. ft. |
BZA approval of transportation demand plan and special exception. |
Subtitle C, Section 706 <https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/washington-dc/doc-viewer.aspx> |
|
Roanoke, VA |
150% of minimum if 50 spaces or less |
BZA approval subject to peak parking demand. |
Sec. 36.2-653. <https://library.municode.com/va/roanoke/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CORO1979_CH36.2ZO_ART6DEST_DIV5PALO_S36.2-653MAPA> |
|
|
140% of minimum if more than 50 spaces |
|
|
|
Gaithersburg, MD |
110% of minimum for commercial uses |
Planning Commission approval subject to traffic demand. |
Sec.24-7.2. <https://library.municode.com/md/gaithersburg/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH24ZO_ART7OREPALO_S24-7.2PARE> |
• Re-introduce compact parking spaces as an allowable parking space type. These were previously eliminated with the 2009 update to the Zoning Ordinance.
• Introduce new minimum requirements for pick-up/drop-off spaces and loading spaces, and clarify existing requirements for stacking spaces. DPW staff have identified an increasing demand for pick-up/drop-off (PUDO) activity associated with deliveries and rideshare services, particularly in multifamily developments. Addressing this demand is an emerging practice in zoning and street design, with jurisdictions taking varying approaches that place PUDO spaces either on-site, within the public right-of-way, or through a combination of both. DPW, DHCD, and CPDS staff coordinated to develop draft standards intended to proactively manage PUDO activity and reduce operational and safety impacts.
The Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance establishes minimum PUDO space requirements for developments with 20 or more apartment units, with higher ratios applied to projects with little or no on-site parking. The draft prioritizes on-site provision, allows limited off-site options, and permits the use of the public right-of-way where other locations are not feasible. Design standards and signage requirements are included to ensure visibility, accessibility, and short-term use. The draft also provides flexibility by allowing the Approving Authority to reduce or waive PUDO requirements where an alternative design can demonstrate safe and efficient accommodation of pick-up and drop-off activity.
Quantitative loading space requirements were also added, to clarify when one or more loading spaces are required for different uses.
• Introduces new standards for electric vehicle parking spaces and EVSE to complement the requirements in the Building Code (Chapter 5).
• Introduces new requirements for pedestrian visibility where sidewalks intersect driveways.
• Allow solar canopies over parking spaces. Parking lot solar canopies are not addressed in the current Zoning Ordinance. The Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance creates a regulatory framework to allow parking lot solar canopies, including how these structures relate to landscaping requirements.
Amenity space
The current Zoning Ordinance requires private developments to provide a specific amount of open area or, in certain cases, “public use space.” Where public use space is required, it is treated as a subset of open space, with any public use space provided counting toward the open space requirement as well. Public use space is intended “to promote an appropriate balance between the built environment, public parks and other open spaces intended for respite from urban development, and to protect natural features and preserve the character of the City”; however, both requirements are currently defined very broadly, and the current Zoning Ordinance does not always ensure that the open space or public use space provided by developments in the City is high quality.
As discussed during the October 8 Planning Commission work session, the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance transitions from broadly defined “public use space” to “amenity space,” which is defined to include only high-quality space with amenities, including those for both passive and active uses.
In addition to this restructuring, substantive changes are as follows:
• Require amenity space for residential and mixed-use projects in the mixed-use zones, residential medium density zones, and Residential High Density zone, except when the project:
o Consists of five or fewer dwelling units
o Is a non-residential use with a gross floor area of 20,000 square feet or smaller
o Is on a site of one acre or less in the MXTD-235, MXTD-200, and MXTD-85 or 20,000 square feet in any other zone. The MXTD zones are intended to be the city’s most walkable and transit-oriented zones.
o Is a 100 percent affordable residential development located within ¼ mile of a public park or publicly accessible amenity space
Community Planning and Development Services, Recreation, and Housing and Community Development staff reviewed and updated exemptions. The current Zoning Ordinance exempts all affordable housing projects, as well as projects that consist of Housing for Senior Adults and Persons with Disabilities. The Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance does not propose continuing these two exemptions, due to concerns regarding the equitable provision of recreation and amenity space for all Rockville residents.
• Establish certain design and configuration requirements for amenity space, including continuing to require that the space be publicly accessible except in certain circumstances.
• Allow flexibility in the MXTD for 50 percent of the required amenity space to be accessible only to residents of the development, such as on a rooftop. In these areas, the Plan prioritizes density, land is generally at a premium, and providing meaningful, contiguous, amenitized space may be difficult.
• Allow amenity space requirements to be met through dedication of land to the city, fee-in-lieu, or alternative compliance.
Next Steps
Staff have developed a working schedule for the three Planning Commission work sessions. As noted earlier in this staff report, the schedule is comprised of topics identified by Mayor and Council members, Planning Commissioners, and staff.
Table 6. Planning Commission Work Sessions Working Schedule
|
Planning Commission Meeting |
Topics |
Source |
|
January 14, 2026 Adoption work session #1 |
Historic preservation (briefing) |
Planning Commission |
|
|
Comprehensive Map Amendment: Planning Area 12 (Tower Oaks) and Planning Area 10 (Montrose and North Farm) |
Mayor and Council |
|
|
• RMD-25 development standards |
Staff |
|
|
Parking, including minimums, maximums, by-right adjustments |
Planning Commission |
|
|
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Division |
Planning Commission |
|
|
Amenity space |
Planning Commission |
|
January 28, 2026 Adoption work session #2 |
Fencing, including deer mesh |
Mayor and Council |
|
|
Use standards |
--- |
|
|
• Use-based gross floor area restrictions |
Mayor and Council |
|
|
• ADU standards |
Mayor and Council |
|
|
• Group home standards |
Staff |
|
|
• Front loaded TH standards |
Staff |
|
|
• Adult-oriented Establishment and Shoot Galleries location requirements |
Mayor and Council |
|
|
• EV and solar canopies |
Mayor and Council |
|
|
Nonconformities |
Mayor and Council |
|
|
Park Zone |
Staff |
|
February 11, 2026 Adoption work session #3 |
Development standards, specifically: |
--- |
|
|
o Bonus density (specifically, how to achieve it) |
Planning Commission |
|
|
o Established setbacks |
Staff |
|
|
o Accessory structure setbacks |
Staff |
|
|
Development review processes, including: |
--- |
|
|
o Zoning Ordinance/Development Review Manual relationship |
Staff |
|
|
o Notification requirements |
Mayor and Council |
|
|
o Length of time for submitting appeals |
Mayor and Council |
|
|
o Public outreach for administrative decisions (how to make sure public is sufficiently informed) |
Planning Commission |
|
|
Signs |
Staff |
|
|
Any necessary clean-up |
--- |