City of Rockville - File #: 25-1795

• File #: 25-1795
• Type: Worksession
• Status: Agenda Ready
• File created: 7/16/2025
• In control: Mayor and Council
• On agenda: 8/4/2025
• Title: Fourth Work Session on the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite (ZOR): Uses, Parking, and Planning Commission Work Session Updates on FAST Development Review Process Recommendations

Subject

title

Fourth Work Session on the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite (ZOR): Uses, Parking, and Planning Commission Work Session Updates on FAST Development Review Process Recommendations

end

Department

CPDS - Zoning Review & Other

Recommendation

Staff recommend that the Mayor and Council hold a work session to discuss and provide direction on the ongoing Zoning Ordinance Rewrite and Comprehensive Map Amendment.

Change in Law or Policy  

The adoption of the new Comprehensive Zoning Map will replace the existing zoning map in its entirety. The adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance will replace the existing Zoning Ordinance in its entirety.

Discussion

Background 

The city is undertaking a comprehensive rewrite of the city’s Zoning Ordinance to modernize this chapter of the city code so that it better accommodates the changing living, working, and recreation trends of the 21st century. In conjunction with the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite, the city’s zoning map will be updated through a Comprehensive Map Amendment (CMA) that will implement the rezonings recommended in the Rockville 2040 Comprehensive Plan.

The following objectives have been identified for the project:

•                     Implement many of the recommended land use actions identified in the Rockville 2040 Comprehensive Plan, including implementing the Plan’s zoning recommendations.

•                     Accomplish goals from the city’s ongoing FAST Initiative, making the development review and permitting process Faster, Accountable, Smarter, and Transparent.

•                     Incorporate planning and zoning best practices that have become common in the field of urban planning and in other similarly situated communities.

•                     Incorporate the city’s commitment to equity, resilience, and sustainability, as described in the 2021 Mayor and Council social justice resolution and the 2022 Climate Action Plan.

•                     Ensure compliance with current federal and state regulations.

•                     Create a modern ordinance that can accommodate the changing living, working, and lifestyles of the 21st century.

•                     Create a user-friendly, accessible, and well-organized document that provides appropriate graphics and information to aid in its understanding.

The August 4 work session is intended to focus on the following elements of the ongoing Zoning Ordinance Rewrite and Comprehensive Map Amendment project:

•                     Uses (including the FAST 2 objective to transition certain Special Exception uses to Conditional uses)

•                     Parking

•                     Development review process (PC recommendations from the April 23rd and June 11th work sessions)

Prior to the planned Authorization to file the zoning text amendment and comprehensive map amendment applications on December 1, 2025, one more topical work session is scheduled for September 15 (a review of remaining topics, including public use space requirements, historic preservation, and signs, among others).

Uses

Use regulations overview

Regulating uses (i.e., legally identifying where different activities, such as residential, commercial, or industrial activities, can be located within the City and the conditions under which they may persist) is one of the primary functions of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Each zone within the city permits certain uses while prohibiting or restricting others through use permissions. Use permissions define whether a use is allowed in each zoning district and generally answer the question, “Can this use occur here?” Rockville’s Zoning Ordinance includes four use permissions:

•                     Permitted use: a use of land permitted by right anywhere within the zone

•                     Conditional use: a use that is permitted in a zone, but which must comply with specified conditions that may limit some aspect of that use (staff decision)

•                     Special exception use: a specific use that would not be appropriate generally or without restriction and must be based upon a finding that certain conditions exist, that the use conforms to the plan, and that the use is compatible with the existing neighborhood (Board of Appeals decision)

•                     Prohibited use: a use of land or building not permitted anywhere within the zone, either by right or by special exception

In the current Zoning Ordinance, the array of land uses anticipated in the city is arranged in matrices called use tables, with one of the four use permissions assigned to each use in each zone, as follows:

•                     Permitted use: P

•                     Conditional use: C

•                     Special exception use: S

•                     Prohibited use: Blank

In addition to use permissions, uses are regulated by use standards, which are specific conditions or requirements that a particular use must comply with. Use permissions answer the question, “How can this use occur here?” For example, Funeral Homes may provide cremation services only when the use was established prior to (and has been continually operating since) March 16, 2009; and Auction and Commercial Galleries in the lower-density mixed-use zones (MXNC, MXC, and MXT) are limited to 2,500 sf gross floor area (GFA). A given use may have generally applicable use standards, which it must comply with regardless of the zone in which it is located, or it may have use standards that are zone-specific and tailored to ensure the use conforms to the purpose of the zone.

Finally, uses regulations are described by use definitions. Use definitions provide a legal explanation of what each land use is, distinguishing between similar land uses, and clarifying what types of activities are included (or excluded) from certain land use. Clear and exact use definitions can help reduce confusion and ensure consistent interpretation and application of use permissions and use standards across different projects and zones. For reference, all current use definitions can be found in Sec. 25.03.02, Words and Terms Defined.

Modernizing the use table(s)

The Zoning Ordinance currently contains four use tables; one each for single-unit residential zones (located at Sec. 25.10.03), residential medium density zones (Sec. 25.11.03), industrial zones (Sec. 25.12.03), mixed-use zones (Sec. 25.13.03), and the Park zone (Sec. 25.14.06). The Zoning Ordinance Rewrite proposes several changes to the use tables to simplify and modernize them, increase their accessibility and equity, and increase flexibility for business owners. General recommendations are outlined below.

Transitioning to one unified use table. The Zoning Ordinance Rewrite proposes to include one comprehensive list of uses in a single, unified use table to increase accessibility, transparency, and consistency. Currently, the City’s Zoning Ordinance contains multiple use tables dispersed throughout various articles (identified above). To gain a complete understanding of which zones would accommodate a specific use, one needs to reference multiple sections of the Zoning Ordinance. This can cause difficulty for code users, particularly business owners or prospective buyers trying to determine where to locate or invest in the City.

Additionally, the various use tables are inconsistent with one another, both in terms of the uses they include (e.g., the “Live/work unit” use appears in the mixed-use zones and industrial zones use tables, but not in the single-unit residential zones or residential medium density zones use tables) and the specific language used (e.g., the mixed-use zones table includes the use “Veterinary office and/or animal hospital”, while the industrial zones table includes the use “Veterinary office and animal hospital” [emphasis added]). Listing all uses in one table will eliminate these inconsistencies, thereby aiding understanding and interpretation.

Ensuring use terms are clear and current and that every use is defined. Currently, many uses included in the use tables are outdated or their meaning is unclear, and many lack definitions. This can lead to inconsistency in the interpretation and application of the regulations and create difficulty for business owners and applicants trying to understand which use and associated regulations apply to their businesses or development projects. To address this issue, the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite proposes to 1) revise uses to ensure they are clear and up-to-date and 2) define all use terms included in the table. For example, the use ‘Alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises,’ which lacks clear meaning and is not defined in the Zoning Ordinance, will be revised to the clearer ‘Alcoholic beverage retail establishment’ and defined as an “establishment serving as a point of sale of beer, wine, or liquor in sealed packages or containers that may not be opened or consumed on the premises where sold.” Staff and consultants are also reviewing definitions for all use terms to ensure clarity and accuracy, to eliminate overlap between uses, and to ensure that definitions do not include regulations.

One notable change to use definitions would change the policy regarding home-based businesses. Staff recommend that the city definitions mirror those of Montgomery County, so that there will be three categories, including No Impact, Low Impact, and Major home-based businesses. A no impact home-based business would have no non-resident employees or other visits coming to the site, excepting deliveries. An example might be a resident that operates an office use out of the home, with most of the business occurring online. A low impact home-based business would be allowed to have non-resident employees and a minimal amount of additional vehicle trips to the site. An example of this would be an attorney or similar practitioner working out of their home with occasional client visits. A Major home-based business would be allowed to have non-resident employees and to have regular client or customer visits throughout the day. An example of this would be a medical or dental practice or a similar practitioner having a full day of client visits. This requires Conditional Use approval as recommended, rather than special exception approval. Ultimately, the Chief of Zoning would determine how a proposed home-based business would be categorized.

Updating the list of uses. The ZOR will also update the overall list of uses by introducing new uses that are not currently accounted for, eliminating outmoded uses, and consolidating uses. This proposal will generally make the use table clearer and simpler, which is anticipated not only to enhance user-friendliness, but also to eliminate unnecessary review.

New uses are proposed to be introduced into the Zoning Ordinance to implement Comprehensive Plan recommendations around housing diversity, economic development, and climate action; account for emerging trends; or clarify regulations. Examples of new uses to be shown in the use table include:

•                     ‘Multiplex dwelling’ and ‘Cottage court,’ as supported by the Comprehensive Plan housing goals and Mayor and Council priorities.

•                     ‘Electric vehicle (EV) charging’ and ‘Walk-up windows,’ as supported by EV Readiness Plan and Comprehensive Plan recommendations.

•                     ‘Backyard chicken coops’ are currently allowed through Chapter 3 of City Code, but not clearly addressed in the use table.

•                     ‘Data center or data/cryptocurrency mining,’ an emerging use that requires clear regulation, and which is recommended by the ZoneCo consultant team and Rockville Economic Development, Inc., to be prohibited in all zones.

Additionally, to keep the Zoning Ordinance current, uses that are functionally obsolete or not reasonably anticipated to be located within the city in the future are proposed to be eliminated. These include ‘Duplicating service,’ ‘Archival record storage,’ ‘Pet sales,’ and ‘Taxicab service’.

Finally, where logical or supported by the Comprehensive Plan, multiple uses are proposed to be consolidated. This will address ZOR goals to make the ordinance more accessible and easier to understand. It will also reduce unnecessary review by reducing the number of tenant fit-out applications that would be considered a change of use and therefore subject also to a Minor Site Plan Amendment, saving applicants an estimated two to four months. For example, the Zoning Ordinance currently distinguishes between the uses ‘Consumable goods to be used in the home’ (e.g., grocery store; hobby and craft supply; drug store) and ‘Durable goods to be used in the home’ (e.g., bicycle shop; hardware store; home furnishings). Under the ZOR, both are proposed to be included and addressed in the ‘Retail establishment’ use. This would allow, for example, a space previously occupied by a hobby shop to be refitted for an antique store through a tenant fit-out permit only. In some instances, distinctions between uses that are proposed to be consolidated will still be captured in the use permission (e.g., the existing ‘Attached accessory dwelling unit’ and ‘Detached accessory dwelling unit’ uses will be consolidated into a single ‘Accessory dwelling unit’ use, with use standards to distinguish how each can be provided).

One notable change to the list of uses pertains to room rentals in single-unit dwellings. The ZOR proposes to relocate the regulation of room rentals from the Zoning Ordinance to Chapter 18 of City Code (Rental Facilities and Landlord-Tenant Relations), as these regulations apply to all single-unit dwellings regardless of zone, and significantly increase their transparency and equity. Currently, the city limits the number of rooms that can be rented in a single-unit dwelling through a circuitous combination of legal definitions, use permissions, and rental license requirements. Through a close reading of the Zoning Ordinance’s legal definition of ‘Boardinghouse’ and ‘family,’ and the Boardinghouse use permissions, as well Chapter 18’s rental license requirements, one can deduce that no more than 5 unrelated individuals can live in a dwelling (rental license required), and, if owner-occupied, the owner and their family can rent up to two rooms without a rental license. Nowhere are these limitations clearly stated within the Zoning Ordinance or within Chapter 18. Not only does the current structure lack transparency, making it difficult for both Community Enhancement/Code Enforcement staff and the City Attorney’s Office to enforce the regulations and issue violations, but it also poses equity concerns, as it places the city’s Code Enforcement Inspectors in the position of determining whether individuals living together constitute a ‘family.’ To increase transparency, equity, and enforceability, the ZOR proposes that Chapter 18, Division 3, clearly establish the occupancy limit for single-unit dwellings and the Zoning Ordinance be revised to remove the ‘Boardinghouse’ use and definition, as well as the ‘family’ definition.  This change helps the city with enforcement because we can more easily deny a rental license and remove the ability of the owner to charge and collect rent when they attempt to have more than one rental license per single-family home.

Updating use permissions and use standards. Use permissions and use standards are being reviewed by staff and consultants to ensure that the proposed use permissions and standards align with the goals and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and associated master plans, particularly those associated with reducing barriers to small and local businesses; further the Mayor and Council’s 2021 Social Justice Resolution; and incorporate best practices. For example, through a review of the MXTD zone use permissions by CPDS and DPW - Environmental Management Division staff, notable changes to the permissions for two uses are proposed to ensure this zone most effectively implements the goals of the Climate Action Plan and the Town Center Master Plan:

•                     Automobile Filling Stations. Automobile Filling Stations are currently a Special Exception use within the MXTD zone; however, understanding that Town Center is proposed to be rezoned to the MXTD-85, MXTD-200, and MXTD-235, the ZOR recommends that this use be reclassified as Prohibited within these zones to support and enhance their transit-oriented, walkable character. Existing Automobile Filling Stations would be allowed to continue, but development onsite would be constrained by the Zoning Ordinance’s nonconforming use provisions; no new Automobile Filling Stations would be permitted.

•                     Automobile and Recreational Vehicle Sales or Rental. Currently, automobile rental is permitted in the MXTD, while automobile sales are not. Staff believes that allowing automobile rental will support the purposes of these transit-oriented zones, while also perceiving that allowing sales is not inconsistent with the purposes of the zone, so long as use standards are applied to ensure the use would be developed in a manner that does not hinder walkability.

As a second example, the proposed Animal boarding establishments use (which, as noted above in this staff report, is proposed to replace the Kennel use, a use which is currently permitted only in the Industrial zones and the Mixed-Use Employment zone) is proposed to be expanded to all Mixed-Use zones, with requirements for soundproofing and a condition that no over-night boarding may occur. This change would allow for doggy day cares and similar uses in more locations, and particularly near denser, more urban housing where pet ownership is high, supporting goals to increase walkability and reduce barriers to small businesses.

One notable set of changes proposed to be implemented through the ZOR is to convert most Special Exception uses (which are subject not only to site plan approval, but also to approval by the Board of Appeals through a separate process with additional findings (Sec. 25.15.01)) to Conditional or Permitted uses (which are approved through the applicable site plan process), as recommended by FAST 2. In determining which uses should be converted to Conditional or Permitted uses, staff considered both the Comprehensive Plan recommendations and guidance of the American Planning Association’s Equity in Zoning Policy Guide. The proposal would reduce the number of uses that are classified as Special Exceptions in one or more zones from more than 20 down to 10. This will simplify and streamline approval processes, retaining Board of Appeals review for only those uses that have the highest potential for public health, safety, or other land use impacts on surrounding areas. Impacts from uses are still mitigated through the conditions that these uses must meet through the conditional use process. Staff anticipates that converting these less impactful Special Exception uses to a Conditional or Permitted use permission will result in a time savings of between two and four months (the typical time required to obtain a Special Exception) per application, thereby easing burdens on small businesses and making it easier to invest in the Rockville community. 

Examples of Special Exception uses which are proposed to be converted to Conditional or Permitted uses include Hotel, Pawnbroker, and Non-accessory Swimming Pool (all of which would continue to have use standards associated with the proposed Conditional use); Special Exception uses which are proposed to be retained as such include Adult Oriented Establishment, Automobile Filling Station, and Shooting Gallery. Of note, Mayor and Council have recently endorsed changing the Child Care Center use from a Special Exception use to a Conditional use at the June 2, 2025, work session. The full list of existing Special Exception uses and their tentatively proposed disposition, as well as relevant policies from the APA Equity in Zoning Policy Guide, are included in Attachment 1 - Conversion of Special Exception Uses to Conditional or Permitted Uses.

Another notable change is proposed to allow the development of multifamily housing on property owned by non-profits and places of worship, regardless of zone. Many places of worship are interested in using excess land for mission-based purposes, such as affordable housing; however, as many of these properties are located in the city’s single-unit detached residential zones, they are currently not permitted to develop multifamily units. Both the State of California and Montgomery County, Maryland, are examples of places that have amended laws to allow religious and other institutions to build multi-family housing. This policy enables these institutions to co-locate housing with existing facilities and would align with Comprehensive Plan goals to “Create and improve incentives, programs, and policies for production and preservation of quality affordable housing” (Housing Goal 2; p. 202).

Parking and Loading

The Zoning Ordinance Rewrite also proposes significant changes to modernize parking, loading, and access requirements. This staff report focuses on enhancements related to Vision Zero, as well as revisions proposed to right-size the Zoning Ordinance’s minimum and maximum parking requirements, including associated adjustments. In addition to these highlighted items, the ZOR proposes new standards related to the provision of compact parking spaces, electric vehicle (EV) parking, and electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE); loading spaces; and parking lot solar canopies.

Vision Zero

Staff propose several changes to the bicycle and pedestrian requirements in the Zoning Ordinance to further Vision Zero. These include the following:

•                     Adding a new pedestrian and bicycle facilities Division. Currently, bicycle and pedestrian facilities are addressed in various locations in the Zoning Ordinance, most notably the Parking and Loading Article and the Mixed Use Zones Article. Having these requirements spread throughout the Ordinance can make locating them difficult. Relevant requirements are proposed to be combined in one location for ease of use and transparency.

•                     Requiring bicycle parking for both principal and accessory uses. Currently, 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 ZOR proposes to rectify this issue by requiring that bicycle parking be provided for all uses on a site, whether principal or accessory.

•                     Clarifying bicycle parking location requirements. Bicycle parking requirements are proposed to be revised for clarity and understandability.

•                     Sidewalks at parking facility entrances. New standards are proposed to address pedestrian safety at parking facility entrances. These will establish an area within which no structures may be constructed or located.

Revising and right-sizing parking minimums, maximums, and adjustments

The Zoning Ordinance establishes minimum parking requirements for anticipated uses. These minimum parking requirements are shown in a parking table, a matrix that identifies the minimum number of parking spaces required for each use, regardless of zone. Parking minimums are presented as ratios based on unit measures that correspond to the use type. For example, currently in the City’s Zoning Ordinance, the minimum required parking for a ‘Multiple-unit dwelling’ (i.e., apartment unit) is based on the number of bedrooms; a ‘Health and fitness establishment’ is based on gross floor area (GFA); and a ‘Funeral home’ is based on a combination of GFA, number of employees, and number of work vehicles.

Use	Unit Measure	Based Number Required
Dwelling, multiple-unit	Zero bedrooms	1
	1 bedroom	1
	2 or more bedrooms	1.5
Health and fitness establishment	Per 200 sf of GFA	1
Funeral home	Per 50 sf of assembly area	1 and
	Per employee	1 and
	Per vehicle used in the business	1

The ZOR proposes revising the parking table and right-sizing the associated parking minimums, maximums, and any adjustments.

Aligning the uses in the parking table with those in the use table. The ZOR proposes updating the uses listed in the parking table to match the uses listed in the use table (described above in this staff report). Currently, the use table and the parking table are misaligned, making it difficult for business owners, developers, and staff to determine which parking requirements should be applied to a given use. For example, the parking table contains the use of the ‘Health maintenance organization facility,’ but this use does not exist in the use table; to confuse matters further, this use is not defined and is separate from the ‘Health and fitness establishment’ use, which is included in both the parking table and the use table.

Revising and right-sizing parking minimums. ZoneCo has provided preliminary recommendations for updating the parking table based on guidance from city staff. Specifically, staff requested the following:

1.                     Update the minimum requirements based on best practices, and

2.                     Base minimum parking requirements on objective unit measures that are knowable at the time of entitlement

To address the first request, ZoneCo’s recommendations are based on their understanding of other municipalities and reflect the regional and national trend toward more flexible parking requirements. Where a range of ratios existed, they selected standards closer to the more liberal end of the spectrum, aligning with their experience in other communities as well as best practices. This approach is supported by Comprehensive Plan recommendations to “Integrate land use and transportation planning to maximize the value of Rockville’ transportation assets” (Land Use Goal 3; p. 27) and “Identify regulatory approaches to reduce housing costs that balance the competing needs of development, such as amending minimum requirements in exchange for more affordable units or other needs” (Housing Action 1.4; p. 196).

To address the second request, ZoneCo revised existing parking requirements that include more subjective unit measures, as well as unit measures that may not be known at the time of entitlement. For example, parking minimums that are based on the number of employees or the number of work vehicles, which are difficult or impossible to accurately calculate during the development review process (when an applicant likely has not identified specific tenants to fill commercial spaces), are instead proposed to be based on GFA.

Additionally, CPDS staff are working with DPW and DHCD staff to update 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.

Introducing parking adjustments and increased flexibility for minimum parking requirements. The ZOR also proposes to introduce new adjustments and reductions to the parking minimums, some of which are proposed to be by-right, as follows:

•                     No minimum parking requirements for developments within ½ mile of a Metro station or ¼ mile of BRT. Jurisdictions across the country are increasingly eliminating parking minimum requirements, a strategy that is perhaps most important near 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. 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, including to “Reduce off-street parking requirements to disincentivize driving, especially in mixed-use, high-density, and transit-served areas” (Transportation Action 14.7; p. 76).

•                     By-right adjustments aligned with City goals. 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 ZOR proposes to introduce 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.

o                     EV parking. The ZOR 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 the 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.

o                     MPDU apartments. The ZOR proposes allowing 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.

o                     Bicycle commuter facilities. The ZOR proposes allowing 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.

o                     Pick-up/Drop-off (PUDO). The ZOR proposes that one on-site PUDO space located near an entrance is 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.

•                     Revised process for requesting parking reductions. To ensure flexibility for projects that may not qualify for the limited by-right adjustments described above, the ZOR proposes that, if an applicant can demonstrate through a parking demand analysis that the minimum required parking for the proposed development exceeds the practical demand for the proposed uses, the Approving Authority may permit a reduction in the minimum number of required parking spaces. The ZOR also proposes a de minimis 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 minimis threshold, and would be approved in conjunction with the development application. Staff anticipates that this will reduce the amount of time (approximately 3-4 weeks) currently associated with seeking a parking reduction in conjunction with an administrative approval, as it eliminates the bifurcated approval process whereby the larger application is approved by the Chief of Zoning, but the parking reduction must go before the Planning Commission for approval.

•                     Shared parking. Shared parking provisions allow multiple uses that have different peak hours to share the same parking spaces. For example, because an office and a restaurant have different peak hours (daytime and evening, respectively), they can “share” the same parking facility while generating an aggregate parking demand that would be less than if they had the same peak hours. The ZOR proposes replacing 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. 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.

Institute parking maximums. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance includes parking maximums (which cap the total number of parking spaces allowed for a development) only for the MXTD and the MXCD. Staff recommends instituting maximum parking requirements for all MX zones, all I zones, and the RHD, RMD-25, RMD-15, and RMD-10, at 125% of the minimum parking requirement. As with other proposals described above in this staff report, this recommendation is anticipated to encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation, promote walkability, and support climate and housing goals.

Zone Standards: May 28 Planning Commission work session update

The May 28th Planning Commission work session focused on Zones and Zone Standards, the topics which were covered during the May 5 Mayor and Council work session. During this work session, the Planning Commission provided guidance on two topics, as follows:

•                     Mixed-Use Neighborhood Commercial (MXNC) zone height. During the Mayor and Council meeting on May 5, councilmembers expressed a desire to see increased density around Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stations where possible. Considering this information, the staff recommends that the maximum height of the MXNC zone be increased to 65 feet by right. Currently, an applicant could achieve a 65-foot height in the MXNC zone (the MXNC has a base height of 45 feet, with a bonus height of 20 feet if recommended by the Plan, or if the applicant proposes open space/public use space above the minimum (Sec. 25.13.05.b.2(c)), but the bonus height is underutilized and inconsistent with all other bonus heights in the city.

•                     Comprehensive Map Amendment. Staff recommends minor changes to the proposed rezonings along the Veirs Mill Road Corridor to reflect the relocation of stops shown on the Veirs Mill Road BRT 95% designs. The 95% designs remove the BRT stop previously planned for the intersection of Veirs Mill Road and Broadwood Drive and add a stop at the intersection of Veirs Mill Road and Twinbrook Parkway.

Planning Commission May 28 Feedback - Unanimously supported staff’s recommendations listed above.

FAST 2 - Development Review Processes: March 3, Mayor and Council work session, and April 23 and June 11, Planning Commission work session updates

Background

This topic was presented to the Mayor and Council at a work session on March 3, 2025 <https://rockvillemd.granicus.com/player/clip/5026?view_id=2&redirect=true>. The original report contained four recommendations regarding the development process. These recommendations proposed streamlining and removing duplicative steps in the project plan and Planned Development amendment processes and allowing additional administrative approvals for certain site plans that currently require Planning Commission approval. None of the recommendations would have impacted which cases would be subject to Mayor and Council approval.

At the meeting, the Mayor and Council expressed general support for streamlining processes. A majority of the Mayor and Council expressed support for streamlined processes for project plans and Planned Development (PD) amendments. However, they were not yet comfortable with the proposed additional administrative approvals for site plans that currently require Planning Commission approval. They requested information on other jurisdictions implementing administrative approvals and how the proposed changes would have impacted previous cases in Rockville. They also requested the Planning Commission’s feedback on all four recommendations.

In response, the Planning Commission held a work session on these items on April 23 <https://rockvillemd.granicus.com/player/clip/5050?redirect=true>. Like the Mayor and Council, the Commission supported the first two recommendations. The Commission posed questions and requested additional information on the two other recommendations for additional administrative approvals for certain site plans.

The Commission held a second work session on June 11 <https://rockvillemd.granicus.com/player/clip/5076?redirect=true>. Staff provided answers to the Commission’s questions (see Attachment 2 - Staff Responses to PC Questions). In addition, after further evaluating and developing draft code language, staff provided a revised PD amendment process and a new recommendation based on discussion and questions from the Planning Commission.

The Commission unanimously supported all five recommendations as described in Attachment 3 - Planning Commission Memo. In the discussion, several Commissioners agreed that speed is a competitive advantage in bringing housing and services and voiced support for the recommendations. They also noted that administrative approval relies on high-quality policy, codes, and staff. Several Commissioners stated that the Planning Commission brings a human element to technical zoning requirements and expressed concern about losing that. Following additional discussion, however, the Commission unanimously supported all recommendations.

Staff share the Commission’s desire to bring a human element to zoning. Under the proposed new process, administrative Level 1 site plans will have the same notification requirements as Level 2 site plans that are subject to Commission approval. This notice will provide information not just on how to contact the applicant, but also on how anyone can reach out to city staff with any questions or concerns. Staff are available by phone, email, virtual meeting, or in person to answer questions and take comments on proposed projects. Working to address public concerns is one of the staff’s main responsibilities.  Staff are accountable to appropriately address public concerns and fairly and consistently implement the Mayor and Council’s adopted regulations, codes, and policies.

Need for a More Streamlined Process

The nation, state, region, and city are in a housing crisis. Over the last six years, the city has produced 77% of its housing goals as established for the region by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. To meet our target, 8,600 units must be built in the city by 2040. The good news is that the city produced 118% of its goal in 2024 and has approximately 6,000 units in the pipeline. 

Current factors, such as higher-than-normal interest rates and the high cost of construction materials, impact decisions on whether to move forward with projects, even though the housing demand is high. However, the city can take actions that could activate residential projects sooner, which are included in the staff’s recommendations below.   

Staff recommends that the Mayor and Council support future ZOR changes to create more efficient, predictable processes, which will be important for economic development, job creation, and the construction of new housing. Staff agrees that our processes are much longer than they should be and should be changed to create efficiency, effectiveness, and remove some of the risk of developing in Rockville. Staff believes, which has also been claimed by developers, that the time and expense of a discretionary approval process can be prohibitive to development.   

Where staff recommends administrative site plan approval, the entitlement to construct the needed housing and non-residential uses has already been granted when the City rezoned the property consistent with the city’s vision as shown in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Any change in the entitlement must go through a discretionary process and would not be approved by staff. For example, the Rockshire development needed the PD Amendment for residential use because it was only entitled under the Planned Development for commercial use on the Village Center property, and under the FAST changes, Mayor and Council would still have been the deciding body for the PD amendment. In addition, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) staff strongly support these recommendations to meet the Mayor and Council’s approved housing strategies. 

The Comprehensive Plan was adopted in August 2021 after extensive public engagement identified and confirmed the location, type, and intensity of new growth and development in Rockville. We are currently undergoing the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite (ZOR) that will establish and confirm the regulations that all new development must meet prior to projects being constructed. Now is the time to recommend any new standards for development (e.g., improved public use space) that must be complied with at the time of site plan review. 

With new standards adopted, staff will be capable of performing the technical review of development plans and will approve them only after all city requirements are met. There is no discretion; the application either meets the requirements and is approved, or it does not and is not approved (see graphic below). 

In addition to the recommendations discussed in detail below, the ZOR will address other process issues. For example, the Zoning Diagnostic Report notes that “clarifying the thresholds between minor and major modifications would clarify which process is appropriate.” To achieve this, the draft ZOR includes describes a minor amendment similarly to the current more subjective standard (reduces the size or scale of the approved development or does not deviate substantially from the terms, conditions, or intent of the original approval) while incorporative the more objective standards already in the code under the Minor Amendments for Commercial Development section, which limits increases on items such as building area, new trips, and overall site disturbance.

Recommendations for Development Process Improvements

At the March work session, a majority of the Mayor and Council supported a streamlined process for project plans, which are the largest, most complex projects, such as Twinbrook Quarter and Shady Grove. For a comparison of the current process and these proposed changes, see Attachment 4 - Current and Proposed Process Diagrams. Staff estimates that these changes would result in a reduction of approximately seven weeks in the minimum time required to complete the project plan and associated site plan process. This change would also result in significant time savings for staff. The project plan portion of the process would be achievable in six months if applicants address comments and provide timely resubmittals.

Mayor and Council March 3 Direction - Supported staff’s recommendations listed above.

Planning Commission April 23 Feedback - Unanimously supported staff’s recommendations listed above.

1.                     Streamline the Planned Development (PD) amendment process to be achievable within 6 months.*

Throughout the City, there are a variety of Planned Development (PD) zones with special provisions for development standards and uses. Development or redevelopment within these zones requires a PD amendment, which the Zoning Ordinance currently requires to follow the same process as the project plan. At the April 23^rd Planning Commission work session, staff proposed a new separate process for PD amendments. After working on drafting the proposed changes, the staff is proposing one change to this new process, which affects the role of the Planning Commission. Staff previously recommended that PD amendments proceed to Mayor and Council without a Planning Commission recommendation, while subsequent site plans would be subject to Planning Commission approval. Staff now proposes that PD amendments follow the revised project plan process, in which the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the Mayor and Council, and subsequent site plans are subject to the Chief of Zoning’s approval. Advantages to this include:

a.                     Providing the Commission the opportunity to make a recommendation to M&C that they can consider in deciding the case.

b.                     Subsequent site plans, which implement the approved plans, can be more quickly reviewed and approved by staff as described in Recommendation 1 for project plans. Because the Planning Commission, Mayor, and Council have approved the PD amendment, review of the site plans is a technical exercise ensuring compliance with codes and requirements along with the PD.

c.                     One consistent process avoids confusion for all involved in the process, including the Mayor and Council, the Planning Commission, applicants, staff, and the public.

For a comparison of the current process and these proposed changes, see Attachment 4 - Current and Proposed Process Diagrams. This amended recommendation results in the same time savings from the existing process as the previous recommendation. Staff estimate that these changes would reduce the minimum time required to complete the PD amendment process by approximately five weeks.

Mayor and Council March 3 Direction - Supported staff’s recommendations as previously presented.

Planning Commission April 23 Feedback - Supported staff’s recommendations as previously presented.

Planning Commission June 11 Feedback - Unanimously supported staff’s revised recommendations listed above.

*Updated after April 23rd work session.

2.                     Designate certain mixed-use district developments for administrative site plan approval.

A review of site plans for new development processed over the last five years found that of the 20 applications filed, only one met the criteria to be processed administratively. The other 19 required Planning Commission approval. There is an opportunity to identify additional types of developments that staff recommend being approved administratively. Specifically, the following is recommended for an administrative process:

•                     Redevelopments in the most intense Mixed-Use zones (MXB, MXCT, MXE, MXCD, and MXTD) when not within 300 feet of a residential zone (see Attachment 5 - Mixed Use Zones Residential Buffer Map)

These zones are identified for development consistent with the Rockville 2040 plan, where there is infrastructure in place. Separation from residential zones prevents any compatibility issues. Staff will ensure that all zoning and other requirements are met.

Mayor and Council March 3 Direction - Not yet comfortable with staff’s recommendations. Recommended evaluating other jurisdictions and receiving feedback from the Planning Commission.

Planning Commission April 23 Feedback - Requested additional information and questions.

Planning Commission June 11 Feedback - Unanimously supported the staff’s

recommendations.

3.                     Designate additional project types for administrative site plan approval.

Staff recommends that the types of development listed below that align with current City plans, policies, and priorities be approved administratively.

a.                     Nonresidential to residential conversions of existing buildings. These require little to no site changes, meet the city’s sustainability objectives by recycling buildings, and bring about new housing units sooner than new developments.

b.                     Research and development (including life sciences) in the MXE zone (see Attachment 6 - MXE Zone Map). Staff believe this action could make us more attractive than other jurisdictions to attract new headquarters and other employment opportunities. This also aligns with the City’s economic development goals and REDI’s FY 25 Strategic Plan priority effort, “Assist the City in marketing the Faster, Accountable, Smarter, Transparent (FAST) permitting program and other initiatives for businesses and with the Zoning Code re-write to streamline opening and operating bio/life science businesses and reduce barriers to coming to Rockville. This includes more ‘by right’ uses.” In addition, the city can promote sites within Rockville that are ‘Bio-Ready,’ which means biotech laboratory and manufacturing uses are permitted by right.

c.                     Housing developments with 20% or greater affordable housing units. City code currently requires 15% of residential units in a development to be Moderately Priced Dwelling Units (MPDUs). Some housing developments, especially if funded by Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), may exceed this, and the administrative process can make a significant difference in making the project work financially.

d.                     Housing for senior adults and persons with disabilities. This would reduce barriers to the development of supportive housing types for vulnerable populations.

e.                     Residential development up to 19 units. These projects are below the City’s threshold for providing Moderately Priced Dwelling Units (MPDUs). This would allow small projects to proceed faster, which is critical for challenging smaller residential projects.

For a comparison of the current process and these proposed changes, see Attachment 4 - Current and Proposed Process Diagrams. For both Recommendations 2 and 3, notification and an area meeting would be required, as they are now for Level 1 site plans, and staff proposes to add a provision that administrative decisions be publicly posted. Staff is committed to a transparent process in which everyone’s voice is heard.

Because the processes remain similar, time savings for this change would result from establishing an available Planning Commission agenda, drafting staff reports and presentations, and sending notices, which amounts to a minimum of three to six weeks, along with the other advantages to administrative approvals referenced in the “National Strategies to Address the Housing Crisis” section in the April 23^rd report.

Mayor and Council March 3 Direction - Not yet comfortable with staff’s recommendations. Recommended evaluating other jurisdictions and receiving feedback from the Planning Commission.

Planning Commission April 23 Feedback - Requested additional information and questions.

Planning Commission June 11 Feedback - Unanimously supported staff’s recommendations.

4.                     Update the Point System to be more transparent.

The Zoning Ordinance currently bases the level of review on a point system. Each application is evaluated on the acreage of the site, the number of dwelling units proposed, the square footage of non-residential space, the residential impact area, and the traffic impact of the development proposed. Each of these items is allocated a number of points, which are added together to determine the complete point valuation for the project. Up to 6 points is a Level 1 site plan, Level 2 is 7-15 points, and 16 or more points is a project plan. Level 1 site plans are subject to Chief of Zoning approval, Level 2 site plans are subject to Planning Commission approval, and project plans are subject to Mayor and Council approval.

In preparing the FAST 2 recommendations, staff reviewed the cases for which the point system determined the level of review from 2014 to 2024 and made the following observations:

a.                     The point system is effective at identifying large projects that should be subject to a project plan. Twinbrook Quarter and Shady Grove Innovation District are large, multiphase mixed-use projects, and they were classified as project plans under the point system.

b.                     Very few projects qualify for Level 1. Over the ten-year period, only two projects were below the threshold.

c.                     It is difficult to predict the impact of changes to the table. Staff considered modifying some of the criteria to potentially allow for more Level 1 site plans, but while increasing the area of retail or number of units could accomplish this, it is not possible to predict which projects in which locations would be impacted. Instead, staff developed more predictable and transparent alternatives in recommendations 3 and 4, which maintain the point system while specifying certain projects or certain locations where site plans would be processed as Level 1, even if they were classified as Level 2 under the point system.

d.                     The residential area calculation is not transparent because it requires a complex analysis to determine the point total. Additionally, because the area is calculated based on residential areas within ¼ mile of the project site, a project could be assessed points for residential area impact when the residential area is relatively far from the project and therefore not impacted. As an example, the approved redevelopment at 1818 Chapman Avenue was assessed points for residential impact, although, as shown in the map below, no residential properties were in proximity to the site and were only located at the perimeter of the ¼ mile buffer area.

Based on this, staff recommends keeping the point system but making a change to the Residential Area Impact section of the points table to improve transparency and more accurately reflect impacts to nearby property.

Current Residential Area Impact

	0	1	2	3	4
Residential Area Impact	No single unit residential development within ¼ mile	Up to 10% of area within ¼ mile of the project area is comprised of single-unit detached residential units	Up to 50% of area within ¼ mile of the project area is comprised of single-unit detached residential units	Up to 75% of area within ¼ mile of the project area is comprised of single-unit detached residential units	Development is within single-unit detached unit area.

Proposed Residential Area Impact

	0	1	2	3	4
Proximity to land that is zoned R-400   -> RMD-15 and developed with single-unit detached, townhouse, or multiplex dwellings	No residential within 500’	Residential within 500’	Residential within 100’	Confronting residential	Adjacent to residential

Instead of relying on the percentage of residential land area within ¼ mile, the proposal assesses increasing point values based on proximity to residential, from 500’ to 100’ to confronting (across the street), with the highest total given for projects that are adjacent to residential. This approach ensures that projects that have residential areas nearby are assessed the highest point totals. It is also possible for anyone to easily calculate, increasing transparency for everyone involved in the process. Finally, the proposal broadens what is considered residential from single-unit detached to also include townhouses and multiplexes (duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes) in order to provide equity across these housing types.

In contrast to the other recommendations, this change is intended to improve administration and transparency but not significantly impact whether a project is a project plan or a Level 2 or Level 1 site plan. Although the difference in calculation could impact the point total, as described in the “Site Plan Analysis” section below, this change would not have changed the level of review of any cases over the ten-year period. All Level 2 site plans and project plans would still fall into those categories under this proposed change.

Mayor and Council March 3 Direction - this was not presented at the March 3rd work session.

Planning Commission April 23 Feedback - this was not presented at the April 23rd work session.

Planning Commission June 11 Feedback - Unanimously supported staff’s recommendation

Additional Information

At the March 3 work session, the Mayor and Council requested two additional pieces of information:

1.                     Examples of other jurisdictions that have successfully implemented administrative approvals, and

2.                     Examples of Rockville cases that should be subject to administrative approval.

Other Jurisdiction Information

In other jurisdictions in states such as Texas and Virginia, review of site plans is entirely administrative. Because of differences in state laws, the Planning Commission or Mayor and Council more commonly consider zoning changes or Planned Development overlays, but more rarely review site plans.

The Michigan chapter of the American Planning Association (APA) created a zoning reform toolkit with expanding administrative review as a recommendation. Two case studies are cited - Kalamazoo and Albion. A survey following the release of the toolkit identified it as the top process tool .

In California, the City of Sacramento has taken steps to streamline its development review processes over the last decade. From what was previously included, required public hearings before the city’s Planning Commission and decision by the City Council, most development projects have been delegated to staff-level or director-level hearing reviews for minor adjustments.

The City of Santa Monica has also made changes to their development process to allow for more administrative reviews in certain circumstances. In response to an adopted downtown community plan recommending housing in its downtown areas and state housing mandates, the city initiated zoning changes in 2025 to allow for residential developments in non-residential zones to be approved administratively.

Analysis of FAST Changes on Previous Cases

Based on the recommendations above, staff have evaluated Level 2 site plan cases from 2014-2024 and how they would have been processed if all recommendations were in place, with the following results: 

•                     The Planning Commission considered 32 Level 2 cases. 

•                     The change to the PD amendment process results in the largest number of administrative cases (8 cases), followed by site plans following project plans and developments in intense mixed-use zones not within 300’ of commercial (7 cases each).

•                     Recommendation 4, related to how the residential area impact is calculated, had no impact on the level of review.

•                     If all the recommendations are implemented, 25 of 32 site plans would have been eligible for administrative approval. However, 15 of these site plans were implementing project plans or PD amendments. It is important to note that the Planning Commission would still review and provide a recommendation to the Mayor and Council on project plans and PD amendments at those earlier stages of the process.

•                     None of the proposed changes had any impact on which projects would be subject to the project plan process for Mayor and Council review.

•                     The complete list of Level 2 site plans during this period is located in Attachment 7 - Site Plans 2014-2024.

Site Plans 2014 to 2024 under FAST recommendations
Total Level 2	32
Remained Level 2	7
From Level 2 to Level 1	25
Project Plan streamlining	7
Recommendation 1 - PD amendment	8
Recommendation 2 - MX zones	7
Recommendation 2 and 3	1
Recommendation 3 - Development Types	1
Level 1 by points, no TCPD	1

Change in process for Level 2 site plans from 2014 to 2024, under FAST recommendations.

The intent of the FAST changes is to ensure that the Mayor and Council remain the approving authority for project plans and PD amendments.  Because of their size and potential impact, project plans need to be reviewed and decided upon by the Mayor and Council. The Planned Development Amendment process is like changing the specific zoning requirements on a property and should receive review by the Mayor and Council.

Mayor and Council History

The Mayor and Council approved a project charter for the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite Project in October 2022. Since the project was initiated, staff have provided periodic updates on the project via email. The first Mayor and Council work session for the project, which focused on the Comprehensive Map Amendment, was held on January 27, 2025. A second work session, focusing on process improvements, was held on April 24. A third work session, focusing on new zones, revisions to existing zones, height transitions, and follow-up from the January 27 work session, was held on May 5, 2025.

In October 2018, the Mayor and Council endorsed the original FAST Project Charter. In May 2019, the Mayor and Council endorsed an updated list of action items. Based on this, staff developed and implemented a work plan and presented it to the Mayor and Council in November 2019. Staff provided updates by memo during this first phase of FAST. On September 30, 2024 <https://rockvillemd.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=4910>, the Mayor and Council held a work session on the second phase of FAST. Following this work session, several action items were revised to reflect the Mayor and Council’s direction. At a combined ZOR/FAST work session on March 3, 2025 <https://rockvillemd.granicus.com/player/clip/5026?view_id=2&redirect=true>, the Mayor and Council expressed general support for streamlining processes. A majority of the Mayor and Council expressed support for recommendations one and two related to project plans and Planned Development amendments, respectively, but were not comfortable with recommendations three and four related to site plans. They also requested the Planning Commission’s feedback on all four items.

Public Notification and Engagement

Engagement for the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite (ZOR) and Comprehensive Map Amendment (CMA) has been ongoing since Fall 2024. In the time since the last Mayor and Council work session (May 5, 2025), staff have conducted notification and engagement actions, as follows:

•                     Rockville Reports, City social media channels, email blasts, and newsletters to inform the community about scheduled meetings (both community meetings and Mayor and Council/Planning Commission work sessions) and opportunities to learn more.

•                     Virtual public meeting on June 4, 2025, on Zones and Zone Standards, recapping information presented to Mayor and Council on May 5. 3 people attended.

•                     Hard-copy notices (5,445 total) were sent on June 6, 2025, to the owners and premises of all properties proposed to be rezoned, as well as the owners of properties within 500 feet of proposed rezonings. Letters included instructions for translation into 4 additional languages (Spanish, French, Simplified Chinese, and Korean).

•                     Virtual meetings on the Comprehensive Map Amendment on June 24 and 26. 101 people attended.

•                     In-person meetings with neighborhood associations, as follows:

o                     Lincoln Park Community Association, June 14, 2025

o                     Twinbrook Community Association, June 17, 2025

•                     Communications with New Mark Commons Homes Association to gauge interest and schedule a meeting.

A virtual public meeting related to Parking and Uses is also scheduled for July 31, 2025.

Finally, this project also builds on and furthers the goals and policies established through the Rockville 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Extensive outreach and engagement were conducted over a period of five years to inform the Rockville 2040 Plan.

Boards and Commissions Review

The ZOR and CMA will be reviewed by city boards and commissions, as per the project charter, upon the release of a draft ordinance and zoning map. To date, the Planning Commission has received regular updates on project progress, with the most recent update occurring on June 11, 2025. The Environment Commission and the Transportation and Mobility Commission also requested and received briefings on November 7, 2024, and May 27, 2025, respectively. Briefings with city boards and commissions will continue to occur as the draft ordinance and zoning map are developed and released for review.

Next Steps 

The Mayor and Council are scheduled to hold an additional work session on the ZOR and CMA that will be focused on remaining topics on September 29, 2025. Additional community engagement is ongoing and will continue through Summer 2025. The adoption process for both ZOR and CMA is planned to begin in December 2025.