Rockville Planning Commission Meeting on Zoning Amendments - January 18, 2026
Rockville Planning Commission Work Session and Public Hearing on Zoning Amendments - January 18, 2026
The Rockville Planning Commission held a public hearing and work session on the draft Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Map Amendment. The meeting covered historic preservation regulations, rezoning of two planning areas, parking and loading standards, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, amenity space requirements, and other topics. Commissioners heard from numerous public speakers, deliberated each item, and took straw votes to guide staff recommendations to the Mayor and Council. An additional meeting was scheduled for February 4, 2026.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Pat Reber, Alex Belita, James Nations, Sandra Crow, Anna Astrid Molina, Tanya Rakovskaya, Steve Plotkin, and Laurie Krug (residents of Newmark Commons and nearby communities) strongly opposed the proposed rezoning of Parcel ZORID 17 in Planning Area 12 from R-90 to RMD-25. They cited incompatibility with the historic Newmark Commons neighborhood, increased traffic, pedestrian safety hazards, environmental impacts, and a lack of early notification. Several speakers invited commissioners to visit the site and urged rejection of RMD-25 in favor of lower-density alternatives or retention of R-90. Over 700 residents signed a petition opposing the change.
- Kenneth Becker (general partner, owner of Rollins Park, Congressional Towers, and the community center property in Planning Area 10) expressed support for staff’s alternative proposal but requested a modification: shifting the zoning line 200 feet south (while maintaining a 75-foot height limit) to recoup density lost by preserving the clubhouse. He argued the change was necessary for financial viability of redevelopment.
- Natasha Hurwitz (Montrose Neighborhood Association) expressed support for staff’s alternate proposal for Area 10, but noted the community had just learned of the property owner’s modification request and needed time to review it.
- Mark Prushela (College Garden Civic Association) criticized the complexity and volume of the draft ordinance (293 pages with no crosswalk) and urged the commission to add a third hearing to allow more time for public review.
Discussion Items
Historic Preservation
- Staff proposed changes to certificate of approvals (administrative approval for minor work; extension from 1 to 5 years), limiting who can file nominations (only property owner, HDC, or Mayor and Council), raising the bar to unanimous vote if owner opposes, creating a delisting process, prohibiting demolition by neglect, and streamlining evaluations of significance.
- Commissioners debated whether silence from a property owner on a nomination should count as consent (simple majority) or dissent (unanimous vote). A straw poll split 3-3; the split will be noted in the recommendation to Mayor and Council.
- On delisting, commissioners requested additional language to prevent owner-caused destruction from triggering eligibility and to define “other good cause” more narrowly. Staff will incorporate financial hardship language per state law.
- The commission generally supported the other staff proposals (demolition by neglect, evaluation of significance updates, and minor changes) with no objections.
Planning Area 12 - Tower Oaks Parcel (Newmark Commons)
- Staff recommended RMD-25 as called for in the Comprehensive Plan, noting it would allow clustering away from environmental features and that the property owner would likely access the site from Tower Oaks, not Don Mills Court.
- Commissioner Zion proposed that if access is via Don Mills Court through Newmark Commons, density be limited to 10 units/acre; if access is from Tower Oaks only, RMD-25 could apply. The commission agreed in a straw poll to direct staff to craft language around this conditional approach, preserving the Comprehensive Plan’s intent while addressing community concerns.
Planning Area 10 - Montrose and North Farm
- Staff presented an alternate proposal: a new RHD zone (max 150 feet, 100 units/acre) for the northern portion, retaining the community center in R-75 and a 75-foot height buffer along Rollins Avenue.
- The property owner requested moving the buffer line 200 feet south (still with 75-foot height limit) to recoup about 150 units lost by preserving the clubhouse. The Montrose Neighborhood Association was not previously consulted on this modification.
- The commission tabled the item to allow the property owner and community to discuss the proposal and report back at the next work session. Staff will also prepare height limitation language for the area within 200 feet of RMD-25.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
- Staff consolidated requirements into one division, updated minimum bike parking ratios, clarified location standards, added design standards for short-term racks, and included a waiver process. Graphics were improved.
- The commission expressed strong support and recommended the section without changes.
Parking and Loading
- Key changes: eliminate parking minimums within 1/2 mile of Metro and 1/4 mile of BRT; right-size minimums based on best practices; introduce by-right adjustments (EV spaces, MPDU, bike facilities, PUDO spaces); add parking maximums (125% of minimum) in most zones; reintroduce compact spaces (up to 20%); new PUDO and loading space requirements; refined stacking space standards; new EV charging and solar canopy provisions; improved safety zone graphics.
- Commissioner Fulton praised the section, especially the forward-looking PUDO requirements. The commission agreed to recommend the parking and loading division.
Amenity Space
- Staff proposed replacing current “public use space” and “open area” with a single “amenity space” requirement (10% of site) with exceptions for very small projects, certain MXTD zones, and 100% affordable housing within a quarter mile of a public park.
- Commissioner Pittman raised equity concerns about exempting affordable housing developments from amenity space. The commission decided to defer that specific item and request more information from the Department of Housing and Community Development at the next meeting. The rest of the amenity space section was generally supported.
Additional Discussion Items
- Commissioner Pittman proposed exploring flexibility within historic districts to allow small multifamily uses in designated historic structures to help owners afford maintenance. The commission agreed to discuss at a future work session.
- Commissioner Zion submitted a markup of the entire draft ordinance focusing on plain language edits. Staff is already reviewing the markup and incorporating appropriate clarity improvements. The commission agreed to trust staff to balance plain language with legal defensibility.
- Chair San recommended quantifying subjective terms (e.g., “substantial change”) and will email specific examples to staff. The commission supported this direction.
Key Outcomes
- Historic Preservation: Recommendations will be forwarded to Mayor and Council with note of 3-3 split on silence-as-consent; staff to refine delisting criteria and add financial hardship language.
- Tower Oaks (Area 12): Commission directed staff to draft conditional zoning language (RMD-25 with density capped at 10 units/acre if access via Newmark streets).
- Montrose (Area 10): Deferred to next work session pending community-property owner discussion; staff to prepare height-limit provisions for southern portion.
- Pedestrian/Bike Facilities: Recommended as drafted.
- Parking and Loading: Recommended as drafted.
- Amenity Space: Recommended except for the affordable housing exception, which is tabled for further input.
- Minutes: The December 10, 2025 meeting minutes were approved (4-0-2 abstentions).
- Additional Meeting: A special work session was scheduled for February 4, 2026, to accommodate workload.
- Plain Language Edits: Staff will continue quality review of Commissioner Zion’s markup and incorporate non-substantive clarifications.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening, Rockville. Today is Wednesday, January 14th, 2026. Happy New Year, everyone, and welcome to come to the meeting in person. And this is meeting number one 26 of the City of Rockville Planning Commission. I am Mong San, the chair of the Planning Commission for 2026. I'm joined in chamber by Commissioner Cheyenne Salahadin, Commissioner Sulan Pittman, Commissioner Eric Futen, Commissioner Jamie Esponosa, and let's welcome our new commissioner Jeff Zainz on board. Tonight's meeting is being conducted in person and virtually by WebEx. So tonight's agenda includes well agenda, public hearing and work session number one on zoning tax map map tax amendment and comprehensive map amendment. Then this will be followed by our regular scheduled commissioner items. And uh commissioners will have opportunities to raise additional issues for discussion after we finish the agenda for this meeting. So before we proceed, does any commissioner have any thoughts about tonight's agenda? Hearing none. Okay, so now let's proceed with our first agenda. Public hearing and working session number one on zoning tax map tax amendment TXT 2026-00271, the draft zoning ordinance and map amendment, MAP 2026-00126, the comprehensive map amendment. Mayor and Council of Rockabillo are the applicants. So now let's turn to Mr. Westlett. Is there a staff presentation? Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, we'd like to give a brief uh overview uh prior to the public hearing. Uh I would suggest that anyone in the audience who wishes to speak and address the commission this evening to sign up uh in the back of the room and because we will follow that uh list. So we're very pleased to be with you this evening for the first in a series of public hearings and work sessions on the draft zoning ordinance and the comprehensive map amendment that accompanies it. This is the culmination of a long process to get to this point, and uh we realize uh we still have a lot to do to get through the review process. So we look forward to uh doing that uh with you and everyone who wants to follow along. I just wanted to outline a little bit uh kind of where we have been and what we plan on doing this evening. Uh we wanted to remind everyone about the timeline and schedule that we are on. Uh it is an ambitious one, and uh we'll have some perhaps discussion about that uh at the end of the meeting. Uh we have scheduled two uh public hearings and work sessions uh for the commission because of our compressed schedule. We felt that we need to do both uh on the same meeting night. So um so we'll see how that works out. We've also slotted the topic areas uh that the mayor and council and the planning commission have identified uh for your work sessions. And tonight we are scheduled, we have scheduled the historic preservation discussion, uh, the comprehensive map amendment rezonings for planning area 12, which is Tower Oaks and 10, which is Montrose and North Farm, and uh potential amendments to the RMD 25 development standards, uh, in addition to discussions on parking and loading, pedestrian and bike facilities, and amenity space. And that is just tonight. So we have uh kind of changed our timeline now that we're in adoption. We're not gonna go back the two years that it took to get to this point. Um, but we uh started out at authorization to file. That made the text amendment and the map amendment real, and the mayor and council um essentially told us to file those applications, uh which we have and proceed with the public review process, which we have also done. So the planning commission review is scheduled for January and February of this year. Uh we are anticipating that you would make a recommendation to the mayor and council on February 25th. We've also scheduled meetings with the mayor and council, including a briefing uh in March, as well as public hearings and work sessions for them in April and May, leading up to adoption on June 1st. So to show you kind of what that looks like. Um, this is uh our timeline between now and June 1st. And includes all of the public hearings and work sessions and briefings that we have scheduled to date. And for specifically for the Planning Commission, this is the schedule that we have outlined with the topic areas for each of your work sessions. There's a little bit of flexibility on February 25th, but not very much. So I know that the commission perhaps wants to talk about and find out whether there are other issues to discuss. So if there are additional topics that we really need to add to your work session schedule, perhaps looking at a separate meeting or another meeting in addition to the ones that are scheduled here. So with that, uh that's my introduction. I look forward to hearing uh the public testimony, and I'll turn it over back to Madam Chair to conduct the public hearing. Um thank you, Mr.
openpublica.com