Planning commission hears briefing on 12-story affordable housing proposal at 41 Maryland Ave.

Rockville City Planning Commission members heard a briefing Wednesday on project plan amendment PJT2025-00023, a proposal to replace the surface parking lot at 41 Maryland Avenue in Rockville Town Center with a 12-story multifamily building containing 147 affordable housing units and a request for a waiver to provide zero on-site parking.

The briefing, presented by Christopher Davis of the Community Planning and Development Services Department and by applicant representatives from SCG Development and owner Comstock Companies, described the proposal as transit-oriented infill that would transfer 40 MPDU units from the adjoining Boulevard 44 property to the new building. The application is at the project-plan-amendment stage and the commission was asked to provide preliminary feedback; no vote was taken.

Why it matters: The proposal would add a substantial number of affordable rental units in the Town Center and seek an exception to parking requirements, a change that affects on-street parking and how residents would access the site. The commission briefing is a step in a multi-stage review that will include a Development Review Committee meeting, a Mayor and Council briefing, a Planning Commission recommendation and then a Mayor and Council public hearing and potential adoption.

Project details presented and clarified at the briefing included: the site lies at the corner of Maryland Avenue and East Middle Lane, is described in the materials as roughly 0.41–0.42 acres, and is about 82 feet wide. The applicant described a 12-story building with 147 affordable units, a ground-floor lobby and amenities, internalized loading and service space, a pickup/drop-off space on Maryland Avenue, and an enhanced accessible on-street space designed to accommodate mobility lifts. The applicant said 40 MPDU units would be transferred from Boulevard 44; those MPDUs are described in the presentation as subject to a 30-year covenant that now expires in approximately 20 years.

The applicant, represented by Kirk Salpini of SCG Development and attorney Nancy Reglin of Rogers (presenting on behalf of SCG and Comstock), said the site’s narrow width and geometry make structured parking economically inefficient. The team argued the project would leverage nearby transit and public parking and would expand the city’s stock of low-, moderate- and workforce-rate housing at income levels between 50% and 80% of area median income.

Commissioners asked for clarifications about building height, the effect on neighboring residences and the loss of metered street parking. The applicant explained a desire for flexibility in allowed building height to accommodate alternative structural systems and to achieve market-level interior ceiling heights; the applicant characterized that need in terms linked to material and tariff-driven differences in floor-to-floor thickness. In response to neighborhood concern about impacts on the Victoria Condominium, the applicant showed revised balcony locations on the west elevation and noted a 30-foot fire separation between window faces as meeting the applicable clearance described in the presentation.

On parking, the transcript records two different statements: a staff estimate earlier in the briefing that suggested the project could remove three to four metered street spaces, and a later exchange in which the project team indicated the net loss would be one metered space. The application includes a waiver request to provide zero on-site parking and references available nearby structured parking that the applicant says could be leased by residents.

Next steps identified in the briefing: the applicant will revise the project plan amendment in response to comments from the Planning Commission, Mayor and Council and area meetings. The application was scheduled for a Development Review Committee meeting on May 29 and a Mayor and Council briefing on May 19, after which the item will return to the Planning Commission for a recommendation and then to Mayor and Council for public hearing and possible adoption. If the project plan is approved, the applicant said a site plan application will follow.

Votes at a glance: During the same meeting the commission approved three sets of draft minutes (11/13/2024, 12/11/2024 and 02/26/2025) and later voted to adjourn; each motion passed unanimously. The project briefing itself did not result in a motion or vote.

The commission did not take formal action on PJT2025-00023 at Wednesday’s briefing; commissioners and staff directed clarifying questions and asked for additional visuals to show the building’s adjacency to Victoria Condominium, and for confirmation about on-street parking impacts.