gaithersblog.net

There’s several interesting things in this week’s Council package. As is increasingly true, some of the more interesting items are not in the agenda itself, but rather in in the additional correspondence at the end of the document.

Below, in front of the usual agenda post, I’ve pasted in four items taken from the package document. Generally these are OCR’d from scanned originals, so there was some transcription involved, and thus you should consult the City’s PDF for the definitive version.

First up is a pair of letters, one sent by the Mayor & City Council to County Council President Phil Andrews, the second from City Manager Angel Jones to County Chief Administrative Officer Timothy L. Firestine, both discussing the City’s concerns regarding the County’s plans for the GE Tech Park. While there have been repeated references to negotiations between the City and the County regarding what the County can or will do on that property, these letters form one of the most detailed looks we’ve yet had at the specifics of those discussions.

Following those letters, I’ve pasted in an excerpt from a memo sent to the County Council regarding the Capital Improvement Program for County libraries. The bad news here is that renovations to the Gaithersburg Library have been pushed off to 2012. Finally, I’ve pulled out a few pictures of the elevation drawings for the project that Keystone Real Estate Investments is proposing to build at the current site of the Executive Garden Apartments, near Barron’s lumber and the the MD 355 bridge over the railroad tracks.

March 9, 2009

The Honorable Phil Andrews
Montgomery County Council Office Building
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, Maryland 20850

Dear Council President Andrews,

As you know, Gaithersburg City staff has been in discussions with representatives of the Executive branch on the impacts of the County Executive’s Smart Growth Initiative on the City of Gaithersburg. As Assistant City Manager Tony Tomasello testified before you on January 22, 2009, we are supportive of the goals of the Smart Growth Initiative, but we still have concerns that have not been addressed.

We hope to complete discussions with the Executive branch in the near future, and we are requesting that the County Council not approve any additional funding for the Smart Growth Initiative until such time as discussions between the City and the Executive branch are concluded.

Since your January 22^nd meeting, the position of the Mayor and Council is to reach a binding agreement with Montgomery County concerning the GE/Finmarc Tract that includes the following key provisions:

1. County to execute an easement to preserve the 14-acre open space area adjacent to Lake Placid as open space, while allowing the planned Public Safety Memorial. (Executive staff appears to be supportive of this item.)
2. County to execute conservation or open space easement/covenant for the seven acre Parcel C. (Executive staff appears to be supportive of this item.)
3. County to agree to City Planning Commission courtesy review, consistent with Montgomery County’s mandatory referral of all development plans. (Executive staff appears to be supportive of this item.)
4. County to agree to covenant to limit redevelopment of property to current structures, with the exception of an Aquatic/Gymnasium Center, for a period of 25 years.
5. County to agree to a covenant to limit future development of property to uses permissible under the Annexation Agreement and City zoning on the property at the time the agreement was executed.
6. County to fund total cost of construction of the Aquatic/Gymnasium Center, with the exception that the City would contribute $3 million in Program Open Space funds and convey Lot 3 to the County at no cost. The City has substantially completed design of this facility, and will work with County representatives to finalize design. In addition, the County would pay a proportionate share per annum of operating costs. (Please note that there have been some very preliminary discussions on the concept of developing a combined facility that includes a Senior Center and the Aquatic/Gymnasium Center.)
7. County to add screening to include fencing and additional plantings to the existing 50 foot conservation easement between the Finmarc property and the adjacent residential development as agreed to by a committee comprised of a County representative, adjacent property owners and a City representative. (Executive staff appears to be supportive of this item.)
8. With the exception of local neighborhood traffic, the County facilities at the GE/Finmarc Tract will be accessed by Edison Park Drive.

We realize that funding the construction of the Aquatic/Gymnasium Center would have significant budget implications for the County; however, it is important to note that if the County acquires this land, the City will lose significant tax base in perpetuity. While building an Aquatic/Gymnasium Center in this location remains a priority for the City, in our strategic planning process we identified a Senior Center as having higher priority. We will not pursue the Aquatic/Gymnasium Center unless significant capital and operating support can be provided by Montgomery County. It is important to understand that although such a facility would be located within City limits, it would serve County residents. In fact, past experience and estimates of future use indicate that a majority of the users of a Senior Center or an Aquatic/Gymnasium Center would be non-City residents, thus necessitating major capital and operating cost contributions from the County.

Additionally, we are very concerned with the lack of communication with the County regarding the Smart Growth Initiative. For example, just this week the County failed to notify us about very sudden modifications to the plan for the Webb Tract, which were announced after the residents near the Webb Tract were told a different story about the County’s use of that land. We had to read about it in the newspaper. Such changes validate the concerns this Council has about the certainty of the County’s plans for the site in Gaithersburg. We would appreciate timely notice of any future meetings regarding the County’s plans so that we may fully participate in the process. Finally, we are requesting that the County appoint a City representative to serve on the Advisory Committee for this initiative.

Your consideration is greatly appreciated. Please feel free to contact us at 301-258-6310 if you have any questions or wish to discuss this further.

Sincerely,

(signed) Sidney A. Katz Mayor	(signed) Michael A. Sesma Council Vice President
(signed) Jud Ashman Council Member	(signed) Cathy C. Drzyzgula Council Member
(signed) Henry F. Marraffa Council Member	(signed) Ryan Spiegel Council Member

cc: County Council Members
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
Angel L. Jones, City Manager

March 5, 2009

Mr. Timothy L. Firestine
Chief Administrative Officer
Montgomery County Executive Office Building
101 Monroe Street, 2nd Floor
Rockville, Maryland 20850

Dear Mr. Firestine,

As you know, the Gaithersburg Mayor and City Council are supportive of the goals of the Smart Growth Initiative, but they are concerned about certain impacts on the City of Gaithersburg.

Our staff has held a series of meetings with Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Diane Schwartz Jones and other staff, and real progress has been made on a number of our concerns. In addition, Ms. Jones and other County staff have given several presentations to the Mayor and City Council during work sessions. Subsequent to Ms. Jones’ February 9, 2009, presentation, the Mayor and City Council took a position on items they would like included in a formal agreement with the County concerning the acquisition of the GE/Finmarc Tract.

County staff is already familiar with most of these issues, but our position has been modified on one issue and one additional request has been added. At this point, the City would like to reach a binding agreement with Montgomery County that includes the following key provisions:

1. County to execute an easement to preserve the 14-acre open space area adjacent to Lake Placid as open space, while allowing the planned Public Safety Memorial.
2. County to execute conservation or open space easement/covenant for the seven acre Parcel C.
3. County to agree to City Planning Commission courtesy review, consistent with Montgomery County’s mandatory referral of all development plans.
4. County to agree to covenant to limit redevelopment of property to current structures, with the exception of an Aquatic/Gymnasium Center, for a period of 25 years.
5. County to agree to a covenant to limit future development of property to uses permissible under the Annexation Agreement and City zoning on the property at the time the agreement was executed.
6. County to fund total cost of construction of the Aquatic/Gymnasium Center, with the exception that the City would contribute $3 million in Program Open Space funds and convey Lot 3 to the County at no cost. In addition, the County would pay a proportionate share per annum of operating costs. (Please note that the concept of developing a combined facility that includes a Senior Center and the Aquatic/Gymnasium Center has recently been raised-the City would like to pursue this concept further.)
7. County to add screening to include fencing and additional plantings to the existing 50 foot conservation easement between the Finmarc property and the adjacent residential development as agreed to by a committee comprised of a County representative, adjacent property owners and a City representative.

We realize that funding the construction of the Aquatic/Gymnasium Center would have significant budget implications for the County; however, it is important to note that if the County acquires this land, the City will lose significant tax base in perpetuity. In addition, the City, as part of its strategic planning process, has prioritized development of the Senior Center over the Aquatic/Gymnasium Center.

Please note that the Mayor and City Council would like the County Council to understand what we are seeking in an agreement with Montgomery County concerning the GE/Finmarc acquisition. Accordingly, Mayor Katz and the City Council will be writing Council President Andrews in the near future. In addition to outlining what we are seeking in the agreement, it is my understanding that this correspondence will ask the County Council not to approve any additional funding for the Smart Growth Initiative until such time as discussions between the City and the Executive branch are concluded.

At this point, we would like to accelerate the pace of our discussions on this project with the goal of reaching and documenting an agreement as soon as possible. As indicated above, the concept of developing a combined facility that includes a Senior Center and the Aquatic/Gymnasium Center has recently been raised. Our staff is in the process of determining how much land would be required for such a facility, and will share that data with County officials as soon as a determination is made.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank your staff for continuing to work with us to resolve this issue. We are, however, concerned with the occasional lack of communication with City staff. For example, we did not know that the plan for the Webb Tract was recently modified until we read it in the newspaper last week. We would appreciate notice of any future meetings regarding the County’s plans so that we may fully participate in the process.

Your consideration is greatly appreciated. Please feel free to contact me or Assistant City Manager Fred Felton at 301-258-6310 if you have any questions or wish to discuss this further.

Sincerely,

(signed)

Angel L. Jones
City Manager

ALJ/ms

cc: Gaithersburg Mayor and City Council
Diane Schwartz Jones, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Frederick J. Felton, Assistant City Manager

The following is taken from a memo written by County Legislative Analyst Essie McGuire to the County Council:

1. Gaithersburg Library Renovation

The approved PDF for this project is on circle 10 and the Executive’s recommended amendment is on circle 11. The amendment shifts a total of $2 million from FYI0 to FYI2. The recommended FYI0 appropriation is $19.8 million. DGS staff states that the expenditure shift is primarily due to affordability reasons and accurately reflects the current implementation schedule.

The original schedule that the Council discussed last spring projected completion of the library in FY 11. However, the planning and design processes took longer than anticipated. A revised implementation schedule is provided on circle 12 and shows construction beginning at the very end of FY10 with completion of the library in March 2012 (FYI2).

A timeline of events and interactions with the community regarding the library is shown on circles 13-14. It references community interest in a second entrance to the library to be included in the design. DGS staff reports that this issue has been resolved with design to include only one primary entrance due to security reasons.

The HHS Committee unanimously recommends approval of the Executive’s recommended amendment and appropriation for the Gaithersburg Library Renovation.

The following pictures are taken from Keystone Real Estate Investments’ application for approval of a new project near the MD 355 bridge over the CSX railroad tracks; far more detail is available in the Council package.

From the City’s website:

Agenda - Mayor and City Council Meeting, 3/16/2009

Posted 3/12/2009

City of Gaithersburg
AGENDA FOR A REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MONDAY, MARCH 16, 2009, 7:30 P.M.
Full Meeting Package (pdf format - Large File: 71M)

I. CALL TO ORDER

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

III. INVOCATION

Reverend Dr. Thewodros Asfaw, Shady Grove Adventist Hospital

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. Minutes of a Work Session of the Mayor and City Council Held February 9, 2009, Topic #2
   Background Material (pdf format)

2. Minutes of a Work Session of the Mayor and City Council Held February 23, 2009

   Background Material (pdf format)

3. Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Mayor and City Council Held March 2, 2009
   Background Material (pdf format)

V. APPOINTMENTS

Resolution of the Mayor and City Council Establishing a Gaithersburg Book Festival Ad Hoc Committee, a Sub Committee of the Gaithersburg Cultural Arts Advisory Committee and Confirming Appointments Thereto
Background Material (pdf format)

VI. PRESENTATION

GREAT (Gaithersburg Recognizing Educational Achievement Today) Award to Brown Station Elementary School and Washington Grove Elementary School
Background Material (pdf format)

VII. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
(public is invited to speak on any subject that is not a public hearing topic on tonight’s agenda - each speaker three minutes)

VIII. FROM THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL/ANNOUNCEMENTS

• Upcoming City Events
• Work Session Announcement

IX. FROM THE CITY MANAGER

X. PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. JOINT — Z-309, Application Requests Rezoning of 3.6859 Acres of Land From R-20 (Medium Density Residential) to CD (Corridor Development) in Accordance With §24-196 (Map Amendments) and §24-160G.6 (Procedure for Application and Approval) of the City Code. The Property is Located at 12-16 South Frederick Avenue, and Includes Parcels N323 & N271, and is Known as Executive Gardens

   Background Material (pdf format)

2. JOINT - SDP-08-005, Application Requesting the Redevelopment of 3.6859 Acres of Land Located at 12-16 South Frederick Avenue, and Includes Parcels N323 & N271, and is Known as Executive Gardens Apartments. The Plan Proposes a 268-Unit Multiple-family Building With Structured Parking
   Background Material (pdf format - 28M)

XI. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, AND REGULATIONS
(ordinances, resolutions, and regulations to be introduced or adopted following appropriate procedures required by the City Code, or resolutions that may require discussion by the Mayor and Council prior to approval)

1. Resolution of the Mayor and City Council Adopting the Strategic Plan for the City of Gaithersburg
   Background Material (pdf format)

2. Resolution of the Mayor and City Council Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract for the B&O Station Roof Replacement Project ($101,732)
   Background Material (pdf format)

3. Resolution of the Mayor and City Council Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a contract for Wells Robertson House Fire Code Upgrades Project ($65,000)

   Background Material (pdf format)

XI. FROM THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGERS, CITY ATTORNEY AND OTHER STAFF

XIII. ADJOURNMENT

---

ANNOUNCEMENT
Notice to the general public is hereby given that the Mayor and City Council of the City of Gaithersburg will conduct a work session on Monday, March 23, 2009, to receive a presentation from County Councilmember Marc Elrich on a Concept for Bus Rapid Transit.

---

THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF
THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL WILL BE HELD
MONDAY, APRIL 6, 2009, 7:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 31 SOUTH SUMMIT AVENUE

From the City’s website:

Agenda - Work Session: Master Plan, Smart Growth Initiative, 2/9/2009
Posted 2/5/2009

City of Gaithersburg
WORK SESSION
Mayor and City Council
Monday, February 9, 2009
7:30 P.M.
Full Meeting Package (pdf format - 3.5M)

I. Call to Order

II. Announcements

III. Topics

1. JOINT - MP-2-08 - Municipal Growth Element, an Amendment to the 2003 Master Plan

   Background Material (pdf file)

2. Discussion With Montgomery County Officials on the Proposed Smart Growth Initiative (includes the acquisition and reuse of the GE and Finmarc Parcels in Gaithersburg)
   Background Material (pdf file)

IV. Adjournment

If you look through the (now broadsheet format) print edition of this Gazette, you might notice a couple of interesting legal ads, which finally give us an idea of how much some of these “Property Use Initiative” (now known, and referred to here, as the “Smart Growth Initiative”) properties — including two of the three parcels, or about 29 of the about 89 acres, they plan to acquire in the GE Tech Park — are going to cost the County. Note that the comment period ends January 20.

and

• Sebastian Montes writes, Web site asserts city’s opposition to plan for GE Tech:
  

  Some council members were concerned that a county Web site created last month says that the city supports the plan. The City Council has not yet taken a formal position.

  “I don’t have any reason to believe that the county did anything intentional, but perhaps there was miscommunication,” said City Councilman Ryan Spiegel. “… When I read the county Web site initially, I felt that it did not accurately reflect the feelings of the majority of the council. The vast majority, if not all of us, have significant concerns.”

• Sebastian Montes writes, Pick made for labor center’s permanent home:
  

  A parcel of land adjacent to The Grove Shopping Center in Derwood has been selected as the permanent location for the county’s day-laborer center that opened more than a year ago in a temporary trailer in an industrial park on Crabbs Branch Way.

• Sebastian Montes writes, Airpark no longer wants control tower:
  

  Officials have veered away from building a control tower to oversee the Montgomery County Airpark, the county’s only general-use airport.

• Patricia M. Murret writes, City passes hotel tax despite opposition:
  

  Amid protests from hoteliers and one lone councilman, Gaithersburg city leaders last week voted 4-1 to pass a two percent rental tax on city hotels and motels, making the city’s hotel tax rate one of the highest in the country.

• Janel Davis writes, Floreen proposes tax on parking spaces:
  

  A proposal to charge a $250 per space parking fee to help pay for infrastructure and improve the environment could be good in theory but the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce and some businesses question the timing of the proposal.

• Janel Davis writes, Leggett, council at odds over budget:
  

  Tough fiscal times are taking more than a toll on the county’s budgets, but shortfalls and declining revenues also have the County Executive and council disagreeing about whose budget balancing is best.

• Patricia M. Murret writes, Of Note Around Gaithersburg:
  • Get ready to celebrate with the Gin Blossoms
    

    Making headlines at the 27th Annual Celebrate Gaithersburg in Olde Towne street festival, which kicks off at noon on Sept. 21, is a rock concert by the Gin Blossoms and debut of new City Manager Angel Jones.

  • ¡Si, se puede!
    

    Gaithersburg city leaders kicked off Hispanic Heritage Month last week with a reception at City Hall sponsored by the city’s Multicultural Affairs Committee.

  • Going green in the Kentlands
    

    DPZ architectural firm designers will unveil designs for a community garden in the Kentlands at a “Go Green Meeting” sponsored by the Kentlands Community Foundation at 7 p.m. on Sept. 18 in the Kentlands Clubhouse, at 485 Tschiffely Road.

  • Stepped-up security at Robertson Park Youth Center
    

    City police are increasing police presence in the area surrounding the city-owned Robertson Park Youth Center, in the 800 block of Rabbitt Road, after the management company of a nearby business park complained of possible after-hour illegal activities bordering Robertson Park and the Diamond Farms Business Park Condominiums.

  • Rolling Stock rolls on
    

    City residents spoke out at a Sept. 2 meeting of city leaders after reading in The Gazette and advertisements for public hearings that federal money allocated for the renovation and restoration of historic “Rolling Stock” train cars and caboose at the Community Museum would be transferred to another account.

From the City’s website:

Frequently Asked Questions About the County Executive’s Proposal to Relocate County Uses to the G.E. Technology Park Special Study Area

1. What is the G.E. Technology Park Special Study Area and where is it located?

   The G.E. Technology Park Special Study Area consists of three parcels of land that are bounded on the north by Lakelands Park and the Lakelands Park Middle School, on the east by the Lakelands Community, on the south by MD Route 28, and on the west by Lake Nirvana and the Kentlands community.

2. What is the County Executive proposing?

   As part of a comprehensive property use initiative that would make portions of the Shady Grove Sector and the Life Sciences Center available for private development, the County Executive is proposing to relocate a variety of uses to three locations in the County:  the Webb Tract near Montgomery Village, a vacant area near the Shady Grove Metro known as Casey 6 & 7, and three parcels of land in the G.E. Technology Park Special Study Area. 

   At this point, the County Executive is proposing to relocate the following agencies to the existing G.E. building (Lot 1):

   • Police Headquarters
   • 1st Police District Station
   • Fire and Rescue Headquarters
   • Homeland Security
   • Possible other office uses to be identified

   The only use proposed for the existing Finmarc warehouse parcel (Lot 2) is the Liquor Warehouse and Department of Liquor Control Offices.

   Parcel C would remain vacant under the Executive’s proposal.

   www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/exec/cpus/pdfs/flow_chart.pdf

3. Is there any guarantee that the County would not change or modify these plans in the future?

   No. There have been a number of significant changes to the plan since it was first announced in December 2007. County officials have referred to the overall property use initiative as a “chess board” and changes to the proposed uses at the Webb Tract or Casey 6 & 7 could affect the proposal for the G.E. Special Study Area.

4. Who currently owns the three properties?

   Lot 1 is owned by Santa Fe Hotels (SFHI LLC) and is currently under contract to be sold to Avalon Bay Communities.

   Lot 2 and Parcel C are owned by Finmarc Management (Edison Tech LLC).

5. What is the City’s position on this proposal?

   At this point, the Mayor and City Council are not supportive of the proposal because there is no certainty about what the County would do with the land in the future. Additionally, they are concerned about loss of land use control, loss of tax base, impact on the adjacent neighborhoods, and with preserving open space. Once the proposal is finalized and discussions with the County are complete, the Mayor and City Council will consider all public input and take a formal position.

6. Is the County subject to the City’s zoning laws?

   No. After careful review of Maryland case law, the City’s Special Zoning Counsel has determined that the County is not legally obligated to comply with City zoning laws or to go through our normal planning process.

   In the past, Montgomery County and Montgomery County Public Schools have agreed to submit to a courtesy review by the City Planning Commission.
   

7. How would County acquisition of the properties in this special study area affect the City’s tax base?

   County acquisition of the G.E. and Finmarc properties would have significant impact on the City’s tax base because the County does not pay City property taxes. The City received a total of $181,258 in property tax for these three parcels in levy year 2008. If built out to the density guaranteed in the Annexation Agreement, the annual taxes the City would receive would be approximately $441,270 in current dollars at the current tax rate.

8. What has the City done to address concerns regarding the County Executive’s proposal?

   As indicated in item #5 above, the Mayor and City Council have not taken a formal position on the proposed County acquisition of these properties. The Mayor and City Council received two briefings (1/7/08 & 5/27/08) and City staff is meeting periodically with County staff to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that protects the interests of the City and its residents for the Mayor and City Council’s consideration. City staff is attempting to incorporate the following key issues in any draft agreement with the County:

   1. The key elements of this MOU should be incorporated into an Annexation Agreement Amendment to provide certainty to all parties.
   2. The County would go through the City’s site plan process as a courtesy review.
   3. Uses would be limited to administrative offices in the G.E. building (including the 1st District Police Station). The existing Finmarc warehouse would be used as the County Liquor warehouse. The City would like assurances that an employment center will not be opened at this site.
   4. No additional structures would be erected on either property without the consent of the City. In the event an additional warehouse is constructed, it should be designed in such a manner as to accommodate interior loading/unloading.
   5. The green space abutting Route 28 would be maintained as open space in perpetuity. The City is willing to maintain this area if the County deeds it to the City.
   6. The seven acre forested parcel (parcel C) be maintained as forest in perpetuity. The City is willing to maintain this area if the County deeds it to the City. Another alternative would be a conservation easement.
   7. During the plan review process outlined in (b) above, we would like an increased buffer area between the warehouse and the Lakelands community. Options include additional tree plantings or
      the construction of an acoustical fence. Also, during the plan review process, we would like to explore reconfiguration of the loading docks. All warehouse-related traffic should be routed onto Edison Park Drive rather than Main Street, and efforts to mitigate traffic and noise from the trucks should be considered.

   8. County would participate in the cost of State-mandated repairs to the Lake Placid dam, and in the cost of converting Lake Placid into a functioning storm water management facility.
   9. The County would provide ongoing compensation of one form or another to the City to make up for the loss of tax base due to the County acquisition of the land.
   10. In the event the County purchases the land and allows the existing commercial uses to operate for some period of time, the City should receive funds equivalent to what the tax would be.
9. What are the terms of the Annexation Agreement governing this special study area?

   In 1989, the National Geographic Society filed annexation petition X-146 that included the land that became known as G.E. Technology Park Special Study Area. This annexation was approved, and the land was zoned as I-3 (comparable to the former Montgomery County zoning category of Commercial Office Park).

   In 2000, the annexation agreement was amended. Among many other things, the 2000 amendment gave the property owner the right for an additional 700,000 square feet of I-3 development.

   • 1989 Annexation Agreement and 2000 Amendment (pdf format 3.5M)
10. What is the City’s Master Plan for this special study area?

    In September of 2006, the G.E. Technology Park Special Study Area Master Plan was approved. This Master Plan has two land use options:

    • Option A: Research & Development and Office Park
    • Option B: Mixed-Use Development (would require a rezoning and consent of the property owners)

    While Master Plans are generally advisory in nature, this Master Plan contains a number of special conditions that carry the weight of law including:

    • The land between Lake Placid and Darnestown Road must be preserved as open space
    • In the event of mixed-use development, the warehouse on the Finmarc property must be redeveloped concurrently with any development on the G.E. parcel.
    • In the event of mixed-use development, residential development shall be of comparable density and mix to the Lakelands and Kentlands communities.
    • City Master Plan

11. What is the status of the private development proposal for this special study area filed by Avalon Bay Communities?

    A number of primarily residential mixed-use plans were prepared and circulated by Avalon Bay Communities for this special study area, but they were never filed.

    On February 9, 2007, Avalon Bay filed Concept Site Plan (CSP) 07-001. This plan called for three one-story warehouse/office buildings in the total amount of 202,175 square feet. This application was ultimately denied by the Planning Commission due to non-compliance with Master Plan Special Conditions.

    On October 5, 2007, Avalon Bay Communities filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of CSP. This appeal was designated A-534 and was denied by the Board of Appeals.

    Subsequently, Avalon Bay appealed the Board of Appeals denial to the Circuit Court. This appeal is scheduled for hearing on November 19, 2008.

    • Concept Site Plan 07-001 — GE Technology Park
      Part I (pdf format 4.3M)
      Part II (pdf format)

      Part III (pdf format 3.7M)

    • Board of Appeals Review: A-534, 1/24/2008
12. How would private development in this special study area be affected by the City’s Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO)?

    Any private development would need to conform to the City’s APFO. Currently, this area is in moratorium for residential approvals because of overcrowding conditions at Rachel Carson Elementary School. Prior to any residential approvals, there must be either an addition constructed at Rachel Carson or a boundary change.

13. How can stakeholders provide input in this decision?

    All stakeholders are urged to make their views know to the County Executive, County Councilmembers, and the Mayor and City Council.

    The County Council is tentatively scheduled to receive a briefing on the County Executive’s Land Use Initiative on September 23, 2008.

    In addition, the Mayor and City Council of Gaithersburg will receive at least one more televised briefing from County staff this fall.

    Questions concerning the County Executive’s Land Use Initiative or the City’s position may be addressed to Assistant City Manager Fred Felton at 301-258-6310 or ffelton@gaithersburgmd.gov.

Contact information for County Council:

www.montgomerycountymd.gov/csltmpl.asp?url=/content/council/contact.asp

Contact information for County Executive:

www.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcgtmpl.asp?url=/content/mcginfo/siteFiles/contact.asp

Update: The video of this meeting is here. Public appearances start at about 7 minutes into the video; the Mayor & Council discussion immediately follows.

Watching tonight’s Mayor and Council Meeting, I note that several members of the Council, responding to comments from the public, explicitly referred to the County’s Property Use Initiative website, stating that they found the County’s description of the City’s response (“The City of Gaithersburg has not opposed our proposed uses. Some officials voiced support, other cautious support and others were non-committal.”) to the GE Tech Park proposal not to be completely in line with reality, which is pretty much what I had thought from the dialog in previous meetings. From the discussion in tonight’s meeting (I’ll put up a link to the video when such is available) it appears that the City continues to have discussions with the County on this topic, and is attempting to obtain firm assurances on issues such as the viewshed of Lake Placid and compensation for the lost tax base — although the County has yet to agree to anything of substance.

Also, I received the following email from Kentlands resident Richard Arkin in response to my previous post on this subject, pasted in here with permission:

I have not had the opportunity to analyze as thoroughly as you the county’s new “Property Use Initiative” PR websites and video. In my own brief review, however, I did notice some other deceptions and downright falsehoods in its postings.

If the county did indeed say “The property is I-3 zoning which permits the County to uses including office, warehousing and manufacturing,” then it has made a statement that is absolutely false. The city’s I-3 zone (and the property is, indeed, in the city and subject to the city rather than county, zoning ordinance) does permit certain office, warehouse, and manufacturing uses, with limitations. However, “public [i.e., government] buildings and uses” do not permit “on-site parking or storage of trucks, either within a building or on the exterior, or motor vehicles other than automobiles for employees and customers of the facility are allowed” and expressly prohibits government warehouses and delivery operations of any kind by stating “No distribution uses are allowed. For the purpose of this section “distribution uses” is defined as the primary use of the property for the “collection and transfer or dispensing of personal property or equipment to public or private recipients.” The only basis for the county repeatedly making the statement that what it wants to do is permitted is because the county takes the position that zoning laws do not apply to it. The state and federal governments do not, as a matter of policy, violate local zoning laws, but the county apparently does.

If the county also said that moving the District 1 police station into the GE Tech Park site does not take it out of District 1, then that statement is also false. County Police District 1 ends at Darnestown Road. The entire GE Tech Park subdivision is within county Police District 6.

But wait, there’s more in addition to these false statements and the deceptive statements in the website:

Another deceptive aspect of the website is its separation in their flowchart of the Finnmarc-owned parts of the GE Tech Park from the Gaithersburg Realty Trust-owned segments of the GE Tech Park and placing the Finnmark property with an ownership but not location designation next to the Casey Tract on their chart. The GRC segment, in contrast is labeled with the location, GE Tech Park, but not the ownership and is separated physically on the flowchart. The overall deceptive impression left is that only office locations will be located in the GE Tech Park, while the liquor distribution warehouse will be housed in an industrial Finnmarc tract somewhere near the Casey Tract.

In addition, the individual “sites being considered” listing (which should really be labeled as “sites pre-selected without comparison to other sites”) says that the so-called Finnmarc site is “adjacent” to the GE Tech Park (somewhat more revealing than the flow chart labeling), but fails to note that it is part of GE Tech Park. The sites are labeled as being on Route 28, although the areas to be developed are not very close to route 28 and are adjacent to and very visible from Lakelands and Kentlands.

I am sure there are others that will turn up on further examination, but I wanted to share these with you and your readership now.

Thanks.

Dick Arkin

In a later email, Mr. Arkin added:

It also troubles me greatly that the county is using as one of its prime justifications its plan to develop a Kentlands-like New Urbanist community on the parcels now occupied by some of the facilities they seek to move to GE Tech Park. The city’s master plan for GE Tech Park contemplates what would be an extension of Kentlands and Lakelands into the tract. So it seems to me that what the county plans to do is akin to robbing Peter (Kentlands, Lakelands, and North Potomac) to pay Paul (the Shady Grove sector).

The County has put up a series of web pages describing what they call their “Property Use Initiative”. These pages contain extensive information about their plans to relocate several County functions to a number of mostly further-up-county sites, with detailed analysis of each site. There is a 30-minute video giving an overview of the plan, as well as a flowchart showing how the uses are likely to be redistributed; a small copy of the flowchart is pasted in below, click on the image to load the PDF from the County’s website.

There is also a page on the GE Tech Park, containing many of the statements that we have heard from them many times before. On the most sensitive of topics, they remain as vague as ever:

• The property is I-3 zoning which permits the County to uses including office, warehousing and manufacturing.
• An additional 700,000 square feet of I-3 development and uses are permitted on the site “by right” under the Annexation agreement. However, the County does not plan to construct additional buildings on the site.
• The tenant, GXS, is willing to vacate the building and the size of this building allows the County to immediately consolidate in one location certain uses that are currently dispersed throughout the County.
• The GE Tech Park is surrounded by natural and man made buffers that separate the areas of the site where new development is likely to occur from existing adjacent residential development and the County is considering enhancing these buffers.

But in the FAQ they state:

• Can you put deed restrictions on the property to ensure that there will be no other uses? No, we cannot bind the future government in this manner.

Which I read as saying that they feel that at this point in the process they can tell any story they think will lower the community’s resistance, but on the other side of the next County election — which if you think about it will be held before any major expansion would be likely to begin — any promises they make now are null and void. They do not, I note, answer the question I’ve heard asked many times: How is it fiscally responsible to buy and hold valuable land that you have no intention of using?

• Will you control the employee traffic through the residential streets? We want 100 percent of the traffic to enter from route 28.

Well, you know, you can’t always get what you want. Note that they do not say they will do anything to control this. They do have a link on that page to a recent traffic study (PDF format).

The FAQ contains many statements along these lines:

• Will you reduce the parking lot to create a larger buffer between the property and the residential? We can look into that. Will also relocate the warehouse loading bays if necessary.

Well, yes, they can look into that. I’m sure they look into all maner of things, but how many of these things get done?

• Can the lakefront property be deeded to the city? The County plans to preserve and improve that portion of the parcel by adding benches to make it usable for residents.

Note that they don’t even answer the questions in their own FAQ. And they are silent on the obvious follow-up question of why they would hold on to property that would be that expensive to maintain if they don’t plan on using it for anything beyond seating. Note that they have not proposed to make this a formal County park. They do mention on another FAQ page that they plan on putting a public safety memorial near the lake, but I don’t think that this is intended as part of a park so much as a monument in an office building complex.

• What is the impact to city tax revenues? Will the county reimburse the city? That has not been determined, but the County has plans to discuss this with the city.

Another thing to look into.

• Will this affect the construction of the aquatic center? This will have no effect on the construction.

Why does the limiting of this question to the construction of the aquatic center leave me feeling that there’s more to this story?

• What has been the City of Gaithersburg’s reaction to the general proposal for a substantial public safety presence at the GE Tech Park site? The City of Gaithersburg has not opposed our proposed uses. Some officials voiced support, other cautious support and others were non-committal.

Again, I’m not sure this tells the whole story. From what I’ve seen in public meetings on this topic, City officials have had a large number of questions which the County staff have not been willing or able to answer. But in the end the tone of this FAQ entry seems to suggest that it doesn’t really matter to the county how the City reacts.

• The study proposes moving the District 1 Station from its current location on Seven Locks Road to the GE Tech Park. Chief Manger told the Committee that the move will not only provide upgraded facility but will allow Headquarters to become a 24-hour facility. However, the GE Tech Park is just barely in District 1 and would be quite distance from many residences and businesses in the District. What are the service impacts from this relocation? Should consideration be given to establishing a centrally located satellite or sub station? Has the City of Rockville been asked for their reaction to the relocation of the District 1 station? If so, what were there comments? The District 1 Station will be located on the extreme edge of the district that it serves. This will have no impact on the officers’ effectiveness or the speed of responses because to a large degree, calls are dispatched to officers in their roving vehicles, not from the station. It will be less convenient for residents on the other side of the district to get to the station and in the future we may consider a substation more centrally located. Preliminary conversations have been held with the City of Rockville. Additionally, of course the City of Rockville’s police services supplement those of the County and the impacts of the proposed 1st District should not be significant.

In other words, they don’t really have a good answer to this.

I’ve received the following press release via email:

Concerned Taxpayers of Montgomery County
C/o Bruce Drury
9309 West Parkhill Drive
Bethesda, Maryland 20814

Contact: Neil Harris, neilharris@kentlandsusa.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Petition Protests Montgomery County Acquisition of GE Property

(Gaithersburg, MD, July 29, 2008) A petition drive opposing the County Executive’s plan to acquire the former National Geographic campus, currently known as the GE tech Park, in Gaithersburg has gathered close to 900 signatures from citizens throughout Montgomery County. The first batch of petitions will be delivered to County officials on Monday, August 4, 2008 at 1:00 PM at Room 501, Council Office Building, 100 Maryland Avenue, Rockville, MD.

The petition drive is led by Concerned Taxpayers of Montgomery County (CTMC), a civic organization. The group has discovered that the County’s plan involves a secretive land swap deal where public land is traded for one of the most expensive available parcels in the County.

Says CTMC member Adrienne Gillen, “In a year when the County is dealing with an enormous budget deficit, it makes no sense to buy this particular tract. It makes even less sense to trade away the public land near the Shady Grove Metro to one developer, excluding other developers who might want to pursue rights to it. At a time of burgeoning budget deficits, the County should not set it sights on acquiring some of the most expensive real estate available anywhere in the County. ”

The CTMC estimates the value of the tract at well over $100 million, and it appears that other tracts in the County are available for between $5 and $40 million. Moreover, the current GE Tech Park buildings will require tens of millions of dollars of improvements, according to County spokespeople.

The County Executive’s office has repeatedly emphasized that the deal is being structured as “cost neutral.” Said Ms. Gillen, “’cost neutral’ sounds good until you realize that it is just a code – the County charter gives the Executive the right to trade items as long as they are cost neutral. We question if this clause should apply to land swaps involving multiple parties, swaps transferring hundreds of millions of dollars. Does using the phrase ‘cost neutral’ eliminate the need for transparency?”

Richard Arkin, a community activist, has filed a Freedom of Information request for details on the County’s financing of the plan. Instead of providing the information, the County Executive’s office asked for more than $16,000 to gather the information.

Aside from the fiscal issues, residents are concerned about the location of the main County liquor warehouse next door to the Lakelands Park Middle School. State law prohibits locating establishments that sell liquor within proximity to schools.

“The County seems to believe that this law does not apply to it,” said Neil Harris of CTMC. “That may be its legal position, but ethically this is just plain wrong. The law exists to set a proper example for our children. Does this make sense?”

Said Rachael Hammoudeh, chairperson of the Concerned Taxpayers, “There are so many things wrong with this plan – it is too expensive, too secret, too vague about the County’s future plans for the land, and it places a liquor distribution operation too close to a Middle School. We are bringing this to the County Council to plead for some sense.”

# # #

The CTMC is a civic organization that is opposed to Montgomery County’s plan to purchase the GE property.
For more information, contact Neil Harris at neilharris@kentlandsusa.com.

On Tuesday, the Mayor and Council will hold a work session on the County’s revised plans for the GE Tech Park. Note that, while in the background information it states that

It is noteworthy that the current concept for the GE and Finmarc properties does not envision the construction of any new buildings.

it is contrary to common sense that the County would buy and hold this valuable, developable property and never make any use of it. It should be kept in mind that, once the County purchases this property, there will be no planning control over what they do with it — the County does not submit itself to the authority of the Gaithersburg Planning Commission, and M-NCPPC has no authority over property within the City of Gaithersburg. In addition, Gaithersburg will not be able to collect any property taxes from the County on any improvements on that property, and the County not offered to compensate the City for this loss. Nothing in the County’s newly revised plans changes any of these important facts.

From the City’s website:

Agenda - Work Session: Proposal GE Tech Park, 5/27/2008
Posted 5/20/2008

City of Gaithersburg
WORK SESSION
Mayor and City Council
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
7:30 P.M.

• Receive an Update From Montgomery County Staff on the Proposed Plan for Acquisition of the GE and Finmarc Properties
  Background Material (pdf format)

The supporting background document states:

SUPPORTING BACKGROUND:

During his December 3, 2007 State of the County address, County Executive Leggett announced a plan for Montgomery County to acquire the GE Tech Park property and Finmarc property for the purposes of relocating certain County uses.

Both these properties are currently zoned I-3 and are subject to an annexation agreement that would permit an additional 700,000 square feet of I-3 uses. A recently approved Master Plan amendment did contain options for MXD development; however, an annexation agreement amendment would be required.

On January 7, 2008, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Diane Schwartz Jones gave a presentation to the Mayor and City Council on the County’s plans for the properties. The original plan envisioned the following:

1. Relocation of the Public Service Training Academy (PSTA) (not including the burn building) to the existing GE building.
2. Relocation of the 1st District Police Station to the existing GE building.
3. Relocation of various County offices including the Board of Elections, Department of Fire and Rescue Services, and Department of Homeland Security to the existing GE building.
4. Relocation of the liquor warehouse to the existing Finmarc building.
5. Construction of a new warehouse to accommodate MCPS food services.
6. Construction of a new facility for the PSTA gym and indoor firing range.
7. Construction of a helipad.

The City was recently notified that the County Executive’s proposal had been modified. In addition to acquiring the GE and Finmarc properties, the County would like to acquire a portion of the Webb Tract in Montgomery Village to accommodate the PSTA. It is our understanding that the current tentative proposal for the use of the GE and Finmarc properties is limited to the following:

The existing GE building would be limited to administrative offices (Homeland Security, Fire and Rescue Services, and Board of Elections) and the 1st District Police Station.

The existing Finmarc warehouse would be used as the County’s liquor warehouse.

It is noteworthy that the current concept for the GE and Finmarc properties does not envision the construction of any new buildings.

While the Mayor and City Council have not yet taken a position on the County Executive’s proposal, we have held a series of meetings with County officials to discuss ways to mitigate any impacts to the City and our residents if the County acquires these properties.

Note that, in addition to this work session on Tuesday, the Mayor and Council will be interviewing candidates for the position of City Manager on Tuesday and Wednesday.

The publishers of the website www.Maryland20878.com aren’t particularly fond of the County’s proposal for the development of the GE Tech Park, and are focusing particularly on the helipad element of the proposal:

It is clear from other communities’ experiences that once a helipad is in place, there is no control, and it becomes an unending nightmare for residents. All that we have worked on in Kentlands, in Lakelands, in Gaithersburg, could be for naught. All the disagreements that we have painstakingly hammered into agreements could become nothing more than wasted effort. Our new Lakelands Park Middle School, our new Lakelands Park could disintegrate from what they now are and what they represent.