gaithersblog.net

I’ve obtained some new artist’s renderings of what Archstone-Smith has in mind for the block of E Diamond Ave east of Summit. It’s good to see that this project continues to move forward. Together with the proposed redevelopment of the Fishman Building (just across the street from the Archstone-Smith project) and the Wye site, as well as the redevelopment of the Chris’ Steakhouse property that is now underway, it is an exciting time for Oldetowne. The Archstone project is on the agenda for the Planning Commission meeting a week from tomorrow; the background materials for that session have not yet been posted.

There is actually quite a bit of interesting stuff in the agenda for this Monday’s Mayor and Council meeting. The things that jump out at me include:

• A first look at specific proposals for the redevelopment of the Wye Site and the Fishman building in Olde Towne.
• Progress on restarting the Maryland Carpet & Tile project on North Summit.
• A site plan for redevelopment the old Giant Food shopping center on the hill overlooking the intersection of Girard St and North Summit Ave.
• A proposal to conduct a police training exercise at the soon-to-be-vacant Broadstone apartments.

---

Olde Towne Projects

The Wye Site is called that because it was the historic location of a railroad turning wye, where, in the days when locomotives could only go in one direction, a train could be turned around to go back in the other direction. The Gaithersburg Wye was located just south of the tracks and just east of what is now MD 355. This land now belongs to the City, and much of it is currently covered over by asphalt; I think that there is still a buffer stop (or bumper) at what had been the cusp of the wye, near what is now the intersection of Fulks Corner Ave and MD 355.

The Fishman Building is located at 315 E. Diamond Ave, east of the train station parking lot and west of the Granary Row building, and immediately across the street from the proposed Archstone apartment building. This property also belongs to the City, which purchased it in 1998 — in part, as I understand the story, to relieve a a parking problem in Olde Towne. For this project, the City has put the Fishman property together with the bulk of the parking lot in front of the train station. Thus, the replacement building will be able to be significantly larger than the current structure.

Last year, the City hired the Staubach Company to help market these two properties. City staff has now reviewed the proposals that were obtained through that process, and has selected two (one for each site) that they believe would be the best to pursue. What is before the City Council on Monday is a request for authorization for staff to proceed with negotiations on deals to develop the two properties. If such deals could be reached, the projects would then need to go through the standard planning process. However, this request for authorization gives us the first public look at what the developers might have in mind for the two locations.

For the Fishman Building site, staff has selected a proposal from Douglas Development Corporation of Washington, DC. Douglas, it turns out, was also the developer of the Granary Row project right next door, and it seems pretty clear from the drawings they have submitted that they intend to integrate the two projects:

Looking at this drawing, I can’t help but be a bit excited. The proposed building has retail frontage not just along the Diamond Avenue side, but along the railroad track side as well:

It appears that the boardwalk that now extends from behind the Granary Row building up to the rolling stock display would be realigned and extend all the way to connect to the boardwalk in front of the train station, and a new pedestrian space would extend all the way from the lower-level restaurant in Granary Row, past the rolling stock and merging into the clock tower plaza that the City currently plans to build, and about which I expressed some concern a few weeks back. At the end of the building facing the new clock tower plaza, the developers propose that there would be a seating area for restaurant/cafe tenets:

There would be a total of about 25,000 sq ft of retail space on the ground floor, with largish spaces at either end that could be used for restaurants or possibly a bookstore, and smaller bays in the middle that could have such uses as a coffee shop, or financial services storefronts. There would likely be two upper stories that would have about 50,000 sq foot of office space. The facility would have an underground parking ramp. Together with a new apartment complex across the street, this seems as if it would make a very positive change in Olde Towne.

---

As for the Wye Site, the proposal is potentially as exciting, although I don’t feel like it is as fully fleshed out in this document. The proposed developer is Arlington, VA-based Clark Realty Capital, LLC.

While this project would also have retail on the lower level, it would have residential units on the upper floors:

Proposes development of two four story, retail/residential buildings linked by a common Atrium lobby. Buildings would accommodate approximately 212 multifamily residential units and provide approximately 17,600 sq. ft. of first first-floor retail.

There would be a new parking ramp with 252 spaces, built as an extension of the existing City-owned garage, but for the exclusive use of the residents.

This use seems very much in keeping with the Magruder Company’s Cedar Court Apartments, which are next door, built between the City’s garage and Olde Towne Avenue. Cedar Court also has retail on the street level. One question mark has to do with a possible pedestrian bridge over the CSX railroad tracks. In the Olde Towne Charette, the planners made much of an idea for a plaza with what they called “spanish steps”, or a “grand staircase” on the south side of the tracks, leading up to a bridge connecting the pedestrian environments on the two sides. The proposal at hand, however, pretty much rejects this idea. While it does show the possibility of a pedestrian bridge (which isn’t included in the proposal, and likely couldn’t be as the property and/or easements necessary to do this don’t seem to be included in the offering from the City), any chance of having a continuous public space connecting the two sides would appear to be closed off by the construction of a private atrium at the south end of the bridge. Annotations on one of the drawings state that the Fire Museum would provide a “destination across [the] tracks”, as if they (a) do not expect their residents to have any other reason to cross the tracks, and (b) the retail on the ground floor of their own building would not be viewed as a destination for pedestrians coming from the north side of the tracks. None of this gives me any optimism that the bridge would ever be built, or that the pedestrian spaces on the two sides would ever be connected except at Summit. If this is the way it turns out, I think this would count as a missed opportunity.

The one other thing I note about this plan is that, while the Master Plan suggests the possibility of a 9-story “signature tower” at the far west end of this site, the drawings shown do not include such a feature. They do not, however, show the proposed structures extending into the land where this tower could be built. Perhaps this means that this option is being kept open for the future.

---

Maryland Carpet and Tile

It has been three years now since the City issued a stop work order for the Maryland Carpet and Tile building at 305 N. Frederick Ave. If I’ve done this link correctly (and your browser supports the live.com “birds eye view”), you should see in the middle of the picture a gaping hole in the ground and a partially-completed foundation. What happened back in 2004 was that someone wasn’t paying attention, and that foundation you see was built ten feet too close to MD 355, in the public utility easement. It probably isn’t too surprising that it took several years to straighten out who was at fault (it appears to have been a result of conflicting boundary surveys) and what needed to be done to correct the problem. But apparently the lawsuit has now been settled, and the property owner has approached the City with a plan to chop off part of the foundation and save the rest, while redesigning the building to deal with some other siting issues. Hopefully the details can be worked out and that project can move forward again, and we can have a functioning building there instead of an apparently-abandoned construction site.

---

North Summit & Girard

Speaking of eyesores, the old Giant Food shopping center at North Summit Ave and Girard Street has stood mostly vacant for several years, with just a couple of small stores hanging on. However, a developer has now brought forward a plan to develop a new residential project on that site.

Quoting the background materials:

Barbara Sears of Linowes and Blocher, LLP, representing the applicant, Hearthstone Communities, L.C., has submitted an application, Z-307, requesting a change from the C-2 (General Commercial) Zone to the Mixed Use Development (MXD) Zone. Although the original application and notices stated that sketch plan would have a range of 360 to 405 multiple-family dwelling units, up to 20,000 square feet of commercial/retail space and structured parking on approximately 6.58 acres of land, the sketch plan has been revised and now includes 349 multiple-family dwelling units (including 53 Moderately Priced Dwelling Units), up to 15,000 square feet of commercial/retail space and structured parking. The subject property is located north of Girard Street, east of Goshen Road, south of Odend’hal Avenue, and west of Cedar Spring Street, Hidden Creek (Land Bay III), Gaithersburg, Maryland. It is currently known as the Summit Shopping Center.

Background: The property was annexed in 1971 as part of the Casey-Goshen Tract (X-096) and zoned R-20 (Medium Density Residential.) In 1981, the property was rezoned to the C-2 (General Commercial) Zone. The shopping center was constructed in 1981-1982. In 1997, the property was designated as Commercial-Office-Residential Land Use in the Neighborhood One Master Plan. This land use was retained in the 2003 Master Plan. The property owner submitted a rezoning request (Z-296) to the MXD Zone in 2004 for 240 condo “active adult” multiple- family complex of 4-5 story buildings w/ structured parking. This application was withdrawn in December of 2005.

There is a fair amount of documentation on this project available on the City’s website, although at this point most of it is traffic and noise studies; the architectural information is just at the sketch plan stage.

---

Police Training Opportunity

Chief John King of the Gaithersburg Police has been thinking about the fact that the Broadstone apartments are about to be torn down, and he thinks that the existing buildings, once fully vacated, would be a great place to conduct a training exercise:

There are times when the police are placed at a distinct disadvantage when facing certain life threatening situations. Situations, like hostage rescue, criminals barricading themselves in rooms, and hard targets that would require an unrealistic amount of time by police to enter by conventional means are very good examples of where explosive breaching is needed. When properly trained, specially trained police can utilize explosives to overcome or circumvent these barriers. Having the option of defeating the barricades placed on the entry points, or creating access to a room or structure where the criminal doesn’t expect it, such as through a wall, is the reason that law enforcement must train and be ready to utilize explosive breaching.

Cool. I say, go for it.

---

From the City’s website:

Agenda - Mayor and City Council Meeting, 11/19/2007
Posted 11/16/2007

City of Gaithersburg
AGENDA FOR A REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2007, 7:30 P.M.

I. CALL TO ORDER

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

III. INVOCATION

Nazaneen Dorost, Baha’i Faith

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

• Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Mayor and City Council Held October 1, 2007
  Background Material (pdf format)

• Minutes of a Special Meeting of the Mayor and City Council Held October 15, 2007
  Background Material (pdf format)

• Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Mayor and City Council Held October 15, 2007
  Background Material (pdf format)

• Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Mayor and City Council Held November 7, 2007
  TBA - Background Material

V. CONSENT ITEMS
(resolutions for approval by the City Council that do not need discussion)

1. Resolution of the Mayor and City Council Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract to Purchase One (1) 2008 Bucket Truck ($68,430)
   Background Material (pdf format)

2. Resolution of the Mayor and City Council Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract to Purchase a Portable Asphalt Grinding Machine ($97,142)
   Background Material (pdf format)

VI. ELECTION OF CITY COUNCIL VICE PRESIDENT

VII. APPOINTMENTS

Resolution of the City Council Confirming Appointments by the Mayor to the Historic District Commission
Background Material (pdf format)

VIII. PRESENTATIONS

1. Proclamation of the Mayor and City Council Designating November, 2007, as “National American Indian Heritage Month” in the City of Gaithersburg
2. Readings of the Winning Essays from the City’s National CHARACTER COUNTS! Week Adult Heroes in OUR Community Writing Contest

3. Gaithersburg Cable Television Upgrade
   Background Material (pdf format)
   
   
4. Status Report on the City Gateway Entry Signs Art in Public Places Project
   Background Material (pdf format)
   

IX. COURTESY REVIEW

SDP-07-003 - Proposal to Amend a Schematic Development Plan (SDP), Known as Maryland Carpet and Tile, Located at 305 South Frederick Avenue, Gaithersburg, Maryland. The Amendment Proposes Two Story Mixed Use Building Consisting of 5343 Square Feet. The Property is in the Corridor Development (CD) Zone
Background Material (pdf format)

X. 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)

XI. FROM THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL/ANNOUNCEMENTS

• Board/Commission/Committee Vacancy Update
• Upcoming City Events

XII. FROM THE CITY MANAGER

XIII. PUBLIC HEARING

JOINT - Z-307 - Application Requests Rezoning of a 6.58-Acre Parcel, Known as the Summit Shopping Center (Parcel N182), Located in the Northeast Quadrant of Goshen Road and Girard Street at 559 Girard Street, in Gaithersburg, Maryland, From the Existing C-2 (General Commercial) Zone to the MXD (Mixed Use Development) Zone, in Accordance with § 24-196 of the City Code (Map Amendments). The Property is Adjacent to the Hidden Creek Land Bay III. The Sketch Plan Proposes Seven 4- to 5-Story Residential Structures Containing a Range of 360 to 405 Multiple-Family Dwelling Units, up to 20,000 Square Feet of Commercial/Retail Space and Structured Parking
Background Material I (pdf format)
Background Material II

XIV. RECESS MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEETING

---

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION

1. Call to Order

2. Approval of Minutes

Minutes of a Historic District Commission Meeting Held October 15, 2007
Background Material (pdf format)

3. Certificate of Approval

HAWP-29F - Applicant: Beverly Stalker. 11 Brookes Avenue, Tree Removal Request
Background Material (pdf format)

4. Adjournment

---

XV. RECONVENE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEETING

XVI. 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 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract for The Wells/Robertson House Roof Replacement Project ($110,730)
   Background Material (pdf format)

2. Resolution of Mayor and City Council Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Agreements Relating to the Development of Two City-Owned Parcels of Land in Olde Towne Gaithersburg
   Background Material (pdf format)

3. Resolution of the Mayor and City Council Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Contract With Rifkin, Livingston, Levitan & Silver, LLC for Legal Services Associated With the City’s 2008 State Legislative Agenda ($32,500)
   Background Material (pdf format)

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

Guidance on a Memorandum Dated November 15, 2007 Concerning a Police Training Opportunity at Broadstone Apartments
Background Material (pdf format)

XVIII. ADJOURNMENT

---

MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
ARE TELEVISED LIVE ON
CABLE CHANNEL 13 AND ON THE
INTERNET AT www.gaithersburgmd.gov/tv

Replays are televised at Noon on Tuesdays
following meetings and are repeated at
7 a.m. and 7 p.m. daily

THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL WILL BE HELD
DECEMBER 3, 2007, 7:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 31 SOUTH SUMMIT AVENUE

TO CONFIRM ACCESSIBILITY ACCOMMODATIONS,
PLEASE CONTACT DORIS STOKES AT
CITY HALL, 31-258-6310

I recently received a link to a website describing a proposed redelopment project for the area near MD355 at the Cuddy Bridge (the bridge over the CSX railroad tracks). This project, drawn up by developer Richard Koch of Keystone REI, would replace two apartment complexes at either end of the “Service Road” (which appears to have no other name at the moment, but would be renamed “Olde Towne Alley” under the proposal) forming the ramp off the bridge to W Diamond Ave, around behind Barrons/Gaithersburg Lumber. This would be another opportunity to replace some of the deteriorating housing stock in Olde Towne Gaithersburg. I encourage readers to take a look.

Phase 1 today

Phase 1 proposed

Phase 2 today

Phase 2 proposed

(Photographs copyright Microsoft, from local.live.com; drawings taken from the developer’s website.)

From the City’s website. Note that the bit about the field trip to several E. Diamond properties and the demolition requests are related to the proposed Archstone development project, which is likely to have a tremendous — and in my mind positive — impact on Olde Towne.

Agenda - Historic Preservation Committee Meeting, 9/18/2007
Posted 9/12/2007

CITY OF GAITHERSBURG
31 South Summit Avenue
Telephone: 301-258-6330

AGENDA
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Special Meeting
Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Site Visit at 320 & 402 East Diamond Avenue -6:30 p.m.

The committee will meet at the site at 6:30 p.m. to tour the buildings and properties.  This is in conjunction with a request to demolish the structures at 320, 324, 328, 330, 402, and 408 East Diamond Avenue.

Following the site visit, the Committee will resume the meeting at the City Hall Council Chambers

I. RECOMMENDATION TO HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION

Historic Significance of 320, 402, and 408 East Diamond Avenue Demolition Requests

II. PUBLIC HEARING

HAWP-78F
Applicants: Warren & Elizabeth Johnson,

Mary K. Pedigo & Daniel Washburn
102 & 104 Chestnut Street
Tree Removal
Background Material

III. ADJOURNMENT

Update: [8/9/07] The planning commission last night was generally supportive of the redevelopment of the 201 E Diamond Ave property, somewhat split on the height issue, and more or less speaking as one in their dislike of the architecture and what it would do to the streetscape. Several members of the public spoke, again generally supportive of redeveloping the property but having varying levels of concern about the building’s size and appearance as shown in the concept plan. Other issues that were raised include the width of the front sidewalk, the lack of sidewalk on the west (alley) side, and the question of parking and space for such things as dumpsters. It was explained that CBD zoning allowed for buildings up to four stories (including any sub-surface stories, if which this building would have one) by right — and thus they could build up to three stories above ground without a waiver. Waivers are allowed up to nine stories in this zone, but Mr. Ossont mentioned that such tall buildings were intended for the wye site. The developer was encouraged to continue on with this project but also advised to put a little more thought into the facade.

This Wednesday’s Planning Commission meeting has several major items on the agenda, including final site plan reviews of Neighborhood 3, Phase I of Aventiene (Crown Farm), and a new 43-unit neighborhood of villas at Asbury (the latter will be located near the corner of N Summit/Goshen Rd and Odendhal, on land recently used for garden plots). But the item I find most concerning is a new proposal — up for concept plan review — to replace the Chris’ Steakhouse building with a new four-story office strucuture, as shown above. Chris’ has been closed for some time; the building was constructed around 1924 and used as a restaurant since the 1930’s. The restaurant had operated as Chris’ since 1964. Now, I’m not going to say that I think the building should be preserved. It is much altered from it’s original design, and I don’t think it is particularly attractive or useful as it stands. The opportunities for adaptive reuse in this core business district are limited. From a preservation standpoint, I think there are other properties on that block which are much more valuable, and thus this property would be a good candidate for redevelopment. The property was reviewed by HPAC last week, and they voted unanimously to not recommend it for historic designation. Following are a couple of pictures of the streetscape containing the building in question:

As you can see, this is not a street presently containing tall buildings. While I think that taller buildings will eventually come to, and will be welcome on this block, I think that this new building is just too far out of scale with what’s there now; this is too big a step, too soon. It also, from the initial concept drawings, is entirely out of character from an architectural standpoint. Below is the only drawing provided in the background materials of the east side of the building, facing the present Guatemalteca bakery (the image didn’t reduce all that well, sorry). The diagonally-shaded portion at the bottom is the profile that the bakery will make against the side of this building, so you can see how much out of scale it will be. It is also apparent, from the lack of any features on this side, that the architects are expecting that the bakery building will be similarly torn down and replaced with a high-rise.

I think that this building is just too generic, too insensitive to context, and perhaps even a bit ugly. I hope that the Planning Commission will turn a jaundiced eye toward this project.

Agenda - Planning Commission Meeting, 8/8/2007
Posted 7/30/2007

City of Gaithersburg
31 South Summit Avenue
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877

Telephone: 301-258-6330

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA [subject to change]
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
7:30 P.M.
City Hall Council Chambers

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

July 25, Planning Commission Meeting
TBA - Background Material (pdf format)

RECORD PLATS

CONSENT

AFP-07-021 –   Stefanou Property
R-90 Zone
20 Maryland Avenue
New Garage (Demolition of Existing)
AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLAN REVIEW
Background Material (pdf format - 2.5M)

 AFP-07-027 – Lee Property
MXD Zone
656 Bright Meadow Mews
Addition of Storage Room Under Existing Sunroom
AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLAN REVIEW
Background Material (pdf format)

SITE PLANS

AFP-07-025 – Gaithersburg North Research
MXD Zone
200 Professional Drive
Modifications to Parking

AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLAN REVIEW
Background Material (pdf format - 3M)

SP-07-0007 – Bank Street
C-2 Zone
1 Bank Street/Quince Orchard Road

One-Story Bank
PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW
Background Material (pdf format - 3.7M)

SP-07-0004 – Aventiene
MXD Zone

Neighborhood 3, Phase I
FINAL SITE PLAN
Background Material (pdf format - 12.5M)

SP-07-0001 – Asbury Methodist Village

R-90 Zone
201 Russell Avenue
43 Single-Family Homes
FINAL PLAN REVIEW
Background Material (pdf format - 5.4M)

CSP-07-002 – 201 East Diamond Avenue
CBD Zone
(Formerly Chris Steakhouse)
Four-Story Office Building
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW

Background Material (pdf format - 5.2M)

FROM THE COMMISSION

FROM STAFF

ADJOURNMENT

This is the second of the agenda items from tonight’s Council meeting that I found interesting enough to post about.

As stated in the memo below from Assistant City Manager Fred Felton, while the County’s Annual Growth Policy does not apply within the City, the schools and transportation impact taxes do. The County is now engaging in their biannual review of this policy, and some of the proposed changes are concerning. I think that the approach that Mr. Felton recommends here is quite reasonable, and for the most part I’ll let his memo speak for itself. I will add a note about the consequences of the conflict between the City’s Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) and the County’s Annual Growth Policy.

According to Mr. Felton’s memo, the County is proposing that development will be allowed to proceed as long as the schools are at less than 135% of program capacity; developers would be required to pay an additional tax if the capacity is between 110% and 135%, toward the end of providing additional funds to alleviate the overcrowding. While allowing more children to be sent to such already-overcrowded schools is somewhat frightening, I believe that this tax should never have to be paid within the City of Gaithersburg, because, by the City’s APFO, proposed developments will not be approved if the schools are at 110% of capacity or more; the City also uses a more restrictive test to determine capacity.

Nevertheless, some schools attended by Gaithersburg students could well be driven to as high as 135% or more of program capacity because the school districts routinely cross the City boundary and include students from developments outside the City. I’m not sure there’s much that the City can do about this; they’ve already made a fairly strong statement of their opinion of this sort of folly via their APFO. However, as residents of the County, we can all at least directly tell the County Council what we think of this proposal.

The proposed waiver of impact taxes within Strategic Economic Development Projects could be another big help to the revitalization of Olde Towne, and the 50% credit of transportation impact taxes near MARC stations is a strong smart-growth proposal for the entire County.

The original of this memo, as well as the attachments to which the memo refers, are contained in a PDF that is part of the background materials for tonight’s meeting. Again, this was an OCR’d PDF, and I had to make a number of corrections, especially in formatting and punctuation. Please refer to the original for an authoritative copy, and let me know if you see any errors in my transcription.

MEMORANDUM TO:	Mayor and City Council
VIA:	David B. Humpton, City Manager
FROM:	Frederick J. Felton, Assistant City Manager
DATE:	July 5 2007
SUBJECT:	Montgomery County Annual Growth Policy and Impact Tax Legislation

On May 18 2007, staff sent a memorandum to the Mayor and City Council that included the Montgomery County Planning Board’s recommendations for the 2007 Annual Growth Policy (AGP) and modifications to the impact tax legislation. While the County’s AGP does not apply within the City of Gaithersburg, the County’s impact taxes for both schools and transportation are applicable to development in the City.

Over the last month, staff has attended a series of County Council hearings and Committee work sessions on the AGP and the impact tax. During the June 19, 2007 Public Hearing, former Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Scott Reilly provided testimony on behalf of County Executive Leggett. Given that the Executive is proposing significant modifications from the Planning Board recommendation, I have attached a copy of Mr Reilly’s remarks for your review.

Schools Test

Over the last three AGP cycles (2005, 2003, and 2001), the City has commented extensively on the schools test formula. In particular, the City has expressed serious concerns about sharing of capacity between schools and allowing residential development to continue with affected schools going as high as 110% of AGP capacity

In January of 2007, the City of Gaithersburg adopted an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance that included a schools test that was significantly more restrictive than the current County schools test. The City’s schools test was modeled closely after the City of Rockville’s schools test and closes an area to residential development if any of the receiving schools will exceed 110% of program capacity. Additionally, the City’s schools test does not permit sharing of capacity within or between clusters and only gives credit for Capital Improvements that are scheduled to be completed within a two-year timeframe

The Planning Board’s current proposal for the schools test reflects a new approach that both the County Executive and some County Council members have expressed concerns about. Rather than attempting to ensure that the current and forecasted schools can support students generated as a result of development approvals, the Planning Board approach attempts to generate significant revenues for future school construction. The Planning Board’s proposal evaluates elementary schools and middle schools on a cluster wide basis, but does not permit sharing of capacity between high schools. The Planning Board’s proposal would allow residential development to continue until a school’s capacity reached 135% of program capacity, but a substantial “special facilities payment” would be required for each anticipated student when capacity was between 110% and 135% of program capacity. These payments would range from $32,524 at the elementary level to $47,501 at the high school level. For your review I have attached an excerpt from the background material for the July 2, 2007 PHED Committee work session that discusses this issue in some detail.

Impact Taxes

As previously noted, Montgomery County impact taxes are assessed on new construction in the City of Gaithersburg. The Planning Board is recommending significant increases to both the school impact taxes and the transportation impact taxes. For example the school impact tax for a single family detached dwelling would increase from $8,464 to $22,729 per unit. The transportation impact tax for a single family detached dwelling would increase from $5,819 to $8,380. For your review, I have attached a memorandum dated May 14, 2007 from Research and Technology Chief Karl Moritz that outlines the Planning Board’s rationale.

While most County Council members appear to be supportive of some level of impact tax increase, a number of members have expressed concern that the recommendation may be excessive. An equally important issue is the timing of any impact tax increases. There has been some discussion of phasing in an increase over time to lessen the impact on projects in the pipeline.

At one point, the County allowed an exemption that would limit or waive impact taxes for Strategic Economic Development Projects. The County Executive’s staff has recommended that this exemption be reinstated in the current legislation.

For many years, the County has only charged 50% of the transportation impact tax for projects located in Metro Station Policy areas. In previous years the City has requested that this reduced rate also be applied to projects near MARC stations but the County Council has not acted favorably upon this request to date.

Staff Recommendations

Staff is recommending that the City of Gaithersburg make the following recommendations to the County Council with regard to the AGP and the impact tax legislation:

1. That the County’s schools test be modified to be more in line with the schools test adopted by the City of Gaithersburg and the City of Rockville.
2. That any impact tax increases be phased in over time to minimize hardship on development projects already in the pipeline.
3. That the exemption for Strategic Economic Development Project be reinstated, and that Olde Towne Gaithersburg be specifically designated as a Strategic Economic Development Project.
4. That development projects located in the vicinity of MARC stations (including Olde Towne and Metropolitan Grove Road) be given a 50% credit for the transportation impact tax.

I will be seeking guidance on the development of the City’s position on the AGP and impact tax legislation during the July 9, 2007 Mayor and City Council meeting. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter please feel free to contact me.

FJF/ms
Attachments

Last week’s Planning Commission meeting was canceled due to a quorum problem. They’ve scheduled a special meeting this week to handle the Broadstone site plan & rezoning application that got delayed as a result. From the City’s website:

Agenda - Special Planning Commission Meeting, 6/27/2007
Posted 6/22/2007

City of Gaithersburg
31 South Summit Avenue
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877

Telephone: 301-258-6330

PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA*
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
7:30 P.M.
City Hall Council Chambers

RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL

Z-304 – Fairfield Broadstone, LP
Request to rezone 14.157 acres of land, currently known as Parcel A, Lots N-943, N-994, N-888, and N-939, the Broadstone Apartments, located at the Md. Rte. 355/West Deer Park Road intersection, Gaithersburg, Maryland, from the existing R-20 (Medium Density Residential) Zone to the CD (Corridor Development) Zone, in accordance with § 24-196 (map amendments) and § 24-160G.6 (procedure for application and approval) of the City of Gaithersburg Code
Note: no additional testimony will be taken at this time.

and
SDP-06-004 – Fairfield Broadstone, LP
Request for approval of the schematic development plan (SDP) known as Parcel A, Lots N-943, N-994, N-888, and N-939, the Broadstone Apartments, located at the Md. Rte. 355/West Deer Park Road intersection, Gaithersburg, Maryland. The proposed plan includes 334 multi-family units, 53 townhouses, and 28 two-over-two units.
Note: no additional testimony will be taken at this time.
Background Material Part I (pdf format)

Background Material Part II

ADJOURNMENT

PLEASE NOTE:

* THE ITEMS AND PERTINENT INFORMATION ON THIS AGENDA ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANY TIME.

From the City’s website:

Request for Qualifications - Development of two building sites
Posted 6/20/2007

The City of Gaithersburg, MD invites and welcomes your participation in a process designed to identify qualified development team(s) capable of developing two building sites in the City of Gaithersburg. This Request for Qualifications is the first step in the process to select a development team. Prospective developers may bid on one or both of the sites. The sites are located in close proximity to each other and are described as:

1. The “Y” Site which is bounded by Olde Towne Avenue (south side), and the CSX Railroad right of way (north side) and
2. The 315 East Diamond Avenue Site, part of a larger City-owned property, which is collectively bounded by Summit Avenue (west side), CSX Railroad right of way (south side), and East Diamond Avenue (north side).

The Staubach Company (“TSC”) has been retained by the City to be its exclusive agent and consultant in assisting the City in the procurement of a development team and the negotiation of the sale. It is the intent of TSC to follow this RFQ with more focused and detailed RFPs (one for each site) that will be circulated to a select group of short-listed candidates.

The developer(s) of the two sites should use the Gaithersburg Olde Towne District Master Plan (pdf file link) as a guide in considering the project, however, initiative and innovation from the development team is encouraged. The City’s efforts to date in preparing for future private sector development are an indicator of the City’s desire to proceed with this development expeditiously.

The City’s primary goal is to sell the two sites to development teams who wish to work with the City to further the development of Olde Towne Gaithersburg. The City and the selection team intend to use the RFQ process as a decision tool in determining the degree to which vertical development and/or open space concepts will be most appropriate for the sites. The City intends to cooperate with the successful development team(s) to facilitate rapid development of a project(s) that will be in the best interest of the developer and the residents of the City.

Ultimately, the City plans to enter into a purchase and sale agreement with a development team(s) for the sites. The agreement will include (but is not limited to) the following provisions:

• Integration of the clock tower/plaza (planned for on an adjacent property) into the development of 315 East Diamond Avenue as indicated on the Master Plan;
• Sustainable development techniques; and
• An agreement governing the operations, maintenance and control of open or public space that may be included in the development of the sites.

Elements of the transaction will be discussed in more detail in the RFQ.

• Request for Qualifications Document (pdf file)
  NOTE: These documents are provided in PDF format and can be viewed with the Adobe Acrobat Reader. This format will enable you to view the documents as they appear in print. If you do not already have the Adobe Acrobat Reader installed follow the link above to Adobe’s free download area.

From the City’s website:

Agenda - Planning Commission Meeting, 6/6/2007

Posted 5/24/2007

City of Gaithersburg
31 South Summit Avenue
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877

Telephone: 301-258-6330

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA*
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
7:30 P.M.
City Hall Council Chambers

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

May 16, 2007, Planning Commission Meeting
Background Material (pdf format)

RECORD PLATS

CONSENT

AFP-07-017 – Jackie O Salon
C-2 Zone
18525 North Frederick Avenue
Reuse from Office to Retail
AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLAN REVIEW
Background Material (pdf format)

SP-06-0002 – Criswell Used Cars
C-2 Zone
499 Quince Orchard Road
18,363 Square Foot Car Dealership Building
EXTENSION OF FINAL PLAN APPROVAL
Background Material (pdf format)

RECOMMENDATION TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL

MP-1-07 – Amendment to the General Plan for the Gaithersburg Corridor City Master Plan adding a Historic Preservation Element
NOTE: no additional testimony will be taken at this time.
Background Material (pdf format)

FROM THE COMMISSION

FROM STAFF

SDP-06-004 –  Fairfield Broadstone LP

Md. Rte. 355/West Deer Park Road
Redevelopment for 334 Multi-Family Units,
53 Townhouses, 28 2-over-2 Units
Announcement of Closing of Record

Z-304   –        Fairfield Broadstone LP

Md. Rte. 355/West Deer Park Road
14.157 acres of land (Broadstone Apartments)
Rezoning from R-20 Zone to CD Zone
Announcement of Closing of Record
I. Background Material (pdf format)

II. Background Material

ADJOURNMENT

The second topic for next Monday’s work session has to do with a proposal to redevelop a stretch of East Diamond Ave, just east of Summit Ave. This is a project that has been in the works for several years, and was on the drawing board even before the development of the Olde Towne Master Plan in 2004-2005. The properties that currently occupy this location include Jim Clifford’s current office building, a couple of small apartment buildings with a total of 74 units, the current Olde Towne Youth center, and an old, abandoned and decaying house.

Click on the above picture to pull up the Windows Live aerial photograph.

I saw the previous plan for this site, and I was not entirely happy with what had been proposed — it was too massive, and it was too tall and crowded the street, and there were too many units — nearly 500 — jammed into that amount of space. This new proposal is greatly improved.

At first, and according to the Master Plan, this block was designated to have owner-occupied condos. But in the past year or two, the condo market has pretty much collapsed. Even the Rockville Town Square has had to back off on condo sales and pursue the rental market. I’m not particularly happy with this change, but I do understand the reality of the situation, and I hope that the developers will at at least build the units to be easily convertible into condos when the market returns, as it inevitably will.

But really, this is precisely what Olde Towne needs — more people living within walking distance of downtown restaurants and stores, and right across the street from mass transit. The current restaurants and retail stores are pretty limited, but I would hope that the addition of these apartments would help to bring in more. Also, that stretch of Diamond is pretty dismal late at night, and the wooded areas, while pretty from the street, are magnets for the homeless alcoholics (the first two color photographs in that post are from that stretch of E. Diamond) and no place to, for example, take quiet evening strolls.

The approval of this project is not certain, and I would encourage anyone who agrees that this should go forward to contact the Mayor and City Council to let them know how you feel.

Part of the proposal is to turn Teacher’s Way — which currently connects to Girard St for access to Gaithersburg Middle School, becoming a foot/bike path past the schoolyard, and an alleyway next to Gaithersburg Elementary, connecting to Summit via a City parking lot — into a real street connecting Summit & Girard in parallel with Diamond Ave, and providing the primary access to the new building’s parking garage. This is another thing that Olde Towne has needed for a long time. Also as part of this project, the current Olde Towne youth center — which is just a repurposed residential structure — will be torn down and a new one would be built by the City further out Diamond Avenue, near the Middle School. The plans are for it to be exactly on par with the newly-completed Robertson Park Youth Center, which I’ve never been to, but everything I’ve heard has been positive.

As far as mass transit is concerned, MARC isn’t perfect, but it is great for people commuting to Capitol Hill and especially Silver Spring — in fact, I’d say it is very nearly the only sane way to commute from Gaithersburg to Silver Spring. MARC also connects to Metro at Rockville. One might imagine that this building, together with the Park Station apartments, might start to achieve the sort of density that would justify dedicated shuttle buses running between Shady Grove and Olde Towne. (There is one Ride On bus — the 57 — that goes through Diamond & Summit on the way to and from Shady Grove, but it takes the scenic — and horrendously congested during rush hour — route out through Flower Hill to Muncaster Mill Road.)

Some will complain about the destruction of the 74 “affordable” apartments, but as I’ve previously discussed, Olde Towne already has far more than its share of “affordable” housing — much of which is affordable only because it is so out of date and, in some cases, poorly maintained. Others have complained about the loss of historic properties, but at least one of those is on its way to being demolished through abandonment and neglect, and more properties could follow if something isn’t done to bring more investment into Olde Towne. Often, historic preservation involves making these compromises so that one can afford to keep what is truly unique and significant.

Staff discussion from the work session background materials follows:

As you will recall, the concept of higher density residential redevelopment was a key theme of the fall 2004 Olde Towne Revitalization Charrette.

During the course of the Charrette, there was considerable discussion about potential redevelopment on East Diamond Avenue. For your review, we have attached the Olde Towne plan for Sector 3 that includes the proposed redevelopment area.

Mr. Clifford and Archstone approached the City about purchasing the Youth Center parcel and obtaining development rights for parcel 936, but staff would not recommend that the City Council consider disposing of these properties until we saw a fairly detailed plan for the proposed redevelopment.

In May of 2005, staff began meeting with Mr. Clifford and representatives of Archstone to discuss their plan, and numerous modifications and improvements were made over time.

On May 30, 2006, a work session was held to review the concept plan. During the course of the work session, the Mayor and City Council and the public expressed general support for the project but expressed some concerns about the massing and the density of the project.

Staff has been working with the development team to address the issues raised at the May 30, 2006 work session, and a number of key changes have been made to the draft plan. The development team is no longer proposing to include the surface lot behind Victor Litz (P 936) as part of the project, and the architecture and the massing on East Diamond Avenue has been modified significantly. For your review, we have attached the latest conceptual elevations from East Diamond Avenue and a conceptual footprint for the project.

To date, staff has worked with Archstone on four versions of the conceptual plan with densities ranging from 480 units to 390 units. At this point, staff is comfortable with the massing and density of the latest version and believes that it is in the City’s best interest to move forward with the planning process.

On December 19, 2005, the Mayor and City Council passed a resolution authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract to sell the Youth Center property (parcel N 948), and staff is in the process of negotiating a contract with Archstone Smith. It is anticipated that a contract to sell the Youth Center parcel would be contingent upon Archstone ultimately receiving Planning Commission approval for a specific unit count; however, the City can not approve a concept plan via a contract and the applicant will have to proceed with the normal process before the Planning Commission.

As the City Council is aware, it is necessary for the City to obtain a new site for the Olde Towne Youth Center prior to allowing redevelopment of the existing site. We have identified an excellent location on the grounds of Gaithersburg Middle School, and have executed a long-term lease with MCPS that gives the City rights to build on the property. Additionally, we have reached an agreement in principle with MCPS to obtain a portion of the right-of-way for Teachers Way Extended to facilitate this project.

At the conclusion of the work session, staff will be seeking guidance on the following:

1) Is the City Council generally comfortable with the scale and density of the proposed project?