Committee: PHED AGENDA ITEM 11A&B Committee Review: Completed March 23, 2021 Staff: Pamela Dunn, Senior Legislative Analyst Worksession Montgomery Glenn Orlin, Senior Analyst County Council Purpose: To make preliminary decisions – straw vote expected Keywords: #Shady Grove, Minor Master Plan Amendment

SUBJECT Council worksession to discuss the recommendations of the Planning, Housing, and Economic Development (PHED) Committee regarding the Planning Board Draft of the Shady Grove Sector Plan Minor Master Plan Amendment.

EXPECTED ATTENDEES Casey Anderson, Chair, Montgomery County Planning Board Gwen Wright, Director, Planning Department Mike Riley, Director, Montgomery Parks Carrie Sanders, Chief, Mid-County Planning, Planning Department Jessica McVary, Master Plan Supervisor, Mid-County Planning Nkosi Yearwood, Planner Coordinator, Mid-County Planning Patrick Reed, Transportation Planner Coordinator, Mid-County Planning Steve Findley, Environmental Planner Coordinator, Mid-County Planning Eric Graye, Planning Supervisor, Countywide Planning & Policy Christopher Conklin, Director, Montgomery County Department of Transportation Hannah Henn, Deputy Director, Montgomery County Department of Transportation Andrew Bossi, Director’s Office, Montgomery County Department of Transportation

COUNCIL DECISION POINTS & COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION • Council will take straw votes on the recommendations of the PHED Committee regarding the Planning Board Draft of the Shady Grove Sector Plan Minor Master Plan Amendment. • The recommendations (too numerous to list here) are covered in two separate staff reports. The staff report labeled Agenda Item 11A addresses the land use; zoning; historic preservation; urban design; parks, trails and open space; and community facility recommendations in the Plan. The staff report labeled Agenda Item 11B addresses recommendations related to transportation infrastructure and adequacy, as well as development staging.

DESCRIPTION/ISSUE On October 15, 2020, the Montgomery County Planning Board approved the Shady Grove Sector Plan Minor Master Plan Amendment. The Plan makes recommendations for urban design; land use and zoning; historic resources; and parks, trails and open spaces within the Shady Grove Sector Plan area, as well as recommendations intended to address transportation capacity; development staging; overall circulation; and pedestrian and bikeways connections within the Plan area.

SUMMARY OF KEY DISCUSSION POINTS • The PHED Committee held three worksessions on the Plan. • The staff report for the first worksession, held on March 1, can be viewed at: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/council/Resources/Files/agenda/cm/2021/20210301/ 20210301_PHED2.pdf • The staff report for the second worksession, held on March 15, can be viewed at: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/council/Resources/Files/agenda/cm/2021/20210315/ 20210315_PHED1.pdf • The staff report for the third worksession, held on March 18, can be viewed at: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/council/Resources/Files/agenda/cm/2021/20210318/ 20210318_PHED-5.pdf • The Planning Board Draft of the Shady Grove Sector Plan Minor Master Plan Amendment can be viewed at: https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Shady-Grove-Minor-Master- Plan-Amendment-Planning-Board-Draft-12-17-20.pdf

This report contains: Staff Report for Agenda Item 11A: Memorandum on urban design, zoning, historic resources, and other land use-related recommendations Staff Report for Agenda Item 11B: Memorandum on transportation infrastructure, development staging and adequacy.

Alternative format requests for people with disabilities. If you need assistance accessing this report you may submit alternative format requests to the ADA Compliance Manager. The ADA Compliance Manager can also be reached at 240-777-6197 (TTY 240-777-6196) or at [email protected] Agenda Item #11A March 23, 2021

M E M O R A N D U M

March 18, 2021

TO: County Council

FROM: Pamela Dunn, Senior Legislative Analyst

SUBJECT: Shady Grove Sector Plan Minor Master Plan Amendment

PURPOSE: Worksession – Review PHED Committee Recommendations

This memorandum presents the recommendations of the Planning, Housing, and Economic Development (PHED) Committee regarding the Shady Grove Sector Plan Minor Master Plan Amendment. A separate memorandum from Glenn Orlin will address the Committee’s transportation recommendations. This memorandum covers recommendations on urban design, land use, zoning, housing, parks, trails and open space, sustainability, historic resources, and community facilities, both property-specific recommendations and broader recommendations for the Plan area in general. The PHED Committee’s recommendations are highlighted in bold.

Councilmembers may wish to bring their copy of the Plan to the meeting.

BACKGROUND

The Shady Grove Sector Plan Minor Master Plan Amendment encompasses a plan area defined by several major transportation facilities, including Frederick Road (MD 355), the Intercounty Connector (MD 200), Shady Grove Road, Redland Road, Midcounty Highway, the Metrorail station and tracks, the CSX rail tracks, and the future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor along MD 355. The Plan area is home to a variety of residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional uses. Established residential neighborhoods are primarily in the northern and southeastern portions of the Plan area. A variety of public facilities, including Blueberry Hill Local Park, Redland Local Park, Washington Grove Conservation Park, Mill Creek Stream Valley Park, and Shady Grove Middle School provide recreational and educational opportunities to residents in these areas. Single-use commercial areas along Crabbs Branch Way, Frederick Road (MD 355) and Oakmont Avenue further define the Plan area. In addition, the Plan area is adjacent to three municipalities: the City of Rockville, the City of Gaithersburg, and the Town of Washington Grove. Since 20061, the Plan area’s size has been modified with the annexations of three properties by the Cities of Gaithersburg and Rockville.

Families represent a majority of households, 72 percent, in the study area. Single-headed households account for approximately 28 percent of residents, which is comparable to the Countywide average of 30 percent. The area’s household types for owner-occupied (63 percent) and rental-occupied (36 percent) housing are comparable to the Countywide averages. The study area’s white population (57 percent) is higher than the Countywide average of 46 percent and the percentages of Asians (18 percent) and Hispanics (20 percent) are also higher than the Countywide averages of 14 percent and 18 percent, respectively. African Americans account for 14 percent of residents in the study area, which is lower than the Countywide average of 17 percent.

The vision of this Sector Plan Amendment is to create a future Shady Grove Metro Station area that is home to a mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented environment with attractive streetscapes, distinctive architecture, and a sense of place that is complemented with public art, facilities and amenities, and new mobility options. This vision is consistent with the 2006 Shady Grove Sector Plan, which aimed to transform a light industrial area into a new mixed-use community near the Shady Grove Metro Station

PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS

On pages 18-19 of the Planning Board Draft Sector Plan Amendment, key recommendations are organized under one of the following eight categories2: Urban Design, Land Use and Zoning, Housing, Mobility, Parks, Trails and Open Space, Sustainability, Historic Resources, and Community Facilities. As the name suggests, the key recommendations offer a summarized view of the most prominent recommendations under each area of focus.

I. Urban Design (pages 21-29) This Sector Plan Amendment confirms the framework recommended by the 2006 Plan; design recommendations are focused on neighborhoods that remain undeveloped or areas where potential has changed as a result of development approvals, changes in zoning, or annexations by adjacent municipalities. Design guidance is focused on commercial clusters on Shady Grove Road and Metro East, West, and South neighborhoods.

According to the Sector Plan Amendment, development within the Metro neighborhoods should promote quality building and site design for all new development; prioritize development at strategic locations; focus improvements along existing streets that connect to the Metro station and communities on both sides of the rail tracks; and concentrate public open space at locations supportable by existing and proposed connections, integrated as accessible amenities. In addition, redevelopment and new construction should create a pattern of interconnected streets and public open spaces with street-oriented buildings; explore a vertical use mix, where feasible; consider horizontal mixes to retain existing uses or create unique local character; consider different and innovative types of development; prioritize development along Somerville Drive and Redland Road; reduce the size of larger blocks to promote pedestrian activity; encourage quality building and site design elements; and ensure design of new buildings provides amenities supportive of pedestrian, bicycle, and micro-mobility circulation.

1 The current Sector Plan for this area was adopted in 2006. 2 Each one a chapter in the plan.

2 With respect to urban design and open space, the Sector Plan Amendment confirms several of the components of the open space system recommended by the 2006 Plan and further recommends that redevelopment organize public open space along existing public streets or extensions of them; consolidate public open space areas at strategic locations; integrate existing environmental resources or wooded areas into the public open space network; ensure open spaces are framed and activated by surrounding uses; and consider crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) strategies to design safe public spaces.

Detailed bullets describing each recommendation can be found on pages 22, 24, 26, and 28 of the Sector Plan Amendment. Additional neighborhood-specific design recommendations are covered in the land use and zoning section.

The Committee unanimously concurs with the Planning Board’s areawide urban design recommendations.

II. Land Use and Zoning (pages 31-65) The Planning Board Draft of the Shady Grove Sector Plan Minor Master Plan Amendment is primarily organized around a series of neighborhoods in proximity to the Metro Station: Metro West, Metro South, Metro North, Old Derwood, and Shady Grove Station, Westside and Jeremiah Park. These neighborhoods serve as the focal point of the land use and zoning recommendations in the Plan. Beyond the Metro Neighborhoods, the Plan also includes recommendations for a transition area between the Metro Station area and the existing low-density residential neighborhoods.

Shady Grove Metro Neighborhoods As noted above, the Metro Neighborhoods constitute the core area of the Plan area and are primarily within a half mile from the Shady Grove Metro Station. Most of the proposed new development in the Plan is anticipated within these neighborhoods (Map 11, page 33). Unlike the 2006 Sector Plan, this Plan includes Jeremiah Park as a Metro Neighborhood since this property has an approved preliminary plan of development and is adjacent to the Metro station.

Metro West (pages 34-37) The Plan envisions the Metro West neighborhood as the most intensively developed portion of the Sector Plan area. Located east of MD 355, north of Redland Road and west of the Shady Grove Metro Station, this approximately 30-acre area has a variety of retail, commercial, and residential uses.

Key properties in this neighborhood include the WMATA/Metro surface parking area and Thomas Somerville (Map 12, page 35). This neighborhood is within a quarter mile of the Metro station, and the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT) and MD 355 BRT routes will traverse this neighborhood. This Sector Plan Amendment, similar to the 2006 Sector Plan, foresees this neighborhood as a mixed-use area with various residential and non-residential uses, along with new parks and open spaces, and the CCT and MD 355 BRT providing new mobility alternatives.

Land Use and Zoning This Sector Plan Amendment recommends increasing the potential for new transit-oriented development in this neighborhood due to its adjacency to the Metro station. The Plan recommends the following for the Metro West neighborhood (Map 14, page 37):  Rezone the WMATA/Metro property, including the surface parking lot and the Somerville

3 property, 15901 Somerville Drive, from the CR-1.75 C-0.5 R-1.5 H-160T/TDR 1.77 zone to the CR-2.0 C-1.0 R-1.5 H-200 zone to promote high-intensity mixed-use development at the Metro station that contributes to the Sector Plan’s public benefits, including the maximum percentage of affordable housing and a minimum one-acre Civic Green for the WMATA property.

Council staff comment: The Planning Board’s proposed rezoning for this property eliminates it as a TDR receiving area. It is unusual to have a CR zoned property that is also a TDR receiving area. These conditions are a vestige of 2014 zoning conversion. Under the 2006 Sector Plan, this property was zoned TOMX2 and specified as a TDR receiving area. In 2010, during development of the White Flint Plan, the CR zone was created, based on the TOMX2 zone. At the same time, the Building Lot Termination (BLT) program was developed as a requirement of the Optional Method of Development in the CR zone. During the 2014 Zoning Ordinance rewrite, under the consolidation of zones, any property zoned TOMX2 was rezoned to CR and any existing TDR receiving area was retained. However, in general, it was always intended that the BLT requirement would replace the optional TDR provision for certain zones. Thus, removing the TDR receiving area designation in conjunction with a CR zone as part of the master plan process is expected.

There is, however, one additional element of the change in zoning that should be considered. Currently, the maximum residential FAR that could be achieved on the property is 1.77 FAR.3 The Sector Plan Amendment recommends a maximum residential FAR of 1.5.

The Committee recommends (3-0) the WMATA/Metro property be rezoned to the CR-2.25 C-1.0 R-1.75 H-200 zone, consistent with the maximum residential density (through the use of TDRs) recommended in the 2006 Plan.

 Rezone the commercial properties between MD 355 and west of Somerville Drive, including the Montgomery County Teachers Credit Union, from the CRT-1.5 C-0.5 R-1.25 H-100T zone to the CR-2.0 C-1.0 R-1.5 H-120 zone to promote high-intensity mixed-use development that contributes to the Sector Plan’s public benefits.  Rezone the MidWay Shopping Center from the CRT-0.75 C-0.75 R-0.25 H-50T zone to the CRT-0.75 C-0.75 R-0.25 H-50 zone.  Rezone the Public Storage property, 16001 Frederick Road, from the CRT-0.75 C-0.75 R-0.25 H-50T zone to the CRT-1.25 C-1.25 R-0.25 H-50 zone to permit a conforming property.

The Committee unanimously concurs with the Planning Board’s zoning recommendations for the remaining properties in the Metro West neighborhood.

Urban Design  Concentrate maximum development intensity and building height near the Metro station and within the existing WMATA surface parking lot. Coordinate proposed locations for new transportation facilities (BRT, CCT) with new development, and ensure compatibility between new development and existing or approved development on adjacent properties within this neighborhood.  Provide a minimum one-acre contiguous Civic Green within the redeveloped WMATA

3 Through the use of TDRs.

4 surface parking lot to be anchored and activated by development. Create connection to potential open space on developing properties east and south of the WMATA property.  Allow flexibility in the implementation of the goal to create an internal network of streets, if needed, to accommodate the diverse ownership pattern or existing viable uses that might remain. Developing properties should consider alternatives to business streets such as shared streets or mid-block pedestrian connections to create smaller blocks and expand pedestrian areas, or to provide open space.  Areas dedicated to public open space should be consolidated and accessible from new connections or existing public streets. Create opportunities for activating uses at public open space locations.

The Committee unanimously concurs with the Planning Board’s urban design recommendations for the Metros West properties.

Metro South (pages 38-39) The Metro South neighborhood includes a variety of light industrial uses, such as automotive services, storage facilities, and retail businesses. The vacant property at Redland Road and Somerville Drive has redevelopment potential with residential and non-residential uses, and the proposed MD 355 BRT will traverse Redland Road to the Metro Station (Map 15, page 38).

Land Use and Zoning The Sector Plan Amendment recommends increased residential and nonresidential development for all properties in this area given its proximity to the Metro station and the potential for development to contribute to a variety of public benefits, including the maximum percentage of affordable housing and new open spaces. The Plan recommends the following for the Metro South properties (Map 17, page 39):  Rezone the vacant Somerville property (Parcel N313) at Redland Road and Somerville Drive from the CRT-1.75 C-0.5 R-1.5 H-90T/TDR 1.77 zone to the CR-2.0 C-0.5 R-1.5 H-120 zone to promote the Sector Plan-recommended public benefits, including the maximum percentage of affordable housing and open space.

Council staff comment: Like the WMATA/Metro site in the Metro West neighborhood, this property proposes residential FAR equal to the maximum allowed in the 2006 Sector Plan, without the use of TDRs. However, this property is currently in a TDR receiving area with a maximum residential density equal to 1.77 FAR with the use of TDRs.

The Committee recommends (3-0) the vacant Somerville property be rezoned to the CR-2.25 C-0.5 R-1.75 H-120 zone, consistent with maximum residential density achievable in the 2006 Plan.

 Rezone the remaining properties in this neighborhood from the CRT-1.5 C-0.5 R-1.25 H-90T zone to the CR-2.0 C-0.5 R-1.5 H-120 zone to support the Sector Plan-recommended public benefits, including housing options.

The Committee unanimously concurs with the Planning Board’s zoning recommendation for the remaining properties in the Metro South neighborhood.

Urban Design  Support property assembly to establish a consistent and walkable block pattern that provides

5 access to new amenities for this neighborhood, including a promenade or mid-block connections.  Alternatively, support a less regular pattern of blocks and connections to assist in the incremental redevelopment of the area should property owners choose to consider development opportunities individually. In such cases, consider: o promoting synergies between adjacent properties considering redevelopment; o ensuring compatibility between adjacent frontages on separate developing properties; o consolidating areas designated for public open space at centralized locations to be determined during the regulatory review process. Support using internal pedestrian connections to satisfy public open space requirements; o creating internal connections to reduce the size of existing, larger blocks. To accommodate incremental redevelopment, in lieu of public streets, consider mid-block pedestrian ways, internal shared streets, or other creative ways to provide passage and reduce block size; o minimizing the number of new curb cuts along Frederick Road.  Encourage retail or other active uses at strategic locations to promote pedestrian activity as well as bikeshare, micro-mobility and bike parking, and to support the surrounding neighborhoods.  Redevelopment on the Somerville property should also provide a minimum half-acre Neighborhood Green. Its location will be determined during the development review process.

The Committee unanimously concurs with the Planning Board’s urban design recommendations for properties in the Metro South neighborhood.

Old Derwood (pages 40-43) The Old Derwood neighborhood is the oldest part of the Sector Plan. Its historic resources date back to the 1880s. Recommendations in this Sector Plan seek to reestablish the residential character of this portion of the Plan area. Old Derwood is a predominantly residential area east of the CSX rail tracks, south of Redland Road and west of Crabbs Branch Way. Institutional uses, including Derwood Bible Church, a Pepco substation, and the State’s Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program (VEIP) station are also located in this area (Map 18, page 41).

This Sector Plan Amendment, like the 2006 Sector Plan, recommends residential development on the VEIP station to reestablish Old Derwood as a residential neighborhood. The VEIP inspection station, which is owned by the State of Maryland, could relocate to another location that would permit more efficient development for a property that is adjacent to the Metro station (Map 20, page 42).

For the VEIP property, the Plan recommends:  Relocate the VEIP inspection station to another location that is compatible with its existing light industrial use.  Rezone the VEIP property from the R-90 zone to the Commercial Residential Neighborhood (CRN-1.0 C-0.0 R-1.0 H-65) zone that contributes to the Sector Plan’s public benefits, including affordable housing.  Noise mitigation measures must be included in the new development, such as locating structured parking adjacent to the CSX tracks.  Locate more intense development and higher heights toward Redland Road and lower building heights, including single-family and attached dwellings, towards the existing residential community to ensure development compatibility.

6

The Committee concurs with the Planning Board’s land use and zoning recommendations for the VEIP property with one exception. Councilmember Friedson requested that the recommendation regarding the relocation of the VEIP station be revised from “relocate” to “encourage the relocation of” in order to convey to the community the lack/limited control the County has with respect to this action. The Committee concurs (3-0) with this change.

The Townes at Shady Grove is a 149-unit residential development located at the western and eastern intersection of Redland Road and Yellowstone Way.

For the Townes property, the Plan recommends:  Rezone the multi-family residential building at 16011 Redland Road and the remaining townhouses and single-family dwellings (7900-7919 Yellowstone Way, 16121-16131 Redland Road, and 15912-15948 Chieftain Avenue) from the PD-35 zone to the CRN-1.0 C-0.0 R-1.0 H-65 zone.

The Committee unanimously concurs with the Planning Board’s land use and zoning recommendation for the Townes property.

The 3.8-acre Derwood Bible Church property, including a cemetery, is located at the southeast intersection of Yellowstone Way and Chieftain Avenue. In 2017, a residential development was approved for this property, but it was never implemented because the property owner could not relocate the church.

For the Derwood Bible Church property, the Plan recommends:  Confirm the R-90/TDR-13 zone for the church property, including the existing cemetery. If the church relocates in the future, residential development must transition to existing residential development along Yellowstone Way.

The Committee unanimously concurs with the Planning Board’s land use and zoning recommendation for the Derwood Bible Church property.

The Derwood Business Center is an office-industrial condominium building, located along Derwood Road and between Derwood Street and Chieftain Avenue. There is a range of small businesses located on this 2.5-acre property.

For the Derwood Business Center property, the Plan recommends:  Confirm the IM-2.5 H-50 zone. The Commercial Residential Neighborhood-Floating zone (CRNF-0.75 C-0.0 R-0.75 H-50) is suitable for this property.  Redevelopment of this property must provide noise mitigation measures from the adjacent CSX rail tracks and establish a compatible relationship with existing single-family dwellings.

The Committee unanimously concurs with the Planning Board’s land use and zoning recommendations for the Derwood Business Center property.

The Derwood Store and Post Office reflects one of the last vestiges of Derwood’s history. During the creation of the 2006 Sector Plan, the Planning Board placed the property on the Locational Atlas and Index of Historic Sites (#22/33-3). In May 2019, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) recommended the designation of this property to the Master Plan for

7 Historic Preservation and supported rezoning the property to an appropriate residential zoning category to allow for its adaptive reuse and restoration.

For the Derwood Store and Post Office property, the Plan recommends:  Rezone this property from the R-200 zone to the Commercial Residential Neighborhood zone (CRN-1.0 C-0.0 R-1.0 H-50) to permit the building’s historic adaptive reuse and renovation and some additional residential development.  Encourage a range of unit types, including duplexes and small cottages, for the non-historic addition.  Support flexibility regarding development standards where permissible, including waiving some development standards of the zone, that would permit preservation and reuse of this building.  Allow on-site parking requirements to be partially met with on-street parking.

Testimony: The Council received testimony from the Historic Preservation Commission and Montgomery Preservation, Inc. in support of the land use and zoning recommendations for the Derwood Store.

Council Staff comment: Development in the CRN zone can only be approved under the Standard Method of Development. An approval under Standard Method will not allow for the waiver of development standards, potentially necessary to ensure flexibility for the preservation and reuse of this historic resource.

The Committee recommends (3-0) revising the zoning recommendation for the Derwood Post Office to the Commercial Residential Town zone (CRT-1.0 C-0.25 R-1.0 H-50) to permit the building’s historic adaptive reuse, renovation, and some additional residential development with a minimal amount of commercial density to fulfill the requirements of the CRT zone. Any non-residential development approved for this site should provide neighborhood-serving uses or amenities, similar to the original Derwood Store, and should be integrated with the residential development.

Metro North-WMATA (pages 44-45) Two structured parking garages and three surface parking areas consisting of approximately 4,800 parking spaces are the main features on this 24.5-acre area that is owned by WMATA/Metro. Several Ride-On and Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA) bus bays, and a Kiss-N-Ride area, are also located on this property. An existing stream bisects the northern parking areas from the smaller southern parking areas.

Land Use and Zoning The Sector Plan Amendment proposes land use recommendations for this area, in conjunction with the adjacent Shady Grove Station, Westside development, designed to support the creation of an active neighborhood in an area that is dominated by automobiles today (Map 22, page 45).

For the Metro North-WMATA property the Plan recommends:  Rezone this property from the CRT-1.0 C-0.25 R-0.75 H-70T/TDR 0.88 zone to the CR-1.5 C-0.25 R-1.254 H-100 zone to promote intense mixed-use at the Metro station that contributes to the Sector Plan’s public benefits, including a higher percentage of affordable

4 Correction to the Planning Board Draft, R-1.00 should be R-1.25.

8 housing and open space.

The Committee unanimously concurs with the Planning Board’s land use and zoning recommendation for the Metro North-WMATA property.

Urban Design  The central portion of the site should develop with higher heights; building heights, use and intensity along the Metro-North access should be compatible with recent development to the north, and development along Redland Road should be complementary with recent development within the existing Old Derwood residential community to the south.  Establish an internal street network to promote pedestrian activity and to improve circulation between adjacent residential communities and the new mixed-use area.  Consolidate access points into existing parking garages, to facilitate redevelopment along their fronts. Consider clustering access points for existing and new parking structures along the shared garage access drives.  Retain the existing stream and enhance it to create a linear park that would provide an amenity for the neighborhood.

The Committee unanimously concurs with the Planning Board’s urban design recommendations for the Metro North-WMATA property.

Shady Grove Station, Westside and Jeremiah Park (pages 46-49) The 45-acre Shady Grove Station, Westside is a new development that implements several recommendations from the 2006 Sector Plan, especially the relocation and redevelopment of the Montgomery County Service Park (CSP). The redevelopment of the CSP was initiated in 2012 by the Executive Branch via the Smart Growth Initiative. All public facilities from the western portion of the CSP have relocated either to the new Multi-Agency Service Center in Montgomery Village or Montgomery County’s Division of Fleet Management Equipment Maintenance and Operations Center (EMTOC) at the northwestern quadrant of Shady Grove Road and Crabbs Branch Way.

Shady Grove Station, Westside is a public-private partnership between Montgomery County and EYA of Bethesda. The first phase of residential townhouses is close to completion and the Daley, the first of at least three multi-family buildings, was built in 2018. Twenty-five percent of this development will include affordable housing, including workforce housing and moderately priced dwelling units (MPDUs). The Department of General Services (DGS) and EYA have agreed to provide a public library within a multi-family building.

For the Shady Grove, Westside property, the Plan recommends:  Rezone this property from the CRT-1.0 C-0.25 R-0.75 H-90 T/TDR 0.89 zone to the CRT-1.0 C-0.25 R-0.75 H-90/TDR 0.89 zone.

The Committee unanimously concurs with the Planning Board’s land use and zoning recommendations for Shady Grove, Westside.

The 45-acre Jeremiah Park area has the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Bus Depot, which occupies approximately 35 acres with more than 400 school buses. Adjacent to the MCPS facility is the former Parks Department Training and Maintenance Center property, which is approximately 10 acres.

9

This Sector Plan Amendment reconfirms the 2006 Sector Plan recommendation to relocate the MCPS Bus Depot to other appropriate sites to maximize public investment to create a transit- oriented community at the Metro station. The County Council has not approved a Declaration of No Further Need (DNFN) for Jeremiah Park, which is required before the County Executive is able sell a public property.

In 2012, the Planning Board approved a Preliminary Plan for the redevelopment of the County Service Park (Shady Grove Station, Westside and Jeremiah Park). The approved Plan requires the dedication of a combined 8.1-acre park and an elementary school site, along with 689 residential dwelling units, 25 percent of which is affordable housing, including workforce housing and MPDUs. The public park is approved at 4.1 acres and the school will be four acres.

For the Jeremiah Park property, the Plan supports the complete implementation of the approved development and recommends:  Rezone this property from the CRT-0.75 C-0.25 R-0.5 H-60T/TDR 0.6 zone to the CRT-0.75 C-0.25 R-0.5 H-80/TDR 0.6 zone.  Implement the approved Shady Grove Station, Jeremiah Park Preliminary Plan that would permit a future park/school site along with new residential development, including affordable housing, public streets, and public facilities.

Testimony: Council received testimony in support of relocating the MCPS Bus Depot.

The Committee unanimously concurs with the Planning Board’s land use and zoning recommendations for Jeremiah Park.

Transition Areas The 2006 Sector Plan identified the properties east of Crabbs Branch Way and west of the Metro Access Road, including The Grove shopping center as a transition area (Map 25, page 51). This area intends to provide lower-intensity development and incorporate a variety of recreational opportunities.

Since 2006, residential development at Shady Grove Crossing, including the partial extensions of Amity Drive and Crabbs Branch Way, a neighborhood park, and a historic meadow have been implemented. This Sector Plan Amendment modifies the prior Plan’s transition area by moving Jeremiah Park to the Metro Neighborhoods as explained above. In addition, a stormwater management pond identified in the 2006 Plan has been removed from this area since the associated trail recommendation has been implemented. Thus, the two key transition areas are: Shady Grove Crossing and The Grove shopping center.

Shady Grove Crossing (page 52) Located south of the Town of Washington Grove, this 65-acre property, formerly known as Casey at Mill Creek-Piedmont Crossing, is developed with 61 residential units, a neighborhood park, and a historic meadow. The Town of Washington Grove acquired the 12-acre historic meadow, which was designated as a Legacy Open Space (LOS) property in the 2006 Sector Plan. Now called Washington Grove Conservation Park, M-NCPPC maintains the 12-acre meadow.

In addition, the Parks Department has acquired approximately 9.77 acres of property adjacent to the Intercounty Connector (MD 200) for a future local park. However, currently there is no

10 vehicular or pedestrian access to this future park.

For the Shady Grove Crossing area, the Plan recommends:  Confirm the R-90 zone for properties in this area, including Shady Grove Crossing, the historic meadow, and the vacant Parks Department property.  Develop a local park with active recreation uses on the vacant Parks Department property.

Testimony: The Council received testimony from the Town of Washington Grove requesting that the Plan allow for the potential future use of the Piedmont Park property for community solar, instead of specifying the future use as only active recreation.

The Committee concurs with the Planning Board’s zoning recommendation for properties in the Shady Grove Crossing area; however, the Committee recommends (3-0) that text regarding use of the vacant Park property be revised to allow for the possibility of a future solar facility use.

The Grove Shopping Center (pages 52-53) The Grove, a 16-acre traditional neighborhood shopping center, has approximately 120,000 square feet of commercial uses. It is located at the northeast quadrant of Shady Grove Road and Crabbs Branch Way. A vacant four-acre wooded property with a stormwater management pond is located east of the surface parking area. Also, a linear 1.82-acre wooded property owned by Montgomery County, consisting of an existing stream and trees, is located north of the shopping center (Map 27, page 53).

The Plan recommends:  Rezone The Grove shopping center, including the four-acre vacant property, from the CRT-1.0 C-0.5 R-0.5 H-65T/TDR 0.81 zone to the CR-1.5 C-0.5 R-1.0 H-80 zone to promote mixed-use development and contribute to the Sector Plan’s public benefits, including 15 percent of affordable housing, sustainability, and open space. Density from the vacant wooded property should be transferred to the larger shopping center area.  Establish a network of short blocks and internal streets to promote improved internal circulation and walkability.  Extend a continuous sidewalk along the northern portion of Shady Grove Road.  Provide a minimum 0.75-acre Neighborhood Green with building frontages that define the public realm.  Retain some of the existing wooded/forest area to mitigate noise from adjacent roads and to further the Sector Plan’s environmental recommendations.  Incorporate a broad range of building and unit types to serve different households.  Rezone the County-owned parcel (P947) from the EOF-0.75 H-100T zone to the EOF-0.75 H-60 zone to align this property’s zone with the David Bone Equipment Maintenance Transit Operations Center property, which confronts The Grove site.

The Committee unanimously concurs with the Planning Board’s land use and zoning recommendations for The Grove shopping center properties.

Shady Grove Road Corridor Shady Grove Road diagonally traverses the planning area from Midcounty Highway to the city limits of Rockville and Gaithersburg (Map 28, page 54). Properties along this corridor, between MD 355 and the

11 Metro Access Road, are included in the Rockville and Gaithersburg maximum expansion limits.

In 2012, the City of Gaithersburg annexed the property at 16411 Shady Grove Road, which is now a CarMax automotive center. The annexation and declaration of use agreements between CarMax and the City of Gaithersburg precludes any residential development on the property while the adjacent transfer station is in use.

This Sector Plan Amendment proposes residential and non-residential development along this corridor. New mixed-use development for some properties along the corridor will complement existing and approved developments. The Plan divides this corridor into three areas: Shady Grove Plaza, a vacant Casey-owned property, and an area that includes a U.S. Postal Service center, a CarMax auto sales center, and a vacant property.

Shady Grove Plaza (pages 56-57) A bank, hotel, retail businesses, and an office building are located in this approximately 29.9-acre area, which is located at the southwest quadrant of Shady Grove Road and MD 355. The Plan envisions new non-residential and residential development for properties in this area (Map 30, page 57).

For the Shady Grove Plaza, the Plan recommends:  Retain the existing wooded area, which is approximately 0.35 acres, or provide a minimum half-acre Neighborhood Green when this property redevelops. The existing trees are the last remaining vestiges of the original Shady Grove trees.  Rezone the Shady Grove Plaza property, 16220 Frederick Road, from the CR-0.75 C-0.75 R-0.25 H-80T zone to the CR-1.5 C-0.75 R-1.0 H-80 zone to promote the Sector Plan’s recommended public benefits, including the maximum percentage of MPDUs and public open space.  Rezone the property at 16210 Frederick Road from the GR-1.5 H-45 zone to the CR-1.5 C-0.75 R1.0 H-80 zone.  Rezone the former office condo property (8625-8653 Zetts Avenue) from the EOF-1.5 H-60 zone to the CR-1.5 C-0.75 R-1.0 H-80 zone.  Rezone the King Buick and Mitsubishi property, 16200 Frederick Road, from the GR-1.5 H-45 zone to the CRT-1.5 C-0.5 R-1.0 H-80 zone.  Rezone all other commercial properties in this area from the GR-1.5 H-45 zone to the CRT-1.5 C-0.5 R-1.0 H-80 zone.

Testimony: The Council received testimony from Miles and Stockbridge on behalf of EYA, LLC regarding the King Buick and Mitsubishi property. EYA supports the recommendations in the Sector Plan Amendment regarding this property with one exception. EYA is requesting the Council revise the Board’s zoning recommendation from CRT-1.5 C-0.5 R-1.0 H-80 to CRT-1.5 C-0.5 R-1.5 H-80 to allow for development of a residential project up to the maximum total FAR of 1.5.

Council staff comments: On January 21, 2021, the Council received a Preliminary Annexation Plan for the King Buick and Mitsubishi property from the City of Rockville. EYA, the contract purchaser of a City parcel adjacent to the King Buick and Mitsubishi property, plans to develop both properties as a combined residential project. In the Annexation Plan, the City of Rockville expressed support for the Board’s zoning recommendation, citing consistency with the City’s MXCD (Mixed Use Corridor District) zone; however, the Annexation Plan further states that

12 while the draft Rockville 2040 Comprehensive Plan assigns to this site a land use that allows a mix of office, retail, and residential development, a wholly residential development is also appropriate at this location, because 1) there is a great need for various types of housing in Rockville, to serve various income levels; 2) residential development would be well served by transit and the road system; and 3) other community amenities, such as parks and schools, are within sufficient proximity. Under annexation, the King Buick and Mitsubishi property will remain under its sector plan-approved zoning for five years.

The Committee concurs with the Planning Board’s land use and zoning recommendations for the Shady Grove Plaza properties as listed above, with the exception of the recommendation for the King Buick and Mitsubishi property. For this property, the Committee supports (3-0) EYA’s request to revise the Board’s recommended zoning from CRT-1.5 C-0.5 R-1.0 H-80 to CRT-1.5 C-0.5 R-1.5 H-80.

Vacant Casey Property (page 58) Located north of I-370, west of Frederick Road and south of Oneill Drive, this vacant 7-acre property is adjacent to the city limits of Gaithersburg and is within the city’s maximum expansion limits. Rosedale Apartments, Casey Community Center, and the Rosemont residential community are north of this property in the City of Gaithersburg.

For the vacant Casey property, the Plan recommends:  Rezone the vacant Casey property from the EOF-0.75 H-100 zone to the CRT-0.75 C-0.25 R-0.75 H-80 zone.  Efforts should be made to retain portions of the existing forest/wooded area adjacent to the I-370 ramp that will help mitigate noise from adjacent roads and meet the Plan area’s environmental goals.

The Committee unanimously concurs with the Planning Board’s land use and zoning recommendations for the vacant Casey property.

U.S. Postal Service Center, CarMax, and Vacant Property A vacant property at the southeastern quadrant of Shady Grove Road and MD 355, a CarMax automotive sales center, and a U.S Postal Service Center are in this 39.4-acre area. The CarMax property was annexed into the City of Gaithersburg in 2012 and is in the city’s Mixed-Use Development (MXD) Zone.

An existing stream and wetlands are on the vacant property that constrains the full development on the property. The 2006 Sector Plan also recommended a fire and rescue station on the vacant property at Shady Grove Road and MD 355. The Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Service continues to support a future fire station at this location. Due to the proximity to the Shady Grove Transfer Station, this Sector Plan Amendment does not recommend residential development on properties in this area while the Transfer Station is in use.

For the vacant property and Post Office service center, the Plan recommends:  Rezone the vacant property at Shady Grove Road and MD 355 from the EOF-0.75 H-100 zone to the IM-0.75 H-100 zone.  Confirm the IM-0.5 H-50 zone for the U.S. Postal Service property.

The Committee unanimously concurs with the Planning Board’s land use and zoning

13 recommendations for these properties.

Upper Mill Creek (pages 60-61) The 54-acre Upper Mill Creek area consists of three properties that are east of the CSX rail tracks, north of Shady Grove Road, west of Crabbs Branch Way and bisected by I-370 (Map 33, page 60). Montgomery County’s Division of Fleet Management Equipment Maintenance and Operations Center (EMTOC) is located at the northwestern intersection of Shady Grove Road and Crabbs Branch Way. The Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA) has built a new police station and administrative office for the ICC, which is immediately north of I-370. And Roberts Oxygen, a distributor of compressed industrial, medical and specialty gases, is located north of the EMTOC facilities and west of the Town of Washington Grove.

For properties in the Upper Mill Creek area, the Plan recommends:  Rezone the EMTOC, 16624 Crabbs Branch Way, from the EOF-0.75 H-60 T zone to the EOF-0.75 H-60 zone.  Confirm the EOF-0.5 H-50 zone for the MDTA property.  Confirm the EOF-0.5 H-50 zone for the Roberts Oxygen property. Any redevelopment of this property should maintain the existing 50-foot setback established from the adjacent MCDOT salt storage structures to create a compatible relationship with the existing single- family dwellings in the Town of Washington Grove.

The Committee unanimously concurs with the Planning Board’s zoning recommendations for these properties.

Planned Development-Zoned Properties (page 62) Several residential neighborhoods within the Plan area, including Park Overlook-Mallard Cove, Derwood Station, and Townes of Shady Grove were approved in the Planned Development (PD) zone via a Local Map Amendment. The 2014 Zoning Ordinance states that while the PD zone may appear on the digital zoning map, it cannot be confirmed or applied to any property under a Sectional Map Amendment adopted after October 30, 2014. Derwood Station (Map 34, page 62), Park Overlook- Mallard Cove, and the Townes of Shady Grove, which includes multifamily residential, townhouses and single-family dwellings, were approved in the PD-2, PD-5, and PD-35 zones, respectively. This Sector Plan Amendment recommends new Euclidean zones, such as R-90 and Townhouse Low Density (TLD), which are closely related to the built development for Derwood Station and other PD-zoned properties (Map 35, page 62).

The Committee unanimously concurs with the Planning Board’s zoning recommendations for these properties.

Industrial Areas Most of the non-residential development in the Plan area, approximately 3.3 million square feet, is zoned industrial. Many industrial areas provide a range of services to County residents, such as home remodeling and contractors, advanced manufacturing, flex office space, as well as Class A and B offices located along Crabbs Branch Way. Industrially zoned areas, as well as uses, are concentrated in four areas within the Plan area: WMATA Railyards and Shady Grove Transfer Station; Oakmont Avenue Industrial Corridor; Frederick Road Automotive Corridor; and the Crabbs Branch Office Park.

14

WMATA Railyards and Shady Grove Transfer Station (page 63) This Sector Plan Amendment confirms the importance of the processing facility and transfer station at this location since the facility utilizes the existing rail tracks. The relocation of this facility to another part of the County is not anticipated in the long term. Since additional residential development is anticipated within this Plan area, DEP should establish initiatives to reduce odors emanating from the processing facility.

For the WMATA Railyards and Transfer Station properties, the Plan recommends:  Confirm the IM-2.5 H-50 zone.  Mitigate environmental impacts, especially odors, from the transfer station.

Oakmont Avenue Industrial Corridor (page 63) Various industrial uses, including automotive services, home remodeling and construction businesses, storage facilities, and biotechnology companies are located within this 50-acre area.

For the Oakmont Avenue properties, the Plan recommends:  Confirm the IM-2.5 H-50 zone and the CRN-0.5 C-0.5 R-0.25 H-35 zone for properties along this corridor.

Frederick Road Automotive Corridor (page 63) Properties in this corridor are adjacent to the proposed bus rapid transit (BRT) MD 355 route, and a potential infill station is possible at Indianola Drive. The existing boundary for the City of Rockville includes the automotive business at 15625 Frederick Road. Redevelopment is not anticipated in the long term in this corridor because several properties have long-term leases and investments for automotive uses.

For properties in the Frederick Road Automotive Corridor, the Plan recommends:  Confirm the IM-2.5 H-50 zone.

Crabbs Branch Office Park (pages 64-65) The Crabbs Branch Office Park is an office park with a broad array of technology, biotechnology, industrial/flex, and office development uses in the 100-acre area (Map 37, pag 65).

For properties in the Crabbs Branch Office Park, the Plan recommends:  Rezone the office property at 7361 Calhoun Place from the IM-2.5 H-50 zone to the CRT-2.5 C-2.0 R-0.55 H-80 zone to permit a conforming building.  Rezone the office buildings at 7500 Standish Place, 7362 Calhoun Place and 15400 Calhoun Drive from the IM-2.5 H-50 zone to the IM-2.56 H-70 zone.  Confirm all other office properties in the Crabbs Branch Office Park to the IM-2.5 H-50 zone.

The Committee unanimously concurs with the Planning Board’s land use and zoning recommendations for the Industrial Area properties.

5 Correction to the Planning Board Draft, CRT-2.5 C-2.0 R-0.25 H-80 should be CRT-2.5 C-2.0 R-0.5 H-80. 6 Correction to the Planning Board Draft, EOF-2.5 should be IM-2.5.

15

III. Housing To meet future needs and to contribute to the County’s long-term vitality, this Sector Plan Amendment recommends confirming the recommendations of the 2006 Sector Plan, which calls for mixed-use residential development in transit-oriented areas and other strategic locations.

In addition, the following recommendations, along with retaining existing residential development, support implementation of the Housing Element’s policies and objectives.

The Sector Plan Amendment recommends: • Require 15 percent moderately priced dwelling units (MPDUs) as the highest-priority public benefit for all new residential development. • Publicly-owned properties, including WMATA, should be encouraged to provide up to 25 percent of MPDUs. • Increase the number of housing units located within walking distance to Metro. • Provide and continue current incentives that encourage developers to provide a large amount of affordable housing, including MPDUs. • Maintain and protect the existing residential neighborhoods in Derwood. • Provide a range of unit types, including for families, seniors, and persons with physical challenges. • Provide a range of unit sizes within each housing type.

Council staff comments: For context, the recent Forest Glen/Montgomery Hills Sector Plan requires 15 percent MPDUs for redevelopment of the WMATA property at the Forest Glen Metro Station. The County-owned property at Georgia Avenue and Spring Street requires 30 percent affordable units, 15 percent provided as MPDUs and 15 percent affordable to households earning below 50 percent of the Area Median Income.

The Committee concurs with the Planning Board’s housing policy recommendations with the following exceptions. The Committee recommends (3-0) that the second bullet be revised to encourage up to 25 percent MPDUs from development of the WMATA property; however, a minimum of 15 percent MPDUs is required regardless of the public benefit point priority. In addition, Councilmember Jawando suggests a bullet be added specifying that, on County-owned land, any optional method project that includes residential dwelling units should be encouraged to provide a minimum of 30 percent of the units as regulated affordable units: 15 percent affordable to households earning at the standard Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit (MPDU) level of 65-70 percent or less of Area Median Income (AMI) affordability range and 15 percent affordable to households earning less than 50 percent of AMI. The Committee concurs (3-0) with this change.

IV. Parks, Trails, and Open Spaces This Sector Plan Amendment, as well as the 2006 Sector Plan, recognizes that additional residential density will require more parks, trails, and open spaces for existing and future residents. This Sector Plan Amendment recommends the implementation of unbuilt parks, and additional parks that further the recommendations in the 2017 Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan (PROS) and the 2018 Energized Public Spaces (EPS) Functional Master Plan. The following are the Sector Plan’s parks and open space goals and recommendations:

Goal: Create a network of activated parks that facilitate social gatherings in the Metro Neighborhoods and at The Grove.

16

Recommendations: • Implement the preliminary plan with the four-acre Jeremiah Park at Shady Grove Station, Jeremiah Park. If the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Bus Depot does not relocate from its current location, provide a one-acre Neighborhood Green on the former Parks Department Maintenance site, provided the Parks site redevelops. • Create a new minimum one-acre Civic Green on the WMATA property in the Metro West neighborhood. This park will be surrounded by the future CCT and BRT, as well as the highest recommended density in the Plan area. • Utilize the existing stream on the eastern side of the Metro Station as a potential linear park or greenway. • Create a minimum three-quarters of an acre Neighborhood Green at The Grove shopping center upon redevelopment. This park should include neighborhood amenities, including a flexible open space and multi-age play features.

Goal: Prioritize acquisition, development, and programming for new parks.

Recommendations: • Implement the acquired parkland at the Derwood Station and Shady Grove Crossing/Piedmont Crossing properties into a neighborhood park and local park, respectively, with a variety of recreational opportunities. • Execute the roadway extension of Crabbs Branch Way to Amity Drive. This roadway will provide public access to public parks, including the Washington Grove Conservation Park. • Provide dog parks, skate parks, and other new park amenities that support a growing community. • Prioritize the acquisition of open spaces that are suitable for ballfields and active recreation as properties become available.

Council staff comment: The first recommendation under this goal should be revised consistent with the Committee’s first worksession recommendation to allow for more flexibility in potential use of the park property.

Goal: Create a robust trail system of natural and hard-surface trails.

Recommendations: • Explore opportunities to provide trail connections between the Rock Creek Regional Park trail system to the Sector Plan area. • Create a trail connection that links Redland Local Park with Mill Creek Towne Local Park via the County-owned, unbuilt Midcounty Highway right-of-way. • Support the unbuilt trails recommended in the 2006 Sector Plan.

Testimony: The City of Rockville requested that language be added to the Plan to ensure that any sector plan area trails seek, where possible, to connect with trails in Rockville, Gaithersburg, and Washington Grove.

17 Goal: Enhance existing parks and open spaces.

Recommendations: • Retain Blueberry Hill Local Park as an active and passive recreation park site. This Plan recommends the implementation of a non-native species plant and supplemental planting to sustain the existing forested area. • Maintain the existing recreational uses at Redland Local Park. Establish a pedestrian and bike trail that links this park to the Mill Creek Towne Local Park.

Goal: Protect historic and cultural resources.

Recommendations: • Explore the potential Legacy Open Space (LOS) designation as a Heritage or Open Space Resource for the American Society of Plant Biologists property in the Crabbs Branch Office Park. This property, including the early 20th century colonial revival manor house, is currently used as an office building and is associated with the Gudes, a prominent family in the County’s history.

The Committee concurs with the Planning Board’s recommendations with respect to parks, trails and open space designed to meet the above goals with the following exceptions. One, the Committee noted that the recommendation regarding Piedmont Park should be revised to provide flexibility for the use of the Park property. And two, the Committee agreed with the City of Rockville’s request to include a recommendation encouraging the connection of trails with neighboring municipalities.

V. Sustainability This Sector Plan Amendment envisions returning Shady Grove toward the original shady condition that inspired the area’s name. The restoration of tree canopy in the Sector Plan area will help improve air quality, reduce storm runoff, contribute to keeping the area cooler in summer, and sequester carbon to ameliorate climate change. The Plan also envisions new development embracing the best in sustainable design, including building orientation, architecture, ventilation systems, and operating systems that conserve energy and incorporate new and developing technologies for generating renewable energy on- site. It aspires to reach a net-zero energy goal where the amount of energy generated balances with the amount of energy consumed.

Forest and Tree Cover and Impervious Surfaces Water quality correlates to the amount of forest cover and the percentage of the watershed that is impervious. Overall, impervious surfaces cover approximately 36 percent of the Plan area, while forests occupy about 11 percent of the Plan area. Tree canopy coverage does not match forest cover in terms of water quality benefits. However, there are still significant water quality, air quality, and health benefits that accrue from a healthy tree canopy. Approximately 41 percent of the Plan area has tree canopy cover.

Recommendations: • Strive for maximum shade cover over paved areas in streetscapes and plazas. • Plant native shade trees that produce large canopies, spaced a maximum of 30 feet apart on center. o Where possible, plant smaller native trees spaced in between the large trees. o Provide adequate soil volume to create and sustain a healthy tree canopy. o Provide artificial shade structures in open areas over pavement where trees cannot be planted,

18 especially in open spaces. • Promote green roofs wherever possible. Public benefit points can be prioritized to incentivize green roofs. • Retain forest on the eastern side of The Grove shopping center to maintain significant forest cover, improve air and water quality, sequester carbon, and provide a noise buffer to protect developed areas from traffic noise generated by surrounding highways. • Encourage green features (softscaping) in required open space areas and the public realm. • Prioritize environmental public benefit points for tree canopy cover and energy conservation. • Promote site and building design for energy conservation and LEED certification or a comparable rating system. o Consider block and building orientation to maximize passive solar heating and lighting and to offer optimal siting for solar energy generation. o Consider building construction design, materials, and systems to save energy.

Testimony: The City of Rockville expressed support for the Plan’s sustainability goals; however, the City would like a tree canopy goal of 50 percent for the Plan area, which is approximately Rockville’s current tree canopy.

The Committee concurs with the Planning Board’s recommendations with respect to Forest and Tree Cover and Impervious Surfaces.

Water Quality Most of the Sector Plan area drains east into the Rock Creek watershed (Map 42). The Plan area includes portions of three Rock Creek subwatersheds: Mill Creek, Crabbs Branch, and the Southlawn Tributary. Water quality in developed areas is degraded by increases in impervious surface area and the loss of protective forest cover. Water quality is also diminished by runoff-carrying pollutants. Water quality can be improved by minimizing impervious surfaces in developments, preserving and increasing forest and tree canopy cover, and treating stormwater runoff in stormwater management facilities that filter out pollutants and reduce erosive stream flows.

Recommendations: • Minimize imperviousness and maximize pervious areas. • Use native plants that require less watering and fertilization; use rainwater for watering; and apply Sustainable Sites Initiatives (SITES) principles in site development and maintenance. • Increase forest and tree cover.

The Committee unanimously concurs with the Planning Board’s recommendations with respect to Water Quality.

Green House Gas Modeling Since the adoption of the 2006 Sector Plan, additional requirements for master plans and sector plans have been added through the passage of several County requirements, including estimating the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the projected development and to include recommendations to reduce GHG emissions. Because Master Plans focus on areas that are most appropriate for new or redevelopment, the increased numbers of housing units and non-residential spaces naturally result in an overall increase in greenhouse gas emissions. This is the case for the Shady Grove Sector Plan Minor Master Plan Amendment. The carbon footprint estimation shows an increase in total greenhouse gas

19 emissions of about 25 percent above the existing condition, based on an assumption of a business-as- usual approach to development.

Even though the overall GHG emissions are increasing, the compact, walkable and bikeable urban design of the Plan is allowing for the number of residential units to triple and the residential population to increase by one-third, while the emissions are increasing by one-quarter. Recommendations for reducing GHG emissions are included in the Plan’s section on Air Quality and Carbon Emissions

Air Quality and Carbon Emissions The causes of degraded air quality and carbon emissions are closely linked, and recommendations to improve air quality and to reduce carbon emissions overlap. Improving urban air quality and reducing carbon emissions involves reducing vehicle miles traveled and building energy consumption, increasing clean energy generation, sequestering carbon, reducing urban heat island effect, and filtering pollutants from the air.

The compact, mixed-use development recommended in this Plan and the proximity of the Metro station will contribute to reducing per-capita carbon emissions and improving air quality. Enhancing the pedestrian and bicycling infrastructure contributes significantly to improving air quality and climate protection, as does preserving forests and increasing tree canopy.

Recommendations: • Include building design features that keep roofs cool – either green roofs or cool roofs. • Encourage improvements and facilities to make walking and biking to the Metro station a pleasant and inviting experience. • Increase forest and tree cover. • Plant native vegetation that is highly attractive to pollinators and provides food sources for declining populations of native pollinator species. • Incorporate multiple layers of native vegetation in landscaping. • Provide opportunities for exercise, recreation, and mental well-being: parks and open spaces, trails, sidewalks, and bicycle networks. • Locate appropriate land uses near sources of noise generation. • Provide access to health care facilities. • Provide opportunities to buy or grow fresh produce/healthy food choices: provide opportunities for community gardens and provide spaces for farmers’ markets. • Promote an environment that minimizes light pollution.

The Committee unanimously concurs with the Planning Board’s recommendations for Air Quality and Emissions.

Noise The 2006 Sector Plan also identified noise as a significant issue that impacts the quality of life for residents in the Sector Plan area. Noise walls have been installed along both sides of Shady Grove Road, between Briardale Road and the Metro Access Road ramps, adjacent to the Redland Station and Parkside Estates neighborhoods. Additional noise walls are recommended east of Briardale Road if they are consistent with County’s noise standards. The Shady Grove Station, Westside development has installed noise walls adjacent to the CSX and Metro rail tracks and the overall design has included

20 different architectural measures to minimize noise impacts on residential properties.

This Plan recommends providing noise mitigation measures for new development in the Metro Neighborhoods and The Grove shopping center. Mitigation measures may include parking garages adjacent to the CSX rail tracks, where feasible, as well as site design and construction techniques and materials. The Plan also recommends retaining office, light industrial and automotive uses along the CSX rail tracks, primarily south of Indianola Drive, which is more compatible with noise sources. Additional noise mitigation may be appropriate for residential areas along Shady Grove Road and Midcounty Highway, consistent with the County’s noise standards.

The Committee unanimously concurs with the Planning Board’s recommendations with respect to noise mitigation.

VI. Historic Resources Montgomery County’s historic resources are guided by the Locational Atlas and Index of Historic Sites, the Master Plan for Historic Preservation, and the Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 24A of the Montgomery County Code). The Locational Atlas and Index of Historic Sites identifies resources that are potentially historically significant. The designation is meant to be temporary until analysis for listing in the Master Plan for Historic Preservation can be completed. The Master Plan for Historic Preservation includes all officially designated historic sites and districts.

This Plan recommends: • List the Derwood Store and Post Office (22/33-3) in the Master Plan for Historic Preservation, along with its associated environmental setting. • Rezone the Derwood Store and Post Office to an appropriate zoning category that would allow for its adaptive reuse with residential units. Permit development standards flexibility, including parking waivers and setback requirement adjustments to restore the structure. • Remove the 2006 Sector Plan recommendation to evaluate the following properties in Old Derwood for inclusion in the Locational Atlas and Index of Historic Sites: o Derwood Baptist Church, 15812 Esquire Court; o Derwood School, 15805 Paramount Drive; o Hall’s Store, 15833 Derwood Road; and o Hoskinson-Schwartz House, 15919 Chieftain Avenue. • Install interpretive marker(s) that relates to the antebellum history of the Plan area, including land use and chattel slavery. This marker would be separate from any interpretive markers placed at the Derwood Store and Post Office.

The Committee concurs with the Planning Board’s recommendations with respect to historic properties.

VII. Community Facilities This Sector Plan Amendment retains and updates most of the community facilities recommended in the 2006 Sector Plan. These facilities, such as a recreation center and new parks, are essential to further achieve the community envisioned by this Sector Plan. The implementation of some of these facilities could be achieved through public benefits in the CR and CRT zones.

21 Fire, Rescue, and Emergency Medical Services The Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Service (MCFRS) has determined that a future fire-rescue station with emergency medical services (EMS) is needed for the Shady Grove area and recommended the vacant property at the southeast intersection of MD 355 and Shady Grove Road. The proposed location would provide access to the Plan area, as well as to the surrounding Rockville and Gaithersburg communities via Frederick Road, Shady Grove Road, and MD 200.

Public Safety The Montgomery County Police Department’s 1st District, located at 100 Edison Park Drive in Gaithersburg, and the 6th District, located at 45 West Watkins Road in Montgomery Village, provide public safety services to the Plan area. This Sector Plan Amendment supports a substation in the Plan area, in conjunction with the recommended fire station, or as a public benefit for redeveloping properties within the Metro Neighborhoods in the CR and CRT zones.

Libraries The Montgomery County Department of General Services (DGS) has entered into a lease agreement with EYA, the developer for Shady Grove Station, Westside, to provide space for an urban library on the ground level of a new multi-family residential building near the Metro station. This Sector Plan Amendment supports the implementation of a library at Shady Grove Station, Westside, since it will provide an important public facility to the Plan area.

Recreation Center The 2006 Shady Grove Sector Plan indicated that a community recreation center was possible in the future to serve the community. However, the Sector Plan noted that, based on prior Department of Recreation standards, “there does not appear to be a need for a full-size recreation center” (p.101). The Department of Recreation’s Facility Development Plan 2010-2030 (2011) has determined that a community recreation center, with potential aquatic features, is appropriate for the Shady Grove area based on current and projected population densities.

This Sector Plan Amendment recommends: • Locate a future recreation center within the Metro Neighborhoods as the preferred location. If all the CSP public facilities relocate, consider Jeremiah Park as an alternative location if an elementary school is not located at this property. • Explore co-location for the recreation center, along with other public facilities, to minimize public expenditures and maximize efficiencies.

Senior Services and Child Daycare The Sector Plan area has existing child daycare services, including at The Grove shopping center and the Metro station. There are no specific senior services in the Plan area. As the area builds out with more residential development, additional child daycare and senior services would be necessary to support an intergenerational community. This Sector Plan recommends additional senior and child daycare services to support existing and future families. These services should be considered as public benefits for redeveloping properties in the CR and CRT zones.

22 Public Schools Public schools provide a foundation for a residential community and contribute to a community’s civic identity and engagement. Shady Grove Middle School is within the Sector Plan area, while Washington Grove Elementary School is located west of Oakmont Avenue and Candlewood Elementary School is south of Redland Road. Mill Creek Towne Elementary School is located north of Midcounty Highway.

Magruder, Gaithersburg, and Richard Montgomery are the three high school clusters that serve the Sector Plan area. The Sector Plan Amendment recommends the numerous alternatives, by cluster, to address school needs. These detailed alternatives can be found on pages 98-100 of the Plan.

Testimony: The City of Rockville expressed opposition to the provision that new development in the Shady Grove Sector, which is mostly in the Gaithersburg Cluster, would potentially be supported by a new elementary school site in Rockville in the Richard Montgomery Cluster. The City prefers that the County work to ensure the preferred school site within the Shady Grove Sector is provided, further suggesting that if the preferred site is not available, the plan should identify an alternative site within the Shady Grove Sector area.

Council staff comments: While Council staff acknowledges the City’s concern regarding school facilities, decisions regarding school utilization and boundaries rests with the Montgomery County Public School Board. Evaluating school capacities for the Plan area and adjacent school service areas shows sufficient capacity, existing and planned7, to support the proposed development.

The Committee concurs with Planning Board’s recommendations with respect to public facilities.

Attachments © Pages Testimony from the Council Public Hearing 1-20

7 Including the elementary school site negotiated as part of the Shady Grove, Jeremiah Park project.

23 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

Marc Elrich Sandra I. Heiler County Executive Chairman

February 19, 2021

The Honorable Tom Hucker President, Montgomery County Council 100 Maryland Avenue Rockville, MD 20850

Subject: Historic Preservation Commission Comments on the Shady Grove Minor Master Plan Amendment

Dear Council President Hucker and Councilmembers:

The Montgomery County Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) fully supports the Planning Board’s historic preservation recommendations in the Shady Grove Minor Master Plan Amendment. These include:

1. List the Derwood Store and Post Office (22/33-3) in the Master Plan for Historic Preservation. 2. Rezone the Derwood Store and Post Office to an appropriate zoning category that would allow for its adaptive reuse with residential units. 3. Remove the 2006 Sector Plan recommendation to evaluate four (4) other properties in Derwood. 4. Install interpretive marker(s) that relates to the antebellum history of the plan area, including land use and chattel slavery.

In May 2019, the HPC voted unanimously to recommend to the Planning Board that the Derwood Store and Post Office be listed in the Master Plan for Historic Preservation, as it met four of the nine designation criteria. The subject building reflects the growth of Montgomery County following the establishment of the Metropolitan Subdivision of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad in 1873, and the commercial tradition of vernacular two-story, front- gable general merchandise stores in rural towns and small communities. These businesses served as the endpoint of the distribution of products within the local economy and provided the community a place to share information. The store’s inclusion of a post office (which operated at the location from ca. 1905 to 1966) further augments its historic significance. Derwood had at least three women postmasters who served a total of 17 years and their overall contributions to the area are not reflected in other sites.

Thank you for working with us and the community to preserve our local history.

Sincerely,

Sandra I. Heiler Chair, Historic Preservation Commission

Historic Preservation Commission • 2425 Reedie Drive • Wheaton, Maryland 20902 • 301/563-3400 • 301/563-3412 FAX (1)(1) Montgomery Preservation, Inc. Promoting the Preservation, Protection and Enjoyment of Montgomery County's Rich Architectural Heritage and Historic Landscapes

February 22, 2021

Montgomery County Council; Via email: [email protected] Re: Shady Grove Sector Plan Minor Amendment - Derwood designation, triple tracking.

Dear President Hucker and County Councilmembers:

Montgomery Preservation (MPI) is delighted to see designation support for the Derwood Store and Post office in this plan. We urge you to grant listing on the County’s Master Plan for Historic Preservation, which will also enable incentives for maintenance and upgrading for reuse. The history and photos provide a wonderful snapshot of the early effect of the railroad on a small rural community. It is very well done. Additionally, MPI suggests that the Historic Resources chapter note that the Crabb Family Cemetery is already designated on the Master Plan for Historic Preservation.

On the other hand, the plan recommends a step that is premature and potentially destructive to historic rail communities from Dickerson to Takoma Park. On page 104, the plan recommends obtaining 25-foot land easements on the north/east side of the existing railbed for future CSX /MARC triple tracking. This would be a good practice if the area is not built up, but the B&O was inaugurated in 1873 and double tracked in 1888, so nearby buildings in former small towns are often significant structures in historic districts. They may be damaged or unsafe if another track bed is squeezed in. In fact, the sector plan on the Boyds and Germantown areas warned that adding a third track may damage nearby foundations and structures.

MPI owns the Silver Spring B&O Railroad Station and uses the attached rear waiting platform for train watching and programs. An additional track and allowance for necessary safety and fencing would eliminate such uses. It, like the Gaithersburg and Rockville Stations and many early railroad community historic districts, is listed in the National Register of Historic Places and protected by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. No adverse impact studies appear to have been done on these issues, so MPI is very concerned about possible damage created by constructing a third railbed in these areas. More specific rights of way and expansion space information is needed and the possibility of routing rail freight around cities and utilizing existing tracks for passengers should be explored. We urge you to remove this recommendation as premature.

Sincerely, The Board of Directors Montgomery Preservation, Inc. Eileen McGuckian, President

P.O. Box 4661 Rockville, MD 20849-4661 Web: www.montgomerypreservation.org Email: [email protected]

(2)(2) Dear Councilmembers,

As the first resident and the first homeowner of the Westside at Shady Grove Townhome Development, I appreciate the continued commitment of the staff of Montgomery Planning to the Shady Grove Sector Plan since its conception, and its approval by the County Executive and Council in 2006 and expertise of the staff to advance it over the past fourteen years in the interests of our community and central Montgomery County overall.

Equally, as others have stated, I also appreciate County Executive Elrich last year designating the relocation of the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Bus Depot a “top priority” for his administration, recognizing that this plan cannot be fully realized and completed until this relocation itself is complete.

We bought our home in this development because, we were attracted to and excited to be at forefront of “ the 21st-century smart planning ideas and solutions, housing near transit, and building vibrant mixed-use and mixed-income communities.” I thoroughly enjoy being a part of and I perform volunteer work in the community to bring the best of Derwood to others.

I join others in calling on the County Executive to follow-through with his promised engagement on this key concern, taking decisive, collaborative, and thoughtful action this calendar year to relocate the bus depot fully, and commit the necessary County fiscal and human resources in FY21, and achieve appropriate fiscal planning beyond FY21, to insure this relocation along the shortest, most reasonable timeline.

I believe the Shady Grove Sector can ultimately advance and thrive through this smart growth plan, as the sector and central Montgomery County deserves. I understand that Maryland and, particularly, Montgomery County continue to lag behind providing affordable housing to its residents. This planned community would positively address that concern. Our elected leaders must undertake and execute efforts to make our community including its 15,000+ voters thrive.

I support the approval of this Master Plan amendment and respectfully urge you to approve the Plan as amended.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Benjamin A. Garcia

(3)(3) Subject: Testimony ~ Shady Grove Sector Plan Minor Master Plan Amendment Update

Council President Hucker and Councilmembers,

Thank you for accepting the entirety of this email as testimony on behalf of myself and the nearly 600 individuals who have signed the following MoveOn petition which, by now, I and my community expect is well known to you and your colleagues:

https://sign.moveon.org/petitions/derwood-deserves-betternow

Along with my fellow residents of the Shady Grove Sector, I appreciate the continued commitment of the staff of Montgomery Planning to the Shady Grove Sector Plan since its conception, and its approval by the County Executive and Council in 2006 and expertise of the staff to advance it over the past fourteen years in the interests of our community and central Montgomery County overall.

Equally, I appreciate County Executive Elrich last year designating the relocation of the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Bus Depot a “top priority” for his administration, recognizing that this plan cannot be fully realized and completed until this relocation itself is complete. In offering this testimony, I call on the County Executive to follow-through with his promised engagement on this key concern, taking decisive, collaborative, and thoughtful action this calendar year to relocate the bus depot fully, and commit the necessary County fiscal and human resources in FY21, and achieve appropriate fiscal planning beyond FY21, to insure this relocation along the shortest, most reasonable timeline.

I believe the Shady Grove Sector can ultimately advance and thrive through this smart growth plan, as the sector and central Montgomery County deserves, and as I know and expect all of our elected leaders expect it to thrive. It would be a true disappointment and loss to our community of 15,000+ voters if the bus depot was not moved as planned. I support the approval of this Master Plan amendment and respectfully urge you to approve the Plan as amended.

Thank you for your consideration.

(4)(4) Respectfully,

Jeff Reznick Derwood Member, Shady Grove Sector Plan Implementation Advisory Committee https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/communities/midcounty/shady- grove/implementation-advisory-committee/

Begin forwarded message:

From: Montgomery County Council Date: January 19, 2021 at 5:50:30 PM EST To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Congratulations!

MONTGOMERY COUNTY COUNCIL ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND

OFFICE OF THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT

Dear Dr. Reznick, Thank you for your correspondence expressing your congratulations and your views on the relocation of the MCPS bus depot and the continued implementation of the Shady Grove Sector Plan. I have made it available to my Council colleagues, and I am pleased to respond on their behalf.

The Council fully supports the relocation of the depot to a suitable site and maintaining the County's efforts in implementing the Sector Plan. We look forward to reviewing the Executive's recommendations, once ready, on the relocation plan.

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts on this important matter.

Sincerely,

(5)(5) Tom Hucker Council President Montgomery County Council

5116782

Begin forwarded message:

From: Montgomery County Council Date: January 19, 2021 at 5:50:30 PM EST To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Congratulations!

On Dec 14, 2020, at 10:01 AM, Jeffrey Reznick wrote:

Councilmembers Hucker and Albornoz,

Congratulations on your election, respectively, to the presidency and vice presidency of the council.

Following on County Executive Elrich designating as a top priority the long-expected relocation of the MCPS bus depot in order to complete fully the smart growth plan for the Shady Grove Sector, unwavering community advocacy on this issue*— including related formal communications to immediate past council president Katz, as well as previous previous president Navarro—the great Shady Grove community now looks to both of you and, still, every member of the council, to cooperate with the executive branch to achieve this change, yielding all the promises of the smart growth plan itself for central Montgomery County.

Thank you, congratulations again to both of you, and we look forward to seeing your own joint leadership and continued collaborative action on this key priority in the heart of our county.

Very sincerely, Jeff Reznick Derwood

(6)(6) * https://sign.moveon.org/petitions/derwood-deserves-betternow

On Dec 3, 2019, at 10:14 AM, Jeffrey Reznick wrote:

Dear Councilmember Katz and Councilmember Hucker,

Congratulations on your election—respectively—to the presidency and vice presidency of Montgomery Council!

Following-on David Dise’s recent public update on the status of relocating the MCPS bus depot, County Executive Elrich designating this issue a top priority, and our formal communications on this issue to immediate past council president Navarro, the Derwood community now looks to both of you and every member of the council to commit—indeed to reasonably invest—the necessary funds and human resources to continue the progress toward achieving this relocation, in the form of the required studies, planning, and public feedback.

Thank you, congratulations again to both of you, and we look forward to seeing your own joint leadership and continued collaborative action on this key priority for our community at the heart of our county, indeed for our county overall.

Very sincerely, Jeff Reznick Derwood

(7)(7) -� MILES& �,'� STOCKBRIDGE P.c.

February 23, 2021 Barbara A. Sears [email protected] (301) 517-4812

Phillip A. Hummel [email protected] (301) 517-4814 Mr. Tom Hucker, President And Councilmembers of the Montgomery County Council 100 Maryland Avenue, 6th Floor Rockville, MD 20850

Re: February 23, 2021 Public Hearing on Shady Grove Sector Plan Minor Master Plan Amendment - Written Testimony of EYA, LLC

Dear Council President Hucker and Members of the Council:

We are submitting this written testimony regarding the Shady Grove Minor Master Plan Amendment (the "Minor Master Plan") on behalf of our client, EYA, LLC ("EYA"). EYA is the contract purchaser of 10.32 acres of land located at 16160 and 16200 Frederick Road (the "Property"), which is also referred to in the Minor Master Plan as the King Buick and Mitsubishi property. The Property is located within the boundaries of the Minor Master Plan area and is currently zoned GR-1.5 H-45. EYA is also the contract purchaser of 10.34 acres of land, which abut the Property to the southwest, south, and southeast and are located within the municipal boundaries of the City of Rockville (the "City Parcel"). The location of the Property and the City Parcel are depicted on the following map:

I I 5304\000005\4844-9013-705 l.v5 11 N. WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 700 I ROCKVILLE , MD 20850-4276 I 301.762.1600 I milesstockbridge.com BALTIMORE. MD • EASTON, MO. • FREDERICK, MD • RICHMOND, VA • TYSONS CORNER, VA • WASHINGTON, D.C. (8)

-� MILES& �,'� STOCl

The Property owner (Victor, Inc.) has submitted a petition for the annexation of the 1 Property (the "Petition") into the City of Rockville (the "City"). The Petition requests that the Property be rezoned to the City's Mixed-Use Corridor Development ("MXCD") zone upon annexation, which as explained below, is consistent with the Minor Master Plan's recommendation to rezone the Property from GR (General Retail) to CRT (Commercial Residential Town). The abutting City Parcel is also currently zoned MXCD. Once the Property is annexed into the City of Rockville and rezoned, EYA intends to redevelop the Property and the abutting City Parcel with a unified plan for a residential development project consisting of approximately 365 total dwelling units with a mix of townhouses of varying widths and two-over-two multi-family units, along with attractive open spaces and a neighborhood amenity area (the "Project"). Fifteen percent of the Project's dwelling units will be offered as Moderately Priced Dwelling Units ("MPDUs").

The Property, which is currently improved with an automobile dealership with expansive surface parking lots, is appropriate for residential infill redevelopment given its proximity to transit, major highways, other existing infrastructure (e.g., water and sewer service, utilities), and amenities. Specifically, the Property is located within walking distance of the Shady Grove Metro Station and importantly is proximate to retail uses, employment opportunities, and desirable community facilities. The Property also abuts MD 355 and is near Interstate 370 and the Intercounty Connector. Additionally, the MD 355 bus rapid transit (BRT) line is planned to run along the Property's Frederick Road frontage. The Project will harness this potential by incorporating a diverse range of for-sale homes, providing needed housing to serve employment opportunities, increasing Metro ridership, supporting the future BRT, and offering new customers for existing retail. In proposing a mix of townhomes and two-over-two multi-family units, the Project will transform the Property from its current underutilized state to a vibrant and walkable community close to existing infrastructure facilities and served by numerous transit services.

EYA has reviewed the Montgomery County Planning Board's draft of the Minor Master Plan (the "Planning Board Draft") and supports many of its recommendations relating to the Property that are entirely consistent with the Project and proposed annexation of the Property into the City. In particular, EYA is supportive of the following recommendations:

• The Planning Board Draft acknowledges that properties in the Shady Grove Corridor between MD 355 and the Metro Access Road, including the Property, are included in Rockville's Maximum Expansion Limits (pgs. 9, 55 of the Planning Board Draft);

1 See City of Rockville Annexation Petition No. ANX2020-00146.

115304\000005\4844-9013-7051.vS (9)

-� MILES& �,'� STOCKBRIDGE P.c. Mr. Tom Rucker, President And Councilmembers of the Montgomery County Council February 23, 2021 Page 3 of 5

• The Planning Board Draft recommends rezoning the Property from GR-1.5 H-45 to CRT-1.5 C-0.5 R-1.0 H-80 (pg. 57 of the Planning Board Draft). The CRT zone is consistent with the City's MXCD zone, both of which support medium residential density of development in amenity-rich areas with flexibility in design. Specifically, the Planning Board Draft supports concentrating new housing in mixed-use and transit• oriented areas, encouraging and maintaining a wide choice of housing types and neighborhoods for a variety of people, encouraging an adequate supply of affordable housing, and increasing the number of housing units located within walking distance to Metro, and requiring 15% MPDUs as a priority public benefit (pg. 69 of the Planning Board Draft);

• The Planning Board Draft recommends permitting new residential and non-residential development, rather than only research and development and office uses (pg. 55 of the Planning Board Draft); and

• The Planning Board Draft supports directing infill development at existing surface parking lots (pg. 80 of the Planning Board Draft). Although in full agreement with the above, EYA requests two minor modifications to the Planning Board Draft that will further advance the recommendations, goals, and objectives of the Minor Master Plan:

1) Provide for Residential Density of 1.5 FAR

The Planning Board Draft recommends that the Property be zoned CRT-1.5, C-0.5, R-1.0 H-80. EYA respectfully requests that the County Council revise this to recommend that the Property be zoned CRT-1.5, C-0.5, R-1.5, H-80 to acknowledge that the Property is suitable for an entirely residential project up to the maximum 1.5 FAR overall density proposed in the Planning Board Draft. Such zoning is consistent with both the housing goals stated in the Planning Board Draft and the County's housing growth objectives. In particular, the Planning Board Draft supports housing growth in transit-oriented locations and recommends increasing "the number of housing units located within walking distance to Metro" (pg. 69 of the Planning Board Draft). Being located within walking distance of the Shady Grove Metro Station and along the future 355 BRT line, the Property is an ideal location to implement these goals and objectives.

115304\000005\4844-9013-705 I. vs (10)

-� MILES& �,'� STOCKBRIDGE P.c. Mr. Tom Hucker, President And Councilmembers of the Montgomery County Council February 23, 2021 Page 4 of 5

In addition to being consistent with the Planning Board Draft's stated goals and recommendations, CRT-1.5, C-0.5, R-1.5, H-80 zoning will help achieve the County's housing growth objectives in a transit-proximate location. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) and the Montgomery County Council have set a goal of providing 41,000 new housing units in Montgomery County by 2030 and concentrating those units in activity centers or near high-capacity transit. The Property is located with the MWCOG Rockville King Farm-Research Center-Shady Grove Activity Center and within walking distance of the Shady Grove Metro Station. Thus, residential development of the Property should be encouraged.

Accordingly, EYA requests that the Minor Master Plan recommend CRT-1.5, C-0.5, R- 1.5, H-80 zoning.

2) Identif y the Cit y Parcel's Location Within the Red Policy Area

The Planning Board Draft shows the City Parcel as being located in the Orange Policy Area (pg. 135 of the Planning Board Draft). This designation, however, was recently changed to the Red Policy Area by the County Council in the 2020-2024 Growth and Infrastructure Policy. As shown on the following map,2 the City Parcel is now located in the Red Policy Area, along with the Property: - � Legend ,<:, x

Transportation Policy Areas Categories

G "'' C Property

"�-- ::City Parcel �,_..""'

EYA requests that the County Council update the map on page 135 of the Planning Board Draft to recognize the City Parcel's location in the Red Policy Area to ensure consistency between the Minor Master Plan and the adopted 2020-2024 Growth and Infrastructure Policy.

2https ://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=334818f06fa040bdbfd5320339defa 1e&extent=-8662112.4079%2C4707613. l 466%2C- 8515353 .3136%2C4776177.1609%2C102100

I I5304\000005\4844-9013-705 I.v5 (11)

-� MILES& � STOCl

We request that this letter be made a part of the public hearing record and look forward to continuing to work with the County Council and its staff as the County Council considers the Minor Master Plan. Thank you for your consideration.

Very truly yours,

MILES & STOCKBRIDGE P.C.

l5

cc: Bob Youngentob Jason Sereno Wyndham Robertson Jack McLaurin Laura Tallerico, Esq.

115304\000005\4844-9013-7051.v5 (12)

February 24, 2021

The Honorable Tom Hucker, Council President Montgomery County Council Council Office Building 100 Maryland Avenue, 4th Floor Rockville, MD 20850

Dear Council President Hucker,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Shady Grove Sector Plan Minor Master Plan Amendment (Draft Amendment). We would especially like to thank Mr. Nkosi Yearwood of the Montgomery County Planning Department for his outreach and for providing a very informative presentation on the Draft Amendment at our February 8, 2021 meeting, as well as to Rockville’s Planning Commission on May 13, 2020.

Rockville’s Mayor and Council would like to provide the following testimony on the Draft Amendment, for your consideration. Rockville’s Planning Commission also provided a letter in May 2020 to the Montgomery County Planning Board on an earlier draft.

First, we would like to commend the Draft Amendment’s overall vision and various strategies for transit, environmental sustainability, economic development, opportunities for the creation of new jobs and housing, including affordable housing, in the area near the Shady Grove Metro Station. We also strongly support the Draft Amendment’s recommendation for a new recreation center, new public parks, and new trails in the Plan area.

In particular, we would like to note our strong support for the Draft Amendment’s goals to provide a range of housing types, including workforce housing. We commend the Draft Amendment’s recommendation to require 15 percent moderately priced dwelling units (MPDUs) as the highest priority public benefit for all new residential development. We request that the Draft Amendment recommend that publicly owned properties, including those owned by WMATA, provide 25 percent MPDUs or more.

Additionally, we support the following transit-related improvements:

 The future bus rapid transit (BRT) along Frederick Road (MD 355) and the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT).  An additional MARC station at the Shady Grove Metro Station and the recommendation for the expansion of MARC services for off-peak, evening and weekend hours.

(13) Testimony to County Council on Shady Grove Sector Plan February 24, 2021

 Exploring the feasibility of an infill Metro Station in proximity to the Montgomery College Rockville campus.  Providing significant multimodal improvements, including improvements that support transitways and safe connections to transit, implementing new public streets on both sides of the WMATA property to improve circulation and access for new development and transit riders, and additional parking for WMATA riders.

It will be important for Montgomery County to focus on funding the infrastructure to support the alternate modes of transportation that this Draft Amendment envisions, especially because of the reduced emphasis on roads. Otherwise, the growth will take place without the infrastructure to support it.

The Mayor and Council is concerned with the potential negative impacts on Rockville (and the rest of the surrounding area) with respect to traffic, schools, the environment and other infrastructure and facilities; and requests that there be reconsideration of certain components of the plan, including when the plan is implemented.

With respect to transportation, the Mayor and Council wish to express the following concerns:

 Rockville agrees with removing the previously planned grade-separated interchange, as a staging requirement. We strongly believe the Plan Amendment that is ultimately adopted should call for improvements to the intersection to manage both the congestion and the impending use of that intersection for the Bus Rapid Transit. We recognize and applaud the focus on increasing the use of transit in this area, which should offer some congestion mitigation over time; but we believe that the intersection in question is still very likely to get worse before any of the long-term investments are made.

 We request that the Montgomery County not recommend new traffic assessment standards that will permit more congestion than the City’s approved standards for signalized intersections, including those along MD 355. The new standards will inevitably bring more congestion to an already-congested area. We are also concerned that this change will place Rockville projects at a disadvantage due to Rockville’s stricter standards.

 While we support the aspiration of achieving higher Non-Auto Driver Mode Share (NADMS) goals for the plan area, we are aware of how difficult “stretch” goals of this nature have been to achieve in other plan areas. We therefore request that the County be very careful in how the NADMS goals are applied. The Draft Amendment not only aspires to a higher NADMS, it proposes that these goals should be incorporated into how development projects are reviewed by permitting a greater level of trip-reduction credit than is currently the case. It is important that projects be supported by verifiable data and appropriate traffic mitigation, where necessary, and we suggest that the plan include this implementation guidance.

2

(14) Testimony to County Council on Shady Grove Sector Plan February 24, 2021

 As one of our highest priorities, we urge that the adopted Plan Amendment include a provision calling for a grade-separated pedestrian and bike crossing for the signalized intersection of MD 355 with King Farm Boulevard. Additional development in the Shady Grove area will only add to the demand for crossing that very busy road. Residents in Rockville’s King Farm neighborhood have communicated to us how important such an improvement would be for safety, and we will be incorporating that same provision into our updated Comprehensive Plan.

 We request that the bikeway recommendations in the amendment should be consistent with the 2017 City of Rockville’s Bikeway Master Plan, by providing buffered bicycle lanes for MD 355.

With respect to the treatment of school facilities in the Draft Amendment:

 We express strong opposition to the provision that new development in the Shady Grove Sector, which is mostly in the Gaithersburg Cluster, would potentially be supported by a new elementary school site in Rockville in the Richard Montgomery Cluster, which is already suffering from over-crowded conditions. Instead, Montgomery County should work with Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) to ensure that the preferred school site within the Shady Grove Sector is provided. If the preferred site is not available, the plan should identify an alternative site within the Shady Grove Sector area where development is occurring, rather than on sites in King Farm.

 Any new location of the MCPS Bus Depot must not be in close proximity to residential areas in Rockville due to the negative impacts of traffic, noise, and fumes, including at very early hours in the morning.

We recommend the following additional considerations:

 While we applaud the inclusion of parks, trails, and open spaces, we request that there be policy language added to ensure that any such trails seek, where possible, to connect with trails in Rockville, Gaithersburg, and Washington Grove. Our community members, as we all know, do not limit their movements by jurisdictional boundaries. We also encourage the County Council to enforce the delivery of the parks, trails and open spaces as development takes place.

 While we commend the Draft Amendment’s recommendation to identify the need for Fire and Rescue services in the plan area, we encourage you to reconsider placing a fire station on such a prominent opportunity site, at the key intersection of MD 355 and Shady Grove Road. We recommend identifying an alternative site. Rockville envisions a future where both sides of MD 355, south of Shady Grove Road, form a welcoming “gateway” of attractive development.

3

(15) Testimony to County Council on Shady Grove Sector Plan February 24, 2021

 Although we support the sustainability goals of tree canopy of 40% for the plan area, we would like to challenge the County to aim for reaching a 50% goal for the plan area, which is approximately Rockville’s current tree canopy.

 We encourage you to take into consideration how trends may change as a result of COVID-19, including how it may affect mixed-use development. We recommend that the plan include a call to evaluate post-pandemic market trends to ensure that the assumptions built into the plan will remain as before. We will be doing the same in Rockville’s plans.

 We believe it would be useful to consider the value of coordinated planning among Montgomery County, the City of Gaithersburg, and the City of Rockville for the Shady Grove Road corridor, including the intersection of MD 355 and Shady Grove Road. Each of the three jurisdictions, plus the State of Maryland, have an interest in the transportation performance and land use of this area. A formal interjurisdictional study of the Shady Grove corridor may even be warranted at some time in the near future.

Thank you again for the opportunity to review the Draft Amendment and provide feedback. We look forward to seeking ways to coordinate our planning and implementation efforts in the future.

Sincerely,

Rockville Mayor and Council cc: Montgomery County Council Pamela Dunn, Montgomery County Council Staff Nkosi Yearwood, Montgomery County Planning Department Rockville Planning Commission Rob DiSpirito, City Manager Tim Chesnutt, Acting Deputy City Manager Ricky Barker, Director of Planning and Development Services

4

(16) Testimony to County Council on Shady Grove Sector Plan February 24, 2021

Craig Simoneau, Director of Public Works Christine Henry, Acting Director of Recreation and Parks David B. Levy, Assistant Director, PDS Manisha Tewari, Principal Planner Asmara Habte, Director of Housing and Community Development Emad Elshafei, Chief of Traffic and Transportation, Public Works James Wasilak, Chief of Zoning, PDS Andrea Gilles, Chief of Long-Range Planning, PDS Faramarz Mokhtari, Senior Transportation Planner, Public Works

5

(17) The Town of Washington Grove P. O. Box 216 300 Grove Avenue Washington Grove, MD 20880 voice: 301-926-22566 email: [email protected]

February 21, 2021

Testimony before the County Council on the Shady Grove Minor Master Plan Amendment

John Compton, Mayor of Washington Grove

The Town of Washington Grove, like Montgomery County, is a strong advocate for climate action. We are updating the Town’s Comprehensive Plan with a commitment to sustainability, including transitioning to 100% renewable energy sources and encouraging and aiding residents to do the same. As a key part of this effort, we are hoping to develop, in partnership with the County, a Community Solar Project on a vacant Parks Department property adjacent to Washington Grove and the ICC cloverleaf. We believe it would contribute in a big way to achieve our shared community and County climate goals while benefiting neighboring county communities. Washington Grove stands ready to promote, facilitate, and lead the development of this solar collection system.

As the Council and its PHED Committee considers the Shady Grove Master Plan Amendment in the coming weeks, we ask that you support this innovative win-win project by adding an explicit recommendation that a Community Solar use be thoroughly considered (in the Land Use and Zoning section addressing the Shady Grove Station area) including exploring the leasing of the vacant Montgomery Parks Department property to the Town of Washington Grove. Suggested language for revision to the draft Amendment before the Council is provided below.

This proposed project would:

• deliver 1.24 megawatts (DC) of carbon-free solar electricity to the electric grid to serve up to 200 neighboring homes at a lower cost than current Pepco residential rates, • contribute to meeting the Montgomery County draft Climate Action Plan’s goals of delivering 100% of electricity from renewable sources to County residents by 2030 and of reducing carbon emissions in the County 100% by 2035, • improve racial and social equity in the county by earmarking at least 20% of the electricity for neighboring low and moderate income residents at a 20% discount from current Pepco rates, • improve the resilience of electric supply in the immediate area by providing a new source of solar electric generation close to neighboring consumers,

(18) • serve as a model to demonstrate that solar can coexist effectively with the planting of native species and pollinator-friendly flowers, and • provide a highly visible and compelling real-world community solar project in a relatively urbanized portion of Montgomery County that is based on a strong community and county government partnership.

The County’s review process needs to be completed in this calendar year, as the window of opportunity for both the Maryland Community Solar program and the federal solar tax credit both close in less than three years. A change in zoning is not needed since a solar collection system is permitted as a limited use by the current R-90 zoning of the site.

The near-term solar use can be compatible with the eventual development of an active recreation park on this property. We also suggest that the longstanding recommendation (circa 2007) for an extension of Crabbs Branch Way to Amity Drive be reevaluated in light of its potential adverse air pollution and noise impacts on any recreational uses and on nearby residences, its high cost ($2.25 million), and its potential adverse impacts on traffic congestion in the sector area resulting from expanded “cut-through” traffic from Mid-county Highway to Crabbs Branch Way and the metro.

Council action to highlight the potential Community Solar Project would:

• demonstrate how the County can translate its admirable climate and energy goals into concrete local actions that benefit its citizens and foster social equity and partnerships, and • deliver on the vision of Thrive Montgomery 2050 to evaluate land use decisions through a climate policy lens that emphasizes the importance of Montgomery Planning’s goal of striving to achieve net zero carbon emissions in all development and redevelopment.

We thank the Council for the opportunity to testify today and for your consideration of our recommendations. We stand ready to respond to questions and/or provide advice, as you consider needed amendments to the Shady Grove Minor Master Plan Amendment. We have attached some recommended amendment language to the Master Plan draft for your consideration.

Thank you for entertaining this recommendation to enable consideration of installation of a Community Solar Project that will benefit communities within and adjacent to the Shady Grove Master Plan area. Proposed language follows.

John G. Compton Mayor, Washington Grove [email protected] 240-432-5700

------

(19) Proposed language recommended in Shady Grove Minor Master Plan Amendent 12-17-20, as referred to testimony of the Mayor of Washington Grove before the County Council Public Hearing on the Shady Grove Minor Master Plan Amendment.

Purpose: To modify the draft Sector Master Plan Amendment to recommend an alternative use be considered for the unforested portion of the vacant Parks Department property located between the Washington Grove Conservation Park and the ICC cloverleaf/Metro Access as a site for a Community Solar Project under Maryland’s Community Solar Program, and lease of the site to the Town of Washington Grove. Use for this purpose for an interim period would be prioritized should re-evaluation support deferral of the road connection necessary to access the site.

Language recommended:

Section 4, Land Use and Zoning, Shady Grove Crossing:

On page 52, amend the following section:

The Parks Department has acquired approximately 9.77 acres of this property that is adjacent to the intercounty Connector (MD 200) for a future local park. However, there is not vehicular or pedestrian access to this future park. Montgomery County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) is currently conducting a feasibility study to extend the current roadway terminus of Crabbs Branch Way to Amity Drive.

This plan recommends:

• Confirm the R-90 Zone for properties in this area, including Shady Grove Crossing, the historic meadow, and the vacant Parks Department property. • Recommend leasing of the unforested portion of the vacant Parks Department property to the Town of Washington Grove to enable implementation of a solar collection system under the Maryland Community Solar Program. • Re-evaluate the air pollution, noise, and traffic congestion impacts and the cost/benefit of the extension of the current road terminus of Crabbs Branch Way to Amity Drive as a public street. • Provide a bike trail connection to the Town of Washington Grove, and • Develop a local park with active recreation on the vacant Parks Department property.

(20) AGENDA ITEM #11B March 23, 2021

M E M O R A N D U M

March 19, 2021

TO: County Council

FROM: Glenn Orlin, Senior Analyst

SUBJECT: Shady Grove Sector Plan Minor Master Plan Amendment—transportation elements and fiscal impact statement1

PURPOSE: Develop Council positions

Councilmembers: Please bring your copy of the Final Draft Plan to this worksession.

This staff report primarily addresses the Final Draft Plan’s transportation elements in Chapter 10: Mobility and the Transportation Appendix.2 Some technical corrections will be made to the final document, but they are not identified in this staff report. The purpose of this worksession is for the Committee to make recommendations about these matters.

Those commenting on the Final Draft, including Council staff, support most of the transportation recommendations in this Plan. In the interest of time, this staff report addresses recommendations that differ from the Final Draft from the Department of Transportation (DOT, see ©1-6), the City of Rockville (©7-11), public hearing testimony and correspondence, and Council staff. The Planning, Housing, and Economic Development (PHED) Committee recommendations are shown in bold print, while Council staff’s recommendations are in italics.

Those anticipated to attend include:

Casey Anderson, Chair, Planning Board Gwen Wright, Director, Planning Department Carrie Sanders, Chief, Midcounty Planning Division, Planning Department Jessica McVary, Master Plan Supervisor, Midcounty Planning Division Nkosi Yearwood, Planner Coordinator, Midcounty Planning Division Patrick Reed, Transportation Planner Coordinator, Midcounty Planning Division Eric Graye, Planning Supervisor, Countywide Planning & Policy Division Christopher Conklin, Director, DOT Hannah Henn, Deputy Director for Transportation Policy, DOT Andrew Bossi, Director’s Office, DOT

1 Key words: #ShadyGroveSectorPlan, plus search terms sector plan, road, intersection, transit, bikeway, sidewalk. 2 The Transportation Appendix can be found here: https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Planning- Board-Draft-Plan-Appendix-Transportation-V1.pdf 1. Land use/transportation balance. This past December 9 the Committee reviewed and accepted a revised version of the Planning Board’s recommendations as to how to measure land use/transportation balance in future master plans. The five metrics the Committee accepted are, in sum:

• Accessibility, defined as the number of jobs that can be reached within 45 minutes by auto and by transit, at the time of buildout. Adequacy would be achieved if the proposed plan met or bettered the average accessibility for the county as a whole, which Planning staff has projected to be 1,159,950 jobs within 45 minutes by auto and 134,160 jobs within 45 minutes by transit. • Travel times, defined as the average time by auto and by transit, considering all trip purposes during all times on a weekday. Adequacy would be achieved if the proposed plan met or bettered the countywide average travel time at the time of buildout, which Planning staff has projected to be 18.8 minutes for autos and 51.7 minutes for transit. • Vehicle miles of travel (VMT) per capita, defined as the sum of the weekday VMT from trips that both start and end within the county and half the weekday VMT from trips that either start or end within the county, divided by the total number of residents and employees in the county (the “service population”). Adequacy would be achieved if the proposed plan met or bettered the average for the county as a whole at the time of buildout, which Planning staff has projected to be 12.4 VMT/capita. (For small area sector plan, these first three metrics would be evaluated for the larger “parent” policy area as a whole.) • Non-auto-driver mode share, defined as the NADMS for journey-to/from-work trips. The measure of adequacy for a master plan area would be whether the new plan achieves the pre- established NADMS goal for that area. • Low-stress bicycle accessibility, defined as the percentage of potential bicycle trips that can be accommodated on a low-stress bikeway network. Adequacy would be achieved if the proposed plan met or bettered the average for the percentage for the county as a whole at the time of buildout, which Planning staff has projected in the Bicycle Master Plan to be 80%.

However, these metrics were not used in developing this plan—or in the Ashton Village Center Sector Plan—since the substantive work on both plans were completed before December 9. Therefore, the pre- existing measure of balance--whether or not the intersections in the plan area will meet the Local Area Transportation Review (LATR) standards at buildout—will be used in this analysis.

The Sector Plan area consists of the Shady Grove Metro Station Policy Area (MSPA) and portions of the Rockville City and Derwood Policy Areas.3 As per the 2020-2024 Growth and Infrastructure Policy (GIP) approved last November, the Shady Grove MSPA no longer has a congestion standard: henceforth congestion is unlimited at its intersections. (The prior standard had been an average delay of 120 seconds/vehicle (s/v) to proceed through any given intersection.) The GIP LATR standard in the Rockville City PA (that is, the portion of it not entirely within the City’s boundary) is 63 s/v, while the standard in the Derwood PA is 59 s/v. Two intersections in the Sector Plan Area, both located within the MSPA, would have failed the pre-existing 120 s/v standard if it had not changed:

3 The shape of the Sector Plan area looks like the State of Louisiana having had one over the limit during Mardi Gras (see any of the maps on pp. 6-11.)

2 • Shady Grove Road and Crabbs Branch Way, which would reach a delay of 161.8 s/v in the evening peak: 35% worse than the prior standard. However, with the NADMS goals recommended in Item #3 of this report, the level of service would achieve the 120 s/v level.

• Shady Grove Road and MD 355, which would reach a delay of 150.5 s/v in the evening peak: 25% worse than the standard. However, with the NADMS goals recommended in Item #3 of this report, Planning staff notes that the delay could be fully mitigated to 120 s/v by removing the split signal phasing, converting eastbound Shady Grove Road’s lane configuration to two exclusive left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and two exclusive right turn lanes, and converting westbound Shady Grove Road’s lane configuration to two exclusive left-turn lanes, four through lanes, and one exclusive right turn lane.

During its deliberations on the GIP, the Council deemed traffic operational changes like these were acceptable in addressing congestion, since they do not involve road widening. PHED Committee (and Council staff) recommendation (3-0): Mention the operational changes at Shady Grove Road/MD 355 in the Sector Plan as some of the possible future actions to mitigate congestion, but not have them be explicit directives.

2. Gude Drive interchange. The only intersection that would fail any of the GIP standards in Year 2040 (the proxy year for buildout) is the intersection of MD 355 and Gude Drive. The 2006 Sector Plan called for a grade-separated interchange there. That Plan also had the following condition that needed to be met before the Planning Board could allow development in the second stage of that three- stage plan to proceed:

• Fund the MD 355/Gude Drive interchange for completion within the first four years of the Consolidated Transportation Program, the Capital Improvements Program, or other transit or transportation improvements that would make the intersection function at an acceptable level. ‘Acceptable’ is defined as the applicable intersection congestion standard in the Growth Policy.

The 2040 traffic forecasts for the Final Draft Plan show that this intersection would fail its LATR standard (if there were to be no improvements) by a wide margin. The projection is that delay would be 132 s/v in the morning peak - more than double the 63 s/v standard, and 117 s/v in the evening peak - 85% worse than the standard.

The Planning staff studied six alternative improvements at this location, three which widened the current intersection, and three that introduced a form of grade separation. The only alternative that would meet the standard is a grade separation that would carry two Gude Drive through lanes (one in each direction) over MD 355, with all other traffic passing through an intersection below the overpass. It is diagrammed on ©12 and would cost an estimated $27 million.

The Planning Board recommends deleting the interchange from the Plan, averring that an interchange is counter to promoting transit and Vision Zero goals, and that the funds needed for an interchange would be better spent on pedestrian, bicycle, and transit improvements. Instead it advocates loosening the congestion standard that this intersection from 63 s/v to 100 s/v (a 59% increase in acceptable delay), allowing for free right turns both eastbound and westbound from Gude Drive onto MD 355, as well as designating the existing southbound right turn lane as a combination right/through

3 lane. However, the Board notes that even the free right-turns might not be allowed if there is an impact on pedestrian safety (p, 137). A corollary recommendation is that a grade-separated interchange at this location should no longer be a staging requirement in the Shady Grove Plan (p. 143).

DOT notes that, “While it is not our preference that an interchange necessarily be built at MD 355 and Gude Drive, for this plan to propose removing the interchange without adequate analysis or identified alternatives is premature” (©2). In particular, such an analysis should account for the Preferred Alternative for Managed Lanes project, which proposes a new interchange between I-270 and Gude Drive for buses and toll-payers, thus likely significantly increasing traffic volume along Gude Drive. DOT also recommends against removing the interchange as a staging element (©2).

The Rockville Planning Commission’s draft update to the City’s 2002 Comprehensive Plan notes that “The city continues to support capacity improvements at Gude Drive and MD-355, perhaps the intersection that delays the most drivers on a daily basis.” The draft recommends the City “Advocate for MDOT SHA to improve capacity at the intersection of Gude Drive and MD-355, which may include grade separation.”4 The Rockville Mayor and Council’s testimony on the Final Draft recommends improvements at this intersection, but recommends no longer having the master-planned interchange be a staging requirement (©8).

Council staff recommends retaining the MD 355/Gude Drive interchange in the Plan and show the Gude Drive overpass option on ©12 be the preferred concept. The concept has several advantages:

• Delay at the intersection in 2040 would be reduced from 132 s/v in the morning peak and 117 s/v in the evening peak to 33 s/v and 26 s/v, respectively, well below the 63 s/v standard. These delays do not average in the Gude Drive through movements that would experience no delay. • Vehicle travel time between Shady Grove Road and College Parkway would be improved in the southbound direction by 30% in the morning and by 10% in the evening, and in the northbound direction by 6% in the morning. • Peak-hour emissions would be reduced, according to an analysis by the Planning staff’s consultant: Emission Particulates No Build Gude Drive Overpass (in grams) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Hydrocarbons (HC) 140 178 100 108 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 4,932 5,654 4,265 4,715 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 412 542 338 373 • The planned MD 355 Bus Rapid Transit line would benefit from the interchange. The BRT line is currently planned as a single-lane reversible lane operating southbound in the morning peak and northbound in the evening peak. Eliminating the Gude Drive east-west traffic from intersection means that the MD 355 through lanes—including the BRT lane—would receive more “green time.” In the off-peak direction—where the BRT would run in mixed traffic—there would be a modest reduction in travel time for BRT (6% in the morning, 10% in the evening) compared to the No Build.

4 Rockville Planning Commission, Comprehensive Plan for the City of Rockville, p. 65.

4 The disadvantage of this concept is that while the northbound delay in the evening peak is much reduced, the result would also mean that backups would be shifted to the MD 355 intersections further north, at the intersections at Indianola Drive/Watkins Pond Road and at Redland Road. Overall vehicle travel time in the evening peak on MD 355 from College Parkway to Shady Grove Road would increase by 38%. However, since a major goal of the Plan is to encourage the walkability and bike-ability in the vicinity of the Metro Station, part of that is accomplished by having no limit on traffic congestion so that motor vehicles do not flow freely there. Commensurately, the Plan also recommends setting the target speed on MD 355 in the Metro Neighborhoods at only 25 mph.

Alternatively, the Sector Plan recommends no changes to the existing to auto-centric land uses or zoning in the vicinity of the Gude Drive intersection. Sitting more than a mile away from the Metro Station, it is not within a reasonable walkshed for Metrorail patrons. The Transportation Appendix to the Plan reports only 83 pedestrian crossings of MD 355 at Gude Drive in a pedestrian count taken over an 8-hour weekday period (6:30-9:30am, 11am-1pm, and 4-7 pm), compared to the multiple thousands of drivers passing through the intersection at these times. On the other hand, ped crossings of MD 355 in the Metro Neighborhoods area of the Plan were significantly higher—217 at Redland Road and 382 at King Farm Boulevard (©13)—and the frequency of these crossings should grow much higher with the added density of development proposed in that area.

Furthermore, while Gude Drive carries less traffic than MD 355, it is more important to the regional transportation network that it be improved. For north-south travel in the corridor, there is Metrorail, the future MD 355 BRT (which will be unimpeded in the peak direction and, as noted above, and marginally better in the off-peak direction due to the interchange), and I-270, which will carry more of the longer north-south trips with the State Highway Administration’s soon-to-be-completed Innovative Congestion Management project and the additional capacity afforded by its Managed Lanes Project. On the other hand, Gude Drive is one of only a handful of routes carrying commuters and others east-west across I-270, and eventually to I-270 itself and toll-paying drivers, especially those from Aspen Hill and the east side of Rockville.

The $27 million cost should be borne by the State and be SHA’s responsibility to design and build, since it is a “State” intersection. In the past it has been among the Executive’s and Council’s (and Rockville’s) State transportation priorities. Secondly, $27 million is relatively small for a project of this importance.5 The reason why it would be less costly is because Gude Drive just east of MD 355 is already at high elevation due to its bridge over Metrorail/CSX, and the intersection design concept calls for minimal right-of-way: three minor strip takings and no full property takings.

PHED Committee recommendation (3-0): Revise page 137 of the Final Draft, as follows:

• Delete the five paragraphs and two bullets under “INTERCHANGES.” • Retain the “Crabbs Branch Way and Metro Access Road” section as is. • Retain the “MD 355 and Gude Drive” section, and add the following text to it:

The intersection of MD 355 and Gude Drive is problematic for all users and is noted for significant traffic congestion affecting the surrounding area. Changes to the infrastructure

5 For comparison, a small SHA project in Montgomery County currently under construction is the Brookeville Bypass. Its cost is about $44 million.

5 and its operations are necessary to address the needs of current transit operations, planned Bus Rapid Transit, pedestrians and bicyclists, and drivers of motor vehicles.

This Sector Plan Amendment considered several alternatives at this location and identified that an overpass of MD 355 for through traffic on Gude Drive appears feasible and allows the intersection to meet the applicable congestion standard in the 2020-2024 Growth and Infrastructure Policy. However, significant concerns remain about the desirability, engineering feasibility and cost of such an interchange. Building upon the alternatives analysis in this Sector Plan, the further development of the following strategies are recommended at this location:

• Implementation of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and other operational adjustments to improve intersection performance, reduce conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists and prioritize transit operations. • Further evaluation of changes to the intersection configuration to improve multimodal safety and traffic operations while also maintaining or improving the multimodal performance of the intersection. • If these first strategies do not result in achieving the then-current standards in the Growth and Infrastructure Policy, construction of a major modification to improve vehicular capacity should be implemented. Modification of this intersection, whether at-grade or by overpass, should include all reasonable measures to improve multimodal mobility, including comfortable sidewalks, low stress bikeways and Bus Rapid Transit facilities. • The construction of this major modification must not be prioritized for county funding over the construction of Bus Rapid Transit on MD 355 in the Plan area and its vicinity, and it must be constructed in a way that would not inhibit pedestrian, bicycle and transit accessibility.

PHED Committee (and Council staff) recommendation (3-0): Do not loosen the congestion standard at the Gude Drive/MD 355 intersection from 63 s/v to 100 s/v. The 63 s/v standard was confirmed by the Council just four months ago in the GIP. The Gude Drive interchange described above meets the existing standard. The Rockville Mayor and Council also recommends against loosening the standard (©8).

PHED Committee (and Council staff) recommendation (3-0): Concur with the Final Draft and the City of Rockville that this master-planned interchange should no longer be a staging requirement in the Shady Grove Sector Plan. As noted above, the interchange is much more important to improve east-west transportation on Gude Drive than for north-south transportation on MD 355 through the heart of the Plan’s Metro Neighborhoods, which is where the bulk of the additional density is proposed.

3. Non-auto-driver mode share (NADMS). An important part of every master and sector plan is to set goals regarding the share of commuters who should ultimately travel to work by means other than driving, whether it by transit, walking, biking, riding in a carpool or vanpool, or working at home. The Final Draft notes that the current NADMS for the Sector Plan area is estimated to be 34.2%.

6 The 2006 sector plan set the NADMS thusly: 35% by transit for residents living in the Shady Grove MSPA, 25% for residents elsewhere in the Sector Plan area, and 12.5% by transit for employees working in the Sector Plan area. The Final Draft recommends a 50% for residents in the MSPA, 35% for residents living within the Sector Plan area but not within the MSPA, and 15% for employees commuting into the Sector Plan area from elsewhere (p. 132).

DOT supports the increasing the NADMS, but believes the Plan needs to either make additional recommendations for programs or services toward achieving the goals or consider lowering the NADMS goals to less ambitious targets (©2). The Rockville Mayor and Council also support higher NADMS goals, but they believe the initiatives required of new development “be supported by verifiable data and appropriate traffic mitigation, where necessary, and we suggest that the plan include this implementation guidance” (©8).

Last November in the GIP, when the Council set policy area NADMS goals for those areas that did not have goals, it made sure that there were either separate goals for residents and employees, or a blended goal combining both residents and employees. When re-setting existing goals in master and sector plans, it would wise to follow the same model. As the County evolves to a largely countywide transportation demand management regime, having consistent definitions are important.

PHED Committee (and Council staff) recommendations (3-0): • Concur with Final Draft’s 50% NADMS journey-to-work goal for residents of the Shady Grove MSPA. The existing goal of 35% only counts transit riders, but counting bikers, walkers, carpool and vanpool riders, and those working at home should bring the total NADMS for residents closer to 50%. The increased mixed-use land use in the MSPA should boost the biking and walking commute as well. If Metrorail, the MD 355 BRT, the Corridor Cities Transitway, added bus and car-sharing services, and a more robust bikeway and sidewalk network is not enough to reach the 50% goal, the County can take operational steps, such as more monetary incentives for ridesharing (such as the Fare Share Program) or disincentives for long-term parking. Operating programs do not need to be enumerated in master or sector plans. • Set the NADMS journey-to-work goal for all employees in the MSPA at 20%, taking into account employees living either within or outside the MSPA. NADMS goals in other MSPAs have not distinguished between employees living inside versus outside them. • Re-confirm the Derwood Policy Area blended NADMS goal of 39% for residents and employees taken together. The area outside the MSPA is but a part of the much larger Derwood Policy Area, for which the Council set a blended NADMS of 39% last November as part of the GIP.

There is not the need to add text to the Sector Plan saying that initiatives required of new development in Shady Grove be supported by verifiable data and appropriate traffic mitigation. This is part and parcel of the procedures undertaken by DOT and Planning staff throughout the County, not merely in Shady Grove.

4. Target speeds. As the Plan notes, “The target speed of a roadway refers to the intended or desired speed of roadway users. Target speeds should inform roadway design, and ideally, the posted speed of the roadway” (p. 119, footnote 3). Some engineering methods used to reduce target speeds are to narrow lane widths, design tighter curb radii (i.e., sharper turns) at intersections, reduce or eliminate

7 channelized right turn lanes, install a curb or other vertical separation between the outside lane and bike lanes, and replace center turn lanes with raised medians. Section 49-32(j) of the County Code states that “unless otherwise specified in a master plan or the approved capital improvements program, the maximum target speed for a road in an urban area is 25 mph.”

The Shady Grove Urban Road Code Area is mapped on p. 116; it extends on MD 355 from Shady Grove to Indianola Drive, on Shady Grove Road from I-270 to I-370, on Crabbs Branch Way from Shady Grove Road to Indianola Drive, and on Redland Road from MD 355 to just northeast of Crabbs Branch Way. This Urban Road Code Area is where most of the Plan’s proposed added density would occur, and where walking and biking will become more prevalent. Although the Code would allow the Council to set any target speed it desires for this area as part of the Sector Plan, the Code’s default target speed of 25 mph with Urban Road Code Areas would appear to be appropriate here.

Beyond the Urban Road Code boundary, the Planning Board recommends setting the target speed on these roads and others at 30 mph (p. 118-119). This is well below the current posted speeds: east of Crabbs Branch Way the limit on Shady Grove Road is 45 mph and on Redland Road is 35 mph; the limit on MD 355 south of Indianola Drive is 35 mph; and on Gude Drive the limit is 40 mph. DOT believes that it would be difficult to implement a 30 mph target speed due to the width, minimal curvature, and infrequent driveways and intersections on these roads. DOT suggests a 35 mph goal would be more realistic and achievable (©2).

Context is critical. No land use or zoning changes are proposed along these roads outside the Urban Road Code boundary, so there will not be a significant difference in pedestrian activity there. Along these roads the Plan’s recommendation is to set the sidewalks back 6’ from the roadway or provide vertical separation where 6’ isn’t possible. Planned bikeways are similarly protected. Speed studies along portions of Shady Grove Road and Crabbs Branch Way outside the boundary show about as many driving below the speed limit as above it.

The primary problem, however, is that about 20% of drivers on these segments are exceeding the speed limit by more than 5 mph (see Appendix pp. 40 and 44). The Plan appropriately calls for certain revisions to the design to lower the speeds; implementing them will likely have the effect of significantly reducing excessive speed.

PHED Committee (and Council staff) recommendation (3-0): Concur with the Final Draft that the target speeds for the segments of these roads and others within the Urban Road Code Area should be set at 25 mph.

Council staff recommendation: For the segments outside the Urban Road Code Area, setting the target speed for both MD 355 and Crabbs Branch Way at 35 mph southeast of Indianola Drive, for Gude Drive at 40 mph, for Redland Road northeast of Needwood Road at 35 mph, and on Shady Grove Road northeast of I-370 at 45 mph – the currently posted speed limits for these roads. The proposed traffic calming measures hopefully will work to bring top speeds to just 5 mph over these limits.

PHED Committee recommendation (3-0): Concur with the Final Draft that the target speeds for the segments of these roads outside the Urban Road Code Area should be set at 30 mph.

8 5. Midcounty Highway. Existing Midcounty Highway and its currently planned extension east to the Intercounty Connector (ICC) comprise the northern boundary of the Sector Plan area. The Plan’s discussion of Midcounty Highway is on p. 115.

The third paragraph on p. 115 refers to Council Resolution 18-957 which directed the Planning Board not to assume any northern extension of Midcounty Highway in calculating land use transportation balance (©14-15). But this master-planned extension (from Montgomery Village Avenue to Ridge Road in Clarksburg) would begin more than 3 miles away, and so it has no relevance to this Sector Plan.

The fourth paragraph speaks to the problems associated with the eastern extension to the ICC— disturbing forest and streams, and possible property takings from single-family lots. But it does not acknowledge the reasons why extension is in the master plan in the first place: to provide more direct access for residents of Montgomery Village, Gaithersburg, and Derwood to the ICC and points east, and to reduce traffic on Shady Grove Road.

Finally, the last paragraph goes on to say that the Sector Plan neither endorses the removal of the extension form the master plan. It notes that because the eastern extension “impacts mobility beyond the Plan area, this Sector Plan is not the appropriate place for a decision on this segment as an appropriate forum beyond the Sector Plan Area was not established during this planning effort.”

PHED Committee (and Council staff) recommendation (3-0): Remove the text on p. 115. The text is an unbalanced depiction of the pros and cons of the extension, and much of it is irrelevant to the Sector Plan. There is a recommendation for a trail in the extension’s right-of-way between Shady Grove and Redland Roads, but that recommendation also appears in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Network on p. 129 and in Table 3 on p. 131.

PHED Committee (and Council staff) recommendation (3-0): In the roadway classification table (Table 2) on p. 118, change the eastern limit of Midcounty Highway from Shady Grove Road to Redland Road. Since the Sector Plan would not delete the eastern extension, its presence should be noted in the table.

6. Alignment of proposed streets near the Metro Station. DOT points out that the mapped alignment of proposed street B-7 (Columbus Avenue Extended) as shown in Map 51 (p.123) does not intersect with Redland Road directly across from where Yellowstone Drive intersects Redland. Good street planning practice would have B-7 and Yellowstone Drive aligned. DOT also notes that two public/private linear open space alignments near the Metro Station are too close to parallel public streets, and that they should be more evenly spaced on the superblock. PHED Committee (and Council staff) recommendation (3-0): Concur with DOT’s comments.

7. Parking at the Metro station. DOT states that its most important interest in the Plan is to make sure that the number of existing all-day parking spaces (5,745) at the Shady Grove Metro Station be at least retained, if not expanded upon. DOT points out that, as the end-of-the-line station, it will continue to be the primary means of accessing Metrorail for commuters from the much of the Upcounty, Frederick County, and points beyond (©1, 4).

While it is true that the MD 355 BRT, the Corridor Cities Transitway, and enhanced local bus routes should relieve the existing parking demand to some degree, it is also true that further growth

9 north of Shady Grove will increase the cumulative demand for accessing the Red Line at Shady Grove, especially now that the turnbacks have been eliminated and all trains depart from the station.

The Final Draft does not suggest that the number of park-and-ride spaces would be reduced, but the text in the Plan (the third bullet on p. 104) could be made stronger. Council staff recommends the following revised text:

• Permit additional long-term Metro parking on the east side of the station, which creates more flexibility for redevelopment opportunities on the west side of the station. Furthermore, the County, MDOT, and WMATA should explore means to expand the number of long-term spaces at the station, as demand warrants.

PHED Committee recommendation (3-0): Concur with the Final Draft.

8. MARC improvements. The Final Draft confirms the 2006 Plan’s recommendation for a MARC Station adjacent to the Shady Grove Metro Station. It also calls for properties redeveloping along the northeast side of the tracks to dedicate a strip at least 25’ feet in width to allow for a potential CSX third track. A similar recommendation was included in the recently approved MARC Communities Plan.

The Mayor and Council of Rockville support a Shady Grove MARC Station and the ability to add MARC service beyond the current weekday unidirectional trains, which run only inbound in the morning peak and outbound in the evening peak (©7). DOT is more circumspect: it notes that “a new station may compete with Metropolitan Grove – which is master planned to function much like a terminal station in relation to I-270 – and is likely to bring into question the viability of existing stations with strong community support including Washington Grove, Garrett Park, and Boyds, in addition to the proposed MARC station in White Flint” (©5). It is true that MDOT’s long-time position is that if a station is added another station must be discontinued. DOT also believes that the Plan’s $8-10 million cost estimate is likely too low. The Town of Washington Grove’s Historic Preservation Commission and Town resident Ms. Gail Littlefield oppose dedicating the right-of-way for the third track (©16-17).

Council staff recommends retaining the proposed MARC station and the proposed 25’ dedication for now, but both should be scrutinized more carefully before proceeding with design. MTA staff have noted that a Shady Grove MARC station would be quite expensive, given the need to provide ADA accessibility, among other factors. DOT’s comments are spot on. In addition, while adding a station at Shady Grove would provide easier access to MARC, it would also mean lengthening every rail commuter’s trip between Gaithersburg, Germantown, and points north to Silver Spring and Union Station by about 4 minutes due to the time lost decelerating, dwelling in the station, and re-accelerating.

Including these issues as an add-on to the scope of the I-270 Corridor Forward Plan would allow the Planning Board and Council to view the matter more holistically and provide a much wider opportunities for public input. As for the dedication, since Washington Grove has independent planning and zoning authority, it is under no requirement to dedicate the right-of-way within the Town unless it wants to do so.

PHED Committee recommendation (3-0): Concur with the Final Draft.

9. Montgomery College Metro Station. The Final Draft confirms a recommendation in the 2006 Sector Plan to explore the feasibility of a new Metro station on the east side of MD 355 across from

10 Montgomery College, midway between the Shady Grove and Rockville Metro Stations (P. 104). The Mayor and Council of Rockville support this exploration (©8). It is curious that this recommendation found its way into the 2006 Plan and the Final Draft since the new station would be a ½-mile to a mile south of the Plan’s southernmost boundary.

Council staff concurs with exploring this option, as long as the study is a low priority and that the project not assumed as a given, even in the long term. The cost of an infill station will run into the hundreds of millions of dollars: for example, the cost of the infill Potomac Yard Metro Station on the Blue and Yellow Lines in Alexandria is about $320 million. Regardless of the cost, a station there is likely infeasible given the tight space between MD 355 to the west of the tracks and the Washington Gas fields to the east. The bus transfer and kiss-and-ride areas would certainly have to be located west of MD 355, probably beyond the northeast portion of the campus between North Campus Drive and College Parkway. A new station certainly would have Metrorail take away some riders that would otherwise use the MD 355 BRT. It would also lengthen the trip between the Shady Grove and Rockville Stations (and points south), although not as much as a new Shady Grove MARC station would slow MARC trips, since Metrorail trains decelerate and accelerate more quickly.

PHED Committee recommendation (3-0): Concur with the Final Draft to include this potential Metro Station in the master plan.

10. Pedestrian grade separation at MD 355. The Rockville Mayor and Council note (on ©9):

As one of our highest priorities, we urge that the adopted Plan Amendment include a provision calling for a grade-separated pedestrian and bike crossing for the signalized intersection of MD 355 with King Farm Boulevard. Additional development in the Shady Grove area will only add to the demand for crossing that very busy road. Residents in Rockville’s King Farm neighborhood have communicated to us how important such an improvement would be for safety, and we will be incorporating that same provision into our updated Comprehensive Plan.

The Final Draft Plan does not include this recommendation. In fact, it recommends that all pedestrian walkways be at grade (p. 126).

With the exception of bridges over Interstate highways and transit lines powered by a third rail, ped/bike grade separations are typically underutilized if a biker—and especially a pedestrian—has to both climb to and descend from a high elevation. Such overpasses are also quite long, due to the need to adhere to an ADA-acceptable grade. Furthermore, the main reason why the Plan recommends whatever traffic calming measures are needed to achieve a target speed on Frederick Avenue is to allow for a safe means to walk both along and across it. PHED Committee (and Council staff) recommendation (3-0): Do not include this element in the Plan.

11. Crabbs Branch Way/Amity Drive connector. Ms. Barbara Raimondo and Mr. Dennis Kirschbaum of Washington Grove believe the master-planned connection between Crabbs Branch Way and Amity Drive is unnecessary. They claim the connection would bring more pollution while adding to traffic congestion. They also suggest that traffic will return not return to pre-COVID levels, obviating the need for the connection (©18-21, especially ©21).

11 The connection is proposed as a primary residential street. As such it is not meant to be used by regional traffic, and the County has a cut-through traffic regulation that would allow restrictions on its use should significant cut-through traffic materialize. The link would provide for better connectivity to the Grove Shopping Center for the Amity Drive neighborhood, and it would have no discernible negative impact on Washington Grove residents. PHED Committee (and Council staff) recommendation (3-0): Concur with the Final Draft.

12. Sidewalk and bike connections from Washington Grove. The southernmost segment of Oakmont Avenue from Shady Grove has sidewalks on both sides. Further north, however, there is either a sidewalk on the east or west side, but not both. And, in the segment continuing north to Railroad Street (the northern limit within the Sector Plan area), there are no sidewalks. The Plan calls for a continuous sidewalk and the removal of existing obstructions on at least one side of Oakmont Avenue (p. 129). However, the Pedestrian Network (Map 52 on p. 127) shows neither existing nor proposed sidewalks on Oakmont Avenue. PHED Committee (and Council staff) recommendation (3- 0): Show the existing and proposed sidewalk segments on Oakmont Avenue on Map 52.

Mayor Compton and some residents of the Town of Washington Grove have raised concerns about the Sector Plan’s depiction of a planned shared use path connection between the Town and the master-planned connection of Crabbs Branch Way/Amity Drive. Current master plans (most recently, the 2018 Bicycle Master Plan) called for this path to connect to southern end of Brown Street. DOT is currently studying four different options for making this connection, one that does connect to Brown Street, but also three others that are nearby but do not use Brown Street (©22-26). Under the Bikeway Program – Minor Projects project in the Capital Improvements Program, the Council has prospectively set aside $675,000 to design and construct the option ultimately selected; design is programmed for FY23 and construction in FY24. Mayor Compton (©27) and the residents have pointed out that it is premature for the Sector Plan to identify Brown Street as the location for this path.

The path is shown in the Existing and Proposed Bikeway Network (Map 53, p. 130) as a dashed green arrow, extending generically from the Crabbs Branch/Amity connector to the Town. Table 3 on p. 131 refers to this path as the Piedmont Crossing Local Park Trail connecting the Town to Crabbs Branch/Amity. In both places, Brown Street is not mentioned.

The consternation stems from Table 4, also on p. 131, which identifies how the Sector Plan would amend the 2018 Bicycle Master Plan. One of the lines in that table shows a sidepath along the east side of Oakmont Avenue from Shady Grove Road to Central Avenue (the “humpback” bridge) and has the note “Focus on Safer Parallel Connection at Brown Street.”

However, a closer inspection of the title of Table 4 reveals the following statement: “This Sector Plan recommends the removal of the following bikeways from the 2018 Bicycle Master Plan” (emphasis mine). Therefore, Table 4 is acknowledging that the references to an Oakmont Avenue path and to a focus on Brown Street would be replaced by the Piedmont Crossing Local Park Trail in Table 3. PHED Committee (and Council staff) recommendation (3-0): Concur with Map 52 and Tables 3 and 4 in the Final Draft.

12 13. Updates to bikeway recommendations. Planning staff notes the following corrections to the bikeway recommendations in the Final Draft. PHED Committee (and Council staff) recommendation (3-0): Concur with the following corrections:

• Bikeable shoulders are not recommended on Redland Road due to right-of-way constraints and very limited potential for implementation of both currently recommended bike facilities along the segment. The safer of the two Bicycle Master Plan recommendations, a sidepath facility, is retained. Within the “Intercounty Connector Trail Breezeway,” Redland Road row, Table 3 should read “sidepath” rather than “bikeable shoulders” in the bikeway type column. No changes are required for Map 53. Table 4 removes bicycle facilities from the recommended network. In this table, the Redland Road row should read “From – Needwood Road (northern access); To – Muncaster Mill Road; Bikeway Type – Bikeable Shoulders.” • Table 3 accurately states that there is an existing sidepath on Crabbs Branch Way between Shady Grove Road and Redland Road; however, Map 53 does not show the sidepath between the bridge on Crabbs Branch Way and Redland Road. This concrete path is substandard; however, it has already been accepted as a component of the Department’s existing bicycle network. • Table 4 accurately notes that the Needwood Road facility is proposed for removal between Redland Road and Blueberry Hill Park. This is because there is not enough space to implement the facility, and no realistic mechanism for right-of-way expansion; however, Map 53 needs to be updated to the remove the facility.

14. Fiscal impact analysis. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), working with DOT, has forwarded information from its fiscal impact analysis regarding the transportation elements in the Final Draft. DOT estimates the cost of transportation capital improvements in the Final Draft to be $638.5 million, about half of which associated with the Montgomery College Metro Station which, as noted above, will likely not occur for a very long time, if ever. Of the balance, $125.2 million is for transit projects (mostly the portion of the MD 355 BRT within the Sector Plan area), $54.3 million for new streets for local circulation within the area, $51.5 million for narrowing major roadways to slow speed and provide bikeway breezeways (so this is partially a bikeway cost), $19.4 for traffic operational and traffic calming modifications at intersections, $67.7 million for sidewalks and bikeways, and $400,000 to develop an Urban Mobility Program (UMP) for Shady Grove.

The analysis makes certain assumptions about the share of costs between the County, State, and developers. For example, it presumes that the BRT cost would be split evenly between the State and County, even though the current State administration has made clear to date that it is not participating financially in BRT. Truthfully, for the larger projects called for this Plan there is no way to predict what will be a State/Federal cost and what would be a County cost. f:\orlin\fy21\phed\shady grove plan\210323cc.doc

13 Marc Elrich Christopher R. Conklin County Executive Director DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

M E M O R A N D U M

March 3, 2021

TO: Tom Hucker President, Montgomery County Council

FROM: Christopher Conklin, Director Department of Transportation

SUBJECT: Shady Grove Minor Master Plan Amendment MCDOT Comments on the Planning Board Draft

Based on discussions with Council Staff it was suggested that our department should provide more specific recommendations based on our comments on the December 2020 Planning Board Draft of the Shady Grove Minor Master Plan Amendment. We offer the following suggestions:

1) Parking: Our most important interest for the plan area is seeing that Park & Ride access is at kept at least at equal levels to today, or ideally that the supply of Park & Ride parking be expanded upon. The plan does not currently make it clear what the existing supply of parking is and what the plan’s vision is for the future supply. The plan needs to provide information on how new development at and near the Shady Grove Metro Station will be conditioned to provide public parking that is designed toward Park & Ride use.

Previous planning for major economic initiatives has focused on adding parking capacity at this location. The plan area’s Park & Ride capacity directly affects transit utilization by residents in the suburban and rural areas of Montgomery County and beyond and is also an important tool for meeting mode share goals in downstream policy areas. The State’s Managed Lanes projects may also increase the demand for these Park & Ride spaces. Additionally, commuter parking at this location is an important strategy for reducing traffic and single-occupant commuting elsewhere in the County.

Office of the Director 101 Monroe Street, 10th Floor, Rockville, MD 20850 · 240-777-7170 · 240-777-7178 Fax www.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcdot

montgomerycountymd.gov/311 301-251-4850 TTY (1) Tom Hucker March 3, 2021 Page 2

2) Gude Interchange: While it is not our preference that an interchange necessarily be built at MD 355 and Gude Drive, for this plan to propose removing the interchange without adequate analysis or identified alternatives is premature. The plan should include strategies to address the operational failures of this intersection. Such analyses should account for the Recommended Preferred Alternative by the State for the Managed Lanes Project, which proposes a new interchange between I-270 and Gude Drive and is likely to significantly increase traffic volumes along Gude Drive. The plan should identify the strategy for addressing the unreasonable existing and projected congestion at this location before removing the interchange from the staging considerations.

3) NADMS: We support the vision of increasing the Non-Auto Driver Mode Share (NADMS) for the policy area. However, it appears that at full build-out: the plan area would not achieve the NADMS goals. The plan needs to either make additional recommendations for programs or services toward achieving the NADMS goals or consider lowering the NADMS goals to less ambitious targets. Some potential options toward achieving the NADMS goals may include additional transit service or tying the maximum amount of parking permissible for new development to the NADMS goals.

4) Target Speeds: While we recognize the desirability of lower target speeds, it may be difficult to effectively implement the ambitious target speeds recommended by the plan. This is most likely to be an issue along streets such as Shady Grove Road and Redland Road east of Crabbs Branch Way, where their width, and minimal curvature, and infrequent driveways and intersections can limit opportunities for achieving the proposed 30 MPH target speeds. It is likely that under the draft Complete Streets Design Guide: The Major Highway and Arterial portions of these streets may be classified as Boulevards, which have a default target speed of 35 MPH. This may be a more realistic target for these segments.

Should you have any questions regarding our comments on the plan, please feel free to contact me or Mr. Andrew Bossi, Senior Engineer, at [email protected] .

CC:HH:AB cc: Hannah Henn, MCDOT Gary Erenrich, MCDOT Andrew Bossi, MCDOT Clair Iseli, CEX Meredith Wellington, CEX Kara Olsen Salazar, DGS Glenn Orlin, Council

(2) M E M O R A N D U M

February 22, 2021

TO: Greg Ossont, Deputy Director Department of General Services

FROM: Hannah Henn, Deputy Director for Transportation Policy Department of Transportation

SUBJECT: Shady Grove Minor Master Plan Amendment MCDOT Planning Board Draft Comments

Thank you for the opportunity to review the December 2020 Planning Board Draft of the Shady Grove Minor Master Plan Amendment. Our most important points excerpted from our attached detailed comments are included below, with superscript numbers used to reference the comment numbers in the attachment. All of this input was provided from the Montgomery County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) to the Planning Board in May 2020, in advance of this draft plan, and we have not received responses from the Planning Department on our earlier comments. The plan transmitted to Council does not address these comments to our satisfaction.

1) Traffic Adequacy: The section on transportation standards states that even after increasing the congestion thresholds, the plan will still not meet these metrics. By not achieving the standards we set for ourselves, this approach disrupts the consistency and transparency of our policies, potentially confusing the public and complicating the development process. The plan needs to identify treatments needed to achieve the 2016 Subdivision Staging Policy that it is being developed under. These treatments might not be a high priority compared to non-auto projects, but we must nonetheless meet the policies we have set for ourselves or find an alternative solution and adjust our policies to reflect that.98

(3) We have suggested some potential analyses that might be used in addition to standard spot intersection analyses – such as evaluating corridor travel times – which may be useful in justifying the recommendations of the plan, but these analyses have not been performed nor elaborated upon in the narrative to build a case supporting the plan’s recommendations.134

The plan proposes “to mitigate for failing intersections, [development] applicants shall provide multimodal improvements, including contributions towards transitways and Vision Zero improvements.” If it is decided to disregard our growth policies, it becomes extremely important to carefully detail how these contributions will be estimated and assessed.100

2) Managed Lanes Project: The transportation analyses do not account for the Managed Lanes Project. We understand the difficulty with having limited information from the State over the timeline of this plan, but the State has now affirmed a Recommended Preferred Alternative which includes a new interchange along I-270 at Gude Drive. While it is not our preference that an interchange necessarily be built at MD 355 and Gude Drive, for this plan to propose removing the interchange without adequate analysis is premature.115 The assumptions stated in the plan’s narrative regarding this project also appear to imply incorrect interpretations of the Managed Lanes Project’s impacts to Gude Drive.101

3) Park & Ride Facilities: The plan needs to provide greater narrative toward the role of Shady Grove as a terminal station, and a comparison of Existing versus Proposed Park & Ride capabilities at the site.17,20 More information is needed on whether Park & Ride capacity is proposed to be reduced, kept the same, or expanded; or how new development by the Metro Station will be conditioned to provide public parking.42

The elimination of large volumes of parking capacity could have a significant effect on transit utilization by residents located in Upcounty, Frederick County, and further areas. The parking capacity at Shady Grove Station is also an important tool for meeting mode share goals in other policy areas like Rockville, Twinbrook, White Flint, Grosvenor, Bethesda and Friendship Heights. We do not support reductions in Metro Station parking and believe the plan should more deliberately explore future expansion of parking at this location.

Traffic analyses also need to more deliberately consider the operations of the Shady Grove Metro Station, particularly with consideration of bus volumes and periodic surge outflows from the parking garages in the PM peak. Buses must have priority pathing and movements in accessing the Metro Station. Garages must be capable of clearing without stacking of outflow traffic.116

(4) 4) Cross-Sections: Many of the cross-sections and items in Table 2 have substantial issues in that they do not reflect master planned bicycle facilities, do not reflect other master plans, propose infrastructure requiring more right-of-way than is assigned by the plan, do not reflect existing design standards nor what is included in the proposed Complete Streets Design Guide, or information on the facilities is missing completely. When referencing modified cross-section standards: the plan needs to include narrative toward how these cross-sections are to be modified. 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 75, 76, 77, 79, 83, 85

5) Street Alignments: Several street alignments need to be more deliberately considered from an operational standpoint, including aligning B-7 with the opposite street (Yellowstone Way),78 and the alignment of the two brown-colored streets shown on Map 51 in relation to other nearby intersections.80, 81

6) NADMS: Assuming full plan implementation: what baseline Non-Auto Driver Mode Share (NADMS) is expected to be achieved? What new facilities and services are needed to achieve the target NADMS? How will transit operate effectively with increased congestion tolerances?

These new services should be identified as future capital needs. It may be necessary to consider refining or even reducing the NADMS goals if the plan cannot identify any means of achieving them, which will affect the Transportation Analysis.93

7) UMP: Discussion on a Unified Mobility Program (UMP) is notably absent. Transportation projects identified by the plan should be included within the UMP, including those needed to achieve NADMS goals. Not enacting the UMP at this time will delay its implementation by several years.140

8) Existing Transit; Needs: More narrative is needed on existing Transit services in the plan area, including what services are present, average frequencies & speeds, coverage areas, and operating spans. This information can provide a snapshot of existing conditions, and where improvements may need to be targeted.41

9) MARC Station Analysis: No transportation analysis is included supporting a new MARC station. A new MARC station may compete with Metropolitan Grove – which is master planned to function much like a terminal station in relation to I-270 – and is likely to bring into question the viability of existing stations with strong community support including Washington Grove, Garrett Park, and Boyds, in addition to the proposed MARC station in White Flint. If additional stations are being proposed: analysis would need to consider impacts to Brunswick Line travel times and ridership resulting from additional stops.13

(5) 10) Missing Bikeways: The Bicycle Master Plan includes an off-street trail extending from Needwood Road to the Jeremiah Park site,90 and also separated bike lanes along the extension of King Farm Blvd to the Metro Station.91 However, Map 53 (p130) does not show these connections, and Table 4 (p131) does not reference them as being removed. Clarification is needed on these bikeways.

11) Air Quality:31, 32 Page 86 states that an estimate of the carbon footprint is required but there does not appear to be any information on the results of this evaluation.31 The plan appears to imply that air quality goals may not be met, but there does not appear to be any information on how the plan would achieve these goals, nor any justification of why the goals should not need to be met.32

12) CIP List: The CIP list is missing most of the projects identified by the plan, including the items listed below. MCDOT will be unable to provide the required Fiscal Impact Statement without a corrected list.108

• New & reconstructed streets • New & reconstructed bikeways • New & reconstructed sidewalks • New & expanded transit services & facilities • New WMATA station at Montgomery College • A line item for Bikeshare • Areawide or corridor traffic calming • Items within the Prioritized List of Vision Zero Improvements • Intersection treatments • Development of streetscape standards

Should you have any questions regarding our comments on the plan, please feel free to contact me or Mr. Andrew Bossi, Senior Engineer, at [email protected].

HH:AB

Attachment: Detailed Comments Spreadsheet cc: Chris Conklin, MCDOT Gary Erenrich, MCDOT Andrew Bossi, MCDOT Kara Olsen Salazar, DGS Darren Bean, SHA

(6) February 24, 2021

The Honorable Tom Hucker, Council President Montgomery County Council Council Office Building 100 Maryland Avenue, 4th Floor Rockville, MD 20850

Dear Council President Hucker,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Shady Grove Sector Plan Minor Master Plan Amendment (Draft Amendment). We would especially like to thank Mr. Nkosi Yearwood of the Montgomery County Planning Department for his outreach and for providing a very informative presentation on the Draft Amendment at our February 8, 2021 meeting, as well as to Rockville’s Planning Commission on May 13, 2020.

Rockville’s Mayor and Council would like to provide the following testimony on the Draft Amendment, for your consideration. Rockville’s Planning Commission also provided a letter in May 2020 to the Montgomery County Planning Board on an earlier draft.

First, we would like to commend the Draft Amendment’s overall vision and various strategies for transit, environmental sustainability, economic development, opportunities for the creation of new jobs and housing, including affordable housing, in the area near the Shady Grove Metro Station. We also strongly support the Draft Amendment’s recommendation for a new recreation center, new public parks, and new trails in the Plan area.

In particular, we would like to note our strong support for the Draft Amendment’s goals to provide a range of housing types, including workforce housing. We commend the Draft Amendment’s recommendation to require 15 percent moderately priced dwelling units (MPDUs) as the highest priority public benefit for all new residential development. We request that the Draft Amendment recommend that publicly owned properties, including those owned by WMATA, provide 25 percent MPDUs or more.

Additionally, we support the following transit-related improvements:

 The future bus rapid transit (BRT) along Frederick Road (MD 355) and the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT).  An additional MARC station at the Shady Grove Metro Station and the recommendation for the expansion of MARC services for off-peak, evening and weekend hours.

(7) Testimony to County Council on Shady Grove Sector Plan February 24, 2021

 Exploring the feasibility of an infill Metro Station in proximity to the Montgomery College Rockville campus.  Providing significant multimodal improvements, including improvements that support transitways and safe connections to transit, implementing new public streets on both sides of the WMATA property to improve circulation and access for new development and transit riders, and additional parking for WMATA riders.

It will be important for Montgomery County to focus on funding the infrastructure to support the alternate modes of transportation that this Draft Amendment envisions, especially because of the reduced emphasis on roads. Otherwise, the growth will take place without the infrastructure to support it.

The Mayor and Council is concerned with the potential negative impacts on Rockville (and the rest of the surrounding area) with respect to traffic, schools, the environment and other infrastructure and facilities; and requests that there be reconsideration of certain components of the plan, including when the plan is implemented.

With respect to transportation, the Mayor and Council wish to express the following concerns:

 Rockville agrees with removing the previously planned grade-separated interchange, as a staging requirement. We strongly believe the Plan Amendment that is ultimately adopted should call for improvements to the intersection to manage both the congestion and the impending use of that intersection for the Bus Rapid Transit. We recognize and applaud the focus on increasing the use of transit in this area, which should offer some congestion mitigation over time; but we believe that the intersection in question is still very likely to get worse before any of the long-term investments are made.

 We request that the Montgomery County not recommend new traffic assessment standards that will permit more congestion than the City’s approved standards for signalized intersections, including those along MD 355. The new standards will inevitably bring more congestion to an already-congested area. We are also concerned that this change will place Rockville projects at a disadvantage due to Rockville’s stricter standards.

 While we support the aspiration of achieving higher Non-Auto Driver Mode Share (NADMS) goals for the plan area, we are aware of how difficult “stretch” goals of this nature have been to achieve in other plan areas. We therefore request that the County be very careful in how the NADMS goals are applied. The Draft Amendment not only aspires to a higher NADMS, it proposes that these goals should be incorporated into how development projects are reviewed by permitting a greater level of trip-reduction credit than is currently the case. It is important that projects be supported by verifiable data and appropriate traffic mitigation, where necessary, and we suggest that the plan include this implementation guidance.

(8) Testimony to County Council on Shady Grove Sector Plan February 24, 2021

 As one of our highest priorities, we urge that the adopted Plan Amendment include a provision calling for a grade-separated pedestrian and bike crossing for the signalized intersection of MD 355 with King Farm Boulevard. Additional development in the Shady Grove area will only add to the demand for crossing that very busy road. Residents in Rockville’s King Farm neighborhood have communicated to us how important such an improvement would be for safety, and we will be incorporating that same provision into our updated Comprehensive Plan.

 We request that the bikeway recommendations in the amendment should be consistent with the 2017 City of Rockville’s Bikeway Master Plan, by providing buffered bicycle lanes for MD 355.

With respect to the treatment of school facilities in the Draft Amendment:

 We express strong opposition to the provision that new development in the Shady Grove Sector, which is mostly in the Gaithersburg Cluster, would potentially be supported by a new elementary school site in Rockville in the Richard Montgomery Cluster, which is already suffering from over-crowded conditions. Instead, Montgomery County should work with Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) to ensure that the preferred school site within the Shady Grove Sector is provided. If the preferred site is not available, the plan should identify an alternative site within the Shady Grove Sector area where development is occurring, rather than on sites in King Farm.

 Any new location of the MCPS Bus Depot must not be in close proximity to residential areas in Rockville due to the negative impacts of traffic, noise, and fumes, including at very early hours in the morning.

We recommend the following additional considerations:

 While we applaud the inclusion of parks, trails, and open spaces, we request that there be policy language added to ensure that any such trails seek, where possible, to connect with trails in Rockville, Gaithersburg, and Washington Grove. Our community members, as we all know, do not limit their movements by jurisdictional boundaries. We also encourage the County Council to enforce the delivery of the parks, trails and open spaces as development takes place.

 While we commend the Draft Amendment’s recommendation to identify the need for Fire and Rescue services in the plan area, we encourage you to reconsider placing a fire station on such a prominent opportunity site, at the key intersection of MD 355 and Shady Grove Road. We recommend identifying an alternative site. Rockville envisions a future where both sides of MD 355, south of Shady Grove Road, form a welcoming “gateway” of attractive development.

(9) Testimony to County Council on Shady Grove Sector Plan February 24, 2021

 Although we support the sustainability goals of tree canopy of 40% for the plan area, we would like to challenge the County to aim for reaching a 50% goal for the plan area, which is approximately Rockville’s current tree canopy.

 We encourage you to take into consideration how trends may change as a result of COVID-19, including how it may affect mixed-use development. We recommend that the plan include a call to evaluate post-pandemic market trends to ensure that the assumptions built into the plan will remain as before. We will be doing the same in Rockville’s plans.

 We believe it would be useful to consider the value of coordinated planning among Montgomery County, the City of Gaithersburg, and the City of Rockville for the Shady Grove Road corridor, including the intersection of MD 355 and Shady Grove Road. Each of the three jurisdictions, plus the State of Maryland, have an interest in the transportation performance and land use of this area. A formal interjurisdictional study of the Shady Grove corridor may even be warranted at some time in the near future.

Thank you again for the opportunity to review the Draft Amendment and provide feedback. We look forward to seeking ways to coordinate our planning and implementation efforts in the future.

Sincerely,

Rockville Mayor and Council cc: Montgomery County Council Pamela Dunn, Montgomery County Council Staff Nkosi Yearwood, Montgomery County Planning Department Rockville Planning Commission Rob DiSpirito, City Manager Tim Chesnutt, Acting Deputy City Manager Ricky Barker, Director of Planning and Development Services

(10) Testimony to County Council on Shady Grove Sector Plan February 24, 2021

Craig Simoneau, Director of Public Works Christine Henry, Acting Director of Recreation and Parks David B. Levy, Assistant Director, PDS Manisha Tewari, Principal Planner Asmara Habte, Director of Housing and Community Development Emad Elshafei, Chief of Traffic and Transportation, Public Works James Wasilak, Chief of Zoning, PDS Andrea Gilles, Chief of Long-Range Planning, PDS Faramarz Mokhtari, Senior Transportation Planner, Public Works

(11) (12) Table 3 – Pedestrian Counts and Delay Pedestrian Crossing Counts and Delay Summary (counts taken between 6:30am-9:30am, 11:00am-1:00pm, and 4:00pm-7:00pm w/ some mild variation at lunch period) Total Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Intersection Approach Crossings Delay AM Delay PM per (seconds) (seconds) Approach Crabbs Branch Crossing at Indianola (north side) 13 12.2 12.2 Indianola at Crabbs Branch Crossing at Indianola (south side) 7 12.2 12.2 Crabbs Branch Indianola Crossing at Crabbs Branch (east side) 20 31.9 31.9 Indianola Crossing at Crabbs Branch (west side) 15 31.9 31.9 Crabbs Branch Crossing at E. Gude (north side) 8 44.1 44.1 E. Gude at Cecil Crossing at W. Gude (south side) 20 31.4 31.4 Crabbs Branch E. Gude Crossing at Crabbs Branch (east side) 11 64.4 64.4 E. Gude Crossing at Crabbs Branch (west side) 19 64.4 64.4 355 Crossing at Indianola (north side) 45 63.5 61.7 Indianola/ 355 Crossing at Indianola (south side) 2 N/A N/A Watkins Pond at 355 Indianola Crossing at 355 (east side) 37 28.2 30.7 Watkins Pond Crossing at 355 (west side) 30 28.2 30.7 355 Crossing at King Farm (north side) 211 63.9 63.9 King Farm 355 Crossing at King Farm (south side) 117 63.9 63.9 at 355 King Farm Crossing at 355 (east side) 30 20.3 20.3 King Farm Crossing at 355 (west side) 24 20.3 20.3 355 Crossing at Redland (north side) 71 63.9 63.9 Redland at 355 Crossing at Redland (south side) 64 63.9 63.9 355 Redland Crossing at 355 (east side) 41 32.7 32.7 Redland Crossing at 355 (west side) 41 32.7 32.7 355 Crossing at Ridgemont (north side) 0 N/A N/A Ridgemont 355 Crossing at Ridgemont (south side) 8 64.4 64.4 at 355 Ridgemont Crossing at 355 (east side) 16 15 15 Ridgemont Crossing at 355 (west side) 5 15 15 355 Crossing at Gude (north) 3 N/A N/A 355 Crossing at Gude (south) 35 71.1 63.5 Gude at 355 E. Gude Crossing at 355 (east side) 18 34.7 38.9 W. Gude Crossing at 355 (west side) 27 48 44.1 Gaither Crossing at King Farm (north side) 27 32.2 32.2 King Farm Gaither Crossing at King Farm (south side) 64 32.2 32.2 at Gaither Road King Farm at Gaither (east side) 23 32.2 32.2 King Farm at Gaither (west side) 35 32.2 32.2

(13) Resolution No.: 18-957 Introduced: September 19, 2017 Adopted: October 31, 2017

COUNTY COUNCIL FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

Lead Sponsor: Council Vice President Riemer Co-Sponsors: Council President Berliner and Councilmembers Elrich, Navarro, and Leventhal

SUBJECT: Transportation Solutions for Northwest Montgomery County

Background

1. Mobility for Upcounty residents is limited due to congestion and a lack of public transportation alternatives to I-270, MD 355, and other roads serving Clarksburg, Germantown, Montgomery Village, Gaithersburg and surrounding areas.

2. Four major infrastructure projects serving this area are envisioned in county master plans, including expanded capacity on I-270, the Corridor Cities Transitway, Bus Rapid Transit on or near MD 355, and the extension of Midcounty Highway (M-83) north of Montgomery Village Avenue.

3. For many years, there has been no clear consensus to extend Midcounty Highway to the north, yet master plans have assumed the availability of such an extension to put these plans in balance between land use and transportation.

4. Montgomery County is committed to protecting our environment and doing our part to stem the carbon emissions that are driving global climate change, as demonstrated in the following actions:

a. Resolution 18-846, adopted on June 20, 2017, reaffirmed the Council's commitment to meet the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement.

b. The Montgomery County Department of Transportation has adopted a Sustainability Policy that commits that the County will “Plan and implement a transportation system that broadly considers ecosystem and climate impacts, reduces and prevents waste and pollution, uses renewable resources, uses sustainable sources of energy and reduces energy consumption.”

c. The Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan, approved by the Council in 2013, states that “Expanding transit infrastructure through more efficient use of public rights-of-way is essential if current and future congestion is

(14) Page 2 Resolution No.: 18-957

to be mitigated. In addition to reducing Countywide travel time for drivers, an expanded transit network is necessary to support the County’s land use, environmental, and economic development goals and make transit a reliable alternative to driving in the County’s developed core.”

Action

The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following resolution:

1. The Council supports expanded capacity on I-270, the Corridor Cities Transitway, Bus Rapid Transit on or near MD 355, and improvements on MD 355. These improvements will provide significant, immediate relief for Upcounty residents. These improvements align with our economic development strategies, providing the broadest and most diverse benefits, and minimize impervious surface, stormwater runoff, carbon emissions, and other environmental impacts.

2. The Council directs the Montgomery County Planning Board not to assume additional road capacity from the northern extension of Midcounty Highway when calculating the land use - transportation balance in future master plans, including but not limited to the upcoming Gaithersburg East Master Plan and the Germantown Plan for Town Sector Zone. This step ensures that any new development allowed under these plans does not rely on the northern extension of Midcounty Highway, while retaining the right-of-way for this extension in these plans.

This is a correct copy of Council action.

Linda M. Lauer, Clerk of the Council

(15) The Town of Washington Grove Historic Preservation Commission PO Box 216, Washington Grove, MD 20880-0216 Tel: (301) 926-2256 – Fax: (301) 926-0111

February 16, 2021

To County Council President Katz and County Council Members

Gentlefolk:

The Washington Grove Historic Preservation Commission objects to the provision in the Planning Board Draft at page 104 (110 of 152) which appears to endorse the MTA’s MARC Capstone plan for adding a third main line rail on the northeast side of the Brunswick Line tracks. (See attached.)

Specifically, Shady Grove Sector Plan staff are encouraging, without further study or stakeholder input, property owners in the Sector Plan area adjacent to the northeast side of the existing MARC rail to dedicate (“if feasible”) a width of 25’ (i.e., an easement) for future implementation of the MTA plan.

The MTA Brunswick Line triple track plan extends from Union Station, through Washington Grove (the first MARC stop after Shady Grove) and all the way north through the County. Implementation would have adverse effects on Washington Grove’s National Register Historic District and community. A 25- foot extension of the NE side right-of-way would put it in the middle of Railroad Street, i.e., within the Town and National Register boundaries. The register-eligible Washington Grove Humpback Bridge would be demolished. MARC car parking would be lost, endangering our qualification to have a MARC stop.

This Master Plan draft provision is premature and requires further study and stakeholder input before any land encumbrance proceeds. --how will the Rt. 270 hotlanes project, changing commuting practices, potential monorail, etc., impact the need for this project? --what is the impact on the many other historic resources along the Brunswick Line, e.g., the historic Gaithersburg and Silver Spring stations? The Brunswick Line itself is a National Register Historic District. --is the project cost estimate, $1.342 BILLION, in the realm of possibility? --what is the advantage to Sector Plan property owners to go to the trouble and cost of giving the State an easement for a questionable project? Why is the staff making this recommendation at this time?

The Washington Grove HPC will need to be included in any planning decisions relative to the MTA plan referenced above. Also please note that the boundaries of the Washington Grove Historic District have recently been modified to include more of its historic setting.

Thanks for your consideration,

Robert Booher Chair, Washington Grove HPC

(16) February 22, 2021 Councilmembers: I object to the recommendation in the draft plan that prematurely endorses the unfunded, concept-only Maryland Transportation Administration MARC Cornerstone Plan. (see links below) This plan would involve taking 25’ on the northeast side of the CSX/MARC tracks throughout Montgomery County for a new MARC third main line. Washington Grove would not be a stop on the new MTA third rail service. For Washington Grove, the third rail would likely cause the demolition of our historic Humpback Bridge, loss of our MARC parking spaces and thereby our eligibility for a MARC stop, and incursion into Railroad St., the Town, and the Historic District. It would also adversely impact all our neighboring small businesses on the narrow strip of land between E. Diamond and the tracks in Gaithersburg. The adverse impacts to historic properties would not be limited to Washington Grove—there are historic stations and districts all up and down the CSX/MARC NE tracks, e.g., the Gaithersburg Station and freight house museum, Silver Spring, Brunswick, and Point of Rocks stations. The Planning Board’s Draft Plan urges the immediate dedication of property within the Shady Grove Sector for the third rail— “properties adjacent to the existing MARC rail should dedicate no less than 25’, where feasible.” This action is premature and should be preceded by a feasibility/needs study and widespread stakeholder input on a fleshed-out plan, to include participation by Washington Grove. What is the likelihood of raising the estimated $1.34 billion for the project? With evolving commuting habits and the implementation of the Rt. 270 hot lanes project for traffic congestion, will there be a need for this project? Respectfully submitted, Gail Littlefield 111 Grove Rd. Washington Grove 20880 301 990 6567

(17) Barbara Raimondo Dennis Kirschbaum 414 Center Street P.O. Box 466 Washington Grove, MD 20880 [email protected]

March 1, 2021

Kyle Lukacs, AICP [email protected] Tim Cupples, P.E. [email protected] Sogand Seirafi, P.E. [email protected] Daniel Sheridan, P.E. [email protected] Marcelo Cortez, P.E. [email protected] Eric Willis [email protected] Division of Transportation Engineering Montgomery County, MD

Dear Kyle Lukacs, Tim Cupples, Sogand Seirafi, Daniel Sheridan, Marcelo Cortez, and Eric Willis:

Thank you for your recent presentation to share information on (1) possible routes for the shared use path linking Washington Grove with Crabbs Branch Way and (2) the proposed Amity Drive extension. It was informative and helpful. It will be very beneficial for Washington Grove residents to have a shorter route to the Shady Grove Shopping Center, Metro, Rock Creek Regional Park, and other points. However, the Amity Drive extension should be a shared use path, not a road.

(1) Shared Use Path between Washington Grove and Crabbs Branch Way

We have been waiting for this connection for years and are thrilled to see the plan moving forward. The path will be used by walkers, runners, bicyclists, moms and dads with baby carriages, children playing, and other recreators.

This letter addresses the four routes under consideration:

• Starting at the end of Brown Street

• Along the industrial zone

• Across the Washington Grove Conservation Meadow

• From Ridge Road to Picea View Court.

(18) The Brown Street Option is the best choice.

It is the safest. This section of Brown Street is a tree-lined, quiet residential area rimmed by large homes with generous lawns. The street is open and comfortably wide. It has only eight houses on it. Each house has a double driveway, with a capacity of two full-size cars, plus a two- car garage, giving each house room for six full-size cars to park off-street. If all cars were parked off-street, pedestrians and bicyclists would have a full double lane route. However, even assuming some cars will be parked on the street, there is still ample room for pedestrians, bicyclists, and others to easily pass by. The slope of the street is similar to that of other streets in Washington Grove, and less than that on other streets and paths in Montgomery County. Brown Street is similar to countless streets in the County that are used for walking and biking.

There are no competing land-use claims. Washington Grove has jurisdiction over Brown Street, and the County has jurisdiction over the land beyond. Only a small right of way needs to be acquired to make this connection. Further, this section of Brown Street was annexed to Washington Grove in 1994. As outlined in the annexation documents, as a condition of annexation the end of Brown Street is to be used for a bike path.1

Washington Grove has officially been on record supporting a connection between the Town and Metro since at least 2009, where it is cited in the Town’s Master Plan.2

It is the most cost-effective. As Montgomery County tax-payers we want our dollars to be spent responsibly. This is the shortest route, thus saving construction and maintenance costs. This option was evaluated by the County to be the lowest cost, most direct option.

The Industrial Zone Option should be rejected.

This option is dangerous. In this proposal, the path would start on Railroad Street, a heavily travelled road outside of Washington Grove. Railroad Street is traversed by many industrial vehicles, including trucks that regularly enter and leave Roberts Oxygen, as well as tractor trailers and the Route 61 Ride-On bus. When these large vehicles make the hairpin turn here, they typically take up both lanes.

Ridge Road in Washington Grove is a major entrance to the Town. Drivers coming into the Grove often are not familiar with the 15 miles per hour speed limit or the fact that Grove residents use streets as they would use sidewalks. Grove residents walk and often stop to chat with neighbors in the middle of our roads. Drivers coming into the Grove from Railroad Street cannot see into the Grove because of the seven-foot high fence on the edge of Roberts Oxygen.

1 Resolution No. 94-04 – Resolution Authorizing the Annexation to the Town of Washington Grove of Approximately 2.88 Acres of Land Located at the Intersection of Brown Street and Ridge Road. 2 Town of Washington Grove 2009 Master Plan, p. 24 https://washingtongrovemd.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/10/2009_MasterPlan.pdf.

(19) Drivers often drive too fast coming into Town. If the path was placed here, Grovers going to and from the path would be at risk of being hit by a vehicle.

This option is ugly. Currently a high fence runs along the length of the industrial zone. Inside the industrial zone are trucks, gas tanks, and other types of mechanical equipment. On the Grove side of the path would be the fences along the backyards of houses on Brown Street. When people are outside recreating, they don’t want to look at fences. They want to enjoy the beautiful outdoors. There is nothing inviting about a path that would be fenced in on both sides.

Railroad Street is located outside of the Town. Railroad Street is not even part of Washington Grove, so it would not be a connection between Washington Grove and Crabbs Branch Way.

Obtaining the necessary land would be difficult and/or costly. Neither Washington Grove nor the County own the land on which this route is suggested. Obtaining the land will require the County to pay whatever price the private seller wants or initiate the time consuming and expensive process of condemnation.

This option has nothing whatsoever to recommend it.

The Washington Grove Conservation Meadow Option would cause grave harm.

This route would parallel Brown Street, running behind the houses on Brown Street, rather than in front of them. It is not clear why this route has been suggested. Brown Street is already a built road, whereas a path across the Conservation Meadow would have to be dug and paved. This would kill trees and other plant life, destroy animal habitat, and diminish the amount of pervious surface in Washington Grove. It would be disruptive to the animals and humans who live in the Grove, with heavy machinery coming in, making noise, blocking roads, and bringing the unpleasant smell of asphalt. It is a more costly alternative than Brown Street, but would offer nothing to enhance recreational activities, safety, attractiveness, or any other feature. It is not an acceptable choice.

The Picea View option is irrelevant for the purpose of linking Washington Grove with Crabbs Branch Way.

This route does not fulfill the goal of linking Washington Grove with Crabbs Branch Way, so it should not be considered for that purpose. This route would offer an extremely roundabout way of getting to the Grove Shopping Center, Metro, and nearby locations. It would involve travelling through Shady Grove Crossing, to Amity Drive, to Epsilon Drive, then to Shady Grove Road, then finally to Crabbs Branch Way. This location would not serve as a reasonable connector for the purposes of this project.

There is nothing objectionable about this link per se, but it is not a substitute for a safe, efficient route from Washington Grove to Crabbs Branch Way.

(20) (2) Linking of Crabbs Branch Way with Amity Drive

A road between Crabbs Branch Way and Amity Drive is unnecessary. Traffic already moves smoothly on Shady Grove Road and surrounding environs. This road would bring more air, noise, and light pollution while adding to traffic congestion.

Further, we are living in a unique time in the County. We really don’t know how much our roads will be used once the pandemic is over. It is likely that many will continue to work from home and many offices will decide not to open. Road planning should be modified to take into account the new ways of working.

A better alternative is to build a shared use path. This will allow residents more opportunities to get outside, also to walk and bike to nearby amenities.

Closing

In summary, for the link between Washington Grove and Crabbs Branch Way, it is clear that the Brown Street Option is the best. Safety and attractiveness, the annexation agreement, and cost factors all support this choice. There are no known objective data weighing against it.

Linking of Crabbs Branch Way and Amity Drive should be done through a shared use path, not a road.

We would also like to add a point about the width of the path that will be built. A 12-foot wide path is the better choice. Many people on shared use paths are not familiar with the rule “stay to the right unless you are passing,” and wander over towards the wrong side. When trail users are being passed, sometimes they don’t hear or understand the purpose of the audible warning, so it is important to make sure the person passing can allow for a wide berth. And the path will be used by families with young children, who are often unpredictable on a path. Their safety must be protected.

Thank you for your work on this project and your consideration.

Very truly yours,

Barbara Raimondo Dennis Kirschbaum

(21) Trail Alternatives (22) BR OWN S T REEETET 10" W 11 D 490 1

6

8

W E 9 X " . W 2 10 SS E B 8 TL L AND CE . FO ARRC Ac RE P 8 S .04 " W T L 4 INE 3 1010 OAD ' P UE

R A 7 8 " S T

E R O 6 O 4 L G BR

LTE TLT O I 0 O DDG W 100 F I N F 25 66660 S L 10 T OU R ' P R OOD P U EET E AND P S L 5 SS A IN

WR ' SSSS NT 2200 ME 0 SE . 20020 25' SSWR RAILROAD EA F. S S TREET . 2658 EASEMENT

L "

8 L. 2742 F. 595 TRAIL 1 36

18" S S S 18" S 18" S S S SS 4 SS FO REST LINE EET 500 R N 520 25' SSWR T 20' RIGHT OF WAY 747747 EASEMENT S P T EASEMENT L. 2658 F. 200 L. 44330 F. 134 D EEEET 510

R E OAD

N

ON

I T I

R L D R T

EL L S T C I R . VA RC c N c 36"RCP PA A

R A T E .75

E 4

M

R R S

E

A S

ON OAD A

C I E L R

L 1 I 480

A 490 R 30"HDPE

TION 1 VA RT ER PA E S T CON EN P SS EM 468 AS F. " S E 8 43055

HD L. "

SS 30

P743 ION E T IN L L VA C R T M E N A P S E E 8 M R 5 ON E T 0 C S S A E F

E OREST LINE

N

I

ON

I

L

ON T

TI 1 T

VA RT N R A VA

SE P CL MENT

T AM E M EASE N E R SWM

CON ME STR

446 M E E

AS F.

E E S

.43055 10 S

L 0 FLOO D A

PLAIN ON E

SS C 8 " S 490 482 T SS N E E M 500 M 2 E E DG C W S T E ONSER S A R VATION 30"HDPE 15 R EASEM DG E A ENT P CR " E P S ART 2 HD TE S L.43055 F R A .468 BBR P E 2 W A R E T 15"HDPE W T BB A AN BB ON R AN I A AY W T P 8 S C VA T 46 . H R N F S E E " 8 S M E T AV E ON S N P C A 43055 E . E HD L " M E 5 E 3 1 NU S T A ON R SS E I A 1 T P LEGEND M E M T E T 468 E VA P W R P N . D S A R S F 850 H E E E " " P P S M 8 36 TRAIL 1B CENTER LINE E HD S " E ON A P C 43055 24 E . P L TRAIL 1B LIMIT OF SS SS HD " 'RC DISTURBANCE 15 3 'X 8 30 TRAIL 1B AREA "HD P E E 15 E MONTGOMERY COUNTY P LIMIT OF STUDY "H P D DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HD HD

" P " E E 30

WETLANDOAK AREA 15 P WASHINGTON CONECTOR / HD

P " CRABBS BRANCH WAY CONSERVATION EASEMENT 802 5 M 1 OPTION 1 ON SANITARY SEWER C E & P PROPOSED TRAIL PARCEL LINE / ROW O HD T " Date SHEET NO. R 15 500 CONTOURS AV A E SEPT SCALE :1" = 100' P IL E 2020 E W P HD AY " HD

" 15

24 (23) 6 C M 22 . E T. ELc A T P D N RC A C R A C O .88 E P 1 SS

H . .21 c B PT 4 A . EL EL c 1 A 0 RC OAD RC . A .04 A P 4

R 12 A P

20 510

T. 500 P E FO

REST LINE DG 520 3 I 490

R E X. WETL AND E SS

NU TRAIL 2 26 E

AV PT. 2 WR

2 5' SS T

2 EN

EM

AS 595 L E .

2 F Y

I .274

A L

A

W

T 18

" RR

R . .

O 100 R

R

10 E

T F W T T L

17 OO " S N

D 18 SS E TL

P P ' 26 . .

H L M . AI E F LTE N 20

I S

T A C SS F E

OU P 3500 .1 S . PT 18" L

1

S

2

4 3 10' PUE

AND

D "

S 8

SS 8" W 8" S BROWN S TREET D 10" W SS SS . ELc

8 S T REET 6 10' PUE A WN S RC O S INE A BR ST L 75 7 E P . FOR 4 W 5

"

R S

T

W E 9 N "

10 E 200 N

SS 8 M . I

' F ON E I

20 L S T

8 A

E 2658 T

6 . N

L SS VA

500 E R 1

ION T M

E T R E A

S VA P

OAD 0 S N R T S

480 E 68 A N 4 S

" S O S E .

R

E M F

66 18 C ON C E 5

S 5 P AY P A 30 36 W RC E 4 E F " . T O 36 L IGH ' R T 20 EN EM 4 AS .1 3 DG E F

I L.44330

R

490

SS T E R ON W I SS R N 5' T T I 2 N L ME A A SE 00 EA F.2 I V T 8 L R N 265 L. E E 2 S M N E 25 L O S C E 510 C A LIN P E ST M 850 ORE A F

SS E REET R ST T S OAD 747 ILR P T A N R PE "HD E 30 SS T M 2 N E M E S EM T " S S 8 EA W R M A W S A S E

P E

2

E P

N T

SS I

N

520 ON

EET L 482

4 I R

HD O T

T " I A 8

R E N T P

VA

30

E 46

T T R

DG . M VA

E N

F E E

S R

S E

S E

R A

M

S ON E T E

EET N C TE 3055 N S 3 O 4 A E A R L . 743 C C T E W M P M L R T A 15 E OAD E ON IN I A R A S 8 T PL 490 "H OOD T P S FL 6 S A R 100 D P 4 CR E 1 T E . L VA N I T F M R BRA E R BB E W M A A 55 500 S AN S W E 0 S P R AY S C ON 43 PE A . . OAD H C "HD E 30 L LEGEND E R 1 SS 8 P ION T " L T R S E HD I A ION P VA P T HD " R ERVA T 2 15" E T S PAR A N 446 CON T 15 E S E . MEN TRAIL CENTER LINE M F ASE 468 P ON E E F. SS R C S A .43055 E SS L HD . 43055 " TRAIL LIMIT OF L P E 36

RC ' DISTURBANCE DG 3 E X '

R 8 E TRAIL AREA E P T A P MONTGOMERY COUNTY S 850 HD W " LIMIT OF STUDY " DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 8 15 WETLAND AREA WASHINGTON CONECTOR / 30" CRABBS BRANCH WAY HDP CONSERVATION EASEMENT E

OPTION 2 SANITARY SEWER E

SS E P

P

D PROPOSED TRAIL

PARCEL LINE / ROW H

HD " " 5 Date

S 1 500 CONTOURS 30 " 1" = 100' 8 15 "HD E PE P E 936 D P P

H " HD " 24 (24) 15 OAD R

E RA IL RO DG 4 AD I R ST R 8 EET " W

EET 7 R 660 T P S 3 520 10 ' P U 490 E 8 OAD EET 6 " R R S IL T 490 0 A S R 8 B 4 AD R O E O X W 4 . SS R 10 N W L ' P ETL I P747 U 5 A E S A T AND N R R 36 EET R T O LTE 20' SSWR I F EASEMENT SS TL L. 2658 F. 200 AND OU 18 S " S 25 100 ' SS W S D EA R F F S " EM L O L E 8 OOD R .2658 NT E S F. T 200 P L SS L IN 510 A E IN T PARCEL B RA c. IL 3 4.04 A 2 0' RIGH EA T SE OF L ME W .44330 NT AY SS F .134 M 500 A ET CC FO RE ST R LI NE E O 18 SS " S 25 ' SS W EA R SS SE 18 L ME " S .2742 NT 30 F "HD .595 PE

36 E "RC P P

D

H P743 "

30 E ON I N I T SS L

T VA 8 N " S R E D E

S M 490 E SS S ON A C CONSERVATION E EASEMENT PART 1 SS L. 43055 F. 446 PARCEL D 4.75 Ac. 80 4

SS STR EAM C 8 L 20' SSWR E S G " " D S EASEMENT E 8 R 100 E L. 3500 F. 26

TE F ON N A LO I I L W OD T

PL T CONSERVATION A VA IN N L EASEMENT PART 1 R E C E M L. 43055 F. 468 M A C S E ON E TR P S N S S EA E 850 IO SS R ON S A T L EM VA NE . C VA I T E 43 EN ION 490 R L 055 T SE T P EN F. AR ON M 46 T C E 8 2 AS 500 S E S 30 WM 8" "HD EA F P SEM OR E EN ES P T T SS C LIN 802 15 E & "HD O PE T SS E R P HD A R " 24 S I " L A 8 CR LEGEND 15 I BR 3 482 L W " HD W SS A A A AY B P TRAIL CENTER LINE Y N E B C E S P818 TRAIL LIMIT OF G H D E

DISTURBANCE R E T SS P A TRAIL AREA E W T 850 P N HD E " M M MONTGOMERY COUNTY 15 W E S S 2 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LIMIT OF STUDY A T E R A P WASHINGTON CONECTOR / WETLAND AREA E P 2 T "HD IONR CRABBS BRANCH T 15 1 A E P CONSERVATION EASEMENT 5 E P VA " P D T OPTION 3 HD "H R N 468 36 E . "HD S E F SANITARY SEWER P 5 M E 1 5 30 ON E PROPOSED TRAIL C S 05 1 " A 3 T E HD E 4 PARCEL LINE / ROW P . N Date SHEET NO. L E HD P " M SEPT 30 E E SCALE :1" = 100' 500 CONTOURS S 2020 A P E 3 E C M 1 P 'R T 3 W T IONR HD 'X S R T " 8 A A 15 P P VA T R 468 E N . S E F M E (25) ONS C A E 43055 . L R I DG

8 E

R 12 OAD

13

4

16

AD O R 3 A A

2 EL 3

RC A P C PARCEL

4 11 2 1

2 14

9

7

1 R OAD 15 RIDGE RIDG A E R OAD 8 ECTOR CONN 9 RAIL 9 8 T B B OU PARCEL

4 5 3 K 6 WAL N 2 P SS 7 6 CRO ICEA 8 V D 7 IE P RT W ARC 9 C EL C OU OU A I V IEW RT N CEA C 8 PI 10 G

17

16 A 1 11 S .A 12 .L B 15 10 T O 9 13 A 18 E A 14 14 ND N

E

1 15

3 A 31 11 C L O 19 AN B F U

E R 6 T 12 1 30 A 20 17 PARCEL A P B 2 31

A EL E 3 RC PARC 18 33

34

21 19 35 EL 30 29

D 20 29 8 1 2 2

22 27 26

A 22 36 23 25 B 24 23 28 A

A 24 PA RCEL SS AM I C ITY A SS DR S IVE 25 T A N PARCEL B E 490 26 A

L SS AN PARCEL A E

A 27

LEGEND MCSF B B SS EL MCSF A TRAIL CENTER LINE RC A L P A C TRAIL LIMIT OF T N E Y M T DISTURBANCE R I E E ON F D V IR F M I U AN A TRAIL AREA NV B F R E . D ETL EL c MONTGOMERY COUNTY W A LIMIT OF STUDY C DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION . R D X A 21 E . WETLAND AREA P 2 WASHINGTON CONECTOR / F O CRABBS BRANCH WAY R P E A CONSERVATION EASEMENT S RC T EL L 0. SANITARY SEWER I 23 D N A STO E c. RM MANAGWA PICEA RIDGE CONNECTOR PARCEL LINE / ROW 480 TER F EA EM O SEM ENT Date R EN CONTOURS E T 500 S SCALE: 1" = 100' 1 OF 1 T L IN ION E T A R E T L Y I T F I O IL I C B A (26) F Page 1

The Town of Washington Grove P. O. Box 216 300 Grove Avenue Washington Grove, MD 20880

voice: 301-926-22566 email: [email protected]

February 21, 2021

Additional Testimony before the County Council on the Shady Grove Minor Master Plan Amendment

John Compton, Mayor of Washington Grove

As an original participant in the creation of the 2006 Shady Grove Master Plan, and since then a member of the Shady Grove Master Plan Advisory Committee, I’m writing to urge the Board to consider the following modification to this Amendment to the Shady Grove Master Plan. Master Plans carry weight in planning and decision making, and this recommendation, though minor, better reflects the intentions of the Plan:

Bikeway Connection to Washington Grove

Recommended change/clarification:

• In Table 4 (p130) Amendments to the 2018 Bicycle Master Plan For the Project “Oakmont Street”, modify the Status description to read, “Focus on Safer Parallel Connection at Brown Street to Washington Grove”.

The creation of a safe and direct bikeway/multiuser pathway connection to the Shady Grove Metro will realize a significant goal of the Washington Grove Master Plan. Montgomery County has funded facilities planning and constructing thsuch a pathway, and currently the MCDOT “Washington Grove Connector – Crabbs Branch Extension” study is in progress.They are evaluating a number of roughly parallel alternative routes from Crabbs Branch, any of which achieve the desired connection to Washington Grove. A specific route for construction will not be chosen until this study is completed and the Town of Washington Grove and County agree on how to proceed.

In previous plans we viewed naming “Brown Street” as shorthand for Washington Grove. This Amendment should recognize the current study goals of MCDOT study and accurately describe the connection as being to Washington Grove rather than identifying Brown Street specifically.

Thank you for making this change in the context of Washington Grove and a viable Metro- centered residential community.

John G. Compton Mayor, Washington Grove 240-432-5700 and [email protected]

(27) AGENDA ITEM #11 March 23, 2021 Addendum

M E M O R A N D U M

March 19, 2021

TO: County Council

FROM: Glenn Orlin, Senior Analyst

SUBJECT: Shady Grove Sector Plan Minor Master Plan Amendment—fiscal impact analysis1

PURPOSE: Addendum--review costs provided by the Executive Branch

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has just forwarded its fiscal impact analysis (FIA) for the Sector Plan amendment, a requirement under Chapter 28 of the State Code. The transmittal from the OMB Director is on ©1, the Executive Branch’s estimates of the County cost of projects recommended in the Plan are on ©2, and the estimate of the full cost of transportation projects are on ©3.

The non-transportation capital cost estimates include: • $32.7 million for a new elementary school. The FIA assumes this as a County cost, but it is likely some portion of it (much less than half) would be State funded. • $34 million for a fire station and police substation. • No capital cost estimate is included for a new library, as it is assumed to be in leased space.

The transportation project cost estimates on ©3 assume a split of cost among the County, the State and Federal governments, and the private sector. Truthfully, however, for the larger projects called for this Plan there is no reliable way to predict what will be a State/Federal cost and what would be a County cost. Therefore, what is summarized below are the total transportation capital costs:

• $320 million for the Montgomery College Metro Station. • $125.2 million for other transit projects, mostly the portion of the MD 355 BRT within the Sector Plan area. • $54.3 million for new streets for local circulation within the area. • $51.5 million for narrowing major roadways to slow speed and provide bikeway breezeways (so this is partially a bikeway cost). • $19.4 for traffic operational and traffic calming modifications at intersections. • $67.7 million for sidewalks and bikeways. • $0.4 million to develop an Urban Mobility Program (UMP) for Shady Grove.

1 Key words: #ShadyGroveSectorPlan, plus search terms sector plan, road, intersection, transit, bikeway, sidewalk. OMB estimates the additional annual operating cost for the fire station/police substation, the public library, and the transportation facilities to be about $12.1 million. f:\orlin\fy21\phed\shady grove plan\210323cc-add.doc

2 OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

Marc Elrich Jennifer Bryant County Executive Director

M E M O R A N D U M

March 19, 2021

TO: Tom Hucker, President, County Council

FROM: Jennifer Bryant, Director, Office of Management and Budget

SUBJECT: Fiscal Impact Statement for the Shady Grove Minor Amendment Master Plan

Please find attached the fiscal impact statement for the Shady Grove Minor Amendment Master Plan.

JRB:aa c: Dave Kunes, Chief of Staff, Montgomery County Council Marlene Michaelson, Executive Director, Montgomery County Council Glenn Orlin, Deputy Director, Montgomery County Council Fariba Kassiri, Deputy Chief Administrative O fficer, County Executive Office Dale Tibbitts, Special Assistant to the County Executive, County Executive Office Pete Fosselman, Master Plan Coordinator, County Executive Office David Dise, Director, Department of General Services Chris Conklin, Director, Department of Transportation

(1) County Capital and Operating Cost Estimates Assumed to be Incurred as a Result of the Shady Grove Minor Master Plan Amendment 3/18/2021

Capital Improvement Projects

Project Description Total County Costs

Shady Grove MARC Station, Montgomery College Metrorail Station, MD 355 North BRT, Corridor Cities Transitway, Transit for Achieving NADMS, Park & See attached summary for details. $ 222,300,000 Ride Facilities, Parking Management & Wayfinding Transit Technology, and Bikeshare

MD 355 and Shady Grove Rd, MD 355 and King Farm Blvd, MD 355 and Redland Rd, MD 355 and Gude Dr MD 355 and Ridgemont Rd / Transfer Facility Entrance, Redland Rd and Crabbs Branch Way, Redland Rd and Somerville Dr, Shady Grove Rd and Crabbs Branch Way, Crabbs Branch Way and Indianola Ave, I-370 / Metro Access Road & Shady Grove Road Interchange, Crabbs Branch Way / Cecil See attached summary for details. $ 17,600,000 Street and Gude Drive Shady Grove Rd and Epsilon Dr / Tupelo Dr

Intersections Shady Grove Rd and Briardale Rd MD 355 and WB I-370 On-Ramp, LATR Intersection Treatments, Traffic Signal at Midcounty Hwy and Miller Fall Rd / Shady Grove MS, Protected Intersections

King Farm Blvd Extended, Somerville Drive Extended, Columbus Avenue Extended, Street A, Metro South Neighborhood, Metro Access Road Extended, See attached summary for details. Chieftain Avenue Extended, New Street north of B-8, $ 2,900,000 New Street south of B-8, Crabbs Branch Way / Amity

New Roads New Drive Extended

Shady Grove Rd between I-370 & Midcounty Hwy, Crabbs Branch Way between Redland Rd & Indianola Dr, Redland Rd between MD 355 & CSX / Metro See attached summary for details. $ 51,500,000 Tracks, Somerville Dr between Redland Rd & Paramount Dr, Develop new streetscape standards.

MD 355 between Gaithersburg & 370, MD 355 between Ridgemont Ave & Indianola Dr, MD 355 between Indianola Dr & Southern Plan Boundary, Shady Grove Rd between Western Plan Boundary & I-370, Redland Rd between CSX / Metro Tracks & Metro Access Rd, Crabbs Branch Way between Shady Grove Rd & Existing Terminus, Amity Dr between Northern Plan See attached summary for details. $ 50,600,000 Boundary & Existing Terminus, Redland Rd between Needwood Rd (northern access) and Muncaster Mill Rd, Crabbs Branch Way between Indianola Dr & Gude Dr, Indianola Dr between MD 355 and Crabbs Branch

Ped Ped Focused/ Bike Way, Sidewalk Gaps, Areawide Traffic Calming, Bike & Micromobility Corrals, Bike / Ped Priority Area (BiPPA)

UMP Analysis See attached summary for details. $ 400,000 DOT Miscellaneous

Montgomery County Public Schools - Elementary MCPS continues to support the elementary school site at Jeremiah Park. The site will be a combined $ 32,680,000 School school/park site with approximately 4.1 acres for the park and 4 acres for the school. Public Schools

The Montgomery County Police Department’s 1st District, located at 100 Edison Park Drive in Gaithersburg, and the 6th District, located at 45 West Watkins Road in Montgomery Village, provide public safety services to the Plan area. The 2006 Shady Grove Sector Plan recommended the “provision of a Police Substation and Fire Station plus Equipment $ 34,000,000 police facility within the Plan area, potentially co-located with the Fire and Rescue facility” (p.102). This Sector Plan supports a substation in the Plan area, in conjunction with the recommended fire station, or as a public benefit for redeveloping properties within the Metro Neighborhoods in the CR and CRT Zones. Public Safety

TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS COST - COUNTY $ 411,980,000

Pubic Libraries, Transportation, Fire and Rescue Reflects preliminary estimates. $ 12,146,000 Service. Maintenance Maintenance and Utilities) Operating Budget (excl. Impacts

Total Estimated Annual Operating Budget Impact (OBI) $ 12,146,000

Notes

(1) Total estimated capital costs are $705.2M, $411.98M - County, $240.8M - State and Federal, and $52.4M - Private. Only County costs are shown in the chart above. There are no capital costs for the potential library which is expected to be housed in leased space.

(2) Operating budget estimates are for the Transportation ($5.87M), Public Libraries ($1.M), and Fire Station ($5.3M) components of the plan. They don't include any estimates for an Elementary School.

(3) Rounding - Individual values rounded up to nearest $100,000, which is the cause of any apparent summation discrepancies (5) Inflation - All Dollars are in 2021 Dollars.

(2) Assumptions Shady Grove Plan Year = 2021 Plan Lifetime (yrs) = 2045 version date - 2021.03.04

All costs are Capital only; Maint+Operations costs not included. It is typical practice along State corridors to assume a 50/50 split in costs unless there is strong cause to assume otherwise. In practice the actual splits in such costs may vary significantly.

Individual capital costs are rounded up to the nearest $100,000. "Approx Total Cost" column is a summation of the County, State/Fed, Private Devel, etc columns, compounding this rounding. Annual O&M costs are rounded to nearest $10,000.

Project Page Ref Approx Total Cost County State / Federal Private Devel Annual O&M Cost Notes

UMP Analysis $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ - $ - $ - $100,000 every 6 years, from 2021 to 2045

Misc SUBTOTAL $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ - $ - $ -

The $10mil estimate is provided by the Master Plan. This estimate may be substantially low, noting significant design constraints such as limited space & bus bay needs. A design schematic would be helpful as part of the $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ - Shady Grove MARC Station 104 $ 10,000,000 $ - master plan in establishing more precise cost estimates, and DOT is otherwise unable to provide a reliable cost estimate. O&M costs would be State responsibility.

Montgomery College Metrorail Station 104 $ 320,000,000 $ 160,000,000 $ 160,000,000 $ - $ - Based on cost for Potomac Yard station. O&M Costs would be WMATA responsibility.

Only accounts for the share of the BRT within the plan area. Assumes a dual-lane facility at $51.9M per mile. A $ 56,900,000 $ 56,900,000 $ - MD 355 North BRT 107 $ 113,800,000 $ 4,490,000 single reversible lane is estimated at an average $43.0M per mile. The span of the CCT within the plan area is presumed to be included as part of the new streets proposed within $ - $ - $ - Corridor Cities Transitway 107 $ - $ - the WMATA lots. O&M costs would be State responsibility.

Transit Transit for Achieving NADMS $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - No estimate, as needs have not been identified by the master plan.

Park & Ride Facilities $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - No estimate, as needs have not been identified by the master plan.

As P&R facilities redevelop, wayfinding tech may be needed to direct P&R users into a potentially $ 100,000 $ - $ - Parking Management & Wayfinding Technology $ 100,000 $ 10,000 deconsolidated network of P&R options. Capital costs only for 14 stations, including station installation, bikes, and 1 set of bike replacements. Does not Bikeshare 104 $ 1,300,000 $ 300,000 $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 510,000 include Operations. Likely to be built out by private contributions, though grants or a public CIP may also be feasible. SUBTOTAL $ 445,200,000 $ 222,300,000 $ 221,900,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 5,010,000

MD 355 and Shady Grove Rd 112 $ 800,000 $ - $ 800,000 $ - $ 10,000 Remove channelized rights.

Add LPI, Ped Recall, NTOR, modify L-turn phasing, tighten curb radii, straighten crosswalks, reconstruct curb $ 100,000 $ - $ 100,000 $ - $ 10,000 MD 355 and King Farm Blvd A49-50 ramps, raised crosswalk.

Add LPI, Ped Recall, NTOR, modify L-turn phasing, tighten curb radii, extend median noses to tigthen L-turn $ 100,000 $ - $ 100,000 $ - $ 10,000 MD 355 and Redland Rd A50-51 radii.

MD 355 and Gude Dr 112 $ 700,000 $ - $ 700,000 $ - $ 10,000 Remove channelized rights.

MD 355 and Ridgemont Rd / Transfer Facility Entrance A51 $ 100,000 $ - $ 100,000 $ - $ 10,000 Add NTOR, modify L-turn phasing, tighten turn radii.

Redland Rd and Crabbs Branch Way A51-52 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ 10,000 Add NTOR, modify L-turn phasing,add medians.

Redland Rd and Somerville Dr Redland/Somerville - Add LPI, Ped Recall, modify L-turn phasing, tighten turn radii. A52-53 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ 10,000 Shady Grove Rd and Crabbs Branch Way SG/Crabbs - Add NTOR, LPI, ped recall, evaluate lighting.

Crabbs Branch Way and Indianola Ave A54 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ 10,000 Increase All-Red time, install red light cameras, reconstruct ped ramps. I-370 / Metro Access Road & Shady Grove Road A55 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 $ - $ - $ 10,000 Remove channelized rights. Interchange Intersections Crabbs Branch Way / Cecil Street and Gude Drive Crabbs/Cecil/Gude - Add NTOR, extend medians Shady Grove Rd and Epsilon Dr / Tupelo Dr SG/Epsilon/Tupelo - Add LPI, extend median A55 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ 10,000 Shady Grove Rd and Briardale Rd SG/Briardale - Add LPI MD 355 and WB I-370 On-Ramp 355/370 - Vertical elements or curb extensions LATR Intersection Treatments $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - No estimate, as it did not appear that any LATR treatments were identified. Traffic Signal at Midcounty Hwy and Miller Fall Rd / 129 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ - $ - $ 10,000 Shady Grove MS

Unit price $500,000 each, across an estimated 31 intersections where separated bike lanes intersect with other separated bike lanes or shared use paths. There may be some duplicative costs, as some Protected Intersections might be implemented concurrent with the Road Diet & Separated Bike Lane projects listed $ 15,500,000 $ 15,500,000 $ - $ - $ 310,000 Protected Intersections 126 above. Those estimates include costs for signal work but not explicitly Protected Intersections, and Protected Intersections account for signal work. Costs assume 100% County due to lack of clarity as to the number of State vs County intersections.

SUBTOTAL $ 19,400,000 $ 17,600,000 $ 1,800,000 $ - $ 420,000 118, 123, B-4 King Farm Blvd Extended $ 11,400,000 $ - $ - $ 11,400,000 $ 40,000 124 118, 123, B-6 Somerville Drive Extended $ 7,700,000 $ - $ - $ 7,700,000 $ 30,000 125 B-7 Columbus Avenue Extended 119, 123 $ 11,400,000 $ - $ - $ 11,400,000 $ 40,000 119, 122, B-8 Street A $ 3,700,000 $ - $ - $ 3,700,000 $ 10,000 123 119, 122, B-9 Metro South Neighborhood $ 4,700,000 $ - $ - $ 4,700,000 $ 20,000 123 119, 122, B-9 Metro Access Road Extended $ 5,300,000 $ - $ - $ 5,300,000 $ 20,000 123 New Roads New B-10 Chieftain Avenue Extended 123 $ 1,600,000 $ - $ - $ 1,600,000 $ 10,000 No design guidance provided in Classifications table. Assumed to follow MC-2005.02

New Street north of B-8 123 $ 2,800,000 $ - $ - $ 2,800,000 $ 20,000 No design guidance provided in Classifications table. Assumed to follow MC-2005.02

New Street south of B-8 123 $ 2,800,000 $ - $ - $ 2,800,000 $ 20,000 No design guidance provided in Classifications table. Assumed to follow MC-2005.02

P-6 Crabbs Branch Way / Amity Drive Extended 108 $ 2,900,000 $ 2,900,000 $ - $ - $ 40,000

SUBTOTAL $ 54,300,000 $ 2,900,000 $ - $ 51,400,000 $ 250,000 Shady Grove Rd between I-370 & Midcounty 109, 118, M-42 $ 23,100,000 $ 23,100,000 $ - $ - $ 20,000 Substantial road narrowing & Breezeway Sidepath (South Side) Hwy 130-131 Crabbs Branch Way between Redland Rd & 111, 118, A-262 $ 12,400,000 $ 12,400,000 $ - $ - $ 10,000 Substantial road narrowing; replacement of center turn lane with median. Sidepath on East Side Indianola Dr 130-131 Redland Rd between MD 355 & CSX / Metro B-1 114, 118 $ 11,900,000 $ 11,900,000 $ - $ - $ 10,000 Widening for parking lanes & median, and Breezeway Sidepath (North Side) Tracks Somerville Dr between Redland Rd & Roads B-6 118, 122 $ 4,000,000 $ 4,000,000 $ - $ - $ - Substantial road narrowing Paramount Dr Develop new streetscape standards. 18 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ -

SUBTOTAL $ 51,500,000 $ 51,500,000 $ - $ - $ 40,000

M-6 MD 355 between Gaithersburg & 370 130-131 $ 3,400,000 $ 1,700,000 $ 1,700,000 $ - $ 10,000 Breezeway 2-Way Separated Bike Lanes (East Side) MD 355 between Ridgemont Ave & Indianola M-6 130-131 $ 14,000,000 $ 7,000,000 $ 7,000,000 $ - $ 10,000 Breezeway 2-Way Separated Bike Lanes (East Side) Dr MD 355 between Indianola Dr & Southern Plan M-6 130-131 $ 16,800,000 $ 8,400,000 $ 8,400,000 $ - $ 20,000 Breezeway 2-Way Separated Bike Lanes (East Side) Boundary Shady Grove Rd between Western Plan M-42 130-131 $ 10,000,000 $ 10,000,000 $ - $ - $ 20,000 Breezeway Sidepath (South Side) Boundary & I-370 Redland Rd between CSX / Metro Tracks & B-1 130-131 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ - $ - $ 10,000 Breezeway Sidepath (North Side) Metro Access Rd Crabbs Branch Way between Shady Grove Rd & P-6 130-131 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ - $ - $ 10,000 Sidepath (East Side) Existing Terminus Amity Dr between Northern Plan Boundary & P-6 130-131 $ 1,900,000 $ 1,900,000 $ - $ - $ 10,000 Sidepath (North Side) Existing Terminus MA- Redland Rd between Needwood Rd (northern Sidepath (per p130), though noting that p131 calls instead for Bikeable Shoulders. This cost estimate assumes 130-131 $ 3,900,000 $ 3,900,000 $ - $ - $ 20,000 [TBD] access) and Muncaster Mill Rd Sidepath, which seems to make more likely sense. Crabbs Branch Way between Indianola Dr & A-262 130-131 $ 2,300,000 $ 2,300,000 $ - $ - $ 10,000 Sidepath (East Side) Gude Dr Ped / Bike FocusedBikePed/ Indianola Dr between MD 355 and Crabbs B-3 130-131 $ 1,900,000 $ 1,900,000 $ - $ - $ 10,000 Sidepath (North Side) Branch Way For sidewalk gaps along Gude Dr, Redland Rd, Shady Grove Rd, Midcounty Hwy, and linking Needwood Rd to $ 7,800,000 $ - $ - Sidewalk Gaps 126-127 $ 7,800,000 $ 20,000 the Metro Access Trail. 118-119 Areawide Traffic Calming $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - As needed for achieving target speeds & addressing HIN issues. A49-56 Bike & Micromobility Corrals $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ -

Bike / Ped Priority Area (BiPPA) $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ - $ - $ - Unit estimate for undefined Ped/Bike Safety Treatments throughout the plan area.

SUBTOTAL $ 67,700,000 $ 50,600,000 $ 17,100,000 $ - $ 150,000 Project Page Ref Approx Total Cost County State / Federal Private Devel Annual O&M Cost Notes TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $ 638,500,000 $ 345,300,000 $ 240,800,000 $ 52,400,000 $ 5,870,000

(3)