Gaithersburg planning commission defers 150‑unit Park Avenue site plan after residents press for updated traffic study and design changes

The Gaithersburg Planning Commission on May 20 deferred final action on a proposal to build two multifamily buildings totaling 150 units at the intersection of Park and Brooks avenues, citing residents’ safety concerns and commission requests for a more recent traffic analysis and design refinements. Staff had recommended approval pending technical conditions, but commissioners voted to hold the record open and revisit the application at their Aug. 5 meeting.

Staff said the application, SP‑9821‑2024, would consolidate five lots to create two buildings with a mix of one‑, two‑ and three‑bedroom units, provide 182 parking spaces (about 1.22 spaces per unit), and include streetscape upgrades, stormwater improvements and a final forest conservation plan. Matthew Polehouse of IMEG, the project civil engineer, summarized infrastructure work, including replacements and upsizing of undersized storm drains and four on‑site bioretention facilities; the development team said the project will meet the city’s forest conservation requirement of 0.31 acres by planting 0.19 acres of trees and paying for the remaining 0.12 credit.

Why the commission deferred: residents and several commissioners pressed staff and the applicant for a modernized traffic analysis and clearer operational details. Public Works staff explained why a full traffic impact study (TIS) was not required under city rules: the applicant used the ‘‘dense multi‑use urban’’ trip‑generation setting and subtracted trips associated with existing office uses on the site, which reduced net new vehicular trips below the city’s 30‑trip threshold. Doug Smith of Public Works said the city’s approved intersection operational study ‘‘exceeded the city's requirements and national standards and made it clear that a full TIS would not result in identifying any significant operational impacts.’’ Residents strongly disagreed, repeatedly urging a full, contemporary TIS, updated counts while schools are in session, and cumulative analysis of nearby large projects.

Traffic and safety concerns: neighbors cited frequent backups when nearby rail crossings close, school drop‑off patterns, recent crashes and an existing alley directly across from the proposed service road that is roughly 10 feet wide and used for homes’ garage access and walking routes for children. Multiple speakers urged the commission to require a full TIS, updated counts and enforceable mitigation measures. Nicholas Lynn, who requested formal cross‑examination of staff, questioned whether the dense urban setting and the use of existing office trip offsets (some buildings had been vacant when counts were taken) were appropriate. Lynn said, “I believe that they probably would have been over 30,” referring to trip thresholds if measured under other standards.

Design, environmental and operational items: commissioners and the Historic District Commission previously asked for adjustments to ensure compatibility with Oldtown’s character. Several residents described the proposed color palette, continuous hipped roof on one building and visible rear elevations as insufficiently sensitive to the historic context; commissioners asked the applicant for targeted changes to the two end façades that face Park and Brooks and for more articulation on the long roofline. Staff also proposed conditions requiring the applicant to work with staff to incorporate three‑bedroom units prior to final signature, conduct a trash‑truck turning and operations analysis (to demonstrate how dumpsters will be staged and collected from the commercial service road), and refine exterior elevations to show likely mechanical equipment treatments.

What’s next: Commissioners directed the applicant to submit an updated traffic impact study using more conventional apartment trip rates (and the county LATR method as a comparandum) and to provide clarified elevations showing how heating/cooling equipment and other penetrations will be integrated at the street level. The record was held open and the commission deferred a final decision to its Aug. 5 meeting.

The planning commission’s deferral leaves key questions unresolved: whether an updated trip study will change staff’s technical conclusion, what specific architectural revisions the applicant will make to the primary façades, and how the city will address broader Oldtown traffic and safety issues such as rail‑closure impacts and cut‑through routes. Staff said it will continue to work with the applicant on the requested items and will return the revised materials and any recommended conditions to the commission before the Aug. 5 hearing.