Development & Projects

As our community ages, it is a must that the Montgomery Village Foundation Board of Directors maintain, enhance and add to our infrastructure, facilities and amenities. The Board is dedicated to keeping the Village a desirable, flourishing community in the Washington, D.C. metro area. Use the links below for information regarding current development and projects in and around Montgomery Village.

This work includes replacing the water main from Midcounty Highway to Centerway Road along Montgomery Village Avenue. This two-year project began in April 2022 and was originally anticipated to be finished toward the beginning of 2024. Due to material and other project delays, the project is now expected to be completed in early 2025.

As of November 2024:

The contractor is replacing damaged curb from Centerstage to Centerway Road. Once curbing is complete, this section will be milled/overlaid (hopefully within the next two/three weeks, weather permitting). New pipe will still need connection to existing pipe past the intersection of Centerway Road.
Currently, work is being done at the intersection of MidCounty Highway to replace a valve, followed by connecting the new pipe to existing. Work is anticipated to be complete within the next 2 weeks.
When the tie-ins are completed over the Lake Whetstone dam, the casing pipe will commence (as early as mid-December and continue through January/February 2025).

Any sidewalks, roads and landscaping that are affected by the project will be completely restored to their original state after the construction is complete.

The pipes being replaced span 0.97 miles along Montgomery Village Avenue from Midcounty Highway to Centerway Road, and include entrances to Lake Shore Drive, Stedwick Road, Whetstone Drive and Centerway Road. The current pipes were installed in the 1960s and are nearing their end-of-life cycle. Replacing these pipes will help reduce future disruptions from water main breaks. The new ductile iron pipes have a corrosion protection which provides a life expectancy of 100 years on the new installation.

All work is be performed between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. with road lane closures between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. In the event that both lanes on the southbound side of Montgomery Village Avenue are closed, traffic will be routed in both directions on the opposite northbound side.

Within the scope of the project are the installation of new water mains and new service lines up to the property line. Residences may experience water shut offs up to 8 hours; advanced notice (48 to 72 hours) will be given to affected property owners. WSSC Water noted that reliable water and sewer service will be maintained during construction, and property owners will always have access to their properties. Interior home access and access to private property are not required for this work. Parking restrictions may be put in place in a work area during any given day; advance notice will also be provided for these disruptions.

On Monday July 29, representatives from WRS, the owner and developer of the Lakeforest property, presented their Schematic Development Plan (SDP) to a virtual audience of nearly 50 residents. Kevin Rogers, Principal of WRS, and Gary Unterberg, Senior Vice President at Rodgers Consulting, reviewed the SDP and answered a number of pre-submitted and live questions.

Rogers began with a brief history of the project timeline to this point, noting that the plan is currently under review by the City of Gaithersburg Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission. He noted a number of previous meetings and public hearings as well as revisions based on comment and feedback to get the SDP to its current state. The city’s public comment period is open until 5 p.m. on Wednesday, Aug. 14; Rogers hoped to have action by the Mayor and City Council in September. He noted that this was a complicated project that involved many stakeholders, and had several components that needed input and approvals from the city, county, and state, while being attentive to neighboring communities, including Montgomery Village.

Unterberg shared that the Lakeforest Master Plan set criteria for the SDP to be developed, saying it dictated a mixed-use development with limits on retail, business and residential. He outlined the development, noting the current and proposed streets and grid pattern. He said the 5 major sections of the site envisioned are Lakeforest North, Lakeforest South, Lakeforest West, Lake District and Lakeforest Square, which includes a “central park” and other centralized amenities. To the north of the site is the dining and entertainment area, including a multi-use parking lot for special events. Mixed-used retail and residential are planned for the northeast portion of the site, with retail at street level and residential above. In the same general area, employment uses would also be stacked.

The centrally located Lakeforest Square area boasts 3.5 acres of greenspace and amenities for the for-sale residential units. Planned amenities include a playground, pool, passive recreation space, a covered area with flexible seating and a clubhouse structure. Lakeforest South (southeast corner of the property) is primarily residential, which includes 10-foot shared use bike paths around the perimeter.

The west of the site also includes mostly residential units; however, the proposed transit center will front Russell Avenue in this corridor. This will also include employment uses and a parking garage. Unterberg noted the transit center would be a 2- to 3-year county project, incorporating elements of current Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) projects.

Regarding parking for all aspects of the plan, much of the retail areas utilized concealed garages to aid in the aesthetics of the site. Residential parking would be contained at each homesite, with additional parallel parking being added to Odendhal Avenue. This will be incorporated by reducing the median strip so as to keep the two existing vehicular lanes.

Unterberg noted that according to studies, retail uses are the highest generator of traffic, primarily in the evening and on weekends. He said the Lakeforest Mall, when in operation, was 1,049,000 square feet of retail, and the SDP reduces that to 470,000 square feet, effectively cutting that traffic use by more than 50%. The residential uses add a morning traffic peak, but the additional streets should create options to move the morning traffic with minimal impact.

Unterberg also shared a plan by the State Highway Administration (SHA) to remove the free-right-turn lanes at the intersections of Montgomery Village Avenue (MD 124) and MD 355, Russell Avenue, Lost Knife Road, and Midcounty Highway. He said this was a separate SHA project that was meant to work in conjunction with the Lakeforest development, favoring more pedestrian-friendly intersections at each location. He further explained that the city planned additional road improvement projects on Russell Avenue to complement the development as well.

Resident questions
Montgomery Village Foundation (MVF) Executive Vice President Mike Conroy presented questions submitted in advance—the majority of which shared concerns of increased traffic both east and westbound along Montgomery Village Avenue from Lost Knife Road to MD 355, and the impacts of the additional vehicles on traffic flow into and out of Montgomery Village in that area. Specifically, there were questions about widening Montgomery Village Avenue near the Village Center, and/or Goshen Road; neither are within the bounds of the Lakeforest property and are not in the scope of the SDP, and would be better addressed by the county.

Unterberg noted that the grid design of the property added two new east/westbound streets, providing connections from the entrance of Cider Mill Apartments and Contour Road to Russell Avenue and MD 355, and one new north/southbound street connecting Montgomery Village Avenue to Odendhal Avenue. Rogers said these new roads are designed to help move traffic in and around the site, versus the only current way being a “long drive around the perimeter of the entire property.” Both said these new connections gave motorists several options to move through the area.

Residents attending the virtual meeting also inquired about the logic behind removing the free-turn lanes in favor of pedestrian-friendly intersections. There was additional concern about how this proposal could back up vehicular traffic on Midcounty Highway, creating unintended pedestrian safety issues. There was also no information regarding alternatives for pedestrian traffic, such as bridges or underpasses. Unterberg noted these concerns would best be addressed by SHA, though the proposed work is currently not funded.

In relation to the transit center, Unterberg answered a question about walkability to the new location, noting it was almost identical in length from the entrance to the Cider Mill Apartments. The SDP would install a new traffic signal at the entrance to Cider Mill, which would align directly to the street leading to the transit center. He added the current transit location would be converted into a regular RideOn stop, and bus routes would be redirected to the new transit center location. Unterberg also said the county is expecting multi-modal transportation to move residents to the transit center, and hoped to include BRT and other electrical components, though no plans were finalized yet.

Regarding the makeup of retail and residential, Rogers noted the sketch plan allows for large retail/big box stores, and although that type of store is possible, there have been no confirmed retailers as of the presentation. Unterberg said the master plan for the site prohibited single-family homes and capped townhouses at 10%, with the remaining residential area to be filled by multi-family (apartments), townhouses and GAP (affordable) housing.

Finally, regarding the project timeline, Unterberg said once the SDP was approved by the city (on track for September), demolition would take at least 6 months, then permitting and site plans, long before any construction would happen. Roughly, he estimated it could be 2 to 3 years before the infrastructure and roadways were complete. He also said some of the larger retail buildings could take up to 18 months to build, noting that total build on the site was likely a 5- to 10-year project.

The full SDP and all previous project submittals can be found on the City of Gaithersburg’s project page. The Index Sheet notes which exhibit corresponds with each number; of particular interest were the items relating to the traffic study (labeled with “TIS” in the title). Residents interested in submitting comments to the city should follow instructions on the website.

7-29-2024 Lakeforest Presentation

Schematic Development Plan submitted (3/15/2024)

Lakeforest Mall property rezoning information and revised sketch plan (4/2023)

MVF Board President Scott Dyer's Testimony from January 17, 2023, zoning and sketch plan hearing

MVF Board President Doniele Ayres’ Testimony from June 17, 2024 schematic development plan hearing

On September 18, State Highway Administration (SHA) Senior Safety Officer Joseph Moges presented SHA’s proposed Intersection Improvement Plan along MD 124/Montgomery Village Avenue to the community. Members of the Montgomery Village Foundation (MVF) Board of Directors, staff, District 39 Senator Nancy King and Delegate Greg Wims, and representatives from the Montgomery County Council and county Department of Transportation joined interested residents at North Creek Community Center.

The plan includes proposed improvements to four existing intersections—MD 355/Frederick Road, Russell Avenue, Lost Knife Road and Midcounty Highway—as well as a new, proposed intersection for an entrance to the planned redevelopment of the Lakeforest Mall property, all along the portion of MD 124 owned by the state. Moges detailed each intersection, providing a comprehensive scope for the project, and citing pedestrian safety through the corridor as the main driver. Residents in attendance shared traffic impacts and general safety concerns in their reaction to the proposal.

Moges explained that in 2019, the Maryland legislature enacted a Vision Zero law, which sets a goal of zero motor vehicle-related fatalities or serious injuries by 2030. In 2023, the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) announced that it is an Ally in Action with the National Roadway Safety Strategy—a US Department of Transportation initiative—to bring agencies and stakeholders across the country together, sharing ideas and best practices to save lives on the nation’s roadways. The initiative sets a national vision for safety, and identifies courses of action based on five core objectives: safer people, safer roads, safer vehicles, safer speeds and the highest standards in post-crash care.

In response, MDOT SHA has been actively developing and applying a data-driven approach to identify and prioritize corridors where safety and access needs are most prevalent, which was formalized in their Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (PSAP). After studying state-wide data between 2015 and 2023, the MD 124 corridor was rated as one of the highest priorities that could benefit from both safer speeds and pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements.

To illustrate, Moges showed speed study data and slides of the intersections where SHA is proposing removal of the channelized right turn lanes to eliminate vulnerable points of contact between motorists and pedestrians: MD 124 at MD 355; MD 124 at Russell Avenue; MD 124 at Christopher Avenue/Lost Knife Road; and MD 124 at MidCounty Highway, as well as signalized intersections at MD 124 at Street One (entrance to Lakeforest development); and MD 124 at Antezana (commercial building near the Gaithersburg Library).

He noted that no through lanes would be eliminated, and the intersection at MidCounty Highway would be expanded to include two signalized right turn lanes. Each existing intersection would be converted into a normalized four-way traffic pattern where vehicles must enter the intersection to complete a right-hand turn. Other safety improvements at each intersection include: reduced curb radii, crossing islands and continuous lighting.

Moges also outlined other current or planned projects along MD 124, identifying status as active or complete, as follows:

MD 124 at Russell Avenue
Reconstruct the intersection to improve overall safety. Design recommendations from the PSAP include removal of all channelized right turns and installation of a crosswalk across the Russell Avenue west leg – Active.

Lost Knife Road
Identified by the county as a High Injury Network road; therefore, a road safety audit was conducted between MD 124 and O’dendhal Avenue. Montgomery County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) requested the Lakeforest Mall developer install a shared use path along southbound Lost Knife Road – Complete.

MD 355 Flash Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
This project will provide upgraded bus service along the entire MD 355 corridor. However, within the vicinity of MD 124, the BRT will run along Russell Avenue, which will be outfitted with BRT lanes, potentially removing a through lane in each direction of Russell Avenue. This project is in the design stage and is planned to be under construction in 2025 – Active.

MD 124 from Russell Avenue to Lost Knife Road (abutting Lakeforest Mall redevelopment)
Full color signal, pedestrian crossing with APS/CPS along the south and west legs at “Street One” is planned – Active.
Redesigned full color signal, pedestrian crossing with APS/CPS along the west leg at “Antenzana” intersection is planned – Active.
Shared Use Path along frontage is planned – Active.

MD 124 at Pier Point Place
Full color signal, pedestrian crossing with APS/CPS along the south leg, and a relocated RideOn bus stop along northbound MD 124 to better align with the crossing – Complete.

Several residents voiced their support for pedestrian safety, but raised strong opposition to the removal of the channelized right turn lanes, noting with traffic already backed up on Montgomery Village Avenue during rush hour—especially at ingress and egress points to MD 355 and I-270—traffic will likely back up even further. Additionally, as motorists try to avoid longer wait times, the reconfiguration has the potential to increase pedestrian accidents; the combination of these two would make it even more difficult to travel into and out of Montgomery Village.

It was also surmised that traffic bottlenecks along MD 124 could push traffic to other roadways within Montgomery Village, such as Watkins Mill Road, which is not part of SHA’s pedestrian safety high priority corridors. In addition to potential pedestrian and vehicle accidents, residents voiced their strong concern over the inconveniences to Village residents who will be caught up in much longer traffic delays all along Montgomery Village Avenue.

When asked if SHA’s intersection improvement plan was affiliated with the WRS Lakeforest redevelopment plan, Moges replied that SHA’s plan is completely independent of the ongoing plans for the Lakeforest property. He also said that SHA did field safety studies in coordination with associated state, county and city agencies to ensure that the SHA plan served those agencies’ needs as well. One resident raised the issue of a new traffic study which would incorporate impacts of the new units from the Lakeforest, Bloom Village and Village Center developments. Moges said an updated study would likely be performed once the developments are completed.

Another resident asked about coordination between all entities that have an impact on these changes, citing the worry that each agency is looking at the project from its own perspective and needs, but not holistically to ensure that in the end, a bigger traffic and pedestrian problem does not emerge. Moges acknowledged the need to bring all entities together for a collaborative solution.

At present, the Intersection Improvement Plan is only conceptual; Moges noted there was not an identified implementation timeline. Additional opportunities for Montgomery Village residents to provide feedback, engage in the process, and suggest alternatives to the plan would be identified and communicated when available.

In October 2024, the Planning Board held several meetings as outreach opportunities for feedback on M-83, in advance of their Public Hearing to recommend to the County Council to keep or remove the road from the Master Plan of Highways and Transitways (MPOHT). The meetings included one virtual and two in-person options, with each providing context as to why M-83 has become a recent discussion topic again.

At the meetings, the Planning Board representatives noted that in their current review and Technical Update of the MPOHT, they received unexpected feedback asking for the review to include the removal of M-83 from the MPOHT. This ask was supported by M-83’s removal from other planning documents; the County Executive and County Council not supporting funding in Capital Budgets; and the County Council’s 2017 Resolution stating M-83 should not be considered as built when evaluating future development transportation needs. Seeing that the only feedback the Planning Board received was in favor of removing M-83 from the MPOHT, they paused their review to gain feedback from others who may be in favor of keeping M-83 in the MPOHT. This decision led to the scheduled outreach opportunities.

The presentation at the meetings focused on the timeline of M-83 in numerous master plans, studies and analysis since its conception in 1967. Current outreach efforts were aimed at gathering information to arrive at one of three recommendations: retain M-83 in the MPOHT; remove M-83 from the MPOHT; or other options suggested by the public. Planner IV and Project Manager Sofia Aldrich commented that after the November Public Hearing and staff report, the Planning Board would provide a recommendation to the County Council, who would ultimately decide how to proceed.

Aldrich reviewed reasons for the Technical Update to the MPOHT including: evaluating the classifications of all existing roads for accuracy; identifying target speeds and recommended adjustments; introducing a new approach to street design in growth corridors; and reevaluating master planned transit station locations. She then focused on M-83 specifically, noting its history in many master plans, and highlighting the resulting preferred Alternative 9A from the 2015 MidCounty Corridor Study (current proposed alignment). It was noted the original intent of the road was a parallel counterpart to Great Seneca Highway on the east side of I-270.

In 2017, a supplement to the MidCounty Corridor Study was released, with the conclusion that Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service on MD 355 (without M-83, but assuming intersection and road improvements on MD 355) would meet the same mobility needs. Montgomery Village Foundation (MVF) agreed with this position and reiterated its support for this option in the January 2023 Resolution opposing the building of M-83. MVF has been opposed to the proposed M-83 Highway for several decades. The proposed alignment would connect to the existing intersection of MidCounty Highway at Montgomery Village Avenue; would divide Village neighborhoods; traverse and destroy important stream valleys; and share borders in extremely close proximity to many Village homeowner properties and Watkins Mill Elementary School.

The attendees were mostly comprised of residents from Clarksburg and Montgomery Village who shared their opinions as to why the road should or should not be kept in the MPOHT. Comments from audience members included: the need for the road to move traffic south from Clarksburg; the need for an updated MidCounty Corridor Study to include an additional 10 years of development; socio-economic and environmental impacts of build/no build; and years of perceived County “promises” to either build or not build the roadway.

A Public Hearing where testimony will be taken and recorded is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, Nov. 14 at the M-NCPPC Building, 2425 Reedie Drive, Wheaton. The Public Hearing will be held in person, with a virtual option. Residents interested in testifying at the meeting must sign up in advance. Alternatively, written comments can be emailed to Planning Board Chair Artie Harris at mcp-chair@mncppc-mc.org or mailed directly to the Planning Board via the address above.

Planning Board M-83 Presentation 10-21-24

Testimony on M-83 Transportation Solutions

The following information is provided by the TAME Coalition regarding removing M-83 from the Montgomery County Highway Master Plan.

Montgomery County Supplemental Report

Several MVF staff participated in an informational meeting on Electric Vehicle Charging Stations for condominiums, co-ops and townhouses, co-sponsored by several county agencies including the CCOC, DHCA, DPS and DEP. The aim of this webinar was to provide residents with information on personal charging stations where installation and access may be complicated by common elements, as well as options for communities to install charging stations on their property.

Montgomery County is in favor of increased use of electric vehicles and zero emission vehicle technology for residents, as well as in their own fleet of vehicles. However, because so many residents live in common ownership communities, the issue of where to install personal or commercial chargers is beginning to surface. For example, a resident of a condominium may wish to install a personal EV Charger for his/her vehicle, but the only space to do so is in a condominium-owned parking area and may require extensive work to run electricity to that location, disturbing—or causing the need to repair—the common element. The condo may need to decide if this is feasible for a handful of residents on an individual basis, or if it is more beneficial to install their own charging stations in convenient locations and charge for their use. With the popularity of EVs on the rise, the county is promoting ways to educate residents and communities on how to work together, and this webinar was a first step in that process.

Topics covered included: types of EV chargers; project management tips for communities; shared versus private charging and resident versus non-resident rates; consideration of governing documents; overview of typical project costs; available incentive programs (Pepco & others); long-term operational considerations; commercial permitting information; a specific local case study; and financing options.

Staff will continue to monitor this issue closely because adding electric vehicles and potential charging stations are considered in the recently approved Organizational Green Plan.

EV Charging Station Presentation

Webinar 9-6-2022

Q&A 9-6-2022 | Q&A 9-11-2022

Additional Resources

Development & Projects

About MV

Community

Residents

MVF