Gaithersburg planning commission approves final site plan for 232-unit Stephenson MetroGrove community

The Gaithersburg Planning Commission on Jan. 22 unanimously granted final site plan approval for SP‑9881‑2024, advancing the Stephenson MetroGrove residential development with eight conditions including school impact fees and forest conservation payments.

The 232‑unit project, presented by Chris Moll of KraftMark Homes, will include 36 for‑sale affordable units split evenly between the city’s workforce program and the Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit (MPDU) program and about 43% of the site dedicated to open space, Moll said. The commission also approved ENV‑9882‑2024, the project’s forest conservation plan.

Why it matters: The project adjoins the Watkins Mill Town Center area and a MARC station and will add a significant number of for‑sale homes to Gaithersburg’s housing supply. Commission discussion centered on on‑site design, pedestrian connections, the timing and character of a new section of Town Center Boulevard the applicant agreed to build, and a disputed Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) utilization premium that could affect project costs and affordability.

The applicant team — represented by Chris Moll of KraftMark Homes, land‑use attorney Scott Wallace of Miles and Stockbridge, and civil engineer Jotika Sharma of Soltes — said the site sits next to the Parklands at Watkins Mill Town Center community, the CSX railroad, and city‑owned parkland to the north. The plan proposes rear‑loaded townhomes and two‑over‑two condominiums adjacent to the future urban core, and community amenities including a pool, clubhouse, tot lot and multiple green corridors.

Moll told the commission the development would rely on two temporary construction entrances (one off Metropolitan Grove Road and one using an existing gravel construction path across an urban‑core parcel) and that the applicant proposes to build the segment of Town Center Boulevard between the Grand Street circle and Watkins Mill Road “no later than the time we achieve 50% occupancy permits.” He said the project will replant about four acres of forest canopy on site and provide approximately 2.2 acres of off‑site reforestation on a parcel identified by city staff.

Planning staff, represented by Jasmine Forbes, recommended approval subject to eight conditions. Staff read the conditions into the record; among them were requirements to submit revised site and landscape plans addressing staff comments, obtain final utility signoffs, third‑party certification of retaining walls, and pay city forest conservation contributions prior to issuance of site development permits.

A central point of debate was condition 6, the requirement to pay an MCPS utilization premium (UPP). Scott Wallace said KraftMark objects to the immediate imposition of a surcharge the applicant said was discussed late in the process. Wallace said the applicant’s counsel believes opening Crown High School in 2027 will relieve capacity at Quince Orchard High School and argued for assessing any surcharge at the time of building permit issuance rather than at final site plan. Wallace stated the county’s capital improvement program projects that Crown High School will relieve Quince Orchard by at least 150 students and cited projections showing Quince Orchard near capacity thresholds in fiscal years 2027–2028.

Staff and the commission responded that the city’s ordinance and the APFO process require the fee be memorialized as a condition of final approval and that the commission does not have authority to waive it; staff said the code provides a separate waiver route by petition to the mayor and city council. Jasmine Forbes read the fee in the conditions as “$5,777 MCPS utilization premium payment fee per dwelling unit prior to the issuance of any building permits,” while the applicant’s representative earlier in the hearing referenced a much larger figure (approximately $57,100 per unit) as the amount that had not been raised at earlier review stages. The commission did not alter the condition; commissioners noted applicants could pursue a waiver or further review with council if they wished.

Commissioners praised the site’s pedestrian connectivity plans, asked the applicant to refine landscape treatments in narrow planting strips and pedestrian vias, and sought clarification about the physical edge between the new development and Metropolitan Grove Road, including fencing and sound mitigation where the project abuts the road and the MARC tracks.

Following discussion, a commissioner moved to approve SP‑9881‑2024 and ENV‑9882‑2024 in conformance with sections 24‑170 and 24‑171 of the city zoning ordinance with eight conditions as read into the record. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

Votes at a glance

- SP‑9881‑2024, Final Site Plan (Stephenson MetroGrove): Approved (motion moved and seconded; outcome recorded as unanimous). Conditions include revised site/landscape plans, lighting and utility signoff, third‑party retaining‑wall certification, approval for deck encroachments into utility easements, payment of MCPS utilization premium per dwelling unit (staff read as $5,777), and forest conservation fund payments (listed as $69,565 and a $2,600 contribution equivalent to the cost of large‑caliper trees). Exact vote tally by commissioner name was not provided in the record.

What the action does and next steps

The approval clears the way for the applicant to finalize construction drawings, secure site development permits and, later, building permits. The commission noted that architectural design for the project was not included in this final site plan and will be presented back to the Planning Commission at a future meeting for review. The applicant committed to completing the identified segment of Town Center Boulevard no later than when the project reaches 50% occupancy permits.

Speakers quoted

- Chris Moll, KraftMark Homes (applicant representative): “We’re proposing a total of 232 units, of which 36 will be affordable and 192 will be market rate.” - Scott Wallace, land‑use attorney, Miles and Stockbridge (applicant counsel): The applicant requested that the school surcharge “be assessed, if applicable, at the time of permit issuance rather than this time.” - Jasmine Forbes, Community Planning Manager (staff): Staff recommended approval “in conformance with sections 24‑170 and 24‑171 of the city's zoning ordinance with eight conditions.”

Ending

The commission closed the regulatory agenda after the vote; the applicant will return to the commission to present architectural details for Planning Commission review and to complete outstanding staff comments before permits are issued.