Developer presents tentative plan for 640 Montgomery Ave.; commission discusses height, parking and affordable-housing bonuses

Developer representatives presented a tentative sketch plan Tuesday for 640 Montgomery Avenue, the former Rite Aid property, proposing a four-story mixed-use building with a partial fifth floor, about 42 residential units and ground-floor commercial space.

The proposal, presented by Adam (developer, Gaston Realty), would keep the Montgomery Avenue façade at the borough's 45-foot cap while adding an internal fourth floor and a set-back partial fifth floor perpendicular to Montgomery Avenue. Adam said the building footprint would be similar to the existing structure and that the project would include ground-floor retail space but asked the commission to allow some residential use at sidewalk level because small storefronts have been difficult to lease in recent years. "We built it. I think it's a nice addition to the community," Adam said in describing his prior nearby project and his intent to replicate that approach at the Rite Aid site.

Why it matters: Commissioners treated the sketch plan as both a site proposal and a test case for broader changes to the Montgomery Avenue zoning district, including how many stories can be allowed at the 45-foot height limit, what portion of the street-facing ground floor must be commercial, and how parking rules shape the economics of adding housing.

Key facts and materials presented - Developer materials: tentative sketch plan showing roughly 42 units, a ground-floor retail court and parking shared with an adjacent Phase 1 building. Adam said the design shows mostly two-bedroom units with some one-bedroom units (presentation materials listed unit counts; the transcript contains inconsistent counts). - Height and floors: Montgomery Avenue code caps height at 45 feet; the developer asked the commission to treat four stories as permissible within that 45-foot cap and to allow a partial fifth floor set back from the street. The developer said elevator/stair stacks would extend above the 45-foot line for mechanical access. - Setbacks and massing: Adam said the proposed fifth floor would be set back roughly 25—20 feet from Montgomery Avenue and would step down to a 45-foot elevation facing the adjoining Shirley Road residences. The developer said the building would be painted and finished in brick and limestone to match the existing streetscape and that large existing trees on the site are taller than the proposed 45-foot façade. - Parking and access: The developer said combined parking for Phase 1 and the proposed Phase 2 would meet or slightly exceed current zoning ratios; parking is on shared parcels and behind the buildings. Commissioners and staff noted curb-cut limitations that constrain vehicle circulation on the parcel and discussed stormwater infrastructure under the lot.

Commission and staff discussion County planning staff and borough reviewers flagged four issues for the commission to consider: the number of allowed stories at the 45-foot cap, whether a partial fifth story should be allowed only as a bonus tied to public benefits, the depth and percent of required ground-floor commercial frontage, and parking rules. - County planning representative: "Perhaps that could be a bonus to allow for that additional height... 10% units affordable," the county representative said, suggesting a density bonus for affordable housing or green-building measures that could justify a fifth story. - Staff and commissioners discussed bonuses such as a green-building standard (all-electric building, solar panels) and an affordable-housing requirement tied to a deed restriction and annual recertification. The model discussed in the meeting would tie a fifth story to a requirement that roughly 10% of units be restricted to households at or below 80% of Montgomery County median income, with utilities included in the affordability calculation (the developers and staff said specific program details would need to be codified).

Parking and transit incentives Commissioners discussed several policy options to reduce the parking burden on small infill projects: lowering the minimum parking ratio (examples discussed included 0.7 spaces per residential unit if the building participates in a transit-pass program), exempting income-restricted units from parking requirements, allowing parking to be provided off-site within a set distance (1,000 feet was discussed), and eliminating a separate visitor-parking requirement. County staff noted these approaches are consistent with trends in other metro areas and with studies that show reduced car ownership in compact, transit-served places.

Public comment and neighborhood concerns Five people signed up for public comment; speakers included nearby residents and advocates. Michelle Carton, a Shirley Road resident, said she was "concerned about building over 45 feet" and worried about parking and whether new apartments would actually lease. Nicholas Crosby, a resident who identified himself as younger and seeking housing, urged more homes on Montgomery Avenue and called reducing parking requirements sensible for that corridor. Nancy Sutter, another resident, said any density bonus should be "tied to furthering affordability" and asked for larger units for families.

Gary Esmer, who lives on Shirley Road adjacent to the site, described the effect of the existing Phase 1 development on his household. "Forty-five feet is colossal. It's huge," he said, and asked commissioners or staff to visit properties near the site at night to see lighting and noise impacts. Planning staff pointed to a borough lighting performance standard (maximum illumination into residential lots) and said staff would check compliance and mitigation options.

Next steps and Commission direction The commission did not take a formal vote on the sketch plan. Commissioners gave the developer feedback on the façade, retail depth, setbacks and the need to refine parking and stormwater details. Commissioners expressed general support for treating four stories within the 45-foot cap as reasonable for Montgomery Avenue but asked staff to draft ordinance amendments to: - Clarify that four stories may be allowed at the 45-foot cap (today the code allows up to three stories at that height in some places); - Allow a fifth story only as a conditional bonus tied to public benefits, with a minimum stepback (commission discussion suggested a 10-foot additional stepback for the fifth story from the rear property line); - Require a minimum percent of the Montgomery Avenue-facing ground-floor façade to remain active commercial frontage (commission discussion explored 60—70% as candidate thresholds and a minimum commercial depth such as 12 feet); and - Offer parking flexibility (lowered minimums tied to transit-pass enrollment, off-site parking allowances within a set radius, and exemptions for income-restricted units).

Developer response and follow-up Adam said he would organize a working session with neighbors and the planning commission to refine the plan and address neighbor concerns. He said he had filed a tentative sketch-plan application and would return with a formal application after more neighborhood meetings and design development.

Ending note Commissioners said they would ask staff to draft ordinance language implementing the broad policy directions discussed, and to bring a revised sketch plan back to the commission after neighborhood working sessions and after staff review letters from county and borough reviewers were addressed.