Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Road Z Alignment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee narrows Road Z dispute, adopts 74‑foot cross‑section compromise and calls for campus coordination
Summary
After disagreement between property interests and county engineers over Road Z alignment through the Shady Grove area, the committee endorsed restoring the planning board alignment with explicit coordination with the Shady Grove Medical Center campus master plan and agreed to a 74‑foot right‑of‑way compromise that meets Complete Streets minimums.
The committee revisited a contested alignment for "Road Z" in the Great Seneca plan after developer and MCDOT concerns. Two options were on the table: revert to the planning board's straight alignment or keep an Adventist‑proposed curve that the hospital said supports its campus plan. Committee members agreed to restore the planning‑board alignment in the plan text while expressly requiring that future regulatory review consider the Shady Grove Medical Center campus master plan and allow engineering coordination at the site plan stage.
Safety and cross‑section compromise: transportation staff outlined a compromise cross‑section to respond to developer requests for a narrower right‑of‑way. Alex Ricksy, a transportation planner with Mid County planning, said the proposed 74‑foot cross‑section reduces sidewalk widths from a 10‑foot default to an 8‑foot sidewalk and reduces the landscape buffer from 7 feet to 6 feet—both are within the Complete Streets Design Guide minimums. "The 10 feet is the default recommended and the 8 feet is the minimum," Ricksy said, and the reduced buffer still allows for a street tree and acceptable soil volume.
Committee balance: members repeatedly emphasized they want an efficient street grid that also respects Shady Grove's operational needs (health‑care access, emergency vehicle circulation, and campus program considerations). Members asked staff to draft coordinating language that directs planning board review to explicitly weigh the campus master plan and public‑safety inputs during regulatory reviews rather than lock in a single engineering solution at the master‑plan stage.
Interim parking and phased development: the committee accepted amended language allowing planning board approval of limited interim surface parking for phased redevelopment so long as the interim lots are not placed between buildings and the street and are approved under site plan review. That compromise is intended to allow temporary lab or construction staging without contradicting long‑term goals to consolidate parking in garages.
Next steps: staff will produce proposed plan text language describing the coordination requirement and the technical cross‑section for inclusion in the full council transmittal; the committee forwarded the amended plan to full council.
