preserving the quality of life in Olney, Maryland

32 Acre Site on Bowie Mill Road

Two developers are chosen to respond to a more detailed Request for Proposal (RFP)

Elm Street Developer teamed with Montgomery Housing Partnership and Mid City Urban LLC have responded to a detailed Request for Proposals for the 32 acre Bowie Mill Rd site.  They will meet the community and present their concept plans on Tuesday October 9th at the GOCA meeting.  Go to www.goca.org for meeting details.  The county would like to hear comments about the developers and their plans.  Comment cards will be available at the meeting. 

A New Request for Proposals is Released for Bowie Mill Property, April 27, 2007

County CANCELS the Request for Proposals, July 14, 2006

A selection committee of six people reviewed the five proposals submitted.  After extensive interviews and discussions, the committee was ready to share their thoughts with Doug Duncan (the person making the final selection).  Dan Dionisio, Chairman of the Olney Boys and Girls Community Sports Association, raised issues on how the RFP was worded and the selection process.  Bruce Romer (Chief Administrative Officer for Doug Duncan) "asked my staff and staff of the County Attorney’s Office to review the RFP process.  While the investigation did not uncover any errors, irregularities or faults in the drafting and advertising of the RFP, or in the review of the submissions in response to the RFP, the issues you [Dan Dionisio] raise are of sufficient gravity to lead me to take additional action."  The additional action was to cancel the RFP. 

Background

On December 9, 2005 the County issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for housing to serve a variety of income levels (20% MPDU, 40% workforce, and 40% market).  Submissions that propose the "swap" idea (see below) OR provide more affordable units than required will be looked upon favorably in the RFP evaluation process. 

There are three evaluation factors that will be used in selection (almost verbatim from page 9 of RFP):

Development Team

• Experience & qualifications of the developer, architect and other key personnel
• The success and quality of previous developments including design, timely completion of projects within budget, and inclusion of affordable housing
• Financial capability of development team to complete the project

 Project Soundness

• Feasibility of the proposed financing package (their budget)
• Project organization - does the proposal demonstrate a sound approach for coordinating the land acquisition, design, and development of the housing as well as the developer's ability to work with the County to design and develop the site (understanding that units will be lost as the natural resources inventory is done)

Public Benefit

• Number of affordable housing units that will be provided and the levels of affordability for each housing type.  There is a minimum of 60% affordable (both MPDUs and Workforce)
   

Five Proposals were Submitted.

Since the property is zoned R200/PD3, up to 118 homes are allowed on the ~22 acres that is developable.  Almost all the proposals include concept plans for the maximum number of housing units which is not surprising since the number of affordable housing units is a major evaluation factor (see above). 

At the April 11th 2006 GOCA meeting, Winchester Homes and Kirby Development described their plans for the property.  The Gazette reported a summary.  Winchester Homes submitted the only proposal that includes the "swap" idea with 108 homes being built on the 32 acre site.  The County Council recommends in the Olney Master Plan that "The Council recommends the Executive pursues this option [swap] first."  Kirby Development proposes 118 homes on the 18 acres behind the stream with a double gymnasium on the 4 acres near Bowie Mill Road and the PEPCO power lines. 

At the May 9, 2006 GOCA meeting, the remaining three applicants:  Mid-City Urban, Montgomery Housing Partnership along with Elm Street Developers, and Porten Homes were invited to describe their plans for the property. 

The County Executive office is accepting community comments about any of the proposals. 

Building Constraints on this Property

This parcel was one of the more controversial properties in the Olney Master Plan.  A look at the history of this property clearly explains why the change in the recommendation from a school to housing was unexpected by the public.  To see the Council's final discussion and vote, click here (choose the 9:45 am time slot, the first hour is discussion on the 32 acre property). 

There are numerous environmental constraints on this property.  In a letter to the County Council (see page 33 or circle 11) explaining why this site was surplussed in 1996, the Board of Education states only 21.3 acres (of the 32) is usable.  To access the main portion of the land, there will need to be a stream crossing.  Several environmental experts have walked the land and have found that the stream is fed by several perennial springs as well as from run-off.  The good news is the stream is working as a natural sand filter -- water collected near the PEPCO power lines is cleaner than water collected upstream near Bowie Mill Road.  However, the stream is under stress from the dense development upstream across Bowie Mill Road and needs restoration.  This means a buffer of at least 100 feet from each side of the stream needs to be reforested.  On this map, the stream is in blue and the green line indicates the wetland/stream buffer area that is needed.  In addition, a gas pipeline (shown in pink on the map) crosses the property.  Click here for pictures and more information (presented as a power point presentation).

What Plans Were Being Discussed?

We have heard a number of different plans for this property:

• The "Swap" idea is how the Council would like to see this property developed.  This idea does not change the number of units on the property, instead, it changes the ratio of market and affordable.  Since this property is county-owned, the Council wants to be sure a larger number of affordable units are created when it is developed than are required by law.  The environmental constraints, traffic congestion on Bowie Mill Road, and compatibility with the existing neighborhoods will limit the final number of units on the property.  Therefore, when this property is disposed, there should be a request for proposals (RFP) that will indicate at least 50% of the units must be affordable.  The affordable units can be built either on this site or another site in Olney.  This site must have a standard number of MPDUs (12-15 units depending on the zoning used).  Meanwhile, on another site in Olney (most likely Golden Bear or Town Center), the developer will build the remaining required affordable units.  This does NOT mean additional units will be built at the second location.  This means instead of market rate units, the developer will build affordable units.  The swap idea is swapping market for affordable units, NOT swapping density.  The rationale for the swap is twofold.  First, the 32-acre property has several environmental constraints which will most likely limit the yield.  Second, the 32-acre property is not near amenities (transit, shopping, etc.) and therefore is not an ideal location for a high percentage of affordable housing.
  
  For those who like numbers, here is a hypothetical example:  118 units are to be built on the 32 acre property with 71 required affordable units (60%) and 37 market rate units (40%).  Suppose another location in Olney already has a plan for 100 units of which 13 are affordable and 87 are market.  The "swap" would change the ratio but not the density.  The "swap" would change the ratio but not the density.  The 32 acre property will still have 118 units built on it but it now might have 50 affordable units and 68 market rate units while the other location would now have 100 units of which 34 are affordable and 66 are market.  The total at each location is the same - the ratio of market and affordable units change.  Again, the rationale is to put the affordable units walking distance to amenities.
   
• The Planning Staff was asked to prepare design concepts at two (R200), three (PD3), and four (PD4) units per acre to help visualize the zoning choices.  They did not do a Natural Resources Inventory (this costs several thousand dollars and is typically done by the developer of the land) and based their wetland and stream buffers on the information they had = a GIS map of the property.  The Council voted for the R200/PD3 zoning.  
   
• OBGC proposes a double gymnasium and 60-70 workforce housing units (no market rate units).  Click here to learn more about their concept.  Olney Coalition supports this concept but questions the implementation for three reasons.  First, the gymnasium and parking lots could raise the imperviousness to a level that may damage the stream, but OBGC seems willing to work on the design to improve this situation.  Second, the finances of the deal need to be worked out.  Third, currently there is no workforce housing legislation and Councilmembers' best estimate of when it could be discussed is the end of 2006.  However, this plan could expedite the workforce housing legislation and become the first workforce housing project for the county. The project requires the R200/PD3 zoning.  UPDATE:  OBGC did not submit a proposal on their own.  They did work with Kirby Development which proposes the double gymnasium AND 118 housing units.  Click here to read the Gazette article. 
   
• The Department of Housing and Community Affair’s vision for the 32 acres was discussed at the March 9, 2004 meeting of the Greater Olney Civic Association (GOCA). Elizabeth Davison, head of DHCA, and Lisa Rother, Manager of the Planning Implementation Section of the County Executive’s Office were the guest speakers. Ms. Davison said DHCA has workforce housing in mind for this site. Workforce housing is a new, not-yet-well-defined program targeted to people earning between 80-120% of the County median income (from $50,000 for a small household up to about $100,000 for a family of four.) This income range includes entry-level professionals, police officers, teachers, social workers, nurses and other professionals who have been squeezed out of the housing market in Montgomery County. To date, there is no official Workforce Housing policy in the County but legislation has been proposed, a public hearing was held, and the Council's PHED committee has been analyzing the legislation.
   
• The Housing Opportunities Commission’s vision for the 32 acres was stated at the March 18, 2004 Planning Board meeting (Olney Master Plan work session #6.) Scott Minton, the head of HOC, said that HOC is very excited to have the opportunity to develop this property for affordable housing. Mr. Minton indicated that HOC is already working with local architecture students to design a “mixed income affordable housing demonstration project with mixed uses including retail.” Mr. Minton mentioned that the design team has visited the site and is working on their development plans. He asked the Planning Board for higher densities and greater design flexibility than allowed within the existing R200 zoning standards. After some debate the Planning Board tentatively agreed to keep the R200 zoning in a split vote.  However, the final word came from the Council which approved R200/PD3 zoning.  UPDATE:  HOC did not submit a proposal to develop this property.