Loading...
6 - Article - New Montgomery Growth Policy Formalizes Focus on Public TransitNew Montgomery Growth Policy Fc~rmalires Focus on Public Transit - washin~tonnnst.c... Pa~e 1~f ~ ~y~ ~~~ washingtonpost.C01 1 1 Siy~ in ~ R¢~gtn~ Npw Pnnl Ednion ~ Subscnbe ~ P~tPOmtS SEARCH: ~ G washinglonposl.com (' W¢b; FtggU~~y bp Goagle- i Saarch Archwes washingtonpost.com > Metro > Marylantl > Monlgomery CORRECTION TO THIS ARTICLE Th~s arLCle mischaracteuzud the position of Bnn Ross, vlce presitlent ol Ihe Montyamery Cowty Wanch o) A.cpvn Commiltee lo~ Transd. on the counry growlh policy Ross says he is concemed Ihat Ihe poLcy prphipits developmenl near Crowdetl rpad9 ev~:n when il wqultl 6e near gpnd pubhC Vansd New Montgomery Growth Policy Formalizes Focus on Public Transit By Miranda S. S ivack roo~eox Washingto~ Post Staff Writer r-rn -~ ` "' _ . _ .... . . ._ ' 2]B 801 ~ r r. i Reaixe Tez[ Q Seve/Shere . Prlnt Thln E-meil This - v~iPblfi~is likely to _; ~ ~`~~ .~ ~• ste~er `he next p ase o~ the county's dcvetopmen[ in[o COMMENT ~ already urbaoizing azeas Uecause fur thc f7rst time it ~ allows planners to consider public transportation when ! It) Discuasion Poliey i deciding where to allow development. WHO'S BLOG~IN~ a~~.~*~ w sW-srs ; The new rules, which the County Council approved 7[o - unk: ro m~9.n~ae 1 last week, will toughen standards regarding how many cars can spill onto the roads from new dcvclopments and how many new students cause schools to be deemed too crowded. [3ut if the projects are buil[ near public transpoRation, developcrs might be able to avoid some pcnalties and cven move their projects to the head of the line for approval. That was a key idea pushed by Planning [3oard Chairtnan Kovice hlauson, who wrote much of thc policy. Hanson has long advocatcd efforts to get people out of cars in order to reduce air pollution and trafficjams while aUowing new development. Many details remain to be workcd out, and the co~ncil didn't go as far as Hanson recommended on public transit because members questiuned whether his formula would deliver what it promised. But the policy formally begins to take the county in a new direction. 'The policy had not previously compelled county agencies to examine Ihe availability of buses, subways and commuter trains whcn cvaluating what can go where. "Most of our new development is going to be relatively high density" near public transportation, Hanson predicted. Hc poin[ed to l3e[h~sd:+, Silver Cprine and Wheaton as well as along Rockville Pike as prime areas for development. In the next 20 years, Mant~}omery faces several challengcs as it tries to absorb the expected arrival of thousands of new residents andjobs already approved and plans for the proposed expansion of the :'datiunal f~a~-:il ~7c~iical C'cntcr in Bethesda. And the open land available for development is almost used up. Under the new growth rules, taxes on new construction will increase from 70 to 125 percent, depending on the type and Ivcauon. "['he increases are causing anxiety among developers at a time when thc real estate market and the economy are slowing. Mike Smith, a vice president of Lcor, which is planning a residential, retail and office projcct at the White Flint Metro station, said tax increases might cause some developers to rethink ,,,(.,~emen~ projects. "It is the cost of doing business and an expense our tenants typically have ro bear. It does push rental rates higher and make things Icss affordable," he said. "It does send a difficult signal for those of us who want to create new commonities." Lcor oFficials might already have seen the future, when it comes to building near public Uansit. '1'he company has spent thc past 10 years on thc proposed deve(opment near the White Flint Stauon, hoping to convert strip shopping centers into a walkable town centec Its proposal to A better job is right around the corner. Find it now with CareerBuilder.com en[er kevW~~ns enter ciry I saiect stata ALL ~ career6wlder~ NEWS , PO~ITICS OPINIONS LOCAL SPOFTS ARTS & LIYING C11Y GUIDE JOBS CARS REAL ESTATE RENTALS SHOPPING New Montgomery Growth Policy Formalizes Focus on Public Transit - washingtonpost.c... Page 2 of 3 cut car travel for 55 years helped it win development rights in the neighborhood even though FEAruREO ADVERTISER LINKS county rules in effect at the time had deemed nearby roads too crowded to allow more Mesomeriama into, Treayal, Asbestos, co~htear Lawsuit building. ` TShlrts, Koo2iea, Custom T-Shirts, Hoodles, Sweatshirts Its current plans include fewer parking spaces than usual, conning a shuttle bus within the i Cool gadgets, hol deals. Visit CircuitCiry.com today complex to get people to offices and stores without their cars, and extolling through a public ~ Roth or Treditionel IRA? Which is right for you? campaign the benefits of biking, walking and Metro use. I venguera'a Flunking Fundsf Sall them today. I Looking for a new job outside Washington DC7 If the White Flint project works as Smith envisions, it could be the first of what Hanson said ~ HSBC Direct Eern 3.05°,bAPY' on your savings. he hopes will be several new "transit-oriented" town centers along Rockville Pike, a jumble Radiosheck. Don'tluat bey awrr. Do swn. of strip malls and indistinct high- and low-rise dwellings with few amenities within walking distance. Other developers are eyeing Rockville Pike, and the planning staff is reworking the , HP nes unique products to protect all your critical ae,a master plan for the neighborhood near White Flint Mall and one subway stop north of the Ads by Doogle county's Strathmore concert hall. ' Philadelphia Law Office To fi ore out how to cu[ back on cazs, Lcor examined fans used b other deveJo ers, For RepresenlaUOn from Skilled Lawyers Call Our Office Today. g P Y P , ~-m:cr,~~-~~-,«m including a program at the nearby Nuclear Reeulatoty C~rnmissi~n. The NKC, along with a : pa Deok Restnrauon developer, entered into an agreement with Montgomery in [he early 1990s to cut down on can us Today For Au your Deck cleaning a Restoration services. parking and auto commuters at its White Flint offices in exchange for the right to build more L~e~sr,.r,~~,,,.,~r.=^ Office Space. Trgcktess Tolley Buses ' Classic Trolleys for Sale! Look at our new and used vehicles here The NRC, like many federal agencies, encourages flexible work schedules that bring in commuters at different times of day, subsitlizes Metro fazes and limits the number of parking spaces. Although the 10-year agreement with Montgomery expired in 2004, agency spokeswoman Holly Harrington said the NRC has continued to try to be a "good neighbor" in Montgomery and keep its transit-oriented policies in place. Nearly 1,000 employees, about a third of those working at White Flint, collect the subsidized Metro passes every month. "We are sfill doing most of the things that were in the agreement with the county," Harrington said, a decision that might prove to have been prescient, given the new growth policy's emphasis. The policy will impose even tougher standazds than those Lcor and the NRC adopted. And the planning agency soon will conduct a study to revisit county rules to sec whether there are ways to f[trther limit the number of parking spaces a development must have. Whether the changes approved will do enough to foster "smart growth" remains a matter of debate. Ben Ross, vice president of the Montgomery branch of Action Committee for "Transit, which has 1,000 members, said that although the new growth policy helps promote transit use, he worries that i[ still won't encourage clustering housing and jobs closer to buses and the , subway. In some cases, it could inadvertently have the opposite effect, he said. "My concem is [hat [hey aze still sticking to the basic idea [ha[ you can't build" when roads are too crowded unless there also is good transit nearby, he said. That could backfire, he said, in such far-flung azeas as Darnascus and Ptmlcw i llc, which "have really lousy transit" but under the new rules would be able to absorb new construction because traffic hasn't hit the tipping point. That could lead to more sprawl, he said. "The key development issue is getting more housing near Metro," he said. "If you build residential development in close, walking distance to Metro, people are going to use it." People who read this also read A5 Visit Nears. Sexual Abuse ~/Moms Group Plans Protest Economy's Fate Hinges On Shof:pers Stamina Odd Man Out John Feinstein - Golt Will Survive Wdhoul a Grand Slain by Woods edge ...x«_~, gregate Most Viewetl Metro Articles ' O.Ca'Miss Daisy' Does All the Driving Police Worry Immigrants Help m C2°P.5 Wdl Dry Up Jury Begins DellAerabons in Enron Service. Case Tax increases VJUUId ee Lega!, Atromeys Say ° Top 35 Most Viewed More in the Maryland Section Resolution No.: 16-376 Action The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland, approves the following Resolution: ' The Growth Policys approved as follows: Applicability; transition AP1 Effective dates This resolution takes effect on Noveri~[~iE`~1~5, 2U(li'1 and applies to any application for a preliminary plan ~i of subdivision filed on or after that date. In accordance with County Code §50-35B, any preliminary plan of subdivision for which a completed application was filed on or after January 1, 2007 and which the Planning Board did not approve before November 13, 2007,is subject to this resolution. AP2 Clarksburg effective dates This resolution does not apply to any amendment or extension of a preliminary plan of subdivision in the Clarksburg policy area that was approved before this resolution took effect if the amendment or extension does not increase the amount of housing units or non-residential development previously approved. Guidelines for the Administration of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance County Code Section 50-35(k) ("the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance or APFO") directs the Montgomery County Planning Board to approve preliminary plans of subdivision only after finding that public facilities will be adequate to serve the subdivision. This involves predicting future demand from private development and comparing it to the capacity of existing and programmed public facilities. The following guidelines describe the methods and criteria that the Planning Board and its staff must use in determining the adequacy of public facilities. These guidelines supersede all previous ones adopted by the County Council. The Council accepts the definitions of terms and the assignment of values to key measurement variables that were used by the Planning Board and its staff in developing the recommended Growth Policy. The Council delegates to the Planning Board and its staff all other necessary administrative decisions not covered by the guidelines outlined below. In its administration of the APFO, the Planning Boazd must consider the recommendations of the County Executive and other agencies in determining the adequacy of public facilities. The findings and directives described in this Growth Policy aze based primarily on the public facilities in the amended FY 2007-12 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) and the Maryland Department of Transportation FY 2007-12 Consolidated Transportation Program (CTP). The Council also reviewed related County and State funding decisions, master plan guidance and zoning where relevant, and related legislative actions. These findings and directives and their supporting planning and measurement process have been the subject of a public hearing and review during worksessions by the County -2- Resolution No: 16-376 _ Introduced: May 24, 2007 _ Adopted: November 13, 2007 COUNTY COUNCIL FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND By: Council President at the request of the Planning Boazd SUBJECT: 2007-2009 Growth Policy Backirround 1. County Code §33A-15 requires that no later than November 15 of each odd-numbered year, the County Council must adopt a Growth Policy to be effective until November l5 of the next odd- numbered year, to provide policy guidance to the agencies of government and the general public on matters concerning land use development, growth management and related environmental, economic and social issues. 2. On December 12, 2006, the County Council adopted Resolution 16-17, directing the Planning Board to prepare growth policy recommendations by May 21, 2007. 3. On May 21, 2007, as required by Resolution 16-17 and in accordance with §33A-15, the Planning Board transmitted to the County Council its recommendations on the 2007-2009 Growth Policy. The Final Draft Growth Policy as submitted by the Planning Boazd contained supporting and explanatory materials. 4. On June 19 and 3une 26, 2007, the County Council held public hearings on the Growth Policy and related items. 5. On October 1, 8, 15, 16, and 22, 2007, the Council's Planning, Housing, and Economic Development Committee conducted worksessions on the recommended Growth Policy. 6. On October 23 and 30, and November 6, 2007, the Council conducted worksessions on the Growth Policy, at which careful consideration was given to the public hearing testimony, updated information, recommended revisions and comments of the County Executive and Planning Board, and the comments and concerns of other interested parties. Resolution No.: 16-376 Council. Approval of the findings and directives reflects a legislative judgment that, all things considered, these findings and procedures constitute a reasonable, appropriate, and desirable set of growth limits, which properly relate to the ability of the County to program and construct facilities necessary to accommodate growth. These growth limits will substantially .advance County Land use objectives by providing for coordinated and orderly development. These guidelines are not intended to be used as a means for government to avoid its responsibility to provide adequate public facilities. Biennial review and oversight allows the Council to identify problems and initiate solutions that will serve to avoid or limit the duration of any moratorium on new subdivision approvals in a specific policy area. Further, altennatives may be available for developers who wish to proceed in advance of the adopted public facilities program, through the provision of additional public facility capacity beyond that contained in the approved Capital Improvements Program, or through other measures that accomplish an equivalent effect. The administration of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance must at all times be consistent with adopted master plans and sector plans. Where development staging guidelines in adopted master plans or sector plans are more restrictive than Growth Policy guidelines, the guidelines in the adopted master plan or sector plan must be used io the extent that they are more restrictive. The Growth Policy does not require the Planning Board to base its analysis and recommendations for any new or revised master or sector plan on the public facility adequacy standards in this resolution. Guidelines for Transportation Facilities TP Policy Areas TP1 Policy Area Boundaries and Definitions For the purposes of transportation analysis, the County has been divided into 313 areas called traffic zones. Based upon their transportation characteristics, these areas are grouped into transportation policy areas, as shown on Map 1. In many cases, transportation policy areas have the same boundaries as planning areas, sector plan areas, or master plan analysis (or special study} areas. The policy areas in effect for 2007-2009 are: Aspen ):sill, Bethesda CBD, Bethesda-Chevy Chase, Clarksburg, Cloverly, Damascus, Derwood, Fairland/White Oak, Friendship Heights, Gaithersburg City, Germantown East, Germantown Town Center, Germantown West, Glenmont, Grosvenor, Kensington/Wheaton, Montgomery Village/Airpark, North Bethesda, North Potomac, Olney, Potomac, R&D Village, Rockville City, Rockville Town Center, Rural East, Rural West, Shady Grove, Silver Spring CBD, Silver Spring/Takoma Park, Twinbrook, Wheaton CBD, and White Flint. The following are Metro Station Policy Areas: Bethesda CBD, Friendship Heights, Glenmont, Grosvenor, Rockville Town Center, Shady Grove, Silver Spring CBD, Twinbrook, Wheaton CBD, and White Flint. Boundaries of the policy areas are shown on maps 3-34. The boundaries of the Gaithersburg City and Rockville City policy areas reflect existing municipal boundaries, except where County-regulated land is surrounded by city-regulated land. The boundaries of these municipal policy areas do not automatically reflect any change in municipal boundaries; any change in a policy area boundary requires affirmative Council action. -3- Resolution No.: 16-376 TP2 Policy Area Mobility Review TP2.1 Components of Policy Area Mobility Review There are two components to Policy Area Mobility Review: Relative Arterial Mobility and .Relative Transit Mobility for each policy area. TP2.1.1 Relative Arterial Mobility Relative Arterial Mobility is a measure of congestion on the County's arterial roadway network. It is based on the urban street delay level of service in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual;-published by the Transportation Research Board. This concept measures congestion by comparing modeled (congested) speeds to free-flow speeds on arterial roadways. It then assigns letter grades to the various levels of roadway congestion, with letter A assigned to the best levels of service and letter F assigned to the worst levels of service. For a trip along an urban street that has afree-flow speed (generally akin to posted speed) of 40 MPH, LOS A conditions exist when the actual travel speed is at least 34 MPH, including delays experienced at traffic signals. At the other end of the spectrum, LOS F conditions exist when the actual travel speed is below 10 MPH. Relative Arterial Mobility and Arterial LOS I the actua! urban street travels eed is PAMR Arterial L4S is ~ At least 85% of the free-flows eed _ A At least 70% of the hi wa seed B At least 55% of the hi hwa seed C At least 40% of the hi hwa seed D At least 25% of the hi hwa s ed E Less than 25% of the hi hwa s ed F Any policy area with an actual urban street travel speed equal to or less than 40 percent of the highway speed must be considered acceptable with full mitigation for transportation. The PAMR evaluates conditions only on the arterial roadway network. Freeway level of service is not directly measured because County development contributes a relatively modest proportion of freeway travel, and because the County has limited influence over the design and operations of the freeway system. However, because arterial travel is a substitute for some freeway travel, PAMR indirectly measures freeway congestion to the extent that travelers choose local roadways over congested freeways. TP2.1.2 Relative Transit Mobility Relative transit mobility is based on the Transit/Auto Travel Time level of service concept in the 2003 Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual published by the Transportation Research Board. It is defined as the relative speed by which journey to work trips can be made by transit, as opposed to by auto. This concept assigns letter grades to vazious levels of transit service, so that LOS A conditions exist for transit when a trip can be made more quickly by transit (including walk-access/drive-access and wait times) than by single-occupant auto. This LOS A condition exists in the Washington region for -4- Resolution No.: 16-376 certain rail transit trips with short walk times at both ends of the trip and some bus trips in HOV corridors. LOS F conditions exist when a trip takes more than an hour longer to make by transit than by single-occupant auto. This ratio between auto and transit travel times can also be expressed in an.inverse relationship, defined by modal speed. If a trip can be made in less time by transit than by auto, the effective transit speed is greater than the effective auto speed. Based on the typical roadway network speed during the AM peak period, the Planning Board established the following relationship between auto and transit trips: Relative Transit Mobility and Transit LOS I the a ective transits eed is _ PAMR Transit LOS is 100% or more (e. faster than the hi hwa seed A At least 75% of the hi wa seed B At least 60% of the hi hwa seed C At least 50% of the hi wa seed D At least 42.5% of the hi hwa seed E Less than 42.5% of the hi hwa seed F Any policy area with an effective transit speed equal to or less than 42.5 percent of the highway speed must be considered acceptable with full mitigation for transportation. TP2.1.3 Relationship Between Relative Arterial Mobility and Relative Transit Mobility The PAMR Arterial LO5 and the PAMR Transit LOS standards are inversely related, reflecting the County's long-standing policy to encourage concentrations of development near high-quality transit. To accomplish this policy, greater levels of roadway congestion should be tolerated in areas where high- quality transit options are available. The PAMR uses the following equivalency: -5- Resolution No.: 16-376 Equivalency Between Transit LOS and Arterial LOS IJ~the forecasted PAMR Transit LOS is The minimum acceptable PAMR Arterial LOS standard is A - D B D C D D C E B F A This chart reflects a policy decision that the PAMR Arterial LOS standard should not fall below LOS D, even when the PAMR Transit LOS standard is A. TP2.2 Conducting Policy Area Mobility Review TP2.2.1 Geographic Areas In conducting Policy Area Mobility Reviews, each Metro station policy azea is included in its larger parent policy area, so that: • the Bethesda CBD, Friendship Heights, and Bethesda-Chevy Chase policy areas are treated as a single policy area; • the Grosvenor, White Flint, Twinbrook, and North Bethesda policy areas are treated as a single policy area; • the Rockville Town Center and Rockville City policy areas are treated as a single policy area; • the Shady Grove and Derwood policy areas are treated as a single policy area; • the Silver Spring CBD and Silver Spring-Takoma Park policy areas are treated as a single policy area; and • the Wheaton CBD, Glenmont, and Kensington-Wheaton policy azeas are treated as a single policy area. The Rural East policy area consists of all area east of I-270 that is not located in another planning area. The Rural West policy area consists of all area west of I-270 that is not located in another planning area. TP2.2.2 Determination of Adequacy Using a transportation planning model, the Planning staff has computed the relationship between a programmed set of transportation facilities and the geographic pattern of existing and approved jobs and housing units. The traffic model tests this future land use pattern for its traffic impact, comparing the resulting traffic volume and distribution to the arterial level of service standard for each policy a; ea. This analysis results in a finding of acceptable with full mitigation for a policy area if: -6- Resolution No.: 16-376 (a} the level of service on local roads in the policy area is expected to exceed the arterial level of service standard, or (b) the magnitude of the hypothetical future land use patterns in that policy area will cause the level of service on local roads in any other policy area to exceed the arterial level of service standazd for that policy area. If this annual analysis results in a finding of acceptable with full mitigation for a policy area for a fiscal year, the Planning Board must not approve any more subdivisions in that policy area in that fiscal year, except as provided below. For FY2008, the Planning Board must consider the Germantown Eastand Gaithersburg City Policy Areas to be acceptable with full mitigation for transportation. When this annual analysis results in a finding of acceptable with partial mitigation for a policy area for a fiscal year, the Plaru~?ing Board must not approve any more subdivisions in that policy area in that fiscal year except under certain special circumstances outlined below. For FY2008, the Planning Board must consider the following policy areas to be acceptable with partial mitigation for transportation at the policy area level: _ _ Aspen Hill 4(?° ~ Bethesda/Che Chase 30% Damascus 5% Derwood 5% Fairland/White Oak 45% Kensin on/Wheaton 10% North Bethesda 25% Olne 25% Potomac 40% Rural East 5% Silver S rin akoma Park 15% Rockville 25% An applicant for a preliminary plan of subdivision need not take any action under TP Policy Area Mobility Review if the proposed development will generate 3 or fewer peak-hour trips. The Planning Board may adopt Policy Area Mobility Review guidelines and other technical materials to further specify standards and procedures for its adoption of findings of policy area adequacy or inadequacy or of acceptable with full or partial mitigation. The transportation planning model considers all existing and approved development and all eligible programmed transportation CIP projects. For these purposes, "approved development" includes all approved preliminazy plans of subdivision and is also known as the "pipeline of approved development." "Eligible programmed transportation CIP projects" include all County CIP, State Transportation Program, and City of Rockville or Gaithersburg projects for which 100 percent of the expenditures for construction are estimated to occur in the first 4 years of the applicable program. Because of the unique nature of the Purple Line, the Corridor Cities Transitway, and the North Bethesda Transitway compared to other transportation systems which are normally used in calculating -7- Resolution No.: 16-376 development capacity, it is prudent to approach the additional capacity from these systems conservatively, particularly with respect to the timing of capacity and the amount of the capacity recognized. Therefore, the capacity from any operable segment of any of these transit systems must not be counted until that segment is fully funded in the first 4 years of the County or State; capital improvements program. To discourage sprawl development, no capacity for new development may be counted outside the boundary of the Town of Brookeville as of March 9, 1999, as a result of relocating MD 97 around Brookeville. Planning staff must keep a record of alI previously approved preliminary plans and other data about the status of development projects, and must continuously update the pipeline number of approved preliminary plans. The updated pipeline must be the basis for the annual PAMR. TP3 Mitigation for Applications in Policy Areas with Inadequate PAMR The Planning Board, after considering any recommendation of the County Executive, may approve a preliminary plan application in a policy area found by Policy Area Mobility Review to be acceptable with full mitigation or acceptable with partial mitigation, as provided in this section. In approving plans in acceptable with full mitigation policy azeas, the Board should ensure that the average level ol'service for the relevant policy area is not adversely affected. Except as otherwise expressly stated in TP4, the same level of service criteria must be used in evaluating an application under this section. The following options to mitigate the traffic impacts of development approved in a prelimin:~ry plan may be used, individually or in combination: • Trip Mitigation. An applicant may sign a binding Trip Mitigation Agreement under which up to 100% of the projected peak hour vehicle trips would be removed from the roadway by using Transportation Demand Management techniques to reduce trips generated by the applicant's development or by other sites, so that an applicant could still generate a certain number of trips if the mitigation program removes an equal number of trips from other sites in the same policy area. • Trip Reduction by Providing Non-Auto Facilities. An applicant may mitigate a limited number of trips by providing non-auto facilities that would make alternative modes of transit, walking, and bicycling safer and more attractive. The Planning Board must specify in its LATR Guidelines the allowable actions and number of trips associated with them, as well as the maximum number of trip credits allowable for each action, which will partly depend on the congestion standazds for the policy area where the proposed development is located. • Adding Roadway Capacity. An applicant may mitigate trips by building link-based roadway network capacity. The conversion rate between vehicle trips and lane miles of roadway is shown in Table 2. The values in that table are derived from regional estimates of vehicle trip length by trip purposes and uniform per-lane capacities for roadway functional classes that should be applied countywide. Several conditions apply: o The number of lane miles in Table 2 reflects total capacity provided, so that if an applicant widens a roadway by one lane in each direction, the total minimum project length would be half the length listed in the table. -8- Resolution No.: 16-376 o The roadway construction or widening must have logical termini, for instance coru~ecting two intersections. o The roadway construction must occur in the same Policy Area as the proposed development. o The roadway construction must be recommended in a master plan. • Adding Transit Capacity. An applicant may mitigate inadequate PAMR conditions by buying 40-foot long hybrid electric fleet vehicles for the Ride-On system, and guaranteeing 12 yeazs of operations funding, at the rate of 30 peak hour vehicle-trips per fleet vehicle. To qualify as mitigation under this provision, a bus must add to the Ride-On fleet and not replace a bus taken out of service. • Payment instead of construction. The Planning Board may accept payment to the County of a fee commensurate with the cost of a required improvement if the applicant has made a good faith effort to implement an acceptable improvement and the Boazd finds that a desirable improvement cannot feasibly be implemented by the applicant, but the same improvement or an acceptable alternative can be implemented by a public agency within 4 years after the subdivision is approved. In general, each mitigation measure or combination of measures must be scheduled for completion or otherwise be operational at the same time or before the proposed development is scheduled to be completed. The nature, design, and scale of any additional facility or program must receive prior approval from any government agency that would construct or maintain the facility or program, and the applicant and the public agency must execute an appropriate public works agreement before the Boazd approves a record plat. The application must also be approved under TL Local Area Transportation Review. Both the subdivision plan and all necessary mitigation measures must be consistent with an adopted master plan or other relevant land use policy statement. For the Planning Board to accept a roadway capacity improvement as a mitigation measure, the applicant must show that alternative non-auto mitigation measures are not feasible or desirable. In evaluating mitigation measures proposed by an applicant, the Board must place a high priority on design excellence to create a safe, comfortable, and attractive public realm for all users, with particular focus on high-quality pedestrian and transit access to schools, libraries, recreation centers, and other neighborhood facilities. TP4 Development llistrict Participation Under Chapter 14 of the County Code, the County Council may create development districts as a funding mechanism for needed infrastructure in areas of the County where substantial development is expected or encouraged. The Planning Board may approve subdivision plans in accordance with the terms of the development district's provisional adequate public facilities approval (PAPF). TP4.1 Preparation of a PAPF The development district's PAPF must be prepared in the following manner: One or more property owners in the proposed district may submit to the Planning Boazd an application for provisional adequate public facilities approval for the entire district. In addition to explaining how -9- Resolution No.: 16-376 each development located in the district will comply with all applicable zoning and sutxiivision requirements, this application must: • show the number and type of housing units and square footage and type of the non-residential space to be developed, as well as a schedule of proposed buildout in five-yeaz increments; • identify any infrastructure improvements necessary to satisfy the adequate public facilities requirements for development districts; and • estimate the cost to provide these improvements. TP4.2 Planning Board Review The Planning Board must then review all developments within the proposed development district as if they are a single development for compliance with the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. "I'he Planning Board must identify the public facilities needed to support the buildout of the development district after considering the results of the following tests for facility adequacy: • Transportation tests for development districts are identical to those for Local Area Transportation Review. Planning Department staff must prepaze a list of transportation infrastructure needed to maintain public facility adequacy. • The PAPF application must be referred to Montgomery County Public Schools staff for recommendations for each stage of development in the proposed district. MCPS staff must calculate the extent to which the development district will add to MCPS's current enrollment projections. MCPS staff must apply the existing school adequacy test to the projections with the additional enrollment and prepare a list of public school infrastructure needed to maintain public facility adequacy. • The PAPF application must be referred to the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission for recommendations for each stage of development in the proposed district. Wastewater conveyance and water transmission facilities must be considered adequate if existing or programmed (fully-funded within the first 5 years of the approved WSSC capital improvements program) facilities can accommodate (as defined by WSSC) all existing authorizations plus the growth in the development district. Adequacy of water and wastewater treatment facilities must be evaluated using the intermediate or "most probable" forecasts of future growth plus development district growth, but only to the extent that development district growth exceeds the forecast for any time period. If a test is not met, WSSC must prepare a list of water and sewer system infrastructure needed to maintain public facility adequacy. • The PAPF application must be referred to the County Executive for recommendations for each stage of development in the proposed district regarding police, fire, and health facilities. Adequacy of police, fire, and health facilities must be evaluated using the intermediate or most probable forecasts of future growth plus development district growth, but only to the extent that development district growth exceeds the forecast for any time period. Any facility capacity that remains is available to be used by the development district. If anv facility capacity deficits exist, the County Executive must prepare a list of infrastructure needed to maintain public facility adequacy. -10- Resolution No.: 16-376 TP4.3 Planning Board Approval The Board may conditionally approve the PAPF application if it will meet all of the requirements of the APFO and Growth Policy. The Board may condition its approval on, among other things, the creation and funding of the district and the building of no more than the maximum number of housing units and the maximum nonresidential space listed in the petition. For an application to be approved, the applicants must commit to produce the infrastructure improvements needed to meet APF requirements in the proposed district as well as any added requirements specified by the Planning Board. The Planning Board must list these required infrastructure improvements in its approval. The infrastructure improvements may be funded through the development district or otherwise. The development district's PAPF must be prepared in the following manner: The Planning Board must not approve a PAPF application unless public facilities adequacy is maintained throughout the life of the plan. The timing of infrastructure delivery may be accomplished by withholding the release of building permits anti! needed public facilities are available to be "counted," or by another similaz mechanism. Infrastructure may be counted for public facilities adequacy, for infrastructure provided by the district, when construction has begun on the facility and funds have been identified and committed to its completion, and, for infrastructure provided by the public sector, when: • for Local Area Transportation Review, the project is fully-funded within the firs! 4 years of the approved County, state, or municipal capital improvements program; • for water and sewer facilities, the project is fully-funded within the first 5 years of the approved WSSC capital improvements program; • for public school facilities, the project is fully-funded within the first 5 years of the approved Montgomery County Public Schools capital improvements program; and • for police, fire, and health facilities, the project is fully-funded within the first 6 yeazs of the relevant approved capital improvements program. TP4.4 Additional Facilities Recommended for Funding The County Executive and Planning Board may also recommend to the County Council additional facilities to be provided by the development district or by the public sector to support development within the district. These facilities may include, but are not limited to libraries, health centers, local parks, social services, greenways, and major recreation facilities. TP4.5 Satisfaction of APF Requirements As provided in Chapter 14 of the County Code, once the development district is created and the financing of all required infrastructure is arranged, the development in the district is considered to have satisfied all APF requirements, any additional requirements that apply to development districts in the Growth Policy, and any other requirement to provide infrastructure which the County adopts within 12 years after the district is created. -11- Resolution No.: 16-376 TL Local Area Transportation Review (LATR) TL1 Standards and Procedures To achieve an approximately equivalent transportation level of service in all areas of the County, greater congestion is permitted in policy azeas with greater transit accessibility and usage. Table 1 shows the intersection level of service standards by policy area. Local Area Transportation Review must at all times be consistent with the standazds and staging mechanisms of adopted master and sector plans. Local area transportation review must be completed for any subdivision that would generate 30 or more peak-hour automobile trips. For any subdivision that would generate 30-49 peak-hour automobile trips, the Planning Board after receiving a traffic study must require that either: • all LATR requirements are met; or • the applicant must make an additional payment to the County equal to SO% of the applicable transportation impact tax before it receives any building permit in the subdivision. In administering Local Area Transportation Review, the Planning Board must not approve a subdivision if it finds that an unacceptable peak hour level of service will result after considering existing roads, programmed roads, available or programmed mass transportation, and improvements to be provided by the applicant. If the subdivision will affect an intersection or roadway link for which congestion is already unacceptable, then the subdivision may only be approved if the applicant agrees to mitigate either: • a sufficient number of trips to bring the intersection or link to acceptable levels of congestion, or • a number of trips equal to 150 percent of the CLV impact attributable to the development. The nature of the LATR test is such that a traffic study is necessary if local congestion is likely 1:0 occur. The Planning Board and staff must examine the applicant's traffic study to determine whether adjustments are necessary to assure that the traffic study is a reasonable and appropriate reflection of the traffic impact of the proposed subdivision after considering all approved development and programmed transportation projects. If use and occupancy permits for at least 75% of the originally approved development were issued more than 12 years before the LATR study scope request, the number of signalized intersections in the study must be based on the increased number of peak hour trips rather than the total number of peak hour trips. In these cases, LATR is not required for any expansion that generates S or fewer additional peak hour trips. For Local Area Transportation Review purposes, the programmed transportation projects to be considered are those fully funded far construction in the first 4 years of the current approved Capital Improvements Program, the state's Consolidated Transportation Program, or any municipal capital improvements program. For these purposes, any road required under Section 302 of the County Charter to be authorized by law is not programmed until the time for petition to referendum has expired without a valid petition or the authorizing law has been approved by referendum. -12- Resolution No.: 16-376 If an applicant is participating in a traffic mitigation program or one or more intersection improvements to meet Local Area Transportation Review requirements, that applicant must be considered to have met Local Area Transportation Review for any other intersection where the volume of trips generated is less than 5 Critical Lane Movements. Any traffic study required for Local Area Transportation Review must be submitted by a registered Professional Engineer, certified Professional Traffic Operations Engineer, or certified Professional Transportation Planner. Each traffic study must examine, at a minimum, the number of signalized intersections in the following table, unless the Planning Board affirmatively finds that special circumstances warrant a more limited study. < 250 1 250 - 749 _ 2 750 - 1,249 3 1,250 - 1,750 4 1,750-2,249 5 2,250 - 2749 6 >2,750 7 At the Planning Board's discretion, each traffic mitigation program must be required to operate for at least 12 years but no longer than 15 years. The Planning Board may select either trip reduction measures or road improvements, or a combination of both, as the required means of traffic mitigation. "the Planning Board has adopted guidelines to administer Local Area Transportation Review. Z'o the extent that they are consistent with this Policy, the Planning Board guidelines may continue to apply or may be amended as the Planning Board finds necessary. After consulting the Council, the Planning Board may adopt administrative guidelines that allow use of a "delay" or queuing analysis, different critical larre volume standards, or other methodologies, to determine the level of congestion in any area the Planning Board finds appropriate. in administering Local Area Transportation Review, the Planning Board must carefully consider the recommendations of the County Executive concerning the applicant's traffic study and proposed improvements or any other aspect of the review. To achieve safe and convenient pedestrian travel, the Planning Board may adopt administrative guidelines requiring construction of off-site sidewalk improvements consistent with County Code §50- 25. To support creating facilities that encourage transit use, walking, and bicycling, to maintain an approximately equivalent level of service at the local level for bath auto and non-auto modes, the Board may allow the applicant to use peak hour vehicle trip credits for providing non-auto facilities. Before approving credits for non-auto facilities to reduce Local Area Transportation Review impacts, the Board should first consider the applicability and desirability of traffic mitigation agreement measures. The Board's L~4TR Guidelines must identify applicable facilities in terms of actions that can be given trip -13- Resolution No.: 16-376 credits and the maximum number of trips that can be credited. If the Board approves any credits, it must specify mechanisms to monitor the construction of any required facility. During each biennial Growth Policy the Board must report on the number of credits issued and confirm the construction of any required facility. In general, any mitigation measure or combination of mitigation measures must be scheduled for completion or otherwise operational either before or at the same time as the proposed development is scheduled to be completed. The nature, design, and scale of any additional facility or progr~un must receive prior approval from any government agency that would construct or maintain the facility or program, and the applicant and the public agency must execute an appropriate public works agreement before the Planning Board approves a record plat. Both the subdivision plan and the necessary mitigation measures must be consistent with an adopted master plan or other relevant land use policy statement. For the Planning Board to accept a intersection improvement as a mitigation measure, the applicant must show that alternative non-auto mitigation ~I measures are not feasible or desirable. In evaluating mitigation measures proposed by an applicant, the Board must place a high priority on design excellence to create a safe, comfortable, and attractive public realm for all users, with particular focus on high-quality pedestrian and transit access to schools, libraries, recreation centers, and other neighborhood facilities. -14- Resolution No.: 16-376 TL2 Metro Station Policy Area LATR Standards , In each Metro Station Policy Area, the Planning Board, in consultation with the Department of Public Works and Transportation, must prepare performance evaluation criteria for its Local Area Transportation Review. These criteria must be used to accomplish: (a) safety for pedestrians and vehicles; (b) access to buildings and sites; and (c) traffic flow within the vicinity, at levels which are tolerable in an urban situation. The County Executive also must publish a Silver Spring Traffic Management Program after receiving public comment and a recommendation from the Planning Board. This program must list those actions to be taken by government to maintain traffic flow at tolerable levels in the Silver Spring CBD and protect the surrounding residential azea. TL3 Potomac LATR Standards In the Potomac Policy Area, only the areas contributing traffic to the following intersections must be sub}ect to Local Area Transportation Review: (a) Montrose Road at Seven Locks Road; (b) Democracy Boulevard at Seven Locks Road; (c) Tuckerman Lane at Seven Locks Road; (d) Democracy Boulevazd at Westlake Drive; (e) Westlake Drive at Westlake Terrace; (f) Westlake Drive at Tuckerman Lane; (g) Bradley Boulevard at Seven Locks Road; {h) River Road at Bradley Boulevazd; (i) River Road at Piney Meetinghouse Road; and (j) River Road at Seven Locks Road. TL4 Unique Policy Area Issues The Local Area Review for the Silver Spring CBD policy area must use the following assumptions and guidelines: • Each traffic limit is derived from the heaviest traffic demand period in Silver Spring's case, the p.m. peak hour outbound traffic. • When tested during a comprehensive circulation analysis, the critical lane volumes for intersections in the surrounding Silver Spring/Takoma Park policy area must not be worse than the adopted level of service standards shown in Table 1 unless the Planning Boazd finds that the impact of improving the intersection is more burdensome than the increased congestion. • The Planning Board and the Department of Public Works and Transportation must implement Transportation Systems Management for the Silver Spring CBD. The goal of this program must be to achieve the commuting goals for transit use and auto occupancy rates set out below. • The County Government, through the Silver Spring Parking Lot District, must constrain the amount of public and private long term parking spaces. The parking constraints and commuting goals needed to achieve satisfactory traffic conditions with these staging ceilings are: Parking constraint: A maximum of 17,500 public and private long-term spaces when all nonresidential development is built; this maximum assumes a peak accumulation factor of 0.9, which requires verification in Silver Spring and may be subject to revision. Interim long-term -15- Resolution No.: 16-376 parking constraints must be imposed in accordance with the amount of interim development. Long-term public parking spaces must be priced to reflect the market value of constrained parking spaces. Commuting goals: For employers with 25 or more employees, attain 25 percent mass. transit use and auto occupancy rates of 1.3 persons per vehicle during the peak periods, or attain any combination of employee mode choice that results in at least 46% non-drivers during the peak periods. For new nonresidential development, attain 30 percent mass transit use and auto occupancy rates of 1.3 persons per vehicle during the peak periods, or attain any combination of employee mode choice that results in at least 50% non-drivers during the peak periods. Progress towards achieving these goals should be measured annually by scientific, statistically valid surveys. To achieve these goals it will be necessary to require developers of new development in Silver Spring to enter into traffic mitigation agreements and the employers and certain owners to submit transportation mitigation plans under County Code Chapter 42A. In accordance with the amendment to the Silver Spring Sector Plan, subdivision applications for nonresidential standard method projects throughout the CBD may be approved for development or additions of not more than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area. However, if, for a particular use the addition of 5 peak hour trips yields a floor area greater than 5,000 square feet, that additional area may be approved for that particular use. In the North Bethesda Transportation Managernent District, the goal is 39 percent non-driver mode share for workers in the peak hour. In the Bethesda Transportation Management District, the goal is 37 percent non-driver mode share for workers. In the Friendship Heights Transportation Management District, the goal is 39 percent non-driver mode shaze for workers. TA Alternative Review Procedures TA2 Metro Station Policy Areas An applicant for a subdivision which will be built completely within a Metro station policy area need not take any action under TP Policy Area Mobility Review or TL Local Area TransQortaHon Review if the applicant agrees in a contract with the Planning Board and the County Department of Public Works and Transportation to: • submit an application containing all information, including a traffic study, that would normally be required for Local Area Transportation Review; • meet trip reduction goals set by the Planning Board as a condition of approving that subdivision, which must require the applicant to reduce at least 50% of the number of trips attributable to the subdivision, either by reducing trips from the subdivision itself or from other occupants of that policy area; • participate in programs operated by, and take actions specified by, a transportation management organization (TMO) to be established by County law for that policy area (or a -16- Resolution No.: 16-376 group of policy areas including that policy area) to meet the mode shaze goals established under the preceding paragraph; • pay an ongoing annual contribution or tax to fund the TMO's operating expenses, including minor capital items such as busses, as established by County law; and • pay 75% of the applicable General District development impact tax without claiming any credits for transportation improvements. TA2 Expiration of Approvals Under Previous Alternative Review Procedures Annual Growth Policy resolutions in effect between 1995 and 2001 contained Alternative Review Procedures that required any development approved under those procedures to receive each building permit no later than 4 years after the Planning Board approved the preliminary plan of subdivision for that development. Any outstanding development project approved under an Alternative Review Procedure is subject to the expiration dates in effect when that development project was approved, with the following 2 exceptions. TA2.1 Certain multi-phased projects A multi-phased project located in the R&D or Life Sciences Center zone may receive some of its building permits later than 4 years after its preliminary plan of subdivision is approved if: • when the Planning Board approves or amends a site plan for the development, it also approves a phasing schedule that allows an extended validity period, but not longer than 12 years after the preliminary plan of subdivision was approved; and • the applicant receives the first building permit for a building in the development no later than 4 years after the Planning Board approves the preliminary plan of subdivision for the development. TA2.2 Certain developments in Y-3 zone Similarly, if the development is located in the I-3 zone, and a previously approved subdivision plan and site plan contains more than 900,000 square feet of office space and at least 40% of that space has been constructed by November 1, 2001, the Planning Boadd may approve an amendment to its site plan which allows an extended validity period, but not longer than 12 years after the preliminary plan of subdivision was approved. TA3 Golf Course Community An applicant for a planned unit development in the Fairland-White Oak policy area that includes a golf course or other major amenity which is developed on a public/private partnership basis need not take any action under TL Local Area Transportation Review if the applicant pays to the county a Development Approval Payment, established by County law, before the building permit is issued. However, the applicant must include in its application for preliminary plan approval all information that would have been necessary if the requirements for Local Area Transportation Review applied. The Planning Board may approve the application if: -17- Resolution No.: 16-376 • not more than 100 units, in addition [o Moderately Priced Dwelling Units (MPDUs}, ;ire built in the first fiscal year after construction of the development begins, and • not more than 100 units, in addition to MPDUs and the unbuilt remaining portion of all prior years' approved units, are built in any later fiscal year. TA3.1 MPDU Requirements Any applicant for a subdivision under TA3 must agree, as part of the application, that it will build the same number of MPDUs among the first l00 units that it would be required to construct at that location if the subdivision consisted of only 100 units, or a pro rata lower number of MPDUs if the subdivision will include fewer than 100 units. TA3.2 Requirement to Begin Construction Any applicant for a subdivision approval under TA3 must agree, as part of the application, that it will not begin to construct any residential unit approved in the application later than 3 years after the plat is recorded or the site plan is approved (whichever occurs later). TA4 Corporate Headquarters Facility TA4.1 LATR An applicant for a preliminary plan of subdivision need not take any action under Local Area Transportation Review if the applicant meets the following conditions: TA4.1.1 Jobs/Location The applicant must have employed an average of at least 500 employees in the County for the 2 years before the application was filed, and the applicant must seek to build or expand a corporate headquarters located in the North Bethesda Policy Area. TA4.1.2 Size/L1se Any new or expanded building approved under this Procedure must not exceed 900,000 square feet, and must be intended primarily for use by the applicant and the applicant's affiliates or business partners. TA4.1.3 Traffic Information Each application must include all information that would be necessary if the requirements for Local Area Transportation Review applied. TA4.1.4 Mode Sharc Goals Each applicant must commit to make its best efforts to meet mode share goals set by the Planning Board as a condition of approving the subdivision. TA4.1.5 TMO Participation - l8- Resolution No.: 16-376 Each applicant must participate in programs operated by, and take actions specified by, the transportation management organization (IMO), if any, established by County law for that policy area to meet the mode share goals set by the Planning Board. TA4.1.6 TMO Payment If an applicant is located in a transportation management district, the applicant must pay an annual contribution or tax, set by County law, to fund the TMO's operating expenses, including minor capital items such as busses. TA4.1.7 Development Approval Payment Limits The applicant must pay the applicable Development Approval Payment (DAP) as provided in County Code §8-37 through 8-42, but not more than the DAP in effect on July 1, 2401. TA4.1.8 Eligibility An applicant may use this Procedure only if it met the criteria in TA4.1.1 for number of employees and site location on November 1, 2003. TA5 Strategic Economic Development Projects I An applicant for a preliminary plan of subdivision need not take any action under TL Local Area Transportation Review if all of the following conditions are met. TA5.1 Traffic information The applicant files a complete application for a preliminary plan of subdivision which includes all information that would be necessary if the requirements for LAIR applied. TA5.2 Designation The County Council has approved the County Executive's designation of the development as a strategic economic development project under procedures adopted by law or Council resolution. TA5.3 Transportation Impact Tax Payments The applicant must pay double the applicable transportation impact tax without claiming any credits for transportation improvements. Public School Facilities S1 Geographic Areas For the purposes of public school analysis and local area review of school facilities at time of subdivision, the County has been divided into 25 areas called high school clusters. These areas coincide with the cluster boundaries used by the Montgomery County Public School system. -19- Resolution No.; i 6-376 The groupings used are only to administer the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and do not. require any action by the Board of Education in exercising its power to designate school service boundazies. S2 Grade Levels Each cluster must be assessed separately at each of the 3 grade levels elementary, intermediate/middle, and high school. S3 Determination of Adequacy Each yeaz, not later than July 1, the Planning Board must evaluate available capacity in each high school cluster and compare enrollment projected by Montgomery County Public Schools for each fiscal year with projected school capacity in 5 yeazs. S4 Moratorium on Residential Subdivision Approvals In considering whether a moratorium on residential subdivisions must be imposed, the Planning Board must use 120% of Montgomery County Public Schools program capacity as its measure of adequate school capacity. This capacity measure must not count relocatable classrooms in computing a school's permanent capacity. If projected enrollment at any grade level in that cluster will exceed 120% of capacity, the Board must not approve any residential subdivision in that cluster during the ne:Kt fiscal year. Table 3 shows the result of this test for November l5, 2007, to July 1, 2008. Table 3 also shows the remaining capacity, in students, at each grade level in each cluster. Using average student generation rates developed from the most recent Census Update Survey, the Planning Board must limit residential subdivision approvals in any cluster during the fiscal year so that the students generated by the housing units approved do not exceed the remaining capacity for students at any grade level in that cluster. SS Imposition of School Facilities Payment In considering whether a School Facilities Payment must be imposed on a residential subdivision, the Planning Board must use 105% of Montgomery County Public Schools' program capacity as its measure of adequate school capacity. This capacity measure must not count relocatable classrooms in computing a school's permanent capacity. If projected enrollment at any grade level in that cluster will exceed 105% of capacity but not exceed 120%, the Board may approve a residential subdivision in that cluster during the next fiscal year if the applicant commits to pay a School Facilities Payment as provided in County law before receiving a building permit for any building in that subdivision. Table 4 shows the result of this test for November 15, 2007, to July 1, 2008. Table 4 also shows the remaining capacity, in students, at each grade level in each cluster. Using average student generation rates developed from the most recent Census Update Survey, the Planning Board must limit residential subdivision approvals in any cluster during the fiscal year so that the students generated by the housing units approved do not exceed the remaining capacity for students at any grade level in that cluster. 56 Senior Housing -20-