1 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy

Planning Board Draft

2 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy
Planning Board Draft
3 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy
Planning Board Draft
4 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy
Planning Board Draft
 executive summary
2009 – 2011 growth policy

what is the growth policy?

The role of Growth Policy is to coordinate growth with the public

facilities needed to support it, specifically roads and schools. Growth
Policy is implemented via the Adequate Public Facility Ordinance
(APFO) and impact taxes.

The County Council adopts the APFO every two years.

has the growth policy resulted in smart

growth?

Not really. It has typically been used to manage the timing of new
development with the provision of public facilities. The primary focus
of APFO has been when development can occur regulated through
school and road capacity. The consequence of this focus has been to
influence where growth can occur, pushing development to areas of
available capacity, meaning to greenfield areas rather than areas
where infrastructure and transit already exist.

We have pushed to our maximum expansion boundary. Only four

percent of County land zoned for development remains
undeveloped. Much of these 14,000 acres cannot be built on due to
slopes and environmental restrictions, so the actual total is much
less.

It can be said master plans have paved the way for sprawl. However,
the growth policy has also contributed by requiring unsustainable
mitigation requirements where we want the development to go, in

5 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy

Planning Board Draft
the built areas around transit stations. These areas have higher what changes are recommended?
development costs to begin with, and the cost of mitigation adds to
what is not changing?
them, especially when compared to areas nearer the big boxes and
office parks surrounded by acres of vacant land.
The changes in this edition of the Growth Policy are about
encouraging more housing to replace some job capacity and
Where the suburban growth has occurred, it contributes to higher
encouraging sustainable growth. The impact will be fewer cars and
vehicle miles travelled (vmt). In the urban areas where the jobs are,
vehicle miles travelled.
commuters drive through to the job centers, making the traffic
situation worse.
The County uses various tools to manage growth, including policy
components highlighted in the table. The Local Area Transportation
This pattern has a ripple effect, making it more difficult to build
Review (LATR) calculation will remain the same although some
housing nearer the transit because the road capacity has been used
changes to foster better mitigation are proposed. A slight change in
up by the people driving in from areas beyond the neighborhood.
the school test is recommended, which impacts a monetary
assessment on development but would not change the threshold for
moratorium.

Growth Management Tool Application Proposed

Master plans where same

Zoning how same
Subdivision regs how same
School capacity when minor change to monetary
assessment
LATR when minor changes to mitigation
types
PAMR when stay within general bounds of
PAMR – encourage smart growth

comparison of current and proposed requirements

The growth management tools used in the County listed along with an indication of
whether changes are proposed.
With little vacant land left, the availability of surface parking lots as well as land in smart growth
locations near transit or on existing strip malls, offers a considerable supply of land upon which
to build. Development on these 28,800 acres can result in smarter locations for future growth.

6 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy

Planning Board Draft
Minor changes to the school capacity and LATR calculation are  a minimum of 50 percent of the total floor area must be for
proposed. Three changes of substance to the PAMR calculation are residential use
proposed.  the project must be constructed to 75 percent or more of the
 a smart growth PAMR offset floor area permitted under the zoning ordinance
 APF capacity trading  buildings must meet energy efficiency standards of 17.5 percent
 rebalancing of mobility standards for new construction and 10.5 percent for renovations or
produce 2.5 percent of the annual building energy cost on site
PAMR changes  moderately priced dwelling units (mpdu) and workforce housing
smart growth – PAMR offset would be required at a rate above the standard requirement
Smart growth principles of proximity to transit and basic services will
reduce vmt, but not all sites in the County share the benefits of The PAMR mitigation may be met through other mitigation
transit proximity. However, sites that are not near transit facilities techniques generated by “proximity” to transit and services. At the
can still be developed to meet smart growth principles. same time, public benefits can be achieved through energy
efficiencies, carbon reductions, and increased affordable housing.
A strip mall in Darnestown would not qualify for the proposed PAMR
“proximity to transit” 100 percent offset described below. It may Some of these recommendations follow LEED for new construction
however, take advantage of the PAMR “proximity to basic services” and LEED for neighborhoods standards as well as emerging policy in
50 percent offset if development of the site provides access to ten other states.
basic services. This offset approach would still require the school impact fee for the
units built.
The recommendations present a different method for satisfying the
PAMR requirement through an alternative review procedure. The policy is intended to encourage housing in substitution for
 for projects located within ½ mile of a transit station or line, the current job capacity. Pending master plans may establish floor area
entire PAMR mitigation fee would be offset density limits that limit both the overall density as well as how much
 for projects within ½ mile of ten basic services, meaning grocery of that total can be allocated for housing or commercial uses.
stores, dry cleaners, libraries, parks, fire stations, etc., 50 percent
of the PAMR fee would be “offset” housing vs. office trip generation
Housing generates fewer trips than commercial development. A
In either scenario, specific basic requirements would have to be met. hundred high rise residential units take about the same amount of
This is the offset of the PAMR fee. While builders would be exempt space as a 100,000 square foot office building, but generate just 28
from paying all or 50 percent of the PAMR fee, they would be using percent of the peak hour vehicle trips. At the PAMR level, the
the savings to offset the costs of the following requirements to recommendations reflect this reduction.
qualify for the offset.

7 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy

Planning Board Draft
The goal is to achieve a more balanced jobs-housing ratio. In several applications were made to avoid the new requirement.
addition, the PAMR incentive to build closer to transit or basic Trading the apf approvals helps remove some of the projects
services, reflects how strategic growth results in fewer vmt’s, with limited to no chance of being built while getting other
particularly at the PAMR scale (beyond seven intersections away projects started
from the development).  trading apf approvals can help direct development to urban
areas with higher levels of transit service, more opportunity for
The LATR vmt calculation would not be changed, as local trips would improvements to that service generated by higher density, and
result for close in development. Over time, local capacity frees up as proximity to basic services
people shift from longer commutes through neighborhoods to  trading could also help clear the excessive backlog of approved
transit and people close to the transit shift their travel patterns. but unbuilt projects

PAMR adjustments
apf capacity trading The Road Code Urban
The current list of approved but unbuilt projects with APF capacity Area map is used to
sits at 33 million square feet of non-residential floor area and 29,000 define the context for
dwelling units. establishing appropriate
roadway design
The recommended PAMR adjustment allows transfer of approved standards and target
speeds. A
apf capacity from a sending site in any PAMR trip mitigation area to a recommendation is to
new receiving site that is located in a road code urban area within allow for apf capacity to
the same PAMR area as the sending site. be moved from
approved but unbuilt
projects within a PAMR
Trip Mitigation Area into
The PAMR Trip Mitigation Areas any urban area within
are used to determine where the same PAMR area.
mitigation requirements are
currently required within a larger
area surrounding a development.

This recommendation has

many benefits.
 prior to the changes
to the workforce housing requirements made a few years ago,

8 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy

Planning Board Draft
 roadway efficiency
Roads are the most effective when the throughput of people and
goods are maximized. This occurs at level of service E conditions, and
There are many everyone experiences some delay.
approved but
unbuilt projects in
the development PAMR charts
pipeline. Trading The recommendation is to shift the line delineating areas that are
apf approvals to “acceptable” to a roadway level of service E. Those areas that would
more dense areas
would result in
greater
sustainability.

rebalancing
mobility
standards
During discussion of the current Growth Policy, staff recommended
alignment of the PAMR chart to allow a level of service E for roadway
capacity at the PAMR Trip Mitigation Area level for the areas of the
County best served by transit. The County Council shifted the line
upward to level of service D.

The recommendation is to again have that mitigation line at level of move from “partial mitigation” to “acceptable” are shown.
service E. This level of roadway service is the most efficient use of Shifting the line to a level of service E would move the
road capacity. Bethesda/Chevy Chase, Derwood/Shady Grove,
Kensington/Wheaton, Olney, and Silver Spring/Takoma Park PAMR
The current requirements reinforce the nature of our roadways to mitigation areas from a partial mitigation requirement to an
promote longer trips. The goal should not be to encourage faster acceptable level.
commutes from places located farther away from where the existing
infrastructure is located. Commuter trips through our urban areas what are the impacts of the
simply add to the congestion problems for local vmt. recommendations?

The policy should shift from the longer commutes, to the efficient The following example compares the mitigation requirements under
use of our investment in roads and the encouragement of transit use the current Growth Policy to the proposed changes. The example is
and expansion. based on the following criteria.

9 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy

Planning Board Draft
 a 100,000 square foot site in the Twinbrook Metro Station area  an average unit size of 1,000 square feet, resulting in 165
within the North Bethesda PAMR mitigation area residential dwelling units, of which 12.5 percent (21 units) must
 permitted 3.0 FAR resulting in a 300,000 square foot project be affordable and 10 percent (16 units) must be workforce.
 within ½ mile of the Metro station
The application:
the current growth policy criteria  would generate 379 peak hour trips
 mix of office and retail uses  with 35 percent mitigation, 133 peak hour trips would require
 applicant required to mitigate site impacts using PAMR mitigation
 LATR  at $11,000 a trip, the PAMR mitigation would have an expected
 PAMR value of $1,463,000.
 school impacts
 total PAMR cost = $1.34 million (35 percent PAMR mitigation Under the smart growth criteria, the applicant could offset the PAMR
requirement) mitigation requirement if 50 percent of the PAMR savings, or
 applicant provides this value in traffic mitigation like bus $731,500, were applied toward providing additional affordable
shelters, sidewalks, bike paths, transit services or master housing.
planned streets
If the applicant could be expected to take a $50,000 loss on each
affordable housing unit (the difference between the cost to build
and the sales cost), the $731,500 would cover approximately 15
units at $50,000 each. Therefore, to meet the smart growth criteria,
the number of affordable units would need to be increased from 21
units to 36 units (while retaining the 165-unit total).

summary
The current policy results in various mitigation solutions totaling
Hypothetical building in Twinbrook. $1.46 million. The proposed policy would generate the following
benefits.
the proposed smart growth criteria  15 additional mpdu housing units
The application has the following parameters:  an energy efficient building
 300,000 square feet with 55 percent residential component,  a better jobs to housing balance
resulting in 165,000 square feet of residential space  more people on the street throughout the day
 a commercial component split between office (25 percent of the
total building space) and retail (20 percent of the total building
space)

10 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy

Planning Board Draft
 conclusion

The recommendations work with the master plans currently under

consideration as well as with their accompanying zoning. The goal is
to provide incentives, not exemptions, for development that meets
the proximity test to both transit and basic services, directing growth
to the Urban Areas, leaving established neighborhoods as they are.

Beginning to reduce the overall vmt will reduce the growth rate of
trips and encourage development in locations where the opportunity
to further reduce trips will evolve over time.

Only about a ¼ of trips are made by people going to and from their
jobs. The sooner we can bring the other trips in closer to everything
— shops, services, amenities and homes, the faster everyone
benefits.

Will the trips go away? Since residents in smart growth areas use
their cars less, as more residents live in urban areas per capita trips
will decline. As the number of urban residents increases over time,
more and more trips will go away. A big advantage of a smart growth
policy is that as people adjust their travel habits their drives either go
away or they get shorter, taking more and more cars off the roads.

Imagine the center of Olney, where several sites develop as mixed-

use nodes, that over time create a new environment, with many
small shops providing a variety of retail and services, with people
living and working above them, and curbside parking and sidewalk
seating for coffee shops and small restaurants. This is the reality in
Bethesda. It can also be the reality at a smaller scale, in Olney,
Darnestown, and any suburban area across the County.

11 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy

Planning Board Draft
12 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy
Planning Board Draft
13 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy
Planning Board Draft
14 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy
Planning Board Draft
 introduction
The 2009-2011 Growth Policy is about balancing growth with the
needs of residents who currently live in Montgomery County, and
those residents who have yet to get here.
Whether it’s our children, grandchildren, or newcomers, they will all
need homes, jobs, schools, and ways to get around. Decisions we
make now about how and where to grow are critical.

To manage that growth, to provide better connections to where and

how people move about their daily lives, we introduce four themes
that position the County to grow sustainably and stay competitive.

environment
The Growth Policy can result in greener neighborhoods.

connections
The Growth Policy can encourage development closer to transit and
jobs closer to where people live.

diversity
The Growth Policy can offer development incentives that bring a mix
of uses to residents at and near transit opportunities.

design
The Growth Policy can encourage increased energy efficiency as part
of smart building practices.

Combining these elements into a comprehensive growth policy can

result in the energy efficient neighborhoods envisioned in future
master plans. Single building sites may also add a significant
contribution to redirecting how, where, and what we build.

15 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy

Planning Board Draft
This Growth Policy is about moving away from the past growth  moving from sprawl to infill development
pattern of low density growth into undeveloped spaces. The built  encouraging growth that reduces our impacts on the
area has pushed to the edge of our physical boundaries. We must environment
now look inward, at how we can grow differently, to enhance the  using existing infrastructure
quality of place and its long term value for future residents.  providing mobility options

One goal of the County’s Climate Protection Plan is that the Growth The Growth Policy can encourage shorter trips, less vmt, and more
Policy should direct development to areas with the infrastructure. walking as people shift their shopping and commuting patterns. It
The Plan also refers to smart growth principles as an important part has happened in Silver Spring and Bethesda. Increasing the
of Growth Policy. The recommendations that follow include both residential component will result in fewer people passing through
goals. and more people being there.

the challenge of growth – balance and

the past and its impact on the future
evolution
The County is expected to grow by 195,000 people by 2030. If we
Our past growth patterns have failed to look beyond where the
look back that many people ago, we return to 1990.
County currently finds itself. There is no room left for large single-
family home tracts, nor is the market for such growth the same as it
land consumption
was just two years ago.
To accommodate the last 195,000 residents, since 1990 40,000 acres
of land was developed with 72,000 housing units and 20 million
Our growth strategy has focused on measuring the impacts of a
square feet of office space.
single building at a time. We need to change our focus. We need to
shift to thinking about how our communities will meet the
Much of the development since that time has been for office parks,
challenges of growth in a sustainable way that benefits everyone.
malls with big surface parking lots, and wide single family lots. The
big energy-consuming homes are centered on an auto-centric
Growth Policy should continue the commitment to adequate schools
lifestyle with a very large carbon footprint.
and local transportation. At the same time, public awareness, the
economy, and the national agenda lead us to introduce new
single-family home statistics
variables that are critical for the County to balance jobs and housing,
 at 97,000 acres, land occupied by single-family detached houses
and create quality of place. Sustained value, maintaining services,
accounts for 29.9 percent of County’s land area
and a strong local economy depend upon it.
 75 percent of the built area in the County is for single- family
houses
new variables for growing smart
 defining strategic growth
16 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy
Planning Board Draft
Only four percent of County land zoned for development remains
undeveloped. This area is only 14,000 acres, less when factoring in
the environmentally sensitive areas and that most of this area is
scattered sites with few large assemblies. That four percent
represents only 35 percent of the land built on to house and service
the last 195,000 residents.

There are few choices on how to grow. We must look to redevelop,

reorganize, and rethink what we have already built. The Agricultural
Reserve and dedicated
parkland occupy about
The amount of land developed to accommodate population and job 151,000 acres of the
growth is not as excessive as other parts of the country, but still County. 97.5 percent of
the residentially zoned land is reserved for single-family housing. As a result, less than four
leaves the County little new land to develop. percent of the County remains undeveloped, much less when environmental considerations
are applied.
1960 2008 percent increase
can growth be about more than just capacity?
population 340,928 946,100 178 %

households 92,433 356,395 286% It has to be. When we grow, we should consider health,
infrastructure, economies of scale, vehicle miles travelled, mobility
jobs 73,870 503,822 582 % options, and the natural environment. If we encourage development
around transit, everyone benefits.
acres used 63,752 152,627 139 %  connectivity is about more than our commute times. It is about
providing the opportunities for people to drive less.

Between 1960 and 2008, the ratio of jobs to households has more  diversity is about bringing the life’s daily activities closer to
than doubled, highlighting the County’s increasing role as an where people live and work.
employment center. This trend is expected to continue.
 design of buildings and neighborhoods will create options and
value.

17 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy

Planning Board Draft
 environmental considerations can create healthier alternatives Gaithersburg West, White Flint, Kensington, Takoma/Langley
for residents through a balanced jobs-housing ratio. Crossroads, and Wheaton plan for balanced jobs-housing ratios. Each
plan builds on current or planned transit infrastructure investment
commuting patterns to create better connections, diverse activities, improved pedestrian
over the past two years commuting patterns have shifted. design, and a greener environment.
 93 billion mile reduction nationwide in annual vmt between
2006 and 2008, with a one drop in Montgomery County can growth be more strategic?
 Five percent increase in transit use nationally in 2008 compared
to 2007, with 13 million additional riders on the WMATA system
It has to be. With little new land left to develop, growth can no
alone
longer be pushed into uncongested areas. Growth will be in areas
with existing traffic and children already in school.

where can we grow?

Growth in built areas means accepting different capacities. Infilling
on parking lots along Rockville Pike or Route 29 brings a different set
of challenges than building 1,000 new single-family homes in Cabin
Branch. It also brings about a different set of expectations.

Developable land is a
scarce resource in
Montgomery County.
Only 14,000 acres are
left as greenfields to
develop and 10,500
Would we accept higher levels of congestion in exchange for greener acres identified as
buildings where people can walk to services or transit? The answer growth areas in master
plans. Surface parking
should be yes. Growth policy should consider: lots cover about 8,000
 where growth occurs acres, representing a
 how it occurs redevelopment
opportunity currently
 when it occurs. being examined
throughout the County.
Master plans paved the way for the Growth Policy to direct
development to greenfield sites. The master plans underway are
intended to reverse this trend. Twinbrook, Germantown,

18 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy

Planning Board Draft
Considering the overlap between these areas, future growth should Strategic infill can be
directed through the
be guided toward a limited supply of about 28,800 acres of land, or master planning
about nine percent of the County. process, taking
advantage of existing
Infill and higher densities at strategic locations benefit the infrastructure while
preserving
community: established
 greater efficiencies using existing utilities, transit, parks, and neighborhoods. The
other infrastructure areas around Metro
stations as well as the
 lower maintenance costs for existing and future facilities and many strip malls
services represent
 redevelopment of strip malls into mixed-use centers improves opportunities for
strategic growth.
connectivity for existing and new residents
 better pedestrian environments for all residents
 decreased vmt per capita land typologies
 lower carbon emissions per capita established neighborhoods
 more housing closer to employment opportunities. These neighborhoods are firmly
established and will see little
neighborhood typologies change. Development may occur
The Strategic Growth map illustrates land typologies, based on the in the form of small lot infill and
character of the existing neighborhoods, to illustrate a clear pattern strengthening neighborhood retail
of where infill development should occur. at existing locations.

The map has been built using a number of variables: greenfield/brownfield

There are few greenfield areas
 the locations of surface parking lots left, and much of it is difficult to
 radius around transit stations build on or prohibited through
 areas of established residential neighborhoods environmental controls. The
 recyclable land uses like County brownfield areas should be
 shopping malls. reserved for light industry that
offers services and job
development, close to residential areas.

19 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy

Planning Board Draft
reinvestment areas The 2009-2011 Growth Policy for the first time prepares for the
Downtown Silver Spring is an example of successful reinvestment. impact of running out of land to build single family houses and
Proximity to Metro, new businesses, and an enhanced pedestrian proposes ideas to encourage strategic infill development. New ideas
environment have revitalized the such as LEED for Neighborhoods as well as emerging trends to
area. encourage smarter growth near transit are factored into the growth
Wheaton and Takoma/Langley equation.
Crossroads provide other
opportunities to replicate that Communities around the nation are coming to grips with the same
success. The pending master challenges. Can we live with increased traffic congestion if we have
plans will address how we can smarter buildings and smarter neighborhoods?
strengthen those community
centers with a mix of new uses. The approach recommended for this Growth Policy is a first for
Montgomery County and would be a national model for assessing
emerging districts the potential of the suburbs.
The plans for White Flint and
Gaithersburg West both advance can we achieve greener growth?
strategic new districts that focus
on transit station planning and
life sciences. A future planning We must. Our car-centric communities have staggering carbon
area that fits this category is the footprints with health and economic impacts that limit children, the
FDA site on New Hampshire Avenue. elderly, and those who can’t afford a car from fully experiencing life
in the County.
In Gaithersburg West planners envision a vibrant pedestrian environment near transit.
carbon impacts
Since 1990, just 38 percent of the 72,000 dwelling units built in the
The White Flint, County have been multifamily units. Between now and 2030 we
Germantown, and forecast that 80 percent of the new dwellings units will be
Gaithersburg West plans
account for the growth multifamily units. Future growth will therefore help reduce the rate
along the I-270 Corridor of growth in carbon emissions. A dwelling unit in a multi-unit
projected out to 2030, building uses about 40 percent less energy than a single-family
outside of Rockville and
Gaithersburg. detached house (EPA).

20 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy

Planning Board Draft
 county climate protection plan
The Plan states that “The Growth Policy should direct growth to
areas with significant existing or planned transit resources, and
promote development that fulfills smart growth criteria such as
those required as part of the LEED for Neighborhood Development
or more stringent County standards.”

single-family homes
In 1960 the average County house had 3.6 residents. In 2008, that
number dropped to just over 2.5 residents. Despite this decrease,
house size continues to increase. Even the new larger, more energy
efficient homes require more energy for basic maintenance needs.

house size

greener growth

The next 195,000 people in the County will have a dramatically smaller carbon footprint that
the last 195,000 people, due in large part to the higher number of multi-unit buildings vs. the
past pattern of single-family home construction.

The County’s surface parking lots

contribute to stream pollution, increase
heat island impacts, reduce tree cover,
and waste land.

energy consumption
Montgomery County is a big
energy consumer due to our Single-family house size continues to increase in the County despite energy costs, affordability
issues, and smaller households. Over time, the average house size has more than doubled.
focus on construction of
single-family houses. The average condominium or apartment uses
40 percent less energy than a single-family detached house. Our past lot size
development has been “energy negative.” Even as the number of people in a house decreased, lot sizes
increased, consuming large amounts of land. From an environmental

21 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy

Planning Board Draft
standpoint, County housing trends are unsustainable on several
fronts.
 land consumption patterns have now proven to be unsustainable
– we have almost no new land to develop A typical Montgomery
 the amount of building materials consumed per house increased County subdivision
 energy used per person increased relies on large lots, big
houses, car-centric
 energy consumed to get to and from houses located farther design, and clustered
away increased commercial activity
 the amount of land consumed is inefficient, relative to the requiring car trips for
daily errands. Inefficient
number of people being housed site planning dominates
the landscape.

Growing smarter means considering what we are building, not just

where we are building it. Encouraging growth near transit stations
will result in significant energy reductions if the new units are in a
multi-unit building.

Recent subdivisions in the Pacific Northwest are more

compact, neighborhood oriented, pedestrian friendly,
and are geared to a range of lifestyles. House sizes
range between 800 and 2,200 square feet.
can we grow healthier?

The average lot size for a single-family detached house built in the We must. The average suburban dweller is likely to be more
County after 1980 is 58 percent larger than lots created before 1980. overweight than the same person living in a more compact
Lot sizes for townhouses decreased 23 percent during the same time community where services and jobs are accessible by walking.
period, showing a more efficient use of land. Obesity levels, especially among children have increased through the
decades as we have built car-centric environments farther away
Since 1980, the average lot size for a new single-family detached from schools, services, and jobs.
house is 16 times greater than a townhouse lot. The difference
increases dramatically if comparing houses to multi-unit buildings. Several new schools in the County do not have sidewalks. Children
are actually discouraged from walking or riding their bikes to school.
A survey of 83 metro areas (McCann) shows that only 18 percent of
children walk or bike to school compared to the rate of 71 percent
when their parents attended school.

22 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy

Planning Board Draft
housing density and obesity If the opportunity is presented and services are provided along the
Housing density in Europe is three times greater than the USA while street, people will choose a healthier way to move through the built
the level of obesity there is 1/3 of what it is in this country. Several environment. Residents should be provided these amenities.
studies have linked suburban growth patterns to increases in
obesity. In sprawling counties, 21 percent of residents are obese as can we be more economically efficient?
compared to 19 percent of residents in compactly developed
counties.
We must be. Higher densities at strategic locations equal greener
connections
growth through increased economies of scale. Less land is
consumed, less infrastructure serves more people, fewer trips are
The statistics are surprising. On average, 86 percent of daily trips
taken by car, safety increases, and more services are provided.
taken by Americans are made in a car. As a result, the average
American only walks about 5,000 steps a day, or just about half what
is recommended to sustain a healthy lifestyle. bigger is cost efficient
For every one percent increase in density (persons per acre)
infrastructure costs decrease by $1.86 per person.
In America only 9.4 percent of daily trips are made on a bicycle or by
walking. The percentage drops to six percent for persons over the
age of 75. Many towns and cities around the country are providing the need for growth
opportunities for residents to walk to services and work.
The County’s assets–top public schools, both legs of the Red Line,
In Montgomery County, the built environment often discourages recreation and cultural opportunities, working farmland, and urban
walking through design that makes it dangerous and unpleasant. and suburban lifestyle choices–are the foundations on which we can
build the future.
Seventy percent of boardings at the Bethesda Metro Station are
people who walk there, demonstrating how smart growth can megaregions
improve transit connections. The County is an important part of the Northeast megaregion.
Researchers have divided the country into 11 such regions based on
diversity/design the interrelationships that exist between population centers.
Recent development in downtown Silver Spring highlights how
design and the diversity of services can result in greater numbers of The growth in the country over the next 25 years far exceeds what
people walking to services, transit, and work. With two grocery happened in the past 25 years. Immigration levels will increase. It is
stores within blocks of each other, and services like dry cleaners, expected that 80 percent of the growth and 70 percent of the new
restaurants, and coffee shops, a lot of people can be seen on the residents will occur within the megaregions (America 2050.org). The
street with shopping bags walking from home to destinations. growth will prompt an unprecedented construction boom.

23 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy

Planning Board Draft
megaregions population growth
 100 million new people in the US by 2040 The 1960’s general plan for the County projected a year 2000
 most of the growth will be through immigration and minority population of 994,894. The actual census total for that year was
population increase 873,341. The estimate for January 2008 is 946,100. So we’re still a
 35 million new residential units (EPA) little behind the old forecast, yet close for a 40 year-old estimate.

population growth by 2030

 County growth – 194,900 new residents, a 21 percent increase
 regional growth – 1.3 million people, a 25 percent increase
 national growth – 67 million people, a 22 percent increase

The D.C. region is within the Northeast megaregion extending from Virginia to Maine. The
region produces 20 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product with 18 percent of the
population and only two percent of the land area (America2050.org).
The average number of persons living in a household in the County has generally been
dropping since a peak in 1960.
Montgomery County will experience pressures from this growth,
especially considering its historical position as a first suburb to
Washington.

24 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy

Planning Board Draft
 The 1962 On Wedges population pyramids
and Corridors plan set
the pattern for growth in
The number of County residents in each age category is expected to
the County. The shift to a larger percentage of the population over 60 years old. The
envisioned nodes have County needs to attract new residents to fill the age groups under
developed, though their
that age.
jobs-housing ratios are
not ideal. The amount of
single-family sprawl was job growth
not anticipated. This Job growth will continue to be strong and is an important
Growth Policy reinforces
the concepts first laid out consideration in growth policy. A key objective of pending master
40 years ago. plans is to improve the jobs-housing balance and to identify how to
bring people and jobs closer together, either shortening commutes
or enabling people to walk or ride transit.
migration trends
From 2002 to 2007, greater domestic out-migration exceeded job growth
foreign immigration with the net loss of 60,500 residents leaving the By 2030, the number of jobs in the County is expected to increase by
County offsetting the entry of 45,100 international immigrants. This 166,200, a 33 percent increase. Regionally the growth is predicted at
trend reversed in 2008 when a consistent gain of 7,100 foreign one million jobs, a 32 percent increase.
immigrants outpaced the sharply reduced net outflow of 5,600
residents due to the recession. The White Flint,
Germantown, and
an aging population Gaithersburg West plans will
The County population is aging. Estimates show an 81 percent help balance jobs and
increase in persons 65 years or older by 2030. To maintain a housing along the I-270
balanced population, the County needs to attract and maintain a Corridor. This map highlights
corresponding increase in residents 25 to 60 years old to fill the loss the changes in job growth
of high income wage earners left as people retire. between 2008 and 2030.

25 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy

Planning Board Draft
Appendix B includes a table that projects the population, housing The coordination of the Growth Policy, master plans, and zoning
and number of jobs to 2030, by Policy Area. For those areas in creates a unified approach to encouraging new development. With
pending master plans, one objective is to improve the jobs to similar incentives such as green building techniques, proximity to
housing ratio. Overall the projections show an improvement over the transit and basic services, and additional affordable housing the
next 20+ years as the ratio moves from 1.41 to 1.52, closer to the costs can be common to the incentives in both the zoning and the
target ratio of 1.6. Growth Policy.

coordinating growth policy, master plans, and recommendations summary

zoning
smart growth criteria
Within a year, the Planning Department will have introduced five
area master plans and three functional plans including the Purple
The 2009 – 2011 Growth Policy, introduces smart growth elements
Line. Three of the master plans are “game changers” of a nature that
to achieve a better balance between capacity and more sustainable
redefine how growth can occur.
development. This is a first step to further work and research into
how this approach can evolve with the next Growth Policy two years
These will be followed within months by another area master plan as
from now.
well as two more functional plans dealing with the environment. All
The proposed smart growth approach is divided into two categories
these efforts embody the approach outlined by this Growth Policy,
– transit and basic services proximity, and urban area boundaries.
sustainable development that matches our current and future needs.
transit and basic services proximity
Strategic infill offers a different set of challenges. In higher density
The Growth Policy must evolve into more than just a capacity
areas, motorists perceive congestion differently, accepting higher
measure. It should promote sustainability through design and
levels as expectations of travel time are not the same. More people
infrastructure. If a project is designed to encourage walking to jobs
shift modes of transit and lifestyles, changing how they go about
or transit, and if it produces less carbon, these factors should be
their daily lives.
considered concurrently with traffic and school capacity.
transit development
Studies have shown that people living within a half mile of transit are
People moving to transit-adjacent development areas are twice as
more likely to commute via transit than car. California has recently
likely not to own a car. (tcrp report 128)
led the nation in mandating higher densities near transit, citing the
positive benefits of more compact growth.
The current rewrite of the zoning ordinance is addressing transit
proximity, green building techniques, and promotion of diverse retail
and services that will bring activities closer together, reducing vmt.
This approach mirrors the recommendations of the Growth Policy.
26 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy
Planning Board Draft
transit proximity minimum criteria
“The most effective strategy to increase ridership is to increase  projects must be mixed use with 50 percent residential uses
development densities in close proximity to transit.” (tcrp report  the project must be built to a minimum of 75 percent of the
128) allowable density to ensure land is developed to a minimum
potential
This Growth Policy includes recommendations for incentives to be  buildings must meet minimum energy efficiency standards,
provided for smart growth development. A revised Alternative different for new (17.5 percent) vs. existing buildings (10.5
Review Procedure is proposed that would allow for projects meeting percent) and/or generate 2.5 percent of their energy cost on site
certain criteria to benefit from either a 100 percent or 50 percent  provide either mpdu’s or workforce housing at rates based on
PAMR offset. The amount would depend upon proximity to either trip mitigation requirements of the overall project
transit, or basic services such as grocery stores, dry cleaners,
community facilities, and restaurants. Once the above criteria are established, a project would then be
assessed under one of the two following categories.
This approach is based on pioneering sustainability initiatives.
 proximity to transit is the cornerstone of new California development within ½ mile of a transit station
legislation to halt sprawl and incentivize development close to Developments within ½ mile of an existing or planned major transit
transit facilities stop or high quality transit corridor, including Metro, MARC, or a
 the LEED for Neighborhoods scoring system grades major bus station, would be eligible for a 100 percent PAMR offset. A
developments that bring sustainability features to neighborhood planned transit stop or corridor must be funded for construction in
development the first four years of the Consolidation Transportation Program or
 LEED for Buildings encourages energy efficiency standards in the Capital Improvement Program.
new development
 the Montgomery County Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit development within ½ mile of ten basic services
requirement and Workforce Housing initiative This category recognizes that not all development in the County will
be near a major transit corridor. Many of the 106 strip malls in the
car ownership and transit proximity County do not qualify. However, they should be redeveloped in a
People living near transit typically own fewer cars, live in smaller more sustainable manner.
houses and take advantage of the transit. (tcrp report 128)
A strip mall on Route 29 could offer amenities that would reduce
To qualify for the 100 percent or 50 percent PAMR offset, any vehicle trips through mixed uses and a minimum of stores that
project would have to meet minimum requirements that support provide services and products that residents and workers use on a
smart growth principles. Appendix N contains additional details and daily basis, or what LEED for New Construction and Major
describes how the offset would apply to a hypothetical project. Renovation defines as “basic services”.

27 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy

Planning Board Draft
Basic services include grocery stores, dry cleaners, fire stations, capacity from commercial to residential development contributes to
medical office, and fitness centers. People who live near these housing affordability and energy efficiency.
services frequently walk to them, reducing car trips. For projects that
qualify, the PAMR requirement would be offset by 50 percent. conclusion – smart growth incentives
The smart growth approach to growth policy combines several
zoning positive elements of important initiatives that are surfacing across
The zoning proposed for White Flint, Kensington, Takoma Park and the country.
other master plan areas, applies similar principles. The base floor  transit proximity
area requirements are set lower than the maximum limit. To achieve  green building technology
the permitted FAR, specific amenities are required.  retail and service diversity
 compact development
The largest amenity is transit proximity, based upon a ¼ mile, ½ mile
or one mile distances from transit. Additional amenities include Encouraging mixed-use projects close to transit and basic services
energy production, green building feature, and proximity to basic will help reduce vehicle trips and promotes the County’s Climate
services. Protection Plan goals.

The new CR Zone (commercial – residential), mirrors the smart recommendations – smart growth initiatives
growth incentive recommended for the new Growth Policy. This 1. Provide a PAMR offset for projects meeting the following criteria:
coordinated approach simplifies the development process and brings  100 percent for projects within ½ mile of a major transit station
predictability as well as incentives for more sustainable or corridor
development.  50 percent for projects within ½ mile of ten basic services.

The impact of this incentive is outlined in development examples The projects must provide:
comparing the current and proposed growth policies included in the  a minimum of 50 percent of the floor area for residential use
executive summary as well as the appendices.  be a minimum of 75 percent of the permitted density under the
zoning ordinance
urban area boundaries  meet energy efficiency standards of 17.5 percent for new
Currently, an Alternative Review Procedure for PAMR is offered to construction and 10.5 percent for renovations or produce 2.5
projects in Metro Station Policy Areas. This Growth Policy includes percent of the annual building energy cost on site
the PAMR offset options as well as expanding the Alternative Review  provide moderately priced dwelling units and workforce housing
Procedures into all urban areas. at a set rate described in appendix N

These changes are intended to encourage mixed use development in

areas that are well-served by transit or by basic services. Moving

28 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy

Planning Board Draft
2. Expand the new Alternative Review Procedure to all Road Code Montgomery County Public School
Urban Areas. These areas are already designated for urban street
design and in most cases already have transit services and basic The school facility payment is
community and retail services. derived from the per-student cost
for new schools, using student
adequate public school facilities generation rates for each school
level by housing type.
current school adequacy thresholds
School adequacy evaluation is based on three factors. In FY2010, residential development in nine school clusters will
 Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) enrollment require a school facility payment to proceed.
projections
 existing capacities of schools
FY2010 School Test
 any additional capacity (additions and new schools) programmed
Results at 110
though the County Council adopted Capital Improvements Percent
Program (CIP)
A residential
The school system evaluates 25 high school clusters each year in the development in any of
these nine school
school test, to measure facility capacity in the coming five years. The clusters will require a
five-year period represents the estimated time for development to School Facility Payment
proceed through the review and construction phases to occupancy. to proceed. Three other
Additional students are counted at occupancy. clusters,
Bethesda/Chevy Chase,
Clarksburg, and Seneca
If a cluster’s projected enrollment exceeds projected capacity, Valley are in moratorium
residential subdivision approvals can be halted or assessed. The and no new residential
developments can occur until funds are programmed to construct additional classroom space.
Growth Policy is used to determine the level of “overcrowding” that
warrants an assessment (school facility payment) or moratorium.
In addition, at all three school levels, if projected enrollment exceeds
Currently, at all three levels--elementary, middle, and high school-- 120 percent of projected program capacity (“borrowing” prohibited),
enrollment must not exceed 105 percent of program capacity. residential subdivisions in the affected cluster will be in moratorium.
Borrowing capacity from adjacent clusters is not permitted. If
projected enrollment at any level exceeds 105 percent of program
capacity, residential subdivisions in the affected cluster will be
required to make a school facility payment.

29 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy

Planning Board Draft
recommended changes to school adequacy thresholds Both LATR and PAMR share certain features.
Capacity deficits of five percent are typically just below the amount  both measure roadway adequacy in terms of congestion; the
that would prompt an MCPS facility adjustment, such as an addition. County’s policy is to allow higher congestion in areas with good
Several school clusters have a projected enrollment slightly over 105 transit service
percent of projected capacity yet more significant deficits are  both consider the forecasted impact of proposed development
required for consideration of CIP programming. including background traffic generated by previously approved,
but as yet unbuilt pipeline development
At 110 percent, the School Facility Payment threshold more closely
aligns with facility programming. For FY2010, of the nine school Both LATR and PAMR require the applicant to mitigate unacceptable
clusters requiring a School Facility Payment, increasing the threshold traffic impacts generated by the development. The Department’s
to 110 percent reduces the number of clusters where a payment is Local Area Transportation Review and Policy Area Mobility Review
required to five. The five remaining clusters have a projected Guidelines, sets out mitigating actions in five categories (trip
enrollment that exceeds forecasted capacity by a range of 112 reduction, transit, non-auto facilities, intersection improvements,
percent to 120 percent. and roadway construction) to satisfy LATR or PAMR guidelines.

recommendations – school capacity LATR/PAMR guidelines

The threshold for application of a school facility payment should be
set at projected enrollment greater than 110 percent of projected Single mitigation
Mitigation Examples of
program capacity at any school level by cluster. Priority PAMR Mechanism LATR Mechanism action
Approach mitigation actions
addresses

transportation APF Peak hour

Vehicle trip caps,
flex-
1 Traffic mitigation Traffic mitigation Both PAMR and
vehicle trip time/telecommute
agreement (TMAg) agreement (TMAg) LATR impacts
reduction programs, shuttle
definition and measurement of transportation adequacy services

The County’s transportation adequacy system requires that new 2 Public transit PAMR impacts
Purchase of Ride-
Service provision Not applicable On bus with 12
development be measured two ways. capacity only
years of operation
 Local Area Transportation Review (LATR) evaluates the level of Non-auto Project Project Both PAMR and Offsite sidewalks
3
congestion forecasted at specific intersections near a facilities implementation implementation LATR impacts and bus shelters

development site Turn lanes, change

4 Intersection Project LATR impacts
 Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR) evaluates the average level improvements
Not applicable
implementation only
of lane use
configurations
of congestion forecasted throughout the neighborhood of a
Project
proposed development implementation PAMR impacts,
5 Roadway link Project
only if site-specific LATR impacts if Roadway widening
improvements implementation
LATR impacts are applicable
addressed

30 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy

Planning Board Draft
LATR conditions are developed based on information submitted by improvements County wide. In short, it tracks the effect of an entire
the applicant (and checked by staff) and vary significantly based on rainstorm.
an application’s type, size, and location. Staff forecasts PAMR
conditions every year to update mitigation requirements and ensure what is policy area mobility review?
a uniform approach for each neighborhood regardless of application PAMR is an area wide assessment of mobility that considers how
type, size, or location. much delay motorists experience during rush hour and how
Across the Country, most jurisdictions require a site-specific competitive transit service is as compared to the automobile.
transportation test like LATR; very few use an area wide test like
PAMR. PAMR uses Level of Service (LOS) grades like those in school: A is
best and F is worst. One important difference is that while LOS A
the local test – local area transportation review provides the best service for each customer, the most efficient use of
LATR examines pipeline developments within a half-mile of an resources to move people and goods on roadways occurs at LOS E,
application. These projects will likely have the greatest impact on when roads are well used (but not gridlocked), even though all
local intersections. However, approved projects several miles away customers experience some delay.
may each also generate small amounts of traffic through the same
intersections, and traffic flows may be affected by roadway Requirements for area wide arterial LOS and transit LOS reflect
improvements outside the immediate area. Tracking these minor but County policy that transportation mobility should be multimodal.
cumulative impacts requires a travel demand model. Areas with better transit service are not as reliant on auto travel;
consequently more congestion can be accepted as transit LOS
The County’s policy allows more congestion in Metro Station Policy improves.
Areas and these areas have robust street grids. So LATR has not
generally been a limiting factor in encouraging smart growth near LOS grades are given to each of the 21 PAMR policy areas by
transit. measuring current and forecasted conditions and by considering
approved development and roadway and transit improvements.
the area wide test – policy area mobility review
Assessing a development’s traffic impacts can be thought of as PAMR mitigation requirements for all development in a policy area
looking at the ripples generated by a raindrop falling into a pond; the are based on the area’s forecasted travel conditions and the LOS
larger the drop, the bigger the ripple. As the ripple moves outward, it standards. PAMR mitigation techniques include trip reduction
gets smaller until it is no longer noticeable. If two drops fall into the agreements and construction of off-site improvements like streets,
pond simultaneously, they generate overlapping ripples. sidewalks, or transit service.

PAMR evaluates the cumulative effect of approved and anticipated Trip reduction strategies and provision of non-auto facilities count
development and of programmed transportation system towards both LATR and PAMR mitigation.

31 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy

Planning Board Draft
impact of PAMR on smart growth
Element Concern Proposed Changes
The current definition of PAMR is criticized by many constituents as
being insensitive to smart growth elements such as location and mix PAMR applies to all development, even in Smart Growth criteria provide an

Location
Metro Station Policy Areas, because any exemption process for
of uses. Development applicants are concerned that uniform PAMR development will generate traffic that development applications within
criteria penalize smart growth and that mitigation proposals are impacts adjacent communities. ½ mile of transit or clusters of
unpredictable. Residents are concerned that mobility issues along basic services .
roadway segments are not adequately examined in the development Trip generation rates do not adequately New trip generation rates based

Mixed-Use
of average area wide conditions and that mitigation proposals are reflect development that blends on household survey data
commercial and residential uses or that available for the County’s urban
often not relevant to a development’s impacts.
offers basic services within walking areas.
distance.
PAMR concerns and recommendations Smart Growth criteria include a
Seven types of changes to PAMR are recommended, ranging from 50% minimum residential
component.
the smart growth criteria changes previously described to
administrative changes. These proposals are summarized in the table Alternative review procedures
below and additional information is contained in appendices K, M, available in all urban areas, not
just Metro Station Policy Areas.
and N. The level of desired mobility for car travel Revise PAMR congestion

Travel
Expectations
in most suburban and urban areas is standards to require LOS A
recommendations – transportation adequacy higher than the level of mobility that is arterial service where transit is at
practical to provide. The most efficient use LOS F and allow arterial
1. Allow PAMR requirements to balance arterial and transit of transportation infrastructure is a system conditions to degrade to LOS E if
mobility throughout los spectrum. where all users experience some delays. transit is LOS B.
2. Allow PAMR requirements to be satisfied in urban areas if PAMR averages congested conditions An alternative review procedure

Averaging of Conditions
specific adjacent roadways serving a site meet speed standards. across many arterial roadways and may for development in urban areas
not reflect severe conditions on individual will allow PAMR mitigation
3. Revise acceptable facility types and define $11,000 per vehicle streets. through analysis of travel times
trip as the common variable. on specific, affected arterial
4. Allow transfer of apf rights into an urban area from an adjacent PAMR does not reflect the potential of roadways in adjacent
transportation systems management communities.
“parent” policy area. (traffic signals that optimize flow) to
5. In white flint, replace LATR and PAMR with a specific improve congestion.
implementation entity as recommended in the master plan, and The current PAMR mitigation process Revise non-auto facility
mitigation
Predictability and
relevance in impact

requires a burdensome amount of mitigation criteria to define

cap the number of long term parking spaces.
interagency coordination. Some mitigating impacts based on
suggested mitigation facilities, such as $11,000 per vehicle trip.
bus shelters, are not approvable. Values
of allowed mitigation yield irrelevant
solutions, such as an over-reliance on
handicap ramps.

32 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy

Planning Board Draft
 site specific arterial mobility

In urban areas, an applicant could satisfy PAMR requirements if the mobility conditions on
specific arterials that will see site-generated traffic are found to operate acceptably

Trip Credit vs Congestion Standard

Non-Automobile Transportation Facility
1350-1500 1550-1600 1800

100 linear feet of five-foot wide sidewalk 0.5 0.75 1.0

PAMR mobility standards
100 linear feet of eight-foot wide bike path 0.5 0.75 1.0
Each policy area is scored according to its relative transit mobility and relative arterial mobility.
The performance standards are multimodal so that areas with better transit can allow higher Curb Extension/Pedestrian Refuge Island/Handicap
2.0 3.0 4.0
Ramp
levels of roadway delay. PAMR requires mitigation for policy areas that do not have acceptable
mobility performance for both transit and arterials. The proposed definition of adequacy would Accessible or Countdown Pedestrian Signals/
1.0 2.0 3.0
result in about half the County being considered adequate and the other half requiring PAMR Intersection
mitigation. Bus Shelter 5.0 7.5 10.0

“Super” Bus Shelter 10.0 15.0 20.0

.
Bus Bench with Pad 0.5 0.75 1.0

Information Kiosk 1.5 3.0 4.5

non-auto facilities Bike Locker (set of eight) 2.0 3.0 4.0

Real-Time Transit Information Sign 10.0 15.0 20.0

The current chart of non-auto facilities shown here should be revised to allow a greater range
of mitigation types, but mitigation requirements should be customized to the application and Static Transit Information Sign 0.25 0.4 0.5
based on a cost of $11,000 per vehicle trip.
Maximum Trip Credits 60 90 120

33 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy

Planning Board Draft
revision to the transportation impact tax These Urban Areas should be taxed to reflect the lower vmt’s,
In the past, the Planning Board has recommended structuring the reducing the per capita tax for new units, similar to the lower rates
transportation impact tax by land use and geographic location in the available in Metro Station Policy Areas.
County. The intent was to levy a tax to match a development’s
average impact on the transportation system with lower rates in Household travel survey
effect for uses or locations that generate fewer vehicle trips. Households in MWCOG activity centers generated 19.6 vmt per day,
compared to 29.3 VMT per day generated by households outside of
The proposed 2007 rates were in some cases higher than prior tax the activity centers.
rates. The County Council chose not to implement the higher rates
but did modify the rates to reflect a proportion of impact, if not the recommendations – transportation impact tax
total amount To adopt rates for residential development based on MWCOG
household travel survey findings so that the rates in Urban Areas are
The rates were in some cases higher than prior tax rates, and Council set at two-thirds the 2007-2009 general residential rate.
chose to not implement the higher VMT based rates but did modify
the rates to reflect a proportion of impact, if not the total amount.

The transportation impact tax rate should reflect geographic location

and be consistent with other policies that reflect a proximity to
transit and basic services. Also, the housing schedule for the
transportation impact tax should include a new category for housing
in urban areas (other than Metro Station Policy Areas).

The MWCOG Travel Survey conducted in 2007 and 2008 found that
housing close to regional activity centers generated both fewer trips-
per-household and fewer vmt’s, reflecting higher non-automobile
use and the proximity of jobs and services found in mixed-use
clusters. Data from the survey shows a vmt rate of approximately
two-thirds that of a residence located outside of an activity cluster.
Therefore, rates proposed are calculated as two-thirds that of the
2007-2009 adopted rate for general residential. These rates are
shown in Appendix M.

34 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy

Planning Board Draft
 future studies
The recommendations of the 2009-2011 Growth Policy begin a
discussion that has already started around the country. Communities
are assessing development in terms other than traffic congestion.
Some jurisdictions let the congestion happen, realizing it leads to
smarter growth as development patterns shift to infill and generate
economies of scale for existing infrastructure and better transit
options. Places using this approach find that traffic congestion
naturally adjusts over time as people seek to improve their quality of
life by finding different travel patterns such as walking to work.

1. Planning staff will develop incentives for compact subdivision

development through growth policy, master plans, and zoning.

compact subdivision

New subdivisions in the Pacific

Northwest are compact, sustainable, and
focus on the human environment rather
than the automobile. These homes
provide a wide range of sizes, maintain
their value, have a zero foreclosure rate,
and foster community values.

2. Planning staff will study emerging changes to the LEED for

Neighborhoods classification system to determine those which can
further encourage smart growth and may form recommendations in
the next growth policy.

3. Planning staff should look into the potential of carbon offsets for
mitigating automobile trips. For example, a green roof reduces a
building’s carbon emissions by a specific factor that on an annual
basis could be compared to vehicle emissions for the same period. In
this way, green building features could be provided as a direct offset
35 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy
Planning Board Draft
 conclusion
The County has reached an important juncture in determining future
for the vehicle emissions generated by a development, rather than a
growth. The reality of past growth dictates where growth must
mitigation solution of an intersection.
occur. There is little new land left to develop and future growth must
be in existing urban areas. The question is how growth in our urban
4. County Executive agencies should report on the potential to
areas should be assessed. Strategic, efficient growth is necessary to
create area specific funds, where the PAMR mitigation fees are paid
preserve the qualities that have made the County an attractive place
to help finance transit improvements within that district to meet the
to live and invest.
needs created by redevelopment.
Many jurisdictions across the country are placing high values on
5. Planning staff should work with the County Executive to
creating better places on less land. Montgomery County can do the
determine whether impacts vary for specific land uses by their
same, but it means bringing other factors into the growth equation.
location. For example, does a fast food restaurant in a Metro Station
Those factors include quality public spaces where people can move
Policy Area generate fewer vmts than the same use in a suburban
about in shorter distances combined with greener buildings that can
location? How should that impact be weighted in the growth policy?
improve all aspects of daily life.
6. Planning staff should consider the impact of chain retailers vs.
Growing smarter will enhance the suburban qualities many residents
local retail on vmt and parking demand to determine how it impacts
enjoy. It will also prepare the County for the new residents yet to
vehicle generation rates. In combination with emerging zoning
move here, offering a more sustainable approach to growth. The
policy, considering lower impact fees and mitigation for local
next 20 years of growth can be absorbed on a fraction of the 40,000
retailers can encourage small business growth.
acres the County consumed for the past 20 years.
7. The County Executive should complete the study under
The next 20 years of growth, if carefully managed, will have
recommendation F9 of the 2007 Growth Policy. Emerging mixed-use
considerably less impact on the environmental quality of the County
zoning for pending master plans has raised the issue of linkage fees
than the past 20 years. It does require a shift in thinking, of how
applied to non-residential uses for affordable housing. The County
growth should be assessed.
Executive should engage an economic consultant to determine the
impact of such a linkage fee on the County office and retail market,
to determine if the 2011 growth policy should advance this concept.

36 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy

Planning Board Draft
37 Montgomery County 2009-2011 Growth Policy
Planning Board Draft