Resolution No:

Introduced:
Adopted:

17-1203
January 14, 2014
July 29, 2014

MARCH 26 DRAFT TRACK CHANGES MARKUP OF RESOLUTION 17-1203 FOR TISTWG REVIEW AND
DISCUSSION ON APRIL 1.
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

By: Council President at the request of the Planning Board

SUBJECT:

Amendment to the 2012-2016 Subdivision Staging Policy in association with the White
Oak Science Gateway Master Plan

Background
1.

On November 13, 2012 the County Council approved Resolution 17-601, the 2012-2016
Subdivision Staging Policy.

2.

County Code 33A-15(f) allows either the County Council, County Executive, or the Planning
Board to initiate an amendment to the Subdivision Staging Policy.

3.

On December 20, 2013, in accordance with 33A-15, the Planning Board transmitted to the
County Council its recommendations to amend Resolution 17-601 in association with the White
Oak Science Gateway Master Plan. The Draft Amendment to the Subdivision Staging Policy, as
submitted by the Planning Board, contained supporting and explanatory materials.

4.

On February 4, 2014, the County Council held a public hearing on the Draft Amendment to the
Subdivision Staging Policy.

5.

On July 1, 7, and 16, 2014 the Council's Planning, Housing, and Economic Development
Committee conducted worksessions on the Draft Amendment to the Subdivision Staging Policy.

6.

On July 22, 2014, the Council conducted a worksession on the Draft Amendment to the
Subdivision Staging 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.

-1-

Resolution No. _______

Action
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland, approves the following Resolution:
The 2012-2016 Subdivision Staging Policy is amended as follows:

Applicability; transition
AP1

Effective dates

This resolution to amend the Subdivision Staging Policy takes effect on July 29, 2014, and applies to
any application for a preliminary plan of subdivision filed on or after that date, except that Section S
(Public School Facilities) takes effect on November 15, 2012.
AP2

Transition

For any complete application for subdivision approval submitted before January 1, 2013, the applicant
may meet its requirements under TP Transportation Policy Area Review by either complying with all
applicable requirements of Transportation Policy Area Review under this resolution or all applicable
requirements of Policy Area Mobility Review that were in force immediately before this resolution was
amended in 2012. The applicant must decide, by the later of March 1, 2013, or 30 days after the
Planning Board adopts guidelines to administer Transportation Policy Area Review, which set of
requirements will apply to its application.

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 Subdivision Staging
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
Board 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 Subdivision Staging Policy are based primarily on the
public facilities in the approved FY 2013-18 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) and the Maryland

-2-

Resolution No. _______

Department of Transportation FY 2012-17 Consolidated Transportation Program (CTP). The Council
also reviewed related County and State and Federal 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 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 staged growth limits, which properly relate to the ability of the County to program
and construct facilities necessary to accommodate growth. These growth stages will substantially
advance County land use objectives by providing for coordinated and orderly development.
These guidelines are intended to be used as a means for government to fulfill its responsibility to
provide adequate public facilities. Quadrennial review and oversight, combined with periodic
monitoring by the Planning Board, allows the Council to identify problems and initiate solutions that
will serve to avoid or limit the duration of any imbalance between the construction of new development
and the implementation of transportation improvements in a specific policy area. Further, alternatives
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 Subdivision Staging Policy guidelines, the guidelines in the
adopted master plan or sector plan must be used to the extent that they are more restrictive. The
Subdivision Staging 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 376 areas called traffic
zones. Based on their transportation characteristics, these zones 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. Each policy area is
categorized as Urban, Suburban, or Rural. The policy areas in effect for 2012-2016 are:
Urban: Bethesda CBD Metro Station Policy Area (MSPA), Bethesda-Chevy Chase,
Derwood, Friendship Heights MSPA, Glenmont MSPA, Grosvenor MSPA,
Kensington/Wheaton, North Bethesda, Rockville City, Rockville Town Center, Shady
Grove MSPA, Silver Spring CBD MSPA, Silver Spring/Takoma Park, Twinbrook
MSPA, Wheaton CBD MSPA, White Oak, and White Flint MSPA.
Suburban: Aspen Hill, Clarksburg, Cloverly, Fairland/Colesville, Gaithersburg City,

-3-

Resolution No. _______

Germantown East, Germantown Town Center, Germantown West, Montgomery
Village/Airpark, North Potomac, Olney, Potomac, and R&D Village.
Rural: Damascus, Rural East, and Rural West.
The boundaries of the policy areas are shown on maps 2-34.
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.
TP2

Transportation Policy Area Review (TPAR)

TP2.1

Components of Transportation Policy Area Review

There are two components to Transportation Policy Area Review: Roadway Adequacy and Transit
Adequacy for each policy area.
TP2.1.1

Roadway Adequacy

Roadway adequacy is a measure of congestion on the Countys arterial roadway network. It is based on
the urban street delay level of service in the 2010 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. The travel speed reflects the projected travel demand in
10 years on a transportation network that includes both the existing network of roads and transit
facilities and any road or transit facility funded for completion within 10 years in an approved state,
county, or municipal capital improvements program for which construction is funded to begin within 6
years. 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 a free-flow speed (generally akin to posted speed) of 40 MPH, LOS A conditions exist
when the actual travel speed is at least 34 MPH excluding 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. The
travel speeds are calculated in the peak direction during the PM peak hour, which presented the worst
condition in the analysis.
Roadway Travel Speed and Arterial LOS
If the actual urban street travel speed is
At least 85% of the free-flow speed
At least 70% of the highway speed
At least 50% of the highway speed
At least 40% of the highway speed
At least 30% of the highway speed
Less than 30% of the highway speed

TPAR Arterial LOS is

A
B
C
D
E
F

-4-

Resolution No. _______

The following standards are established to assess the level of roadway adequacy for the purposes of
Transportation Policy Area Review:
Standards of Acceptable Roadway Average Level of Service
Policy Area Categories
Urban
Suburban
Rural

Acceptable Weighted Arterial Level of Service

Borderline between Levels of Service D and E in peak directions
Mid-Level of Service D in peak directions
Borderline between Levels of Service C and D in peak directions

TPAR 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, TPAR indirectly
measures freeway congestion to the extent that travelers choose local roadways over congested
freeways.
TP2.1.2

Transit Adequacy

Transit Adequacy is based on the use of measures of three transit service performance factors for
combined Ride-On and Metrobus service using the arterial roadway network in the County. It is based
on and consistent with the performance factors defined in the 2003 Transit Capacity and Quality of
Service Manual published by the Transportation Research Board. The three transit service performance
factors are: (1) coverage, which indicates how close service is to potential users; (2) peak headway,
which indicates how frequent the scheduled service is so as to be convenient to users; and (3) span of
service, which indicates over what time duration during a typical weekday the service is available to
potential users. Transit Adequacy is determined by comparing bus route coverage, scheduled headways
and actual hours of operation based on 2011 data to established standards, as illustrated in the table
below.
Transit Adequacy Standards
Minimum Coverage
Urban
80%
Suburban
70%
Rural
50%

Maximum Headway
14 minutes
20 minutes
60 minutes

TP2.2

Conducting Transportation Policy Area Review

TP2.2.1

Geographic Areas

Minimum Span
17 hours
14 hours
4 hours

In conducting Transportation Policy Area Reviews, each Metro station policy area 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;

-5-

Resolution No. _______

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 areas are treated as a single
policy area.

The Germantown Town Center and Germantown West policy areas 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 policy area.
The Rural West policy area consists of all area west of I-270 that is not located in another policy area.
Any proposed development in a Metro Station policy area is exempt from the transit adequacy test. Any
proposed development in the Rural East or Rural West policy area is exempt from the roadway and
transit adequacy tests.
Any proposed development located in the White Flint Metro Station policy area is exempt from
Transportation Policy Area Review if that development, as a condition of approval of a preliminary plan
of subdivision, is required to provide substantial funds to the Special Tax District created to finance
transportation improvements for that Policy Area. However, the traffic impact of any development in
that policy area must be considered in any Transportation Policy Area Review calculation for any
development that is not exempt under this paragraph where that impact would otherwise be considered.
TP2.2.2

Determination of Adequacy

Each even-numbered year, not later than July 1, the Planning Board must evaluate roadway and transit
adequacy for each policy area. At any time between these assessments, the Planning Board may revise
its evaluation to reflect a material change in a state, county, or municipal capital improvements program.
If the Planning Board revises its measure of adequacy during a fiscal year because of a material change
in transportation capacity, that revision must be used during the rest of that fiscal year in reviewing
subdivision applications.
Using a transportation planning model, the Planning staff must compute the relationship between the
programmed set of transportation facilities and the forecast growth in households and employment,
using the Cooperative Regional Forecast. The traffic model tests this forecast growth for its traffic
impact, comparing the resulting directional traffic volume, link speed, and distribution to the roadway
level of service standard for each policy area. Any policy area that does not achieve the level of service
standards specified in TP2.1.1 is inadequate for roadways. Any policy area that is inadequate for
roadways, for transit, or for both is inadequate for transportation.
An applicant for a preliminary plan of subdivision need not take any action under Transportation Policy
Area Review if the proposed development will generate 3 or fewer peak-hour trips.

-6-

Resolution No. _______

The Planning Board may adopt Transportation Policy Area Review guidelines and other technical
materials to further specify standards and procedures for its adoption of findings of policy area adequacy
or inadequacy.
The transportation planning model considers all forecast development and all eligible programmed
transportation CIP projects. For these purposes, forecast development" includes all households and
employment forecast by the Cooperative Regional Forecast. "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 10
years of the applicable program and for which construction is funded to begin within 6 years.
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
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 10 years of the County or State capital
improvements program and for which construction is funded to begin within 6 years.
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.
TP3

Imposition of Transportation Mitigation Payment

If projected transportation capacity in a policy area is not adequate, the Planning Board may approve a
subdivision in that area if the applicant commits to either: (1) fully mitigate the incremental traffic
impact of the subdivision by adding capacity or implementing a trip reduction program; or (2) pay a
Transportation Mitigation Payment as provided in County law.
If an MSPA is located in an Urban area that does not meet the Roadway Test standard, the
Transportation Mitigation Payment is equal to 25% of the MSPA transportation impact tax for that
subdivision. If any other policy area does not meet either the Roadway Test or Transit Test standard, the
Transportation Mitigation Payment is equal to 25% of the General District transportation impact tax for
that subdivision. If any other policy area that is not otherwise exempt does not meet both the Roadway
Test and Transit Test standards, the Transportation Mitigation Payment is equal to 50% of the General
District transportation impact tax for that subdivision.
Table 1 shows the adequacy status for each policy area from January 1, 2013 - July 1, 2014.
TP4

Development District 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).

-7-

Resolution No. _______

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 Board an application
for provisional adequate public facilities approval for the entire district. In addition to explaining how
each development located in the district will comply with all applicable zoning and subdivision
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-year 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. The
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 prepare 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.

-8-

Resolution No. _______

TP4.3

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 any facility
capacity deficits exist, the County Executive must prepare a list of infrastructure needed to
maintain public facility adequacy.
Planning Board Approval

The Board may conditionally approve the PAPF application if it will meet all of the requirements of the
APFO and Subdivision Staging 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 until needed public facilities are available to be
"counted," or by another similar 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 first 6 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 years 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

-9-

Resolution No. _______

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
Subdivision Staging Policy, and any other requirement to provide infrastructure which the County
adopts within 12 years after the district is created.
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
vehicular traffic congestion is permitted in policy areas with greater transit accessibility and usage.
Table 2 shows the intersection level of service standards by policy area. Local Area Transportation
Review must at all times be consistent with the standards and staging mechanisms of adopted master and
sector plans.
Local area transportation review for each mode of travel must be completed for any subdivision that
would generate 30 or more a significant number of peak-hour automobile trips by that mode. For any
subdivision that would generate 30-49 peak-hour vehicle trips, the Planning Board after receiving a
traffic study must require that either:
Formatted: Space Before:

all LATR requirements are met; or

numbering

the applicant must make an additional payment to the County equal to 50% of the applicable
transportation impact tax before it receives any building permit in the subdivision.
In administering Local Area Transportation Review for any project that would generate 50 a significant
number of or more peak hour vehicle trips by any mode, the Planning Board must not approve a
subdivision if it finds that unacceptable peak hour congestion levelstravel conditions 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 to 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.

- 10 -

0 pt, No bullets or

Resolution No. _______

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 5 or fewer additional peak hour
trips.
For Local Area Transportation Review purposes, the programmed transportation projects to be
considered are those fully funded for construction in the first 6 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.
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. , An intersection only needs to be examined if the peak-hour site-generated traffic is greater than
1% of the total intersection existing peak-hour traffic and the peak-hour site generated traffic entering
the intersection is greater than or equal to 5% of the total site-generated traffic. unless tThe Planning
Board may also affirmatively finds that special circumstances warrant a more limited study.

Maximum Peak-Hour Trips Generated

< 250
250 749
750 1,249
1,250 1,750
1,750-2,249
2,250 2749
>2,750

Minimum Signalized Intersections

in Each Direction
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

At the Planning Boards 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.

- 11 -

Resolution No. _______

The Planning Board has adopted guidelines to administer Local Area Transportation Review. To 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.
The Planning Board may adopt administrative guidelines that allow use of Highway Capacity Manual
2010 methodologies and standards for "delay" and queuing analysis at intersections operating at or
above a 1600 Critical Lane Volume threshold to determine the level of intersection congestion.
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, bicycle, and transit system travel, the Planning Board may
adopt administrative guidelines requiring construction of off-site sidewalk, bicycle, or transit system
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 both 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 Boards LATR and TPAR Guidelines must identify
applicable facilities in terms of actions that can be given trip 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 quadrennial Subdivision Staging 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 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 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 an intersection
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.
If an approved subdivision already has constructed or participated in the construction of off site
improvements to accommodate its peak hour trips, based on the LATR requirements the Board imposed
when it approved a preliminary subdivision plan, and if the subdivision later converts one or more
approved uses or reduces its size so that the subdivision generates fewer peak hour trips than estimated
when the Board imposed the LATR requirements, the trip mitigation agreement must reduce the
subdivisions peak hour trip mitigation requirement by one trip for each peak hour trip that the

- 12 -

Resolution No. _______

subdivision would no longer generate. If the conversion of all or part of a subdivision from one use to
another would cause a different trip distribution or would place new or different burdens on one or more
intersections, and if the subdivision is otherwise required to do so, the subdivision must construct or
contribute to improvements specified by the Board to mitigate that result.
TL2 Metro Station Policy Area LATR Standards
In each Metro Station Policy Area, the Planning Board, in consultation with the Department of
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 area.
Any proposed development located in the White Flint Metro Station Policy Area is exempt from Local
Area Transportation Review if the development will be required to provide substantial funds to the
Special Tax District created to finance master-planned public improvements in that Policy Area.
However, the traffic impact of any development in that Policy Area must be considered in any Local
Area Transportation Review calculation for any development elsewhere where it would otherwise be
considered.
TL3

Potomac LATR Standards

In the Potomac Policy Area, only the areas contributing traffic to the following intersections must arebe
subject to a finding of inadequacy under 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 Boulevard 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 Boulevard; (i) River Road at Piney Meetinghouse Road; (j) River Road at Falls Road; (k) Falls
Road at Democracy Boulevard; and (l) River Road at Seven Locks Road. Applicants with site
development that impact other intersections in the Potomac Policy Area are responsible for examining
their impact and identifying potential improvements, but are not subject to any finding of inadequacy
nor are they required to take any action under LATR to implement the identified improvements.
TL4

Unique Policy Area Issues

TL4.1

Silver Spring CBD Policy Area and Transportation Management District

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

- 13 -

Resolution No. _______

the adopted level of service standards shown in Table 2 unless the Planning Board finds that
the impact of improving the intersection is more burdensome than the increased congestion.
The Planning Board and the Department of 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
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% 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.
TL4.2.

North Bethesda TMD

In the North Bethesda Transportation Management District, the goal is 39% non-driver mode share for
workers in the peak hour.
TL4.3

Bethesda TMD

- 14 -

Resolution No. _______

In the Bethesda Transportation Management District, the goal is 37% non-driver mode share for
workers.
TL4.4

Friendship Heights TMD

In the Friendship Heights Transportation Management District, the goal is 39% non-driver mode share
for workers.
TL4.5

Greater Shady Grove TMD

In the Shady Grove Policy Area, the goal is a transit ridership goal of 35% for residents in the Shady
Grove Policy Area, 25% for residents elsewhere in the Sector Plan, and 12.5% for employees of office
development traveling to work.
Each development that receives preliminary plan approval in the Shady Grove Metro Station Policy
Area and generates at least 100 additional peak-hour vehicle trips, other than pass-by trips, must enter
into a Traffic Mitigation Agreement (TMAg). The trip mitigation requirement for this Agreement is
50% of the residential-related vehicle trips and 65% of the non-residential-related vehicle trips that
would otherwise be expected, based on countywide trip generation rates before any applicable
deduction, such as proximity to a Metrorail station. The breakdown in the reduction of trips should be
identified in the Agreement. County-owned property in the Shady Grove Policy Area must enter into a
TMAg on all new development or redevelopment, with no deduction of existing trips.
TL4.6

Great Seneca Science Corridor Master Plan

In the Great Seneca Science Corridor, an 18% non-auto driver mode share (NADMS) must be attained
before Stage 2 begins, a 23% NADMS must be attained before Stage 3 begins, and a 28% NADMS must
be attained before Stage 4 begins.
TL4.7

White Oak Policy Area

In the White Oak Policy Area the non-auto driver mode share (NADMS) goal for all new development,
based on the areas future transit service (assuming bus rapid transit) and connectivity opportunities, is
25% in the White Oak Center and Hillandale Center, and is 30% in the Life Sciences/FDA Village
Center.
(a) The Board may approve a subdivision in the White Oak Policy Area conditioned on the applicantFormatted: Numbered + Level: 1 +
Style: a, b, c, + Start at: 1 +
paying a fee to the County commensurate with the applicants proportion of the cost of a WhiteNumbering
Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent
Oak Local Area Transportation Improvement Program, including the costs of design, landat: 0.5"
acquisition, construction, site improvements, and utility relocation. The proportion is based on a
subdivisions share of peak-hour vehicle trips generated by all master-planned development in
the White Oak Policy Area approved after October 7, 2014.
(b) The components of the White Oak Local Area Transportation Improvement Program and the fee
per peak-hour vehicle trip will be established by Council resolution, after a public hearing. The
Council may amend the Program and the fee at any time, after a public hearing.

- 15 -

Resolution No. _______

(c) The fee must be paid at a time and manner consistent with Transportation Mitigation Payments
as prescribed in Section 52-59(d) of the Montgomery County Code.
(d) The Department of Finance must retain funds collected under this Section in an account to be
appropriated for transportation improvements that result in added transportation capacity serving
the White Oak Policy Area.
TL5

Protected Intersections

Several Metro Station Policy Areas and other business districts are centered on the intersection between Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line:
two Major Highways and served by a robust grid of local business streets that help disperse local traffic.
In these locations, traffic assignment is often more dynamic than facilitated by LATR procedures, the
addition of vehicular capacity often degrades pedestrian quality of service, and the development of
context-sensitive multimodal solutions is best achieved outside the development review arena with a
broader consideration of travel trends. These locations, designated Protected Intersections, include the
following: (a) Georgia Avenue and Colesville Road, (b) Wisconsin Avenue and East West Highway /
Montgomery Lane, (c) (other locations TBD). Applicants with site development that impact these
intersections are responsible for examining their impact and identifying potential improvements, but are
not subject to any finding of inadequacy nor are they required to take any action under LATR to
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
implement the identified improvements.

TA

Alternative Review Procedures

TA1

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 Transportation Policy Area Review or TL Local Area Transportation
Review if the applicant agrees in a contract with the Planning Board and the County Department of
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 vehicle
trips or vehicle miles of travel (VMT) attributable to the subdivision, either by reducing trips
or VMT from the subdivision itself or from other occupants of that policy area, and provide a
surety document to ensure that the reduction of trips in fact takes place;

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
group of policy areas including that policy area) to meet the mode share 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.

- 16 -

0"

Resolution No. _______

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.
TA3

Automobile related uses in the Cherry Hill Employment Area

For any property located in the Cherry Hill Employment Area with automobile repair, service,
sales, parking, storage, or related office uses:
TP Transportation Policy Area Review and TL Local Transportation Review are not
required.
This provision applies to any application for a preliminary plan of subdivision, site plan,
or building permit approved before July 26, 2016.

TA4

Public Facility Project

An applicant for a development which will be built solely as a public facility (such as a school,
firehouse, police station, or library) need not take any action under TP Transportation Policy Area
Review or TL Local Area Transportation Review when it undergoes a mandatory referral review by
the Planning Board.
TA5

Affordable Housing

The provision of affordable housing in the County is crucial to providing long lasting reductions to
regional congestion. Long distance trips affect the Countys traffic in many parts of our community.
The provision of affordable housing is a fundamental element of the County's General Plan and part of
the Countys economic development strategy. All trips generated by any moderately priced dwelling
unit (MPDU) and any other low- and moderate-income housing which is exempt from paying a
development impact tax must also be exempt from any TPAR payment.
TA6

Very Low VMT

The reduction of vehicle miles of travel (VMT) is an integral element of the Countys transportation
demand management strategy, incorporating both reduced reliance on vehicle trips and facilitating
options for shorter-length trips for those trips that are made by private vehicles. The An applicant for
subdivision that can be shown to reduce areawide VMT by its development characteristics, as defined in
published Planning Board Guidelines need take no action under LATR, TPAR, or transportation impact
tax. An applicant for a subdivision located entirely within a Metro Station Policy Area that can perform

- 17 -

Resolution No. _______

Transportation Demand Management actions to reduce peak period areawide VMT by 50% of the
amount that would otherwise be generated may apply for Alternative Review Procedure TA1 above.

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.
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 boundaries.
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 year, 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 years. If at any time during a fiscal year the County Council notifies
the Planning Board of any material change in the Montgomery County Public Schools Capital
Improvements Program, the Planning Board may revise its evaluation to reflect that change.
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 utilization 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%
utilization, the Board must not approve any residential subdivision in that cluster during the next fiscal
year. If the Planning Board revises its measure of utilization during fiscal year 2013 because of a
material change in projected school capacity, that revision must be used during the rest of that fiscal year
in reviewing residential subdivisions.
Table 3 shows the result of this test for July 1, 2012, to July 1, 2013. 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

- 18 -

Resolution No. _______

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.
S5

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 utilization 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% utilization but not exceed 120% utilization, 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. If the Planning Board revises its measure of utilization during fiscal year 2013 because of a
material change in projected school capacity, that revision must be used during the rest of that fiscal year
in reviewing residential subdivisions.
Table 4 shows the result of this test for July 1, 2012, to July 1, 2013. 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.
S6

Senior Housing

If public school capacity is inadequate in any cluster, the Planning Board may nevertheless approve a
subdivision in that cluster without requiring a School Facilities Payment if the subdivision consists
solely of housing and related facilities for elderly or handicapped persons or housing units located in the
age-restricted section of a planned retirement community.
S7

De Minimis Development

If public school capacity in inadequate in any cluster, the Planning Board may nevertheless approve a
subdivision in that cluster if the subdivision consists of no more than 3 housing units and the applicant
commits to pay a School Facilities Payment as otherwise required before receiving a building permit for
any building in that subdivision.
S8

Development District Participants

The Planning Board may require any development district for which it approves a provisional adequate
public facilities approval (PAPF) to produce or contribute to infrastructure improvements needed to
address inadequate school capacity.
S9

Allocation of Staging Ceiling to Preliminary Plans of Subdivision

The Planning Board must allocate available staging ceiling capacity in a high school cluster based on the
queue date of an application for preliminary plan of subdivision approval.

- 19 -

Resolution No. _______

S9.1

Assignment of queue date

The queue date of a preliminary plan of subdivision is the date:

a complete application is filed with the Planning Board; or
6 months after the prior queue date if the prior queue date expires under S9.4.

S9.2

Calculation of available staging ceiling capacity

The Planning Board must determine whether adequate staging ceiling capacity is available for a project
by subtracting the capacity required by projects with earlier queue dates from the remaining capacity on
Table 3 as updated periodically. Based on this calculation, the Planning Board may:
approve a project for which there is sufficient capacity;
approve part of a project for which there is sufficient capacity, leaving the remainder of the
project in the queue until additional capacity becomes available;
deny an application for a project for which there is insufficient capacity; or
defer approval of a project and leave the project in the queue until sufficient capacity becomes
available for all or part of the project. If insufficient capacity is available, the Board must not
schedule a hearing on the application unless the applicant requests one.
If sufficient capacity is available for a project based on the queue date, the Planning Board must not
deny an application based on pipeline (but not staging ceiling) changes while the queue date is in effect.
S9.3

Applicability of School Facilities Payment

The Planning Board must determine whether a project is required to pay a School Facilities Payment by
subtracting the capacity required by projects with earlier queue dates from the remaining capacity on
Table 4 as updated periodically. Based on this calculation, the Planning Board may:
approve a project for which there is sufficient capacity;
approve part of a project for which there is sufficient capacity, requiring the remainder of the
project to pay the applicable School Facilities Payment until additional capacity becomes
available; or
defer approval of a project and leave the project in the queue until sufficient capacity becomes
available for all or part of the project. If insufficient capacity is available, the Board must not
schedule a hearing on the application unless the applicant requests one.
If a project must pay a School Facilities Payment, the Planning Board must not deny an application
based on pipeline (but not staging ceiling) changes while the Payment requirement is in effect.
S9.4

Expiration of queue date

A queue date for an application for preliminary plan of subdivision approval expires:
6 months after the queue date if sufficient staging ceiling capacity was available for the entire
project on the queue date and the Planning Board has not approved the application or granted an
extension of the queue date; or

- 20 -

Resolution No. _______

6 months after sufficient capacity becomes available for the entire project.

The Planning Board may grant one or more 6-month extensions of a queue date if the applicant
demonstrates that a queue date expired or will expire because of governmental delay beyond the
applicant's control.

Guidelines for Water and Sewerage Facilities

In accordance with the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, applications must be considered
adequately served by water and sewerage if the subdivision is located in an area in which water and
sewer service is presently available, is under construction, is designated by the County Council for
extension of service within the first two years of a current approved Comprehensive Water Supply and
Sewerage Systems Plan (i.e., categories 1-3), or if the applicant either provides a community water
and/or sewerage system or meets Department of Permitting Services requirements for septic and/or well
systems, as outlined in the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. These requirements are determined
either by reference to the Water and Sewerage Plan, adopted by the Council, or by obtaining a
satisfactory percolation test from the Department of Permitting Services.
Applications must only be accepted for further Planning staff and Board consideration if they present
evidence of meeting the appropriate requirements as described above.

Guidelines for Police, Fire and Health Services

The Planning Board and staff must consider the programmed services to be adequate for facilities such
as police stations, firehouses, and health clinics unless there is evidence that a local area problem will be
generated. Such a problem is one which cannot be overcome within the context of the approved Capital
Improvements Program and operating budgets of the relevant agencies. Where such evidence exists,
either through agency response to the Subdivision Review committee clearinghouse, or through public
commentary or Planning staff consideration, a Local Area Review must be undertaken. The Board must
seek a written opinion from the relevant agency, and require, if necessary, additional data from the
applicant, to facilitate the completion of the Planning staff recommendation within the statutory time
frame for Planning Board action. In performing this Local Area Review, the facility capacity at the end
of the sixth year of the approved CIP must be compared to the demand generated by the "most probable"
forecast for the same year prepared by the Planning Department.

Guidelines for Resubdivisions

An application to amend a previously approved preliminary plan of subdivision does not require a new
test for adequacy of public facilities if:
Revisions to a preliminary plan have not been recorded, the preliminary plan has not expired,
and the number of trips which will be produced by the revised plan is not greater than the
number of trips produced by the original plan.

- 21 -

Resolution No. _______

Resubdivision of a recorded lot involves the sale or exchange of parcels of land (not to exceed a
total of 2,000 square feet or one percent of the combined area, whichever is greater) between
owners of adjoining properties to make small adjustments in boundaries.
Resubdivision of a recorded lot involves more than 2,000 square feet or one percent of the lot
area and the number of trips which will be produced by the revised plan is not greater than the
number of trips produced by the original plan.

Timely Adequate Public Facilities Determination and Local Area Transportation Review under
Chapter 8.
APF1

General.

Except as otherwise provided by law, an adequate public facilities determination or local area
transportation review conducted under Article IV of Chapter 8 must use the standards and criteria
applicable under this Resolution when evaluating the adequacy of public facilities to serve the proposed
development.
APF2

Traffic Mitigation Goals.

Any proposed development that is subject to requirements for a traffic mitigation agreement under
Article IV of Chapter 8 and 42A-9A of the County Code must meet the traffic mitigation goals
specified in paragraphs (1) or (4), as appropriate.
(1)

Subject to paragraph (2), the portion of peak-period non-auto driver trips by employees of a
proposed development must be at least the following percentage greater than the prevailing
non-auto driver mode share of comparable nearby land use:
In Policy Areas With
LATR CLV Standard of
1800 and 1600
1550
1500
1475 and 1450

Required Percentage Greater Than

Prevailing Non-Auto driver Mode Share
100%
80%
60%
40%

LATR CLV standards for each policy area are shown on Table 2.
(2)

The portion of peak-period non-auto driver trips by employees calculated under paragraph
(1) must not be less than 15% nor higher than 55%.

(3)

The applicant for a proposed development in a policy area specified under paragraph (1) is
responsible for reviewing existing studies of non-auto driver mode share; conducting new
studies, as necessary, of non-auto driver mode share; and identifying the prevailing base nonauto driver mode share of comparable land uses within the area identified for the traffic
study. Comparable land uses are improved sites within the area identified for the traffic
study for the proposed development that have similar existing land use and trip generation

- 22 -

Resolution No. _______

characteristics. As with other aspects of the traffic study required by Article IV of Chapter 8,
selection of the comparable studies and land uses to be analyzed and determination of the
prevailing base non-auto driver mode share are subject to review by the Planning Department
and approval by the Department of Transportation.
(4)

Proposed development in the Silver Spring CBD must meet the commuting goals specified
under TL4.

(5)

In accordance with County Code 42A-9A, the applicant must enter into an agreement with
the Director of the Department of Transportation before a building permit is issued. The
agreement may include a schedule for full compliance with the traffic mitigation goals. It
must provide appropriate enforcement mechanisms for compliance.

(6)

As provided by law, these goals supersede traffic mitigation goals established under 42A9A(a)(4).

(7)

As noted in paragraph (5), traffic mitigation agreements are used to assure compliance with
reductions in traffic generation from a subdivision, or to achieve non-auto driver mode share
goals specified in approved master or sector plans. The Director of Transportation must
determine whether a security instrument is required to assure completion and continuation of
the elements of a traffic mitigation agreement. When the Director so finds, the Department
must require a security instrument to be attached to an agreement. Each security instrument
must be held by the Department until performance of each element of the agreement has been
satisfied. If the developer or its successor is unable to satisfactorily perform each element of
an agreement as specified therein, the security instrument must be forfeited and the
Department may retain the funds to operate a program to satisfy the agreements goals.

This is a correct copy of Council action.

_________________________
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk of the Council

- 23 -

Resolution No. _______

Table 1- Results of TPAR Test, January 1, 2013-June 30, 2014
Policy Area
Aspen Hill
Bethesda CBD
Bethesda-Chevy Chase
Clarksburg
Cloverly
Damascus
Derwood
Fairland/Colesville
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*
Shady Grove
Silver Spring CBD
Silver Spring/Takoma Park
Twinbrook
Wheaton CBD
White Oak

Adequacy Status
Adequate under Roadway and Transit Tests
Adequate under Roadway Test; exempt from Transit Test
Inadequate under Transit Test
Inadequate under Transit Test
Inadequate under Transit Test
Adequate under Roadway and Transit Tests
Inadequate under Transit Test
Inadequate under Roadway and Transit Tests
Adequate under Roadway Test; exempt from Transit Test
Inadequate under Roadway Test
Inadequate under Transit Test
Inadequate under Transit Test
Inadequate under Transit Test
Adequate under Roadway Test; exempt from Transit Test
Adequate under Roadway Test; exempt from Transit Test
Inadequate under Transit Test
Inadequate under Transit Test
Inadequate under Transit Test
Inadequate under Transit Test
Inadequate under Transit Test
Inadequate under Transit Test
Inadequate under Transit Test
Inadequate under Transit Test
Adequate under Roadway Test; exempt from Transit Test
Adequate under Roadway Test; exempt from Transit Test
Inadequate under Transit Test
Adequate under Roadway Test; exempt from Transit Test
Adequate under Roadway Test; exempt from Transit Test
Inadequate under Roadway and Transit Tests

*Applies to any development that would be located in the policy area but not in the City.
**Under applicable master plans, the Potomac policy area is exempt from the Roadway Test.
The White Flint MSPA and the Rural East and Rural West policy areas are exempt from both the
Roadway and Transit Tests.

- 24 -

Resolution No. _______

Table 2
Local Area Transportation Review Intersection Congestion Standards Critical Lane Volume
and Highway Capacity Manual Volume-to- Capacity Equivalencies
Critical Lane Volume
Congestion Standard
1350
1400
1425

1450

1475

1500
1550
1600

1650
1800

Policy Area
Rural East/ West
Damascus
Clarksburg
Germantown East
Germantown West
Gaithersburg City
Montgomery Village/Airpark
Cloverly
North Potomac
Potomac
Olney
R&D Village
Derwood
Aspen Hill
Fairland/Colesville
Rockville City
North Bethesda
Bethesda/Chevy Chase
Kensington/Wheaton
Silver Spring/Takoma Park
Germantown Town Center
White Oak
Shady Grove
Bethesda CBD
Silver Spring CBD
Wheaton CBD
Friendship Heights CBD
White Flint
Twinbrook
Grosvenor
Glenmont
Shady Grove
Rockville Town Center

- 25 -

HCM volume-to-capacity
equivalent
0.84
0.88
0.89

0.91

0.92

0.94
0.97
1.00

1.03
1.13