COMMUNITY DISCUSSIONS

A SUMMARY REPORT

In Spring 2006, the Department of Planning convened two community

sessions with local and national experts and community leaders to
explore how we can best plan and manage growth in the future. The
guidance gleaned from these sessions is helping the Department to
develop a planning program responsive to the community and
business needs now and in the future.

PREPARED BY

National Center for Smart Growth

University of Maryland
Reid Ewing, Julie Mirvis, Amy Hofstra, and Sarah Cairney

SPONSORS

Montgomery County Department of Planning

The Urban Land Institute
Coalition for Smarter Growth
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I COMMUNITY DISCUSSION: MAY 3, 2006 1

Topic: Planning for Sustainable Communities that Meet

Changing Community Needs

A. Recap 1

B. Summary of Presentations 2

Derick Berlage
Chair, Montgomery County Planning Board
Faroll Hamer
Acting Director, Department of Planning
Len Bogorad
Managing Director, Charles Lesser & Company
Karl Moritz
Chief, Research and Technology Center
Department of Planning
Ralph Bennett
President, Bennett, Frank, McCarthy Architects
Mike Watkin
Director of Town Planning
Duany, Plater-Zyberk & Compnay
John Carter
Chief, Community-Based Planning Division,
Department of Planning

Summary Q & A 6

II COMMUNITY DISCUSSION: MAY 27, 2006 6

Topic: Key Elements of Planning Policy in the 21st Century

A. Recap 7

B. Summary of Presentations 8

Derick Berlage
Chair, Montgomery County Planning Board
Faroll Hamer
Acting Director, Department of Planning
 Karl Moritz
Chief, Research and Technology Center,
Department of Planning
John Carter, Chief
Community-Based Planning Division
Department of Planning
Chris Nelson
Professor and Director
Urban Affairs and Planning Program, Virginia Tech
Tony Downs
Senior Fellow, Metropolitan Policy, Brookings Institution
Thomas Lavash
Vice President, Economic Research Associates
Reid Ewing
Research Professor, National Center for Smart Growth,
University of Maryland

C. Local Leaders Response 13

Dan Wilhelm
President, Montgomery County Civic Federation
Bryant Foulger
Principal and Vice President, Foulger Pratt
Frankie Blackburn
Executive Director, Impact Silver Spring
Pamela Lindstrom
Civic Activist and Smart Growth Advocate
Richard Parsons
President, Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce
Paul Mahon
Executive Vice President
United Therapeutics Corporation

D. Concluding Remarks 14

Roger Lewis
Washington Post Columnist

Summary Q & A 14
 INVITEE SURVEY
Before the first Community Discussion, the Department of Planning conducted a
small, non-scientific survey of the invitees to explore invitees’ preferences and
values regarding livability of present and future communities. More than 50% of
the invitees responded to the survey.

The following results reflect the respondents’ preferences, and vision for their
communities:

• Respondents showed strong support for a greater variety of uses in their

neighborhood commercial centers and along some commercial corridors.

• Many respondents liked the idea of living in a County that offers well-
planned, mixed use, and pedestrian-friendly communities that provide: a
variety of housing types, a sense of place, and good connections to
amenities, shopping, and jobs.

• Time and convenience of travel to frequent destinations was very important

to respondents. High percentages of respondents strongly supported
priority public investment for the following: 1) improving pedestrian access
and safety, 2) extending transit facilities, and 3) widening key congested
intersections, and rebuilding interchanges at the worst ones.

• Respondents rated quality of schools and natural and open spaces as the
most important followed by: leisure activity and accessibility to parks and
recreation facilities, sense of community, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods
well-connected to shopping and recreational activities, time and
convenience of travel to frequent destinations, and cultural opportunities, in
that order.

• Safety was an important issue among a vast majority of respondents. A

high percentage of respondents rated pedestrian, traffic, and personal
safety to be important.

• The features respondents like most about their neighborhoods were

convenient access and proximity to mass transit, shopping, and jobs; parks
and open spaces; and family-oriented, quiet residential areas.

• The features respondents liked least about their neighborhoods included:

traffic congestion, unsafe roads, lack of “pedestrian friendliness”, poor
street lighting, and distance to services and amenities.

• With a few exceptions, respondents agreed that a variety of housing types

and prices in their neighborhoods is a good thing.
 Creating Thriving and Sustainable Communities
Discussions with the Community

I. Community Discussion, May 3, 2006

Topic: Planning for Sustainable Communities that Meet Changing

Community Needs

The first Community Discussion explored the physical impacts of

demographic trends, changing community needs, evolving lifestyle
preferences, and the opportunities they represent. The challenges, choices,
and trade-offs associated with accommodating change in our communities
through design were discussed from a variety of different perspectives.

A. Recap
Montgomery County is experiencing a new growth dynamic wherein greenfield
development is being supplanted by redevelopment and infill while the County’s
economy continues to boom. In order to achieve the type of growth necessary
for the economic well-being of the region, and the quality-of-life in its
communities, planners intend to focus more on design, explore new techniques
such as Smart Codes in order to promote good growth while protecting existing
neighborhoods and the Agricultural Reserve, and more fully engage the
community inn the planning process. The Montgomery County General Plan, its
vision and planning approaches can all be strengthened so that future growth
better reflects changing community needs and desires.
The County’s planning policies must evolve so that future growth produces more
mixed–use communities where County residents and businesses can thrive in
the realities of the 21st Century. A variety of ideas were advanced regarding how
to manage growth in a way that will fulfill our citizens’ aspirations for well-
planned, architecturally pleasing communities that reflect all the principles of
Smart Growth
Montgomery County planning initiatives will focus on seven areas: agricultural
and rural open spaces, Corridor Cities, Metro Station areas, neighborhoods and
centers, commercial centers, boulevards, and public spaces. To create great
places, Montgomery County needs to align its planning initiatives with a toolbox
of some new planning approaches that will guide future growth “smartly” by: a)
improving coordination and implementation of Master and Sector Plans, b)
revising the Zoning Ordinance and other regulations to foster higher quality
design for all types of places, c) adopting road cross-sections that are context-
sensitive, d) fostering a balance of uses, and, e) creating more opportunities for
meaningful public participation and inter-agency cooperation throughout the
planning and implementation of community plans.

1
The following issues of concern to residents emerged from the Q&A:
• How can citizens get involved and ensure planners really listen?
• Can the county restrict growth?
• Are our expectations for the quality and type of growth reasonable?
• How will we reach the goals in our vision?
• How will we finance needs such as pedestrian space and
affordable housing?
• Will our plans be updated to facilitate coordinated comprehensive
growth strategies?
• Have we identified the right land uses?
• As we redevelop, will we lose things we like such as cul-de-sacs?

B. Summary of Presentations

Derick Berlage, Chair, Montgomery County Planning Board

Montgomery County is approaching a new growth dynamic wherein greenfield
development is being replaced by redevelopment and renewal. Some areas,
such as the Agricultural Reserve, will be protected, and other areas, such as
Metro station areas, will become centers for growth. The County needs to decide
how much growth to accept—how fast—and how it will look. The County needs
to adopt policies that foster the good attributes of density, but not the bad ones.
The County needs to develop expertise in green building. Planners must work
with citizens, acquire new knowledge, and monitor local demographics in order to
promote good growth. In November 2006, planners will make recommendations
to the Planning Board - planning and zoning changes will ensue.

Faroll Hamer, Acting Director, Department of Planning

Montgomery County was once “cutting edge” in terms of its approaches to
planning and zoning. Throughout the 1960s, 70s and 80s, the County
established innovative floating zones, the award-winning MPDU Ordinance, and
the nationally acclaimed Transfer of Development Rights program (TDRs) to
protect the Agricultural Reserve. However, as the County matures and shifts its
planning emphasis to redevelopment and infill, away from the Agricultural
Reserve, new cutting edge approaches must be developed to meet emerging
planning challenges.
Many of the County’s more than 100 commercial shopping centers have become
community “eyesores” with little public amenity space, no community
connectivity, and complete auto-orientation. Determining the future form and
function of these commercial centers will present many challenges to the County.
Can we use some of these commercial center resources to create great
communities that have great architecture? How can we make sure developers
pay their fair share?

2
Future planning will, in part, focus on the form and function of many of these
commercial centers, to better serve community needs and desires. Some of
these centers might be appropriate for mixed-use development that requires
creative design, encourages active street life, and limits center expansion into
existing communities. New planning approaches and tools need to be developed
to meet the challenge of commercial center redevelopment in the future.

Len Bogorad, Managing Director, Charles Lesser & Company

Montgomery County will continue to grow by an estimated 66,000 people
between 2005 and 2010 alone. Between 2005 and 2010, Eisenhowers (born
before 1946) will be migrating out. Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Echo
Boomers are expected to grow by about the same number. The majority of
growth will be in households comprised of married couples without children,
followed by singles, and a fair number of female-headed households. Only one
in fifteen new households in the region will be traditional families, married with
children. The immigrant population will grow.
Housing demand will be affected by these generational shifts, as well as by
immigration and socio-economic changes. The youngest Baby Boomers are
likely to have kids, and value “family friendly” more urban environments. Middle
Boomers/Empty Nesters are looking for locations close to employment,
amenities, and services, second home opportunities, typically outside the region,
and value nature-focused environmentally sensitive communities. The oldest
Boomers are moving into “retirement” or new or part time jobs. The majority will
want to stay in Montgomery County, and are looking for amenities, minimal
maintenance, and opportunities for living in town areas.
The new population will be ethnically diverse and willing to trade square footage
for quality of place and interesting settings. This is good news because the
places these groups will want to live are the places where increases in density
can be accommodated, in urban and infill locations, at high density along transit
lines, and in multifamily buildings. Higher density may be helpful in another
sense. 71% of Montgomery County households earn less than $127,000 a year,
and, thus, are unable to afford the average price of $507,340 for a single-family
house in the County. Apartments and condos may provide an affordable
alternative to single-family housing.

Karl Moritz, Chief, Research and Technology Center, Department of Park

and Planning
In-movers, new County residents within the past five years, are key indicators of
demographic change. Many in-movers to Montgomery County are young, foreign
born, and likely to rent in the face of high housing costs. They also tend to be
well-educated and inclined to use transit. County growth forecasts are not
written in stone. As policies change, the forecasts will change to match. 2003
proposed a lower growth rate, 2005 reiterated interest in managing growth. The
invitee preference survey revealed that people like safe, pedestrian-friendly,

3
mixed-use places such as Bethesda, The Kentlands, Old Town Alexandria,
Takoma Park, and Reston Town Center. In general, they most value natural
areas and open space and good schools, followed by leisure activity/accessibility
to parks and recreation, sense of community, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods
connected to shopping and recreation, time/convenience of travel to frequent
destinations, and cultural opportunities. In general, what they like least about
Montgomery County is heavy traffic, unsafe roads, pedestrian unfriendliness,
poor street lighting, distance to services and amenities, and an abundance of
parking lots.

Ralph Bennett, Session Moderator and President, Bennett, Frank, McCarthy

Architects
This presentation featured dozens of photos of exemplary built features
throughout the county, some good and others bad. It was stated initially that the
audience would not like much of what it saw. There were examples of abruptly
ending sidewalks, monotonous tract housing, McMansions out-of-scale with
neighboring houses, and high-speed roads disrupting neighborhoods. There
were also examples of diverse housing, memorable spaces, and complete
streets from King Farm, Bethesda, Chevy Chase, Silver Spring, and Rockville.
Based on this qualitative assessment, Montgomery County needs more complete
bicycle and pedestrian networks and greater variety of housing stock in both
price and design. Montgomery County should also support small-scale retail and
mixed-use development. Montgomery County should create memorable places
that are quirky and interesting with genuine public space and amenities. “Change
is good” should be the rallying cry.

Mike Watkins, Director of Town Planning, Duany, Plater-Zyberk & Company

There was a time when growth was welcome and municipalities competed for it.
The model of growth changed throughout the 1940s and1950s from walkable
communities to suburban sprawl. There are still examples of smart growth from
the Gulf Coast (as it rebuilds) and elsewhere. Montgomery County has yet to feel
the same sense of urgency to develop right. Smart Codes offer an alternative to
Montgomery County’s current land development codes. They are based on the
Transect, which consists of slices of different human habitat on a rural to urban
continuum. The six-zone transect system—natural, rural, suburban, general
urban, urban center, urban core—is based on the type of development, not use.
For example, a bed and breakfast and large hotel are the same land use, but are
different development types that are suited to different transects.
Smart Codes address everything from building type to road cross-sections to
light fixtures. They give people the chance to determine density, by selecting the
percentage of each zone they would like in their community. The recoding
process begins by protecting open and natural space. Places of beauty are
created by coordinating buildings and streets, enforcing strict design codes, and
teaching the construction trades about how to build quality and character into

4
new buildings. An example from Florida was used to illustrate how developers
taught contractors and their workers to construct architectural details into
buildings. On-site demonstrations showed contractors how to build quality into
their structures with ease. This effort changed their construction methods for
subsequent projects.

John Carter, Chief, Community-Based Planning Division, Department of

Planning
Our vision for future planning is guided by the development pattern outlined in
the General Plan.
The I-270 Corridor is, and will continue to be, the primary area for future
development. The Corridor Cities, strung along the I-270 Corridor, must continue
to compete for employers by offering quality campus style development and
desirable residential communities. Outer tier Metro Station areas, such as Shady
Grove and Wheaton CBD, will provide a myriad of housing and redevelopment
opportunities. Older neighborhood commercial centers at Kensington, Westbard,
and Takoma/Langley still have room for redevelopment. Examples of the mixed-
use that can occur at some older commercial centers are found in the newly
redeveloped Clarksburg Town Center, and in the reshaped Olney Town Center,
Damascus Town Center and the older commercial centers of downtown Silver
Spring and Bethesda.
Major streets have ceased to function as places, generally they function only as
conduits for traffic and opportunities for traffic-related uses. Boulevards and the
commercial centers they connect need to be saved from sprawling commercial
development and restored as desirable residential locations. MD 355 is a priority
for detailed planning study.
Examples of great public spaces in the County are found in the Kentlands, Shady
Grove, Discovery Communications Headquarters, Downtown Bethesda, and
Downtown Silver Spring. Other public spaces need to be enhanced, since they
are the setting for a community’s social and public life. More action needs to be
taken to create great public places in the future: master and sector plans need to
reinvent the I-270 Corridor; commercial zoning regulations need be rewritten to
encourage mixed uses and public amenities; and, the Zoning Ordinance should
follow Smart Code principles and allow mixed-use, design-oriented places with
public space. The Department of Public Works and Transportation has a large
palate of road cross-sections that should be used to better fit road design to land
use context.
We need to work together to achieve road design in the future. We need more
urban design experts to help the community create beautiful places that meet
community needs.
We need public participation tailored to meet the unique needs of the community.
We need to focus our energy on follow-through and implementation of plan
recommendations and the provision of public facilities at the local level.

5
Summary Q&A
During the question and answer period, residents voiced some of their concerns.
• There is concern about lack of meaningful citizen involvement.
Citizens want a say in restricting growth and retaining development
types that they like.
• There is concern that expectations for the quality and type of
growth are unreasonable, given that most of the County is already
built. Many citizens feel that, historically, growth has outstripped
the ability to pay for needs such as pedestrian space and
affordable housing.
• There is general concern over coordination of plans. Two
questions illustrate this point. One resident asked if plans would be
updated to facilitate coordinated comprehensive growth strategies,
such as the enhancement of services before additional
development is approved. Another audience member asked if
receiving zones for TDR would be identified for all farmers
interested in selling development rights.
• Other citizen concerns include: how will development be
coordinated with schools; why is heavy industry near Metro; is it
practical to expect to accommodate growth through
redevelopment; why should condo owners subsidize fees for low
income residents; how can the county keep urban areas green,
avoid other negatives of urbanization; and when will Master and
Sector Plans be updated to facilitate long-range comprehensive
planning strategies.

II. Community Discussion, May 17, 2006

Topic: Key Elements of Planning for the 21st Century

The second Community Discussion provided an opportunity to explore

challenges and choices associated with future growth, change, and
community needs. Issues discussed included: What choices can we
reasonably make regarding future growth? How will we accommodate, plan,
and manage future growth? What has to happen to more fully engage the
community in guiding future planning?

Participants examined how emerging demographics, changing community

needs, and the economic reality of the private market are being successfully
integrated into community planning and project development in Montgomery
County and throughout the country.

6
To set the tone and facilitate the discussion, participants were presented with
three key questions dealing with planning priorities in the future

Question 1: Where should future growth be concentrated?

a. Sections of existing transit served neighborhoods
b. Existing transit served low-rise commercial areas
c. Existing low-rise commercial areas not served by transit
d. Other areas

Question 2: What policies and development controls need to be developed or

changed to assure that new development will add to the quality of life in existing
communities?

Question 3: What innovative ideas should be incorporated into a planning

framework for the future?

A. Recap
The second Community Discussion started where the May 3 discussion ended,
with the reality that the era of greenfield development in Montgomery County is
coming to an end, and most new development will come in the form of infill
development, likely at relatively high densities and close to transit lines.
Growth is inevitable in Montgomery County. The County is projected to be the
second fastest growing in the region, a surprise, given the amount of land
already developed or under conservation easement. Still, the County can
exercise some control over the amount, pace, nature, and location of future
growth. In particular, due to demographic and other changes, and increasing
demand for dense housing, the County can work towards concentrating growth in
urban centers that are transit-served, thereby safeguarding the integrity of
existing neighborhoods and the Agricultural Reserve.
Montgomery County is known nationwide as a leader in growth management. It
was one of the first to implement floating zones and an Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance (APFO) that allows more congestion in urban centers. Its Wedges
and Corridors Plan was groundbreaking, and has been maintained to a
remarkable degree. Its Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program is a
model for the rest of the nation; through TDRs and PDRs (purchase of
development rights), the County has preserved more farmland and open space
on its own than any other county in the United States. Yet, Montgomery County
still lacks the full set of tools required to “smartly” manage growth.
The County has almost entirely single use (Euclidean) zoning districts. It could
follow the lead of other progressive jurisdictions and make mixed-use districts the
rule, single-use the exception. The County has very little in its codes to promote
high quality design; it could improve the appearance and walkability of
development through more specific design guidelines and form-based codes.
Impact fees could be structured to encourage development in designated centers
and discourage development in other areas, as with the County’s existing APFO.

7
The County has no requirements related to street connectivity or block length; it
could better accommodate all modes by adopting such requirements, as
progressive jurisdictions elsewhere have. The County should explore additional
innovative strategies to provide more affordable housing, and greater variety in
housing stock. The County has very limited expertise in green building design,
and few green buildings within its boundaries; it could develop new staff
expertise in this area and incentivize green building.
Montgomery County has made an effort to involve its citizens in planning and
zoning. Nonetheless, there seems to be general agreement among staff,
citizens, and local officials that the community is not as fully engaged in plan
making and implementation processes as they should be. The County needs to
better educate the community about the planning and zoning process and urge
the broadest spectrum of citizens to get involved. The County needs to develop
or hire expertise in the area of conflict resolution. The County needs to master
plan smaller areas so individual citizens can have more say, and community
needs can be met in a more expedited plan-making process. The County needs
to concentrate on identifying shared goals among the public, political leaders,
and private investors.
The following issues of concern to residents emerged from the Q&A:
• How can citizens get involved and ensure planners really listen?
• Can the County keep congestion down while density is going up?
• Who will champion affordable housing?
• How will be pay for infrastructure to accommodate growth?
• How can the County regulate development without being overly
restrictive?

B. Summary of Presentations

Derick Berlage, Chair, Montgomery County Planning Board

The face of growth and development in Montgomery County is shifting toward
redevelopment and infill development and the development industry is evolving
toward more mixed-use developments, reflecting the market. We are challenged
to direct development in what are now mature communities. The way we work
with the public is changing. Planners need to direct their expertise in the
direction of Smart Growth as we become a mature community.
Faroll Hamer, Acting Director, Department of Planning
The Montgomery County General Plan is clear in some respects but vague in
others. While it is clear in its objectives of directing growth to the Urban Ring and
I-270 Corridor while preserving agricultural areas, it does not identify specific
growth centers, and lacks implementation approaches and tools needed for
guiding growth into specific areas and away from others. Specific actions that
should be taken in the future to meet the challenge of redevelopment and infill
planning include:

8
 • More aggressive outreach to a broader spectrum of citizens
• More focused and expedited master plans
• Adequate zoning to encourage mixed-use
• Stricter requirements for phasing of public facilities
• More requirements on developers to provide affordable housing,
parks, and open space.

Karl Moritz, Chief, Research and Technology Center, Department of Park &
Planning
The County sets the pattern of growth through its General Plan. The APFO and
staging amendments set the pace of growth. Master plans limit the amount of
housing, jobs, and therefore growth within subareas. The County forecasts
growth itself, and the Council of Governments (COG) Cooperative Forecasting
Process helps ensure regional consistency among growth forecasts. A challenge
to all of the above is that developers now have the propensity to replace what is
existing with something new and more intense, not just build in greenfields.
The current growth forecast is for 94,000 houses, 213,800 people and 170,000
jobs by 2030. Montgomery County is forecast to be second in household growth
and third in job growth within the metropolitan region. There are currently 1.4
jobs per household and the forecast is for 1.5 to 1.6 jobs per household by 2030.
This suggests the need 16,000 additional households for jobs-housing balance.
A Smart Growth Audit is proposed to evaluate the amount, pace, and location of
future growth.

John Carter, Chief, Community-Based Planning Division, Department of

Planning
In order to achieve the quality communities envisioned in County plans and
highlighted in the Invitee Survey, the County needs to understand what makes
people want to live in Montgomery County. Perhaps the outer rings of Metro
Station areas represent the best opportunity to create communities in the future.
Mature commercial centers provide an opportunity for mixed-use development.
There is more than enough capacity for growth under current zoning, particularly
for nonresidential development. Indeed, an unrealistically high 100 million
square feet of nonresidential development could be added through
redevelopment and infill.
Montgomery County should take the following actions:
• Design corridors for a variety of transportation modes (car, transit,
bicycle, pedestrian).
• Improve sidewalks along avenues and design boulevards with
green spaces and public art.
• Improve infrastructure to keep pace with new development.
• Emphasize high quality design.

9
National Experts
Chris Nelson (Moderator), Professor and Director of the Urban Affairs and
Planning Program, Virginia Tech
The long-used planning templates came out of the 1960’s and were family-
driven, but now single-person households are on the rise and have different
needs. In fact, 90% of net population change between the year 2000 and 2030
will be attributable to families without children, and 35% will be attributable just to
single-person households. The other major demographic change is that baby
boomers are aging and living longer and have changing housing needs. The
County is at a watershed in terms of preferred housing and neighborhood types.
Nowadays, people tend to want neighborhoods reflective of an urban
environment, e.g., with transit access. They favor higher density attached
dwellings and will trade larger yards for urban amenities. An important market
signal is that the value of land accelerates up to a lot size of roughly 7,000
square feet then levels off. Demand for apartments, attached and small lot
detached housing will increase, and as it does, demand for large lots will decline
from 35% to 10% by 2030. The County is already oversupplied with large lots
through the year 2030.
A forecast of 126,000 net housing units plus 62,000 replacement units (to
compensate for loss of existing home stock) results in 186,000 new units
required by the year 2030 to house the projected population. According to the
U.S. Census, the average lifespan of a typical home is around 150 years, making
housing the most durable land use. On the other hand, the typical retail use, the
land use with the shortest life span, changes in a little more than a decade, and
turnover is particularly fast for big box retail. Herein lies a prime redevelopment
opportunity to turn vacant retail into housing. Single ownership makes it even
easier for redevelopment, as do prime locations positioned conveniently to
absorb a high share of future growth. Obsolete warehouses are also a prime
opportunity for infill development.
Affordable housing has to be at the front and center of planning. The County can
work toward meeting affordable housing needs through a combination of the
following:
• Continued commitment to inclusionary zoning
• Accessory dwelling units by right
• No minimum house and lot sizes, if building codes are met
• Technological innovations with low cost materials
• Continued property tax abatement on qualifying units

In response, members of the audience expressed the need for:

• Adequate funding for infrastructure and open space
• Greater coordination with bordering jurisdictions
• Expedited updates of master plans
• More affordable housing

10
Tony Downs, Senior Fellow, Metropolitan Policy, Brookings Institution
The County’s Agricultural Reserve represents a contradiction in planning
philosophy. The Reserve is not needed for food supply, as there is plenty of food
available from elsewhere. Instead, it increases the price of land, contributes to
lack of affordable housing, and forces growth to leapfrog to rural areas outside
the county. We should be managing growth on a regional scale, not within each
county in isolation. Montgomery County needs to work toward providing a full
range of housing opportunities as the cost of housing escalates and the number
of jobs outpaces the number of housing units. The Agricultural Reserve could
become a source of land for new housing.
Planning ought to be metropolitan-wide, but the presence of two states and the
District of Columbia makes this difficult. While many localities plan incrementally,
Montgomery County has a detailed master plan that can be seen as overly
controlling. As a consequence, the price of land and housing has risen faster in
Montgomery County than elsewhere in the region, traffic congestion has
worsened, and sprawl has been exacerbated.
No feasible strategies exist for reducing existing housing prices from the current
average price of over $600,000. A possible but unrealistic solution would be to
flood the market with enough new housing to lower prices, but current
homeowners would be strongly opposed to that strategy. Instead, the County
ought to take small steps and use inclusionary zoning more intensely. Although
inclusionary zoning is fundamentally unfair to developers and builders, it can
produce affordable units. Other tactics worth considering are:
• Establish a statewide Housing Trust Fund
• Allow accessory housing
• Set up a donation tax credit, particularly for key developable
centers and corridors
• Require businesses to provide employee housing through linkage
requirements

Thomas Lavash, Vice President, Economic Research Associates

A key to good growth lies in realizing shared goals. The communities’ desire for
certain amenities dovetails with developers’ drive for a competitive advantage in
the marketplace. There seems to be a “consensus vision” of the ideal community
as a mixed-use urban center surrounded by green residential neighborhoods with
pedestrian connections to the center.
The “consensus vision” of the ideal community presents the following challenges
to developers:
• Is more difficult to finance
• Carries greater financial risk and higher cost
• Takes longer to get a return on the investment
• Is subject to code enforcement issues

11
Montgomery County should explore successful models of mixed-use infill
development from both the community and developers point of view:
1. Market Common in Arlington is an urban lifestyle village sitting on a former
Sears parking lot. This project received no public subsidy and was 100% pre-
leased before it opened. The project has premium rents and exceptional sales
performance. It provides a good pedestrian environment and good mix of first-
time renters and empty-nesters.
2. Paseo Colorado in Pasadena, California is a New Urbanist open-air village. It
is on the site of an enclosed mall that failed. It involved significant public
outreach that led to a unanimous approval by government. By reinstituting a
street grid and a housing mix, the project has created a lively environment for
dining and other activities.
Infill will not be as easy in Montgomery County though, and redeveloping 106
existing community centers is going to be very challenging.

Reid Ewing, Research Professor, National Center for Smart Growth,

University of Maryland, College Park
Montgomery County is widely recognized as a national leader in growth
management. One could only wish that neighboring counties were engaged in
this kind of soul searching. While Montgomery County will want to fine-tune its
land development regulations, it should largely stay the course. The prior
suggestion that the Agricultural Reserve be developed runs counter to principles
of Smart Growth, to which we all subscribe, and would actually promote sprawl.
Moreover, with only 10,000 acres in the Reserve not already under conservation
easement, opening the Reserve to development would meet the County’s
housing demand for less than five years. It is equivalent to opening the Artic
Refuge to oil drilling in order to meet the nation’s demand for petroleum, a very
short-term solution.
The County needs to recognize that the next twenty years of growth will look
almost nothing like the last 20 years. Green developments driven by energy and
environmental concerns are coming. There is a demand for more walkable
places. Simply put, walkability can be a central organizing principle for future
development. Properly designed, communities will generate 20% or more
walking trips. This has already been accomplished in Downtown Bethesda and
highlighted communities outside the region by means of a fine-grained mix of
land uses, high densities, street connectivity, and pedestrian-friendly design.
Counting transit trips, the potential exists for almost half of all trips to be non-
auto. Our aging Baby Boom population should not have to drive everywhere, but
instead, should have the option of aging in place in walkable communities.
The County can work toward the goal of walkability (plus sustainability and transit
friendliness) by:
• Raising allowable densities
• Replacing single-use with mixed-use zoning

12
 • Waiving the level of service standard (LOS) for roads in centers
where growth is desired
• Adopting impact fees tied to vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
• Adopting street connectivity and block length standards
• Adopting context-sensitive street design standards

C. Local Leaders Response

Dan Wilhelm, President, Montgomery County Civic Association

The participants’ feedback indicates that we need to focus our attention on
walkability, transit, and intersection/interchange improvements and not on
widening roadways.
Bryant Foulger, Principal and Vice President, Foulger Pratt
We should change our attitude and approach away from “managing the problem”
of growth, and think about how we can take advantage of inevitable growth to
improve our communities. It is time for less conversation and more action.
Frankie Blackburn, Executive Director, Impact Silver Spring
Let us not forget about affordable housing. In our daily lives, we all depend on
individuals who need affordable housing. We have tools in the private sector but
we need help from public and non-profit groups as well. We need preservation of
existing housing, increased density along corridors, and a fully-funded public
housing initiative fund.
Pamela Lindstrom, Civic Activist & Smart Growth Advocate
Based on the Invitee Survey, our ideal shared vision is for vital mixed-use urban
centers with diverse buildings and pedestrian orientation, surrounded by green
residential neighborhoods with easy access on foot to these centers. We want
our urban centers to look green, even if only via street trees, parks, and stream
valleys.
Richard Parsons, President, Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce
The development community and civic associations must set aside old
differences from earlier land use debates, build a consensus behind a vision for
the County, and all contribute towards achieving that vision. The vision needs to
include stability and vibrancy in the local economy. At the same time we need to
bear in mind the reality that the jobs/housing provision is regional, and traffic
congestion is not going to go away when density and transit usage increase.
Paul Mahon, Executive Vice President, United Therapeutics
Companies that want to grow in place are an important resource for shaping
future growth. When these companies pursue infill development, they face the
challenge of dealing with policy and planning mandates presented by a myriad of
government agencies. Planning, regulatory, and permitting processes should be

13
sensitive to the needs of companies choosing to remain in Montgomery County
and grow “in place.”

D. Concluding Remarks

Roger Lewis, Architect, Planner, Educator, Washington Post Columnist

Perhaps the focus of this Community Discussion has been shortsighted --- we
are being too timid and incremental in our planning, given the current rate of
growth. The County needs to break out of the General Plan nomenclature, and
talk about a new approach to planning for sustainable and livable communities
and neighborhoods in the future. Zoning is a crude tool; form-based design
codes are better at producing quality development. Political leaders are short-
term thinkers by nature - that is where the problem lies.
A recurring theme is the notion that Montgomery County is not isolated; it is part
of the Capitol Region and part of our planet Earth. The County may have little
control over development by the year 2050 or 2060 because of larger issues.
Increased CO2 emissions may result in our walking and biking by necessity.
While the County need not be self-sustaining, the Agricultural Reserve serves a
greater purpose as a large contiguous open space for numerous species, for
CO2 absorption and, if we eventually do have to rely on our own farmland, for
food. A final thought: “Make no small plans,” to quote Daniel Burnham.

Summary Q&A
Some of the most thought-provoking questions asked in the Q&A were:
• Can we get some cars off the main roads in exchange for the
density?
• Who will champion affordable housing?
• In places where infrastructure is already behind and infill
development will be taking place, how are we going to catch up
and pay for infrastructure?
• How do we get more green space down county?
• What is the appropriate level of regulation necessary to get the
development desired?

Major feedback and suggestions included:

• The county could allow developers to develop county-owned land.
• The annual growth policy needs improvement.
• The quality of transit service, more than simply its existence,
determines whether it attracts people.
• Planning efforts ought to focus on places where regulatory
incentives or disincentives are needed.

14