subdivision staging policy 2012

subdivision staging policy 2012

schedule April 26th Briefing on Schools Test Methodology May - TPAR worksessions and deliver to County Council May-June SSP Recommendations June 14th SSP staff draft, set public hearing July - SSP worksessions August 1st - Planning Board Draft delivered to County Council November 15th County Council Adoption

subdivision staging policy 2012

subdivision staging policy an instrument that facilitates and coordinates the use of the powers of government to limit or encourage growth and development in a manner that best enhances the general health, welfare, and safety of the residents of the County.

subdivision staging policy 2012

a status report on general land use conditions: the remaining growth capacity of zoned land recent trends in real estate transactions, major public facilities and environmentally sensitive areas a forecast of the most probable trends in population, households, and employment, including key factors a recommended set of guidelines which affect growth and development any other information or recommendations

subdivision staging policy 2012

subdivision staging policy does not regulate amount pattern location type of development does regulate relative timing of development and facilities

subdivision staging policy 2012

2009 growth policy redirected growth policy tools to achieve smarter growth built on framework of general plan to promote more mixed use around transit served areas

subdivision staging policy 2012

2012 subdivision staging policy uses 9 elements of sustainability as lens to view county growth implications & opportunities adjust tools to facilitate growth as recommended in master plans direct county and state transportation funds align state funding to county goals through PlanMaryland improve livability and health in redeveloped areas anticipate major efforts to reduce pollution to the Bay

subdivision staging policy 2012

2012 subdivision staging policy recognizes changes in the countys current and future needs accounts for lack of developable land builds on efforts to direct growth to transit served areas seeks to assure that growth contributes to the quality of place employs the Subdivision Staging Policy tools to compliment master planning and county policies

subdivision staging policy 2012

challenges or opportunities? fewer working age adults to seniors growing environmental regulation increasing infrastructure costs increasing social services low density landscape mobility challenges few areas to grow affordability

s e c t i o n
h e a d i n g s

recent trends

housing | 360,500 to 438,000 by 2030 increase of 21.5 % 78,000 units consistent with past 20 yrs

recent trends

jobs | 506,000 to 673,000 by 2030 increase of 33 % 167,000 jobs pattern is consistent

capacity of zoned land

we cannot meet the demand with vacant land 11,900 acres (3.7 %) of county = vacant & developable 2,800 acres are already in the pipeline if current pattern is projected, we would need 1,913 acres | non - residential 15,000 9,600 acres | residential
10,000

5,000

vacant needed

vacant unclaimed vacant unclaimed non-residential single family multi-family

capacity of zoned land

implications - 2010 30 we need infill | redevelopment to accommodate most growth this is a good thing | we are already planning for it takoma white oak long branch white flint gssc white flint II glenmont lyttonsville many areas have a role to play

capacity of zoned land

projected housing growth by 2030 dot = 50 units single family multi-family

capacity of zoned land

projected job growth by 2030 dot = 50 jobs office retail industrial other

capacity of zoned land

preserving as we grow dot = 50 units/jobs single family multi-family office retail industrial other

pros plan park acquisitions *

*not all parks preserve environmental features

cost implications

how we grow impacts the cost of that growth construction | maintenance | replacement

use
mixed is better diversity need more multi-family distance to employment to retail | services

cost implications

consequences infrastructure costs 2025 - 50% of water pipes need replacing 85% of cast iron redevelopment can help address systems issues improvements should be focused in new growth areas

Photo credit: Bill O'Leary of the Washington Post

cost implications density & quality of place add value & revenue to accommodate growth
Agriculture Research & Development $3,969 $21,166

average tax yield per acre

quarter one 2011

Warehouse
Single Family Detached Industrial Multi-Family - Low to Mid Rise Office - Low to Mid Rise Retail Townhouse

$25,004
$25,112 $26,855 $48,847 $57,820 $62,168 $83,530

Office High Rise

Mult-Family High Rise Mixed-Use - Low to Mid Rise

$160,130
$241,682 $265,631

Mixed-Use - High Rise

$369,821

cost implications

strategic change - infill is good

assessed value property tax income tax recordation tax sales tax silver spring condo $38 million $478,000 (66 X >) $287,000 (136 X >) 16 units sold in 2 yrs 2 on market now 250 + people woodside house $673,800 $ 7,200 $ 2,100 sold in 1992 & 2006 2.56 people

cost implications

housing and transportation costs as % of income cheaper to live near transit

level of service

stream quality worst where redevelopment is likely challenge now = legacy of degradation limited green field development = slower degradation opportunity to improve water quality with infill and redevelopment

excellent good fair poor no info

level of service

tools to meet opportunity and required pollutant reductions community design enhanced and interconnected urban green space and tree canopy environmental site design (esd) building design lower brighton
monacacy seneca creek

dam
rocky gorge rock creek anacostia

potomac river cabin john

level of service

water and sewer infrastructure

redevelopment can help focus repair/replacement of water pipes

level of service

tree canopy |critical element to livability and quality of place increase energy efficiency reduce heat island effect improve air quality extends life of pavement enhances ped/vehicle safety boosts real estate values make retail areas more attractive slows runoff and erosion

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Tree Canopy Grass/Shrub Roads Other Paved Building Water Bare Soil

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

level of service

level of service

canopy analysis gives not only location of canopy but also areas with most potential to extend canopy coverage

8 to 14 % 15 to 19 % 20 to 26 % 27 to 34 % 35 to 44 %

existing canopy

34 to 35 % 36 to 44 % 45 to 50 % 51 to 55 % 56 to 59 %

possible canopy

level of service

student enrollment projected increase of 18,000 over 10 years rising birth rates more in-migration, less out-migration increase in students leaving private school for public turnover in the housing stock to families with children

affects school capacity in areas that have become accustomed to lower demand

level of service

need to connect what we built increase person throughput on existing facilities

level of service

tpar 2022 transit adequacy

level of service

tpar 2022 roadway adequacy

10

12

latr - number of congested intersections

0
Damascus Clarksburg Potomac

2
Olney
North Potomac Cloverly Germantown East Aspen Hill Montgomery Village Germantown West Fairland/White Oak Gaithersburg City R&D Village

4
Derwood
Rockville City Bethesda/Chevy Chase Kensington/Wheaton North Bethesda Silver Spring/Takoma Park

level of service

healthy communities

infill with balanced land use create all day destinations

healthy communities

infill with balanced land use create all day destinations

healthy communities

urban parks and quality of place

Component of Human Health

Contribution of Parks and Open Spaces

Provide a variety of settings and infrastructure for various levels of formal and informal sport and recreation, for all skill levels and abilities e.g. Physical picnicking, walking, dog training, running, cycling, ball games, boating, photography, and bird watching. Provide settings for people to enhance their networks and personal relationships from couples to families, to social clubs and Social organizations of all sizes, from casual picnicking to event days and festivals to camping. Make nature available for restoration from mental fatigue; solitude and quiet; artistic inspiration and expression; educational Mental development (e.g. natural play and cultural history). Preserve the natural environment for contemplation, reflection, and inspiration; invoke a sense of place; facilitate feeling a Spiritual connection to something beyond human concerns. Mitigate consequences of an urban landscape. Reduce air and water pollutants, cool local Environmental climate, conserve energy. Foster human involvement in the natural environment (Friends Groups, etc).

healthy communities

urban parks connectivity

preparing for change

demographics 63% increase in senior population by 2030

preparing for change

population shift 49.3 % white 17.0 % hispanic 16.6 % african american 13.9 % asian / pacific islander

drop of 7.8 % + 64.4 % over 10 yrs + 23.4 % + 37.5 %

matrix of current efforts

Economy

Culture

Health

Food

Environmen t Energy

Knowledge Material

Infrastructur e

Subdivision Staging Policy CR Zone Zoning Re-write Master Plan Staging Housing Element Water Resources Functional Plan Purple Line

Transit Corridors Functional Plan

healthy communities

majority of pipeline projects have access to transit 62% of projects 77% of unbuilt units 87% of unbuilt non-residential ft2 (91% of jobs)

residential mixed use non-residential transit access area

healthy communities

recent pending prelim plans have greater access to transit 70% of projects 97% of unbuilt units 99% of unbuilt non-residential ft2

residential mixed use non-residential transit access area

subdivision staging policy 2012

restructure transportation analysis tools increase transparency | better understand how improvements affect congestion and livability identify what improvements have greatest impact tie expenditures to areas of growth determine best way to measure local area congestion

subdivision staging policy 2012

school capacity tests will remain in effect allow trading of APFO approvals in the same policy area anticipate local water quality and chesapeake bay concerns driving more regulation

subdivision staging policy 2012

plan maryland focuses state funding identify transportation needs focus preservation efforts facilitate water and sewer infrastructure

subdivision staging policy 2012

proposed policy and tool changes Transportation Policy Area Review to replace PAMR refinements to the Local Area Transportation Review refinements to the Schools Test APFO trading to use pipeline efficiently

subdivision staging policy 2012

coming attractions net cost of redevelopment/infill amount and type of mitigation amount and use of impact fees ways to integrate environmental measures