montgomery planning | functional planning & policy division … · 2020. 2. 4. · 2020...

2020 Subdivision Staging Policy Update

Subdivision Staging Policy UpdateFriends of White FlintFebruary 4, 2020

Montgomery Planning | Functional Planning & Policy Division


What is the Subdivision Staging Policy?• The County’s Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO)

became law in 1973:

• “The [Planning] Board may only approve a preliminary plan when it finds that public facilities will be adequate to support and service the subdivision. Public facilities and services to be examined for adequacy include roads and transportation facilities, sewer and water service, schools, police stations, firehouses, and health clinics.” §50.4.3(J) of the County Code


What is the Subdivision Staging Policy?• The Subdivision Staging Policy (SSP) is the set of policy tools that

administer the APFO:

• guides the timely delivery of public facilities to serve existing and future development

• defines adequacy and how we measure it

• The policy is updated every four years.

• The County Council must adopt the new SSP by November 15, 2020.


Slower growth in a maturing Montgomery County

1990: 765,500 +287,100

2018: 1,052,600

38% population increase since 1990

Most populous county in Maryland with over 1 million people since 2012

Forecasting a 7.2 % gain of 76,235 people between 2018 and 2030

1,052,567

1,128,800 1,197,100

83,912 164,401

340,928

522,809 579,053

757,027

873,341

971,777

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

Popu

latio

n

Year

Total Population, 1940-2040

Forecast Rnd 9.1

Estimate

Source: 1940-2010 Decennial Census, 2018 Population Estimate Program U.S. Census Bureau; Washington Council of Governments Forecast Round 9.1, Research and Special Projects.

2020 Subdivision Staging Policy UpdateSource: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimate Program, 3/2019

(15,000)

(10,000)

(5,000)

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Num

ber o

f Peo

ple

Components of Population Growth

Net Domestic Migration International Migration Natural increase Population Change

Sources of Population Growth1990-2017


Population Change 1990-2016by Census Tract


Changing Travel Trends (Nationwide)

Shared Micromobilityencompasses all shared-use fleets of small, fully or partially human-powered vehicles such as bikes,e-bikes, ande-scooters.


Schools


What Does the SSP Do?• Requires the Planning Board to

annually approve the results of a school test evaluating projected school capacity

• Establishes the criteria for enacting development moratoria based on projected school capacity utilization

• Identifies exceptions to the moratoria


ES #1ES #2

ES #3

ES #6

ES #5

ES #4

MS #1

MS #2

The Annual School Test is a two-tiered test:

• Cluster level test of utilization

• School level test of utilization

CLUSTER TESTTotal ES utilizationTotal MS utilization

HS utilization

Annual School Test Overview


Moratorium ThresholdsTest Level Moratorium ThresholdCluster Projected cumulative utilization greater than 120% at

any school level (elementary, middle or high school) across the entire cluster.

Individual Elementary School Projected utilization greater than 120% and projected capacity deficit of 110 seats or more.

Individual Middle School Projected utilization greater than 120% and projected capacity deficit of 180 seats or more.


Current Moratorium Coverage


Exceptions to the Moratorium• Non-residential projects

• De minimis projects of 3 units or less

• Age-restricted senior housing

• Certain projects that generate 10 or fewer students at any one school and meet other conditions related to the removal of a condemned structure or provide high quantities of deeply affordable housing


How Many Kids Live There?!

Student Generation Rates (SGRs) are an average of the number of students per type of dwelling unit.


Schools: All Aspects Under Review• The moratorium policy and its thresholds and exceptions

• The Annual School Test procedures

• Estimating enrollment impacts

• Development queue impacts

• Impacts of neighborhood turnover on enrollment

• Impact taxes – how they are applied and calculated

• Potential reintroduction of school facility payments


Schools: Seeking Innovative Solutions• We are seeking an innovative set of policy tools that:

• Better ensure school capacity adequacy within the County’s current growth paradigm

• Support the County’s other policy priorities

• Effort has included an extensive review of policies from other similar jurisdictions across the country

2020 Subdivision Staging Policy Update 18

Share of Students and Units by Dwelling Type

55% 47%

22%18%

20%21%

4%

14%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

K-12 Students Dwelling Units

Single Family Houses Townhouses Low-Rise Multi-Family Units High-Rise Multi-Family Units


Housing Growth, 2015-18by Cluster

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Gaithersburg HSWalter Johnson HS

Bethesda-Chevy Chase HSClarksburg HS

Richard Montgomery HSNorthwood HS

Einstein HSNorthwest HS

Quince Orchard HSKennedy HS

Blair HSWhitman HS

Damascus HSRockville HS

Paint Branch HSChurchill HS

Seneca Valley HSSpringbrook HS

Magruder HSPoolesville HSSherwood HS

Wootton HSBlake HS

Watkins Mill HSWheaton HS

Single Family DetachedSingle Family AttachedMultifamily Low-riseMultifamily High-rise

Source: SDAT


SGR by Average Rent per Square FootMultifamily dwelling units

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

Under $1.49 $1.50 - $1.75 $1.75 - $2.00 $2.00 - $2.25 $2.25 - $2.50 $2.50 - $2.75 $2.75 - $3.00 Above $3.00

Aver

age

Num

ber o

f Stu

dent

s per

Uni

t

Average Rent per Square Foot in a Building

NOTE: These are not the SGRs for units at these rent levels. They are the SGRs for units in buildings where the average rent falls in these ranges.


SGR by Average Unit Square FootageMultifamily dwelling units

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

0.300

0.350

0.400

Under 500 500 - 599 sf 600 - 699 sf 700 - 799 sf 800- 899 sf 900 - 999 sf Above 1000sf

Aver

age

Num

ber o

f Stu

dent

s per

Uni

t

Average Unit Square Footage in a Building

NOTE: These are not the SGRs for units at these sizes. They are the SGRs for units in buildings where the average unit size falls in these ranges.

2020 Subdivision Staging Policy UpdateSource: SDAT/DHCA

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

1.400

0% Under5% 5%-10% 10%-20% 20%-30% 30-40% 40-50% Over 50%

Aver

age

Num

ber o

f Stu

dent

s per

Uni

t

Share of 3-Bedroom Units in a Building

NOTE: These are not the SGRs for 3-bedroom units. They are the SGRs for all units in buildings where the share of 3-bedroom units falls into the indicated range.

SGR by Share of 3-Bedroom UnitsMultifamily dwelling units


72.9%

12.9%

10.1%

2.9% 1.1%

0 students 1 student 2 students 3 students 4 or more students

Homes with students on average have1.7 studentseach

SFD Homes by Number of Students


Lot SizeSingle family detached units

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

Up to 1/4 1/4 to 1/2 1/2 to 3/4 3/4 to 1 Over 1 acreLot Size (acres)

Count of SF Detached Units


SGR by Lot SizeSingle family detached units

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

Up to 1/4 1/4 to 1/2 1/2 to 3/4 3/4 to 1 Over 1Lot Size (acres)


Gross Floor AreaSingle family detached units

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

Gross Floor Area (sf)

Count of SF Detached Units


SGR by Gross Floor AreaSingle family detached units

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

500-999 1,000-1,499 1,500-1,999 2,000-2,499 2,500-2,999 3,000-3,499 3,500-3,999 4,000-4,499 4,500-,4,999 5,000-5,499 5,500 and higherGross Floor Area (sf)


2%12%

54%

32%

Gaithersburg

12%8%

25%55%

Walter Johnson

24%

57%

19%

Clarksburg

21%2%

1%

76%

Bethesda-Chevy Chase2%

11%

87%

Montgomery Blair5%

95%

Albert Einstein

Unit Mix for Highest Housing Growth Clusters (2011-15)


Bethesda-Chevy Chase

Blair

Blake

Churchill

Clarksburg

Damascus

Einstein

Gaithersburg

Kennedy

Magruder

Northwest

Northwood

Paint Branch

Poolesville

Quince Orchard

Richard Montgomery

Rockville

SherwoodSpringbrook

Walter Johnson

Watkins Mill

Wheaton

Whitman

Wootton

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

SF S

hare

of U

nits

Bui

lt 20

11-2

015

Total Units Built 2011-2015

Total Units Built by % Single Family



Blair

Blake

ChurchillClarksburg

Damascus

Einstein

Gaithersburg

Kennedy

Magruder

Northwest

Northwood

Paint Branch

Poolesville Quince Orchard

Richard Montgomery

Rockville

Sherwood

Walter Johnson

WhitmanWootton

1,200 students

600 students

300 students

150 students75 students

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

SF S

hare

of U

nits

Bui

lt 20

11-2

015


2015 Students Residing in Units Built 2011-15



Blair

Blake

ChurchillClarksburg

Damascus

Einstein

Gaithersburg

Kennedy

Magruder

Northwest

Northwood

Paint Branch

Poolesville Quince Orchard

Richard Montgomery

Rockville

Sherwood

Springbrook

Walter Johnson

WhitmanWootton

1,200 students

600 students

300 students

150 students75 students

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

SF S

hare

of U

nits

Bui

lt 20

11-2

015


2018 Students Residing in Units Built 2011-15


2018 SGRs for Units Built 2011-15


Blair

Blake

ChurchillClarksburg

Damascus

Einstein

Gaithersburg

Kennedy

Magruder

Northwest

Northwood

Paint Branch

PoolesvilleQuince Orchard

Richard Montgomery

Rockville

Sherwood

Springbrook

Walter Johnson

WhitmanWootton

SGR = 1.500

SGR = 0.750

SGR = 0.375

SGR = 0.188SGR = 0.094

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

SF S

hare

of U

nits

Bui

lt 20

11-2

015



SGR by Year Built and Dwelling Type

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

SFD SFA MF Low MF High All

Before 1901 1901-1910 1911-1920 1921-1930 1931-1940 1941-1950 1951-19601961-1970 1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2010 2011-2018


Longest (14+ years)

Shortest (~5 years)

Source: SDAT

Distribution of Census Tracts by: Average Length of TimeSince Units were Last Sold

2020 Subdivision Staging Policy UpdateSource: SDAT

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Aver

age

Num

ber o

f Stu

dent

s per

Uni

t

Year Last Sold

ES MS HS

Student Generation Rate by: Year Last Sold (Single Family Detached only)


Transportation


What Does the SSP Do?• Groups our 38 policy areas

into four policy area categories based on:

• Current land use patterns

• The prevalence of different modes of travel

• The planning vision for the policy area


What Does the SSP Do?• Establishes a set of multi-modal

Local Area Transportation Review (LATR) tests for determining transportation adequacy

• Forecasts travel demand generated by existing, pipeline and proposed development and compares it to the capacity provided by existing and programmed roads and transit facilities


What Does the SSP Do?• Unified Mobility Programs (UMPs) include an area-wide analysis

of needed transportation improvements

• Applicants pay their proportion of the UMP cost


Transportation Update Scope• Update of the transportation element is focused on two primary

tasks:

• Identifying opportunities to incorporate the County’s Vision Zero travel safety objectives into the Local Area Transportation Review process

• Reintroducing a policy area-level transportation adequacy test for the purpose of evaluating "balance" between transportation capacity and land use travel demand for master plans /sector plans


Impact Taxes


Transportation Impact TaxesResidential (per unit)

RedPolicyAreas

OrangePolicyAreas

YellowPolicyAreas

GreenPolicyAreas

Single Family Detached $7,838 $19,591 $24,490 $24,490Single Family Attached $6,413 $16,030 $20,038 $20,038Multifamily Low-rise $4,986 $12,465 $15,582 $15,582Multifamily High-rise $3,561 $8,904 $11,130 $11,130Multifamily Senior $1,424 $3,562 $4,452 $4,452

Non-Residential (per square foot GFA)Office $7.15 $17.90 $22.40 $22.40Industrial $3.60 $8.90 $11.20 $11.20Bioscience Facility $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Retail $6.35 $16.00 $19.95 $19.95Place of Worship $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Private Elementary and Secondary School $0.55 $1.45 $1.85 $1.85Hospital $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Social Service Agency $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Other Non-Residential $3.60 $8.90 $11.20 $11.20


Schools Impact Taxes

Residential (per unit) CountywideSingle Family Detached $26,207Single Family Attached $27,598Multifamily Low-rise $21,961Multifamily High-rise $6,113Multifamily Senior $0


Impact Taxes Exemptions• All moderately priced dwelling units (MPDUs) are exempt

• Any project that includes 25% or more MPDUs are fully exempt on all units

• Any project in a current or former Enterprise Zone (including Downtown Silver Spring)


Discussion Questions


Discussion Questions• GENERAL

• What are the most urgent priorities that need to be addressed as Montgomery County continues to grow?

• SCHOOLS• How should we measure the adequacy of school infrastructure?

• At what point does over-enrollment become excessive? What are the primary issues associated with excessive over-enrollment?

• Should the residential development moratorium policy continue? Be modified? Be discontinued?


Discussion Questions• TRANSPORTATION

• What steps can the county take to improve mobility and transportation systems?

• What safety features need to be prioritized? What would help improve the safety of our roads?

• What impact will autonomous vehicles or the growing use of micro-mobility options have on how we evaluate the adequacy of our transportation infrastructure?


Additional Information


SSP Update Schedule

2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26 2 9

SR SRB B

STAT Review ● ● ● ● ● ●

TISTWG Review ● ● ● ● ●

Council Review PH V

CW Community WorkshopSR Stakeholder RoundtablePH Public Hearing

B Planning Board BriefingW Planning Board WorksessionV Planning Board or Council Vote● Meeting, scheduled

Engagement and Data GatheringPolicy Development

W W VW V PH W WSR SR SR B W

December

Key

Planning Staff and Planning Board Review B CW

2019 2020July August September October Nov.January February March April May JuneSeptember October November

•Major Milestones• SSP Working Draft – by June 15• SSP Planning Board Draft – by August 1• SSP Adoption – by November 15


Additional Resources and Events• SSP Website: https://montgomeryplanning.org/ssp

• Visit the Outreach Page to:• Sign up for our eLetter• Send us your detailed thoughts through online questionnaires

• Upcoming Stakeholder Roundtables• MCCPTA/MCR-SGA – February 8 @ Richard Montgomery HS• Upcounty – February 20 @ Upcounty Regional Services Center• East County – February 24 @ East County Regional Services Center


Contact Info• Jason Sartori | Functional Planning & Policy Division Chief

• [email protected]• 301-495-2172

• Eric Graye | Transportation Supervisor• [email protected]• 301-495-4632

• Lisa Govoni | Housing Policy Planner Coordinator• [email protected]• 301-650-5624

• Hye-Soo Baek | Senior Planner• [email protected]• 301-495-2192

montgomery planning | functional planning & policy division … · 2020. 2. 4. · 2020...

Documents