2016 Subdivision Staging Policy

Worksession #1 on the Public Hearing Draft

2 0 1 6 SUB DI V I SION STAG I NG

POL I CY

Master plan vision often strives to

Enhance quality of life through increased
access to jobs, shopping, and entertainment.

The Subdivision Staging Policy

should support our master plan
goals, providing guidance for the
implementation of our plans.

Strengthen the potential for economic

development through job creation, and
increases in property values.
Improve ecological sustainability by promoting
reduction in CO2 emissions, and storm water
runoff.
Support social equity by promoting affordable
housing, and access to jobs and services
throughout our communities.

T R ANSPORTAT I ON
R E COMME NDATI ONS

Recommendation #1
Policy Area categories should reflect current land
use patterns, modes of travel other than the
single occupant vehicle, and the planning vision
for different parts of the County.

Public Testimony

Concerns with Terminology confusing, impression of larger change than in actuality, definition of areas in I-270 corridor
Evolution of classification over time
Concern about Non-Auto Driver Mode Share (NADMS) definitions
Schools/transportation equivalency
3

T R ANSPORTAT I ON
R E COMME NDAT I ONS
Approach to Creating Policy Area Groups
Objective group like places
Methodology quantifiable to extent possible,
using easily accessible measures, simple and
concise, should intuitively make sense, and be
consistent with the General Plan.

Existing and Future Considerations should reflect

future plans as well as existing conditions
acknowledging that review will be conducted every
2-4 years and areas will move between groups as
land use density, and/or travel behavior changes.
Planning Board Draft should clearly indicate a timeframe for updating the method used to create the policy area
categories biennially or with the update to the SSP - this addresses a concern raised in testimony regarding the need
to clarify when policy areas are reevaluated.
4

T R A N S P O RTAT I O N
R E C O M M E N DAT I O N S
Current Categorization

Urban:

Suburban:

Bethesda CBD
Bethesda-Chevy Chase
Derwood
Friendship Heights
Glenmont
Grosvenor
Kensington/Wheaton
North Bethesda
Rockville City
Rockville Town Center
Shady Grove
Silver Spring CBD
Silver Spring/Takoma Park
Twinbrook
Wheaton CBD
White Flint
White Oak

Aspen Hill
Clarksburg
Cloverly
Fairland/Colesville
Gaithersburg City
Germantown East
Germantown Town Center
Germantown West
Montgomery Village/Airpark
North Potomac
Olney
Potomac
R&D Village

Rural:
Damascus
Rural East
Rural West

New:

Proposed Categorization

Bethesda CBD
Friendship Heights
Silver Spring CBD
Twinbrook
White Flint

Urban:

Suburban:
Aspen Hill
Clarksburg
Cloverly
Fairland/Colesville
Germantown East
Germantown West
Montgomery Village/Airpark
North Potomac
Olney
Potomac

Bethesda/Chevy Chase
Derwood
Gaithersburg City
Germantown Town Center
Glenmont
Grosvenor
Rural:
Kensington/Wheaton
Damascus
North Bethesda
Rural West
R&D Village
Rural East
Rockville City
Rockville Town Center
Shady Grove
Silver Spring/Takoma Park
Wheaton CBD
White Oak
Clarksburg Town Center
Chevy Chase Lake
Long Branch
Takoma/Langley
New policy areas

T R ANSPORTAT I ON
R E C OMME NDAT I ONS

Current Categories: Urban, Suburban, Rural

Area-wide test is TPAR
Roadway Adequacy Test - must meet
a minimum Level of Service (LOS) of
40% (LOS E)
Transit Adequacy Test - must meet
minimum levels of span of service
and coverage, and maximum headway

2016 Subdivision Staging Policy

Proposed Categories: New, Urban, Suburban, Rural

Area-wide test is a Transit Accessibility test
No Roadway Adequacy Test
Transit Adequacy Test - the proportion of transit
accessibility that is expected within the next 15
years based on land use changes and the
implementation of transit facilities within this time
frame compared to 2040, setting a threshold for
adequacy at 50% (with a base year of 2010, 2025 is 50% of the
time to 2040).

T R ANSPORTAT I ON
R E COMME NDATI ONS

Some Urban policy areas proposed to be a New policy area:

Bethesda CBD
Friendship Heights
Silver Spring CBD
Twinbrook
White Flint

Recommendation is for the required Impact Tax

revenue to be retained in these areas for funding
transit accessibility see Table 3 page 41 of
Public Hearing Draft

Under TPAR
These 5 policy areas are adequate for roadway LOS
under the biennial TPAR Test.
Within the Urban policy areas, all Metro Station Policy
Areas are exempt from Transit Adequacy Test making
these 5 policy areas exempt from the transit test.
Under Transit Accessibility Test
Test is not applied to the Urban Centers policy areas.

No change for these 5 policy areas under the area-wide test.

LATR test not applied in these 5 policy areas.

Examples:
T R A N S P O RTAT I O N
R E C O M M E N DAT I O N S

Urban policy areas remaining Urban policy areas:

Bethesda-Chevy Chase
Derwood
Glenmont
Grosvenor
Kensington/Wheaton
North Bethesda
Rockville City
Rockville Town Center
Shady Grove
Silver Spring/Takoma Park
Wheaton CBD
White Oak

Silver Spring/Takoma Park

Under TPAR
Adequate roadway level of service
Inadequate transit service
Mitigation payment = 25% of impact tax
Under Transit Accessibility Test
No roadway adequacy test
Inadequate Transit Accessibility
No mitigation required

Derwood
Under TPAR
Adequate roadway level of service
Inadequate transit service
Mitigation payment = 25% of impact tax
Under Transit Accessibility Test
No roadway adequacy test
Inadequate Transit Accessibility
Mitigation payment = 25% of impact tax
8

T R A N S P O RTAT I O N
R E C O M M E N DAT I O N S

Urban policy areas remaining Urban policy areas:

Bethesda-Chevy Chase
Derwood
Glenmont
Grosvenor
Kensington/Wheaton
North Bethesda
Rockville City
Rockville Town Center
Shady Grove
Silver Spring/Takoma Park
Wheaton CBD
White Oak

Wheaton CBD
Under TPAR
Adequate roadway level of service
Exempt from transit adequacy test
Under Transit Accessibility Test
No roadway adequacy test
Inadequate Transit Accessibility (but barely)
Mitigation payment = 25% of impact tax (or could equal
difference between 50% threshold and current accessibility. In
this case mitigation payment would = 7% of impact tax)
Eventually would likely reach threshold with BRT

Bethesda-Chevy Chase
Under TPAR
Inadequate roadway level of service
Inadequate for transit service
Mitigation payment = 50% of impact tax
Under Transit Accessibility Test
No roadway adequacy test
Adequate Transit Accessibility
No mitigation payment
9

T R ANSPORTAT I ON
R E COMME NDATI ONS

Suburban policy areas proposed to be Urban policy areas:

Germantown Town Center
R&D Village
Clarksburg Town Center
Gaithersburg City*

Gaithersburg City
Under TPAR
Inadequate roadway level of service
Adequate transit service
Mitigation payment = 25% of impact tax
Under Transit Accessibility Test
No roadway adequacy test
Inadequate Transit Accessibility
Mitigation payment = 25% of impact tax

Moving Gaithersburg City to the Urban policy area

category addresses a concern raised in testimony
regarding the treatment of policy areas in the I-270
corridor.

*applies only to areas within the policy area but not in the City

10

T R ANSPORTAT I ON
R E COMME NDATI ONS

Suburban policy areas proposed to be Urban policy areas:

Germantown Town Center
R&D Village
Clarksburg Town Center
Gaithersburg City

Germantown Town Center

Under TPAR
Adequate roadway level of service
Inadequate transit service
Mitigation payment = 25% of impact tax
Under Transit Accessibility Test
No roadway adequacy test
Inadequate Transit Accessibility
Mitigation payment = 25% of impact tax

R&D Village
Under TPAR
Adequate roadway level of service
Inadequate for transit service
Mitigation payment = 25% of impact tax
Under Transit Accessibility Test
No roadway adequacy test
Inadequate Transit Accessibility
Mitigation payment = 25% of impact tax

11

T R ANSPORTAT I ON
R E COMME NDATI ONS

Suburban policy areas remaining Suburban policy areas:

Aspen Hill
Clarksburg
Cloverly
Damascus
Fairland/Coleville
Germantown East
Germantown West
Montgomery Village/ Airpark
Olney
Potomac

Clarksburg
Under TPAR
Adequate roadway level of service
Inadequate for transit service
Mitigation payment = 25% of impact tax
Under Transit Accessibility Test
No roadway adequacy test
Adequate Transit Accessibility
No mitigation payment

Germantown West
Under TPAR
Adequate roadway level of service
Inadequate for transit service
Mitigation payment = 25% of impact tax
Under Transit Accessibility Test
No roadway adequacy test
Inadequate Transit Accessibility
Mitigation payment = 25% of impact tax

12

T R ANSPORTAT I ON
R E COMME NDATI ONS

Suburban policy areas remaining Suburban policy areas:

Aspen Hill
Clarksburg
Cloverly
Damascus
Fairland/Coleville
Germantown East
Germantown West
Montgomery Village/ Airpark
Olney
Potomac

Fairland/Colesville
Under TPAR
Inadequate roadway level of service
Inadequate transit service
Mitigation payment = 50% of impact tax
Under Transit Accessibility Test
No roadway adequacy test
Inadequate Transit Accessibility
Mitigation payment = 25% of impact tax

13

T R ANSPORTAT I ON
R E COMME NDATI ONS

Rural policy areas remaining Rural policy areas:

Damascus
Rural East
Rural West

Damascus
Under TPAR
Inadequate roadway level of service
Inadequate transit service
Mitigation payment = 50% of impact tax
Under Transit Accessibility Test
No roadway adequacy test
Adequate Transit Accessibility
No mitigation payment

Rural East and Rural West

Under TPAR
Exempt from roadway and transit tests

Under Transit Accessibility Test

No roadway adequacy test
Exempt from transit test

14

T R ANSPORTAT I ON
R E COMME NDATI ONS

Map of proposed policy area categories

Map of current policy area categories

15

R E C OMME NDAT I ON # 1

There has been an ongoing discussion regarding

appropriate names for policy area categories
names that indicate the similarities of the policy
areas within each group. The difficulty is that often
generalized similarities will not define all areas
within the group.

Suggested revision to address the ongoing concern with the category names:

New category named Urban Centers (5 policy areas)

Urban category renamed Inner Ring Communities and Town Centers
Suburban category renamed Residential and Corridor Communities
Rural category remains Rural

1
7

R E C OMME NDAT I ON # 1

Concern with NADMS Definition

Definitions do vary across different sources, mostly
regarding trip purposes, treatment of auto passengers,
telework, and day(s) of survey
Key is understanding comparison of like data points
from place to place and/or from time to time, using a
consistent measure, for categorization or tracking
In example at right, removing telework (which is a
desirable travel reduction tool) from definition drops
NADMS fairly consistently from place to place, but
doesnt significantly change relative relationships
Using NADMS with telework respondents removed is a valuable modification. This
address the concern in testimony with the accuracy of the data.

1
8

T R ANSPORTAT I ON
R E COMME NDAT I ONS

Transportation Impact Taxes

Last update was in 2007 based on CIP more
than 9 years old

Transportation Impact Tax varies by policy area

categories as a result of applying factors to the
current General Rate. Discount factors applied
to:
Recognize areas where per capita VMT is
lower than the county average
Recognize areas where NADMS for
HBW trips is higher than County average
Provide opportunities to reduce the
Transportation Impact Tax through
application of discounts for providing
parking that is below the baseline
minimum as allowed by the zoning code

Align tax districts with policy area categories

Opportunity to include discount factors
related to per capita VMT, NADMS, and
recognizing parking reductions where
applicable
Recent bill introduced by members of the
Council proposed removing the rate reduction
for MSPAs as well as the premium applied to
the Clarksburg rate

1
9

T R ANSPORTAT I ON
R E COMME NDAT I ONS

Transportation Impact Taxes

Recommendation

Public Testimony

Update Transportation Impact Taxes using current CIP

projects.

Concern with change in the rate for office use and

change in discount factors applied by policy area
categories.

Adjust rates based on estimates of current Vehicle Miles of

Travel (VMT) for trips to work which is a readily available
and relevant measurement to use in establishing Policy
Area specific rates for residential development.

Related concern is that some MSPAs are now in the

Inner Ring Communities and Town Centers with
resulting higher rates

A similar and complementary metric for commercial

development is the non-auto driver mode share for trips to
work.

2
0

Transportation Impact Tax Rate History General District

Category

03/01/04

07/01/06

Calculated
or
Resultant
Rates in
2007 SSP
Review

12/01/07
Established
by Council

07/01/09

07/01/10

07/01/11

07/01/13

10/01/14

07/01/15

Calculated
or
Resultant
Rates in
2016 SSP
Review

SF
Detached

$5,500

$5,819

$8,380 (SF
Residential)

$10,649

$11,411

$11,411

$12,425

$13,506

$13,506

$13,966

$11,499 (SF
Residential)

MF
Garden

$3,500

$3,703

$5,884 (MF
Residential)

$6,776

$7,261

$7,261

$7,906

$8,594

$8,594

$8,886

$8,032 (MF
Residential)

Office

$5.00

$5.30

$11.56

$9.69

$10.40

$10.40

$11.30

$12.30

$12.30

$12.75

$16.04

Retail

$4.50

$4.75

$18.80

$8.67

$9.30

$9.30

$10.15

$11.00

$11.00

$11.40

$25.93

Industrial

$2.50

$2.65

$5.39

$4.85

$5.20

$5.20

$5.65

$6.15

$6.15

$6.35

$7.43

Other

$2.50

$2.65

$4.85

$4.85

$5.20

$5.20

$5.65

$6.15

$6.15

$6.35

$6.69

Multipliers for countywide

average transportation impact tax
rates

I MPACT TAXE S

Adjust Residential Rates based on

HBW VMT
Adjust Commercial Rates based
on HBW mode share
Set ancillary retail rate at zero for
first 10,000 GSF in vertical mixed
use
Adjust rate for Reduced Parking
Incentive

Policy Area Type

Residential

Commercial

Urban Centers

0.25

0.75

Inner Ring
Communities and Town
Centers

0.75

1.00

Residential and
Corridor Communities

1.25

1.25

Rural

2.00

1.25

22

Project Profile

Current Tax Rate

Recommended Tax Rate

Location Bethesda
CBD (Core)
Office 300,000 SF
GFA
Retail 30,000 SF
GFA

Office Rate - $6.35 /SF GFA

Retail Rate - $5.70 / SF GFA

Office Rate - $9.56 /SF GFA

Retail Rate - $8.55 / SF GFA

Office Impact Tax - $2,222,500

Retail Impact Tax - $171,000
Total Impact Tax - $2,393,500

Office Impact Tax - $3,346,875

Retail Impact Tax - $256,500
Total Impact Tax - $3,603,375
Reduction in Tax Rate Due
to Parking Incentive in
Core Areas

Note: Recommendation is for Impact

Tax revenue to be retained in Core
Policy Areas to fund transit accessibility

$3,603,375 x 30% =
$1,081,013

$3,603,375
-$1,081,013
$2,522,363

Baseline Minimum
Parking from Code
Office
Retail
Total

700 spaces
95 spaces
795 spaces

10% Reduction
from Baseline
Min Parking
Yields 30%
Reduction in
Impact Tax in
Core Area

Project Profile

Current Tax Rate

Recommended Tax Rate

Location Silver
Spring CBD (Core)
Residential MF Hi
Rise 120 DUs
Retail 6,500 SF
GFA

MF Hi Rise Rate - $3,174 /DU

Retail Rate - $5.70/ SF GFA

MF Hi Rise Rate - $1,587/DU

Retail Rate - $8.55 / SF GFA

Res. Impact Tax Retail Impact Tax Total Impact Tax -

Res. Impact Tax Retail Impact Tax Total Impact Tax -

$380,880
$37,050
$417,930

$190,410
$55,575
$245,985

Reduction in Tax Rate Due

to Parking Incentive in
Core Areas
$245,985 x 30% =
$73,796

$245,985
- $73,796
$172,190

Baseline Minimum
Parking from Code
Res.
Retail
Total

120 spaces
20 spaces
140 spaces

10% Reduction
from Baseline
Min Parking
Yields 30%
Reduction in
Impact Tax in
Core Area

Project Profile

Current Tax Rate

Recommended Tax Rate

Location Wheaton
CBD (Corridor)
Office 230,000 SF
GFA
Residential MF Hi
Rise 425 DUs
Retail 40,000 SF
GFA

Office Rate - $6.35 / SF GFA

MF Hi Rise Rate - $3,174 /DU
Retail Rate - $5.70 / SF GFA

Office Rate - $12.75 / SF GFA

MF Hi Rise Rate - $4,760/DU
Retail Rate - $11.40 / SF GFA

Office Impact Tax $1,460,500

Res. Impact Tax - $1,348,950
Retail Impact Tax - $228,000
Total Impact Tax - $3,037,450

Office Impact Tax - $2,932,500

Res. Impact Tax - $2,023,106
Retail Impact Tax $456,000
Total Impact Tax - $5,411,606
Reduction in Tax Rate Due
to Parking Incentive in
Corridor Areas
$5,411,606 x 20% =
$1,082,321
$5,411,606 -$1,082,321
$4,329,285

Baseline Minimum
Parking from Code
Office 460
Res.
425
Retail 126
Total 1,011

spaces
spaces
spaces
spaces

10% Reduction
from Baseline
Min Parking
Yields 20%
Reduction in
Impact Tax in
Corridor Area

Project Profile

Current Tax Rate

Recommended Tax Rate

Location Grosvenor
(Corridor)
Residential MF Hi
Rise 250 DUs
Retail 25,000 SF
GFA

MF Hi Rise Rate - $3,174/DU

Retail Rate - $5.70/ SF GFA

MF Hi Rise Rate - $4,760/DU

Retail Rate - $11.40 / SF GFA

Res. Impact Tax Retail Impact Tax Total Impact Tax -

Res. Impact Tax - $1,190,063

Retail Impact Tax - $285,000
Total Impact Tax - $1,475,063

$793,500
$142,500
$936,000

Reduction in Tax Rate Due

to Parking Incentive in
Corridor Areas
$1,475,063 x 20% =
$295,031

$1,475,063
- $295,031
$1,180,050

Baseline Minimum
Parking from Code
Res.
Retail
Total

250 spaces
79 spaces
329 spaces

10% Reduction
from Baseline
Min Parking
Yields 20%
Reduction in
Impact Tax in
Corridor Area

Project Profile

Current Tax Rate

Recommended Tax Rate

Location
Germantown East
(Wedge)
SF Residential - 125
DUs

SF Detached - $13,966 / DU

SF Detached - $17,458 / DU

Baseline Minimum
Parking from Code
Res.

Res. Impact Tax -

$1,745,750

Res. Impact Tax -

$2,182,188

250 spaces

Project Profile

Current Tax Rate

Recommended Tax Rate

Location Derwood
(Wedge)
SF Attached - 125
DUs

SF Attached - $11,427 / DU

SF Attached - $14,284/ DU

Baseline Minimum
Parking from Code
Res.

Res. Impact Tax -

$1,714,050

Res. Impact Tax -

$2,142,563

Reduction in Tax Rate Due

to Parking Incentive in
Wedge Areas
$2,142,563 x 10% =
$214,256

$2,182,188
- $214,256
$1,928,306

300 spaces

10% Reduction
from Baseline
Min Parking
Yields 10%
Reduction in
Impact Tax in
Wedge Area

Project Profile

Current Tax Rate

Recommended Tax Rate

Location Rural SF
Detached
SF Detached - 10
DUs

SF Detached - $13,966 / DU

SF Detached - $27,932 / DU

Baseline Minimum
Parking from Code
N/A

Res. Impact Tax -

$139,660

Res. Impact Tax -

$279,320

Summary Comparison

Recommended
Tax Structure

Current Tax
Structure

Difference

Notes

Recommeded Tax
Structure Without Parking
Incentive Applied

30,000

$2,522,363

$2,393,500

$128,863

Increase Rates Relative to Current

Rates Offset Parking Incentive

$3,603,375

6,500

$172,190

$417,930

($245,741)

Assumes Parking is 10% Below Baseline

Minimum

$245,985

230,000

40,000

$4,329,285

$3,037,450

$1,291,835

Assumes Parking is 10% Below Baseline

Minimum

$5,411,606

Project Type

Example
Location

Core - Mixed Use - Office & Retail

Bethesda CBD

350,000

Core - Mixed Use - Residential & Retail

Silver Spring
CBD

120

DU's Office SF Retail SF

Corridor - Mixed Use - Office, Residential,

Wheaton CBD 425
& Retail
Corridor - Mixed Use - Residential &
Retail

Grosvenor

250

25,000

$1,180,050

$936,000

$244,050

Assumes Parking is 10% Below Baseline

Minimum

$1,475,063

Residential - SF Detached

Germantown
East

125

$2,182,188

$1,745,750

$436,438

Increased Rate

$2,182,188

Residential - SF Attached

Derwood

150

$1,928,306

$1,714,050

$214,256

Assumes Parking is 10% Below Baseline

Minimum

$2,142,563

Rural - SF Detached

Rural

10

$279,320

$139,660

$139,660

Increased Rate

$279,320

TRANSPORTATION
RECOMMENDATIONS

Last time Transportation Impact Taxes were calculated,

a discount factor for tax rates in MSPAs and a bump in
the tax rate for Clarksburg were adopted.
The Public Hearing Draft proposes an alternative
system for discounting Transportation Impact Taxes
based on VMT and NADMS. This new calculation has
resulted in a higher tax rate for some land uses.
For specific land uses, such as Office, where other
County goals suggest minimizing changes to the rate
are warranted, staff recommends retaining the current
tax rate.

31

T R ANSPORTAT I ON
R E COMME NDAT I ONS

Local Area Test Example

Place Type

Core

Corridor
Road Code
urban area

Corridor
Non-Road Code
urban area

Wedge

Bethesda Row/
Bethesda CBD

Wheaton Mall/
Wheaton CBD

Washington Science
Center/ North Bethesda

Milestone/
Germantown East

Current

Proposed

Current

Proposed

Current

Proposed

Current

Proposed

AM Peak Hour
Auto trips

276

188

291

253

332

259

332

268

AM Peak Hour
Transit trips

n/a

93

n/a

51

n/a

34

n/a

11

AM Peak Hour
Walk/Bike trips

n/a

62

n/a

29

n/a

29

n/a

19

Example
Example place/
Policy Area

32

T R ANSPORTAT I ON
R E COMME NDAT I ONS

The proposed recommendations address this issue to

some extent by eliminating the Local Area Test in the
Core areas, and by providing for mitigation payments
in lieu of simply increasing intersection capacity in
designated road code areas that place a focus on
multi-modal context sensitive street design attributes.

33

I MPACT TAXE S

Adjust Residential Rates based on

HBW VMT

Adjust Commercial Rates based

on HBW mode share
Set ancillary retail rate at zero for
first 10, 000 GSF in vertical mixed
use
Adjust rate for Reduced Parking
Incentive

34

R E DUCED PAR K I NG
I NCE NT IV E

Eligible for properties in Reduced Parking

Areas

Applicable for sites proposing a number

of spaces equal to or less than the
Baseline Minimum

Reduced Vehicle Trip Generation Rates

proportional to percentage reduction
from the minimum requirement

Transportation Impact Tax discounted for

parking reductions in the Reduced
Parking Areas

Reduced Parking Incentive

Percentage below the Minimum Requirement

Impact Tax Rate

Adjustment
Factor

50%

25%

0%

.25

.15

.10

35