Posts about Zoning Update

Buildings cover about 4.1% of the county's land. But roadways cover 4.3%, meaning that we use 6.8% of the area of the county just to move or store automobiles.

Silver Spring is one of Montgomery County's urban areas. There we find that 21.9% of the land area of the Central Business District is devoted to parking cars. Most of that area is surface parking. Only 3.8% of the land area of the CBD is used for structured parking. Another 16% of the land area is used for roadways.

In fact, four times as much area is devoted to surface parking than is devoted to parks in the Silver Spring CBD. Author's note, added to clarify: This number only counts parks in public ownership. Privately held plazas are not shown because their surface area was not available at the time this calculation was done. These areas, like the Discovery Building's Sensory Garden and the splash fountain on Ellsworth Drive are vital, vibrant spaces which add immeasurable value to Silver Spring. Again, they were not included because the data was not available. I apologize if this caused any confusion or consternation.

In White Flint, along the suburban Rockville Pike corridor, the numbers are even more extreme. I used the boundaries of the recent sector plan area to calculate the percentages.

There, some 45.9% of the land area is devoted to parking. Another 13.2% is devoted to roadways, meaning that 59.1% of the land area of the neighborhood is given over to cars.

Here, the lack of a parking lot district makes shared parking much more difficult. And that means that each business is providing more spaces than would be needed in a "park once" district.

All told, approximately 34.6 square miles of land area in Montgomery County is devoted to automotive transportation. If all the roads and parking areas in Montgomery County were placed in Arlington County, Virginia, they would completely fill Arlington, and there would still be 10 square miles of parking and roads left over. Or, placed in Washington, they would cover over half of the land area in the District.

Accommodating this sea of parking places a huge cost on both the public and private sectors. And it also has a major impact on the environment. But perhaps most notable is the opportunity cost of using valuable land in activity centers for parking. In White Flint, despite the presence of a Metro station, 45.9% of the land area is devoted to parking. Only 17.7% of the land is used for buildings!

As the county grows more dense, the acres of parking in places like White Flint are becoming more valuable as potential sites for redevelopment. How the parking issue is addressed will have an enormous impact on the future of the county.

Crossposted at The Straight Line.

Now, it's important to note that the above graphic does not represent what is possible on the same lot. Each of these examples represents what development could look like in different zones based on the CR designation. The CR-6.0 building at bottom right could not be built in the CR-0.5 zone at top right. But the CR-0.5 building at top right, a standard method of development, could be built in any of the denser zones.

Let's consider another example. What could we build if a parcel was zoned CR-4.0 | C-3.0 | R-3.5 | H-50?

Because developers can only achieve the maximum density by mixing uses, they have an incentive to do so. This will improve the mix of uses in our activity centers. Other regulatory elements will ensure better urban design by putting parking behind structures and encouraging the inclusion of public amenities.

Implementing of the CR zones during rewrite project will not increase densities or heights beyond what exists now without comprehensive review and public input, as required by law. Increasing the density of a parcel is something that belongs in the planning process, not the coding process.

Currently, the highest density allowed in the county is 8.0 FAR, which is only allowed in the CBD-3 zone. Those zones are adjacent to the Metro stations at Bethesda, Silver Spring, and Wheaton.

The map below shows existing (and draft conversion) densities for the CR Zones throughout the county. Note the range of colors. The CR Zones are not uniformly dense and do not necessarily represent an "up-zoning."

Matt Johnson works for the Montgomery County Planning Department.

Currently, while zones are somewhat differentiated by impact (read, density), they are primarily concerned with minute differences between allowed uses and development standards. Take, for instance, the R-150 and R-200 zones. Both are low-density residential zones. Except for a few differences in permitted uses, the zones are identical, even in development standards.

By combining zones based on these parameters, we can probably reduce the number of zones from 120 to less than two dozen.

This restructuring proposal, which is still being hammered out, will likely not have any substantive effect on single-family, existing planned development, or rural zones, including the Agricultural Reserve. Together, these zones make up over 95% of the county's land area.

While the names of these zones might change, little will be different for homeowners or developers in agricultural and low-density residential areas. In these cases, the main effort in the restructuring will be to ensure legibility, increase understanding, and modify the development standards and permitted uses to fit into a revised format.

The primary changes will be focused on the County's mixed-use and commercial areas. Some of those zones will see changes, including adding the CR zone family, which will be discussed tomorrow.

The changes to our commercial and mixed-use areas should improve the diversity and integration of uses, design of spaces and buildings, and the quality of public amenities in these areas. The restructuring, however, will not change existing densities or heights without a comprehensive public review and Council approval.

Changes to the zoning in our activity centers are important because of the changing nature of Montgomery County. The county is rapidly running out of developable land, and is striving to become more environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable. It is important for the new code to address redevelopment and infill development.

Tomorrow, we'll take a look at the CR zones, which are a family of zones likely to have a major impact on how we grow in our activity centers.

Matt Johnson works for the Montgomery County Planning Department.

Procedures

When Montgomery's first zoning code was enacted in 1928, development procedures were basically limited to an occupancy certificate, building permit, and plat. Today, there are 13 different procedures, some of which are similar (with different names) but are sometimes applicable on a zone by zone basis. Many procedures overlap with other procedures, as well.

The large number of procedures makes it difficult for everyone. It's difficult for property owners and developers to understand which plans and processes they're subject to and is difficult for citizens to know when they have the opportunity to participate in the process.

Procedures include:

• Development Plan
• Diagrammatic Plan
• Schematic Development Plan
• Supplementary Plan
• Pre-Preliminary Plan
• Urban Renewal Plan
• Project Plan
• Preliminary Plan
• Site Plan
• Record Plat
• Variance
• Special Exception

Development Standards

Development in the county is regulated by a set of standards in each zone. These standards regulate everything from height and density to setbacks. They are often very complicated and difficult to understand. Any given development could face up to 60 standards.

Standards also regulate open space. In some zones, this is called "green area," which is misleading in and of itself, because it can include paved areas and structures. In other zones, this area is variously referred to as "public use space," "common open space," and "outside amenity area." The terminology is inconsistent.

Oftentimes, standards no longer make sense or use outdated methods to achieve an end. For instance, in some residential zones, a requirement exists for a minimum 12-foot side yard setback, and that the sum of the setbacks must total 25 feet.

Some of the requirements, especially different definitions of density for residential and commercial components discourage mixed use. Defining residential uses by units per acre, but commercial development by Floor-Area Ratio (FAR) adds unneeded complexity to the process and does not result in predicable results.

Over the years, Montgomery County's zoning code has lost its cohesive vision. The tools in our planning toolbox no longer match the critical tasks at hand, which are all the more as the county runs out of greenfield areas to develop.

In the next installment, I'll discuss the approach we're taking to write the new code.

Matt Johnson works for the Montgomery County Planning Department.

Montgomery's code lists 433 specific uses. However, many of them are duplicative, overlapping, or outdated. The code lists 18 different types of office, including "offices, business," "offices, insurance claims," "offices, general," "offices, professional," and "offices, professional and business."

There are nine different types of child care, three different types of antique stores, and three different listings for Christmas tree sales. Do we really need an individual use for each variation of an antique shop?

Abattoirs, blacksmiths, foundries, millinery shops, and variety stores are all listed as permitted uses. Not only did most of those uses disappear from Montgomery County a century ago, but do people really know what those terms mean?

The modern term for abattoir, incidentally, is "slaughterhouse."

Oddities abound. Permitted uses in the I-2 (heavy industrial) zone include "stove polish" and "starch, glucose and dextrin." The code doesn't say the manufacturing of stove polish and starch, glucose and dextrin are permitted; it says those things are permitted. Does that mean one can use them in manufacturing? One can store them? Produce them? The code simply does not provide answers to these questions.

Like the rest of the code, our use tables are the victims of unplanned additions and amendments. As new zones were added, uses were removed, added, and modified without consideration for the overall form or goals of the code. If a use category wasn't broad enough, often times, a new specific use was inserted. And sometimes, use categories would be amended in one place but not another.

These issues need to be addressed. However, our approach must be more than just a revision of the existing use tables. The county's approach must be one which will deter subsequent haphazard and complicating additions or modifications. Our goal is to provide more certainty in the zoning process. Property owners, neighbors, and builders must know as much up front as possible, to help simplify the process and achieve more predictable results.

Matt Johnson works for the Montgomery County Planning Department.

At least 12 zones are totally unused, including six Planned Development zones which may never have been used. Some zones are similar to other zones, and thus are barely used.

Furthermore, the creation of mainly single-use, special-purpose zones has contributed to the proliferation. The H-M zone, for instance, was created for hotels and motels. But hotels and motels are permitted by right in 10 other zones. In fact, only two of Montgomery County's hotels are even in the H-M zone. That zone takes up just 21 acres, well under 0.1 percent of the county's land area.

Similarly, the mixed use, commercial, and central business district zones make up only 1.3% of the county's land, but account for over 20% of the county's zones. On the other hand, the Agricultural Reserve takes up almost 38% of the county's land, but is made up of just one zone: RDT.

Several zones are almost identical in composition. R-150 and R-200 are both low density residential zones, and have very little differences between them. While R-200 makes up 13% of the county's area, R-150 makes up only 0.4%.

Simplifying our zones is one step we are working on to make the code easier to use. In a future installment, I'll talk about our thoughts on zones. It is clear that development in the county will increasingly be located in infill situations where the current standards may prevent good infill development. The new zoning code will help create building and land typologies that will result in predictable infill development.

Matt Johnson works for the Montgomery County Planning Department.

The open houses feature a visual presentation of what's allowed in different zones, such as the mix of land uses, building design and public amenities. Other displays shed light on how zoning can help achieve sustainability goals, how to simplify the listing of land uses allowed in zones, and better define development standards like landscaping, lighting or parking to improve overall project quality.

The open houses are our latest attempt to show the public what we're up to. We will be both showing our progress and listening to public input.

It's important to note that the Rewrite is not a rezoning of the county. Changing the zoning of individual parcels typically occurs through a master planning process, like the one recently approved for White Flint. Using the rewrite to rezone would be comparable to using a sledgehammer to do the work of a screwdriver: it's not only the wrong scale, it's the wrong tool.

I'll talk more about some of the difficulties of the current code and potential solutions in future installments. Meanwhile, we hope to see you at one of the open houses. If you can't stop by, check out our virtual open houses.

After the MidCity Business Association raised the alarm, nearly every blog in DC covered the issue, area Councilmembers voiced their support for a change, DCRA put out press releases saying they wanted to change the rules, and the Office of Planning proposed an emergency text amendment, which the WBJ reported will have a hearing on April 26th.

That's probably the meeting to discuss the "setdown," where the Zoning Commission officially announces an issue and opens up the public comment. The Office of Planning just posted their setdown report for the amendment and recommended an abbreviated 30-day notice period for the subsequent hearing.

OP essentially recommends exactly what the ARTS overlay committee proposed. The new rule would allow up to 50% restaurant and bar uses, but measured for each "block face" rather than for the entire overlay. Any exceptions to this new standard would need to meet the much stricter variance test rather than the special exception requirements. The change would also clarify that restaurants above or below the ground floor do not count toward the limit.

According to the OP report, four block faces currently exceed the 50% limit: the east side of 14th between U and V (which includes Busboys and Poets), the north side of U between 13th and 14th, the south side of U between 11th and 12th (which is "currently entirely developed with popular eating establishments," such as Dukem Ethiopian), and the north side of U between 10th and 11th.

It's very meaningful that OP took the committee's recommendations nearly without change. Unlike many resident efforts in zoning, the committee took a very pragmatic approach to the ARTS overlay. They came up with sensible ideas for better achieving the goals of the zoning regulations and improving the area, not agreeing to unlimited development nor fighting any change at all.

This committee did a remarkable amount of work learning about the issues, studying the regulations, interviewing residents, business owners, and developers, and debating the issues. It's gratifying to see their hard work accepted by the Office of Planning. OP should similarly strive to incorporate as much of the committee's other recommendations into the larger zoning rewrite, to demonstrate that when residents put in the work to formulate detailed, thoughtful, and non-knee-jerk recommendations, the government will listen.