TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COUNTY COUNCIL ON ZTA 04-26, CREATING A MIXED-USE TOWN CENTER ZONE CATEGORY
January 18, 2005
Good afternoon, Council President Perez and Councilmembers. My name is Jim Humphrey. I currently serve as District 1 Vice President and a member of the Housing Committee for the Montgomery County Civic Federation, and am testifying before you as a representative of that organization. At the January 10, 2005 meeting of the Montgomery County Civic Federation, the delegates unanimously approved a motion to suggest certain changes be made to proposed Zoning Text Amendment 04-26, legislation to create a new Mixed-Use Town Center Zone in the county's zoning ordinance.
In their motion, the delegates noted concern over two items in proposed Section 59-C-11.5, the Development Standards chart that appears at the top of page 7 in the draft legislation. First, it is the opinion of the Federation delegates that the Maximum Building height should be expressed in feet rather than number of stories. Since allowable height is often the object of community concern with new development, the delegates think it would be preferable to express this building standard in number of feet, a definitive standard, rather than in number of stories, a height standard which is subject to significant variation and therefore invites contention. A suitable substitute would be to use the current countywide standard for 3 story commercial development of 42 feet (for standard method), and the current countywide standard for 5 story commercial development of 60 feet (for optional method).
The second issue of concern with the Development Standards chart is the Minimum Public Use Space requirement. The chart seems poorly drafted in that there appears to be no minimum public use space requirement for mixed-use development on lots of 20,000 square feet or more (we assume this is covered by the first line entry, designated "For lots of less than 20,000 sf, residential, non-residential, or mixed-use developments"). This confusion could be eliminated by designating four categories thusly--
1) For lots of less than 20,000 sf: residential, non-residential or mixed-use
developments
2) For lots of 20,000 sf or more: residential
3) For lots of 20,000 sf or more: non-residential
4) For lots of 20,000 sf or more: mixed-use developments
Also, there is no minimum open space requirement for active and passive recreation purposes to accommodate the residential component of projects developed on properties zoned in this new category (as there is, for instance, in the Transit Station-Residential zone category). And, the 200 sf per unit minimum public use space requirement for purely residential projects on lots of 20,000 sf or more equates to a surprisingly small percentage of gross tract area--less than 4% for standard method development and less than 7% for optional method.
The third point on which MCCF delegates expressed their concern was that this new zone category will allow development that is 5 stories (or, as is our preferred standard, a maximum 60 feet in height) to be built adjacent to existing residential zones. This constitutes a significant breakaway from the current 3 story height that is now the standard for transitioning from commercial or mixed-use areas to existing adjacent residential areas. The concern is that the 20 foot minimum required setback is not sufficient to mitigate the negative impact of light and noise pollution from retail and commercial development allowed so close to residential areas, especially in the absence of required fencing or landscape screening in the buffer area. (The Bethesda CBD Sector Plan, as an example, recommends a minimum 50 foot setback and landscape screening between any development on Lot 31 and the backyards of adjacent residential properties along Leland Street to the south.)
Finally, we think that to be effective in serving developer and community needs, this new hybrid of form-based and Euclidian zoning must be employed in concert with master plans that are highly specific as to the public services, the amenities, and type of retail required. The implementation of such flexible zoning should then be undertaken as an exhaustive process of partnership with the existing community, with the Board actively seeking input from the citizens on all aspects. Thank you.
This Page Last Edited: January 22, 2005 .