TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COUNTY COUNCIL ON ZTA 05-02, TO CREATE A TRANSIT-ORIENTED MIXED USE ZONE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE
March 1, 2005
I am Jim Humphrey presenting testimony for the Montgomery County Civic Federation. At our February 14 meeting, MCCF delegates adopted a resolution to recommend certain changes be made to ZTA 05-02, should the Council decide that a new medium density mixed-use zone is needed in our zoning ordinance. This first is a laundry list, since 3 minutes is too short to discuss much in depth.
MCCF recommendations--
Specify a maximum building height in feet for the Optional Method.
Establish a minimum required setback from any adjacent single-family residential zone for Optional Method development (or specify that it is not allowed).
We support the 20% public use space requirement for Optional Method, but think 10% for Standard Method is too low (unless there is also minimum required "active and passive recreational space" for projects with a residential component) and strongly oppose a reduction to 5% in projects with MPDUs. There is no less a need for space, light and air around buildings with MPDUs than for other buildings.
MCCF recommends establishing a maximum dwelling-unit-per-acre density for Standard and Optional Method. If you are creating a new zone to allow mixed use at medium density levels, then a density cap should placed not just on FAR but on number of dwelling units per acre. In discussing the AGP in August 2003, the Planning Board told you that schools and roads are beyond capacity and cannot support additional growth. We prefer the county government place a on hold its effort to increase densities while revising master plans until the infrastructure is provided to support such growth, or our existing infrastructure deficit will worsen for years to come. But, if you insist on creating new zones that allow increased density, we prefer you be specific about the amount allowed.
In his report to the Planning Board, John Carter spent pages explaining why the 8 existing mixed-use zones were incapable of accommodating the kind of development this new zone would allow. And, the Board proposed another mixed-use zone for Town Centers. MCCF is disappointed that the Planning staff did not devise a simplified approach to mixed-use development at varying levels of density throughout the county, but instead recommended further complicating an already complex zoning ordinance. For example, the ordinance devotes over 600 words to explaining minimum setback requirements in the CBD mixed-use zone. It is unfortunate these same carefully thought out criteria could not be applied to other areas proposed for mixed-use.
There are problems associated with mixed-use that should be considered as this county government rushes to encourage densified "smart growth." In their International Builders' Show seminar this January entitled Density by Design*, architects Bob Koch and John Torti recognized that problems occur with mixed use when density exceeds 30 dwelling units per acre--concerns with privacy, noise, smells, garbage collection, traffic segregation, deliveries, and safety. And, the need for exterior living space becomes critical to quality of life in mixed use areas, which MCCF addressed in our public use space recommendation.
In their seminar, Koch and Torti also referred to what they call "life safety mandates," or the need to make careful choices in higher density mixed-use buildings since occupants' lives are at stake. For instance, allowing 143 foot or taller buildings, as in the CBD-R2 Zone, might not be appropriate if the county's current fire rescue equipment reaches only 125 feet in height. Another of our concerns is that the TOMX Zone would permit light manufacturing as an approved use alongside residential. The Council should carefully consider the safety of materials that may be used, a requirement for enhanced air filtration systems, and whether hazmat preparedness and education of nearby residents might be necessary, before allowing such use in close proximity to homes. When there are inadequate public safety facilities to accommodate proposed development, it would be prudent to not encourage such development.
Lastly, Since MPDU buyouts are still allowed for projects with high amenity package fees, MCCF hopes that the Council will find a way to prevent transit centers from becoming luxury housing enclaves for the rich devoid of affordable housing. MCCF believes that there are issues that should be carefully considered before the Council creates any new zone category. We stand ready to discuss all of the issues we've raised in greater depth with any member of Council who so desires. Thank you.
__________________
* A downloadable handout is available on-line for the Density by Design seminar, at http://www.buildersshow.com/seminars/pdfs/801.pdf .
This Page Last Edited: March 7, 2005 .