Katherine Kelly handed out copies of a PowerPoint presentation on the transportation section of the APFO and presented by staff to the Mayor and Council in May. She briefly described the concepts of Transit-Oriented Areas and Non-Transit-Oriented Areas, different thresholds of congestion, and credits for multi-modal improvements.
The following are questions and answers that arose following the brief presentation:
Commissioner Levine questioned why greater levels of congestion would be allowed in TOAs, as this might be a deterrent for visitors and a nuisance to citizens. He also asked why we allow development with densities at levels that add to congestion.
Ms. Kelly and CPDS staff responded that, with increasing traffic due to regional and local growth, our goal is to direct traffic to activity centers and out of solely residential areas. Allowing and supporting greater densities near transit areas supports this goal.
Are we are different from other municipalities in this area with regard to what levels of congestion we would allow under the APFO?
We are unique and that, compared with County standards, our levels are more strict in Transit-Oriented Areas.
A concern was raised about the City not having cut-offs, or absolute caps, on developments.
CPDS replied that developments would not be approved if they could not provide enough mitigations---both vehicular and other modes.
Why was the distance of 7/10ths mile used to define TOAs? Also, why was distance used rather than walking time?
CPDS and Ms. Kelly pointed out that 7/10ths is a national standard for walking distance to transit, and that measuring by time is difficult due to variations in peak-hour vs. non-peak hour walk times, as well as days of the week, age, and gender.
Commissioner Oberg asked if the Corridor Cities Transitway would be considered a TOA. He’d like to see a map of proposed lines.
CPDS clarified that if the CCT mode is fixed rail, then yes, it would be considered a TOA (because 7/10ths mile from fixed transit Right of Way). If it is another mode, it would not be TOA because it would likely align with I270 rather than fixed transit Right of Way. However, measures other than 7/10ths standard could be used in the future to include these types of areas. Staff is to bring a map proposed aligning of the CCT to the next mtg. CPDS has this.
Would credits be given to developments that lie partially outside of the City but overlap into City boundaries? An example of this would be new developments at the Shady Grove Metro station, which lie within 7/10ths mile of the City limits.
Likely, the credits would be apportioned by the amount of impact on the separate areas.
Concern that there is nothing in the APFO that defines a limit, or cap, on the amount of mitigation credits a developer can be granted. If this is the case, the size of developments are not “checked” and thus may not be providing “adequate” facilities.
The County currently uses the Annual Growth Policy to address this question. Rockville will establish maximum credit ceilings to create realistic and adequate guidelines for development and to avoid a “pay and go” system.
Would development approvals be subject to service commitments that limit the amount of time they have to develop?
We are researching the legality of time limits for existing approved developments, but with the APFO we hope to establish time limits such that developments can reserve facilities for a certain period of time and, if they haven’t developed, they must reapply.
Chairman Resnick recommends that the Executive Summary of the APFO defines who capacity is reserved for and clarifies who does the CTR
Chairman Resnick recommends the following edits to the Transportation Section of the APFO:
a. Need to define the standards, to say what the standard is compared against
b. Define the access routes that would be counted as TOAs. With this, there is a question of impacts due to other developments (i.e., how to account for impacts from non-TOA developments on proposed TOA developments). Staff explained that developments that could not mitigate to .90 in a non-TOA or 1.0 in a TOA would not be approved. They also explained that the County is investigating this matter, plus a Transportation Impact Tax, and will brief the Mayor and Council on June 30. Essentially, the City is looking at reserving capacity in TOAs.
Chairman Resnick gave Ms. Kelly his written comments on the APFO. These will be noted by Traffic and Transportation and Planning staff, and reviewed for incorporation/clarification in the next version of the APFO.
Would standards be set in the APFO?
Staff clarified that a Standards Resolution document would be presented to the Mayor and Council for adoption. These standards could be amended from time to time.
Commissioner Gonnella raised the issue of safety as a factor in allowing development. She stressed concern that, even though a development may be within defined TOA, it may not be safe for walking at certain times. She suggested incorporating safety factors (lighting, accessibility, routing signs that direct pedestrians away from unsafe areas, etc.) in approval conditions.
Staff told Commissioners about APFO meeting times (July 9 Text Amendment and July 21 Public Hearing).
Commissioner Klein stressed the importance of incorporating portions of the Pedestrian Policy (standards, e.g.) into the APFO and/or CTR.
Commissioner Resnick requested that staff be sure to pass along copies of the updated APFO in time for the T&T Commission to incorporate comments before the public comment period closes (i.e., prior to the July 21st Mayor and Council meeting).
