MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION
MCPB
Item No. 3
Date: 5/4/17
Briefing on the Master Plan Reality Check Study
NK
Nick Holdzkom, Planner, Research & Special Projects, [email protected], 301-650-5612
HSB
Hye-Soo Baek, Intern, Research & Special Projects, [email protected], 301-495-2164
Roberto Ruiz, Manager, Research & Special Projects, [email protected], 301-650-5618
Caroline McCarthy, Chief, Research & Special Projects, [email protected], 301-495-4506
Completed: 4/26/17
Description
Staff from the Research & Special Projects Division will provide a final summary of key findings from the
Master Plan Reality Check study.
Overview
The Master Plan Reality Check study was funded in the FY2017 work program to analyze the degree to
which select master plans have realized the vision, densities, land uses, infrastructure, and amenities
called upon in their respective recommendations. By assessing the difference between a plan’s
aspirations and the on-the-ground reality among a broad set of planning criteria, the study aims to shed
light on why some plan aspects materialized as envisioned and others didn’t.
Over the past year, the research team has conducted in-depth analyses of three plans:
• 1989 Germantown Master Plan,
• 1998 Friendship Heights Sector Plan, and
• 1997 Fairland Master Plan
Detailed findings from the analysis of each plan were presented to the Planning Board at two previous
sessions. The goal of this presentation is to summarize cross-cutting findings and our key takeaways
from the overall project.
1
Key Findings from the Analysis of Plans for
Germantown, Fairland, and Friendship Heights
Presentation to the Montgomery County Planning Board
May 4, 2017
Research and Special Projects Division
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MASTER PLAN REALITY CHECK
• Recap of the Master Plan Reality Check
Project
• Key Findings and Observations
•
•
•
•
•
•
Residential Development
Non-Residential Development
Community Facilities
Urban Design
Transportation
Environment
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
 Agenda
• Summary and Implications
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
1
Gauge how master plan goals and
vision have been implemented
Reality
Check
Master
Plan
Implementation
Evaluate why expected outcomes
were and were not met
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
 What is the purpose of the Master Plan Reality Check?
Recommend changes to the
development of master plans,
based on indicators
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
2
• Why are ‘Reality Checks’ so rarely done in planning?
•
•
•
Resource constraints
Unsupportive political or organizational culture
Challenges of the task itself
Source: Journal of the American Planning Association
Monitoring and Evaluation in Municipal Planning: Considering the Realities, Mark Seasons (2003)
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
 Literature Findings
3
Horizon Date /
Sufficient Time
Elapsed
Knowledgeable
Staff
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
Mix of
Geography
Data
Availability
1989
Germantown
Master Plan
1998
Friendship
Heights
Sector Plan
1997
Fairland
Master Plan
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
 Selection criteria for plans studied in the Master Plan Reality
Check
4
1989 Germantown
Master Plan
1997 Fairland Master Plan
1998 Friendship Heights
Sector Plan
11,000 Acres
8,100 Acres
110 Acres
I-270 New Corridor City
Suburban Corridor
Metro-proximate Urban CBD
Greenfield
Suburban Infill
Urban Infill
Focus of Plan
Vision/Identity of SubCommunities (Employment
Corridor, Town Center,
Residential Villages)
Preservation of Suburban
Residential Density, Street
Connectivity
Specific Recommendations for
Major Parcels (Chevy Chase
Land Company, Hecht’s,
GEICO)
Economic Goals
Strengthen Office and Retail
Market
Diversify Office and Retail
Markets; Increase Housing
Market
Maintain Office, Retail and
Housing Market
Public Space Funding
Public
Public and Private
Private
Number of Indicators
24
19
14
Plan Area Size
Geography Type
Development Type
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
 The three plans demonstrated a range of plan and geography
types.
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
5
• Recap of the Master Plan Reality Check Project
• Key Findings and Observations
•
•
•
•
•
•
Residential Development
Non-Residential Development
Community Facilities
Urban Design
Transportation
Environment
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
 Agenda
• Summary and Implications
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
6
R E S I D E N T I A L B U I L D - O U T R AT E
BY P L AN AREA
96%
100%
Percentage of Units in Plan
90%
94%
85%
80%
New
Housing
70%
60%
50%
Existing
Housing
40%
30%
20%
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Residential Development: While all three areas had significant
residential bases, plans supported additional growth.
10%
0%
Germantown
Plan Projection:
Reality:
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
37,000 Units
31,400 Units
Fairland
16,000 Units
15,400 Units
Friendship Heights
4,450 Units
4,200 Units
7
HOUSING TYPE MIX RECOMMENDATIONS AND REALITY
Germantown
SFD
30%
MF
SFD
35%
37%
31%
34%
32%
1997
Recommended
Reality
31%
43%
34%
29%
25%
Recommended
Reality
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
MF
32%
35%
19%
SFA
31%
32%
40%
51%
1989
SFA
Fairland
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Residential Development: Townhouse growth in Germantown and
Fairland was stronger than recommended.
8
 Affordable housing
implementation relies on
inter-agency partnerships.
 Multi-family rental housing
is ‘naturally affordable’
today in 2 plan areas.
Affordable >= 80% AMI
Number of Rental Units Surveyed
 Affordable housing was not
an emphasized issue in any
of the plans.
MULTIFAMILY RENTAL HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
Germantown
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
Affordable < 80% AMI
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Residential Development: Plans did not provide quantifiable goals
for affordable housing.
Fairland
Friendship
Heights
Source: DHCA Rental Housing Survey, 2014
9
NON -RESI DENT I AL DEV ELOP MENT BY L AND USE
MILLION SF
20.0
18.0
16.0
Office
Retail
Industrial
Other
2.1
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
16.0
6.0
1.3
4.0
2.0
4.0
1.2
1.7
0.8
1.1
1.5
0.3
0.8
2.8
2.1
2.5
0.2
0.9
2.3
Projection
Reality
Projection
Reality
0.0
Projection
Reality
Germantown
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
Fairland
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2. Non-Residential Development: Commercial development meets SF
projections in 2 of 3 plans.
Friendship Heights
10
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2. Non-Residential Development: Employment falls short of
projections. Reasons unclear due to lack of sourced data.
NUMB ER OF JOB S BY P L AN AREA
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
78,000
30,000
39,900
20,000
21,387
10,000
17,106
Projection
Reality
Germantown
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
Projection
Reality
Fairland
***
Data
insufficient
for analysis
***
Projection
9,020
Reality
Friendship Heights
11
 New sites were delivered as
planned in Germantown and
Fairland.
Burtonsville
ES
 Friendship Heights Plan did not
mention schools (and no existing
schools were in plan area).
 School capacity utilization was
not an issue of concern at time
plans were adopted.
William T.
Page ES
Fairland
ES
Greencastle
ES
New ES
Site
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
3. Community Facilities: School sites were delivered when included in
plans.
Galway ES
Fairland - Elementary Schools
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
12
Parks / Open Space
 Greenbelt completion,
Germantown
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
Recreational Facilities
 Playground at Cross Creek
Club Local Park, Fairland
Cultural Facilities
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
3. Community Facilities: Public sector consistently delivered on
community facilities.
 Germantown Library
13
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
Urban Park / Plaza
Community Center
Major Public Park
Unrealized Park Site
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
3. Community Facilities: The provision of community amenities by the
private sector in Friendship Heights produced mixed results.
14
1989 GERMANTOWN MASTER PLAN
Kingsview Village
Gunners Lake Village
Neelsville Village
Middlebrook Village
Clopper Village
- Vague guidelines for Village Centers.
- Architectural detail given proper attention,
but site design unreflective of Plan vision.
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
2009 GERMANTOWN SECTOR PLAN
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
4. Urban Design: Concrete urban design guidelines resulted in
development more consistent with plan visions.
- Design guidelines strengthened.
- Newer development forming urban
streetscape representative of Plan vision.
15
GERMANTOWN
FRIENDSHIP HEIGHTS
FAIRLAND
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
5. Transportation: Traffic flow is as projected or better at a majority of
intersections.
Traffic lighter than projected
Traffic as projected
Traffic worse than projected
Insufficient Data
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
16
GERMANTOWN
FAIRLAND
FRIENDSHIP HEIGHTS
P
P
P
P
P
Germantown Transit Center
Park and Ride Lots
CCT Alignment Proposal
BRT Route Proposal
• CCT is still in planning stage.
• BRT, not discussed in ‘89, is
now in planning stage.
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
• Plan focused on US 29
grade-separated
interchanges and several
have been built.
• Infill development
around existing Metro
station has realized as
planned.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
5. Transportation: Transit serviceability has improved, but progress in
implementing full transit goals slower than anticipated.
• BRT was not discussed in
‘97, but is now in planning
stage.
17
GERMANTOWN
FAIRLAND
FRIENDSHIP HEIGHTS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
5. Transportation: Improvements have been made to bike and
pedestrian networks, but plan goals are not yet fully implemented.
Completed Bikeway
Proposed Bikeway
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
18
AREAS WITH IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS
GERMANTOWN
FAIRLAND
(Analysis Area
NE-1)
(Patuxent River PMA)
(Upper Paint Branch
SPA)
(Analysis Area
KI-2)
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6. Environment: Plans took different approaches to setting goals.
19
• Recap of the Master Plan Reality Check Project
• Key Findings and Observations
•
•
•
•
•
•
Residential Development
Non-Residential Development
Community Facilities
Urban Design
Transportation
Environment
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
 Agenda
• Summary and Implications
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
20
• Residential development achieved overall unit goals, but was less effective
in altering unit mix in Germantown and Fairland.
• Commercial build out depends on the market and, on an FAR basis, differs
for plans in urban vs. suburban areas.
• The public sector delivered most of its capital commitments – parks,
recreation facilities, schools, and road investments.
• None of the plans indicated any concerns about school overcrowding.
• Public benefits contingent on private sector investment, didn’t always
materialize.
• Investment in transit and bikeways has not progressed as quickly as hoped.
• Stronger design standards help with the implementation of higher quality
developments.
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
 Summary of Key Findings
21
• Data Documentation: Preserve data used at time of master plan
analysis for documentation of baseline assumptions.
• Understand Economic Conditions: More detailed market analysis as
part of a master plan would provide more quantitative data on
baseline conditions and support for recommendations.
• Flexibility: Plans reflect the time and place in which they are
completed as well as the unique plan area characteristics.
• Monitoring: Performing master plan reality check before the horizon
date could be useful to determine if incentives or other interventions
should be considered to stimulate development.
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
 What does this mean for how we plan?
22
Preliminary Monitoring Indicators
Indicator Category
1. Non-residential Development
2. Residential Development
3. Community Facilities
4. Transportation
Metric
Build out breakdown, by ORIO*
FAR, by ORIO
Commercial building permits issued
Dwelling units, by count and type
MPDUs , by count and type
Residential building permits issued
School capacity
Park acreage
Traffic intersection metric**
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
 Potential indicators for more frequent master plan monitoring.
Selected based on readily available data.
* ORIO is defined as Office, Retail, Industrial and Other
** Level of Service (LOS) or Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT), depending on what metric was used in the master plan
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
23
Neighborhood Wellness Indicators
Population
Median Household Income
Poverty (as defined by Census Bureau)
Educational Attainment
Median Home Value and Change
•
•
Data requires third party surveys (such as the U.S. Census ACS).
Data availability is variable and requires a statistically significant sample size.
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
 Additional indicators of area conditions that could be measured
every 5 years.
24
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
 The Reality of the Master Plan Reality Check
25
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Questions?
26