the maryland-national capital park & planning commission

The Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission

September 13, 2003

A new vision for

managing growth in

Montgomery County

The Annual Growth Policy

What an Annual Growth Policy does and does not do

• It does regulate the pace of private development

• It does seek to synchronize private development with the creation of adequate public facilities

• It does not regulate the types of uses allowed on land

• It does not regulate the ultimate density that will be created on land

Regulating development

• The General Plan

• The Master and Sector Plans

• The Zoning Ordinance

The use of land and ultimate densities (“build out”) are regulated by

Main Themes in General Plan

• Transit Oriented Development

• I-270 Employment Corridor (emphasizing high tech and biotech)

• An urban ring in the Downcounty

• Residential suburban “wedges”

• A permanent, low-density agricultural reserve

• Implemented through master and sector plans

The Regional Concept of “Wedges and Corridors”

“Wedges and Corridors” Today

The General Plan

Purpose of the Annual Growth Policy

• New residential and commercial development must be served by adequate facilities – transit, roads, schools and so forth

• It takes time and money for government to build public facilities

• The AGP seeks to synchronize private and public construction.

Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance

• The County adopted its APFO in 1973.• The Planning Board may not approve a

subdivision unless it finds that public facilities are adequate.

• Implemented through the Annual Growth Policy (AGP) since 1986.

• The AGP is a lengthy document, approved by the Council, that the Planning Board uses to decide whether public facilities are “adequate.”

For what public facilities does the AGP Test?

• Transportation Roads, Transit and Pedestrian Facilities

• Schools Elementary, Middle and High Schools

• Water & Sewer

• Police, Fire and Health

October 2001: Council requests “top-to-bottom” review of AGP

• Roads are too congested.

• Schools are too crowded.

• The methodology is too complex.

• There are too many exceptions.

• The AGP is designed for 80s-style rapid growth, not a “mature” County.

• Other localities may now be at the forefront of growth management.

Top to bottom review of the AGP

• October 2001: Council requests “top to bottom” review of the AGP

• February 2003: Staff presents results of background studies

• May – August: Planning Board holds public forums, worksessions. Transmits recommendations.

• September-October 2003: Council public hearings and worksessions.

Background studies

• Effect of AGP on the pace of development

• Traffic congestion & the AGP

• Factors affecting school enrollment

• Focus groups of residents and developers

• Profiles of growth management around the nation

What the Planning Board found

• The AGP does slow the pace of private development

• Public facilities have not kept up with private development

• Transportation and school facilities are not perceived to be adequate Countywide.

• Although the AGP says most policy areas have capacity for more development, this is somewhat misleading.

• There are too many policy areas (29).• AGP uses complex formulas not easily understood

by public or policymakers.

Planning Board’s recommended approach

• Continue to pace private development

• Give public sector a chance to “catch up” on transportation and schools

• Impose a “speed limit” on development, but not a cap.

• Create a new source of funding for public facilities

• Make the AGP simpler and easier to understand

• Make the AGP consistent with smart growth principles.

• Keep Local Area Transportation Review

Preliminary Plan Approval Rate

• Objective: reduce pace of development approvals

• Every two years, determine the amount of development that can be approved

• Could go up or down, depending on congestions and crowding measures, infrastructure, economy, etc.

Area Share Jobs UnitsMetro station areas 53% 3,100 1,925Red Line areas 26% 1,550 950Suburban areas 13% 775 475Rural area 7% 375 275Total 100% 5,800 3,625

“Most efficient land use first”

“Most efficient land use first”

Moratoriums/exceptions

• When annual allocation is reached:• Approvals stop temporarily• But developer can make needed improvements

• Limited exceptions:• Limited number of projects containing affordable

housing• Strategic Economic Development Projects• Metro station area development

• Not available if no feasible school improvement

School test• Individual development proposals are not

subject to a school adequacy review

• School adequacy taken into account in setting Preliminary Plan Approval Rate Countywide & in sub-areas

• Proposal benefits schools in two ways:

• Slows pace of residential development approvals

• Requires payment of development impact tax for schools.

Cost of future infrastructure

• 2030 Forecast: 146,000 jobs and 78,000 housing units (31,200 students).

• Transportation: $5.9 billion

• About $26,000 per forecast job and housing unit

• Schools: $808 million

• About $10,000 per housing unit.

Transportation impact tax rates

Residential (proposed)

Area Detached Town Apt. Senior MPDUs

Metro station area $1,500 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0

Red Line area $3,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $0

Suburban area $4,500 $4,500 $3,000 $1,500 $0

Rural area $6,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0

Residential rates per unit; “Senior” means multi-family senior housing; “MPDU” means “moderately-priced dwelling unit” as defined by County law.

Transportation impact tax rates

Non-Residential (proposed)

Area Office Retail Ind. Bio. Other

Metro station area $2 $3 $2 $0 $2

Red Line area $4 $6 $4 $0 $4

Suburban area $6 $9 $6 $0 $6

Rural area $8 $12 $8 $0 $8

Non-residential rates per square foot.

School impact tax rates

Residential (proposed)

Detached Town Garden Hi-Rise Senior MPDUs

$8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $1,600 $0 $0

Residential rates per unit; “Senior” means multi-family senior housing; “MPDU” means “moderately-priced dwelling unit” as defined by County law.

Conclusion

• Continue to pace development

• Slow, but do not stop development

• Work hard to close public infrastructure gap

• Encourage development to occur where infrastructure already exists (smart growth)