The Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission

1. The Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission The Annual Growth Policy A new vision for managing growth in Montgomery County September 13, 2003

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. The General Plan The Regional Concept of “Wedges and Corridors” “Wedges and Corridors” Today

6. 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.

7. 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.”

8. 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

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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.

13. 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

14. 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.

15. “Most efficient land use first” Area Share Jobs Units Metro station areas 53% 3,100 1,925 Red Line areas 26% 1,550 950 Suburban areas 13% 775 475 Rural area 7% 375 275 Total 100% 5,800 3,625

16. “Most efficient land use first”

17. 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

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. Transportation impact tax rates Residential (proposed) AreaDetached 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.

21. Transportation impact tax rates Non-Residential (proposed) AreaOffice 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.

22. 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.

23. 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)