The Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission September 13, 2003 A new vision for...
-
Upload
sylvia-mowery -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of The Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission September 13, 2003 A new vision for...
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)