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

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 Regional Concept of Wedges and Corridors Wedges and Corridors Today The General Plan

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 Boards 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. AreaShareJobsUnits Metro station areas53%3,100 1,925 Red Line areas26%1,550950 Suburban areas13%775475 Rural area7%375275 Total100%5,8003,625 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) AreaDetachedTownApt.SeniorMPDUs 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) AreaOfficeRetailInd.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) DetachedTownGardenHi-RiseSeniorMPDUs $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)