The Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission

Download The Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission

Post on 11-Jan-2016

35 views

Category:

Documents

1 download

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

The Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission. The Annual Growth Policy. A new vision for managing growth in Montgomery County. September 13, 2003. What an Annual Growth Policy does and does not do. It does regulate the pace of private development - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

<ul><li><p>The Maryland-National Capital Park &amp; Planning CommissionSeptember 13, 2003A new vision for managing growth in Montgomery CountyThe Annual Growth Policy</p></li><li><p>What an Annual Growth Policy does and does not doIt does regulate the pace of private developmentIt does seek to synchronize private development with the creation of adequate public facilitiesIt does not regulate the types of uses allowed on landIt does not regulate the ultimate density that will be created on land</p></li><li><p>Regulating developmentThe General PlanThe Master and Sector PlansThe Zoning Ordinance</p><p>The use of land and ultimate densities (build out) are regulated by</p></li><li><p>Main Themes in General PlanTransit Oriented DevelopmentI-270 Employment Corridor (emphasizing high tech and biotech)An urban ring in the DowncountyResidential suburban wedgesA permanent, low-density agricultural reserveImplemented through master and sector plans</p></li><li><p>The Regional Concept of Wedges and CorridorsWedges and Corridors TodayThe General Plan</p></li><li><p>Purpose of the Annual Growth PolicyNew residential and commercial development must be served by adequate facilities transit, roads, schools and so forthIt takes time and money for government to build public facilitiesThe AGP seeks to synchronize private and public construction.</p></li><li><p>Adequate Public Facilities OrdinanceThe 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.</p></li><li><p>For what public facilities does the AGP Test?Transportation Roads, Transit and Pedestrian FacilitiesSchools Elementary, Middle and High SchoolsWater &amp; SewerPolice, Fire and Health</p></li><li><p>October 2001: Council requests top-to-bottom review of AGPRoads 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.</p></li><li><p>Top to bottom review of the AGPOctober 2001: Council requests top to bottom review of the AGPFebruary 2003: Staff presents results of background studiesMay August: Planning Board holds public forums, worksessions. Transmits recommendations.September-October 2003: Council public hearings and worksessions.</p></li><li><p>Background studiesEffect of AGP on the pace of developmentTraffic congestion &amp; the AGPFactors affecting school enrollmentFocus groups of residents and developersProfiles of growth management around the nation</p></li><li><p>What the Planning Board foundThe AGP does slow the pace of private developmentPublic facilities have not kept up with private developmentTransportation 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.</p></li><li><p>Planning Boards recommended approachContinue to pace private developmentGive public sector a chance to catch up on transportation and schoolsImpose a speed limit on development, but not a cap.Create a new source of funding for public facilitiesMake the AGP simpler and easier to understandMake the AGP consistent with smart growth principles.Keep Local Area Transportation Review</p></li><li><p>Preliminary Plan Approval RateObjective: reduce pace of development approvalsEvery two years, determine the amount of development that can be approvedCould go up or down, depending on congestions and crowding measures, infrastructure, economy, etc.</p></li><li><p>Most efficient land use firstAreaShareJobsUnitsMetro station areas53%3,100 1,925Red Line areas26%1,550950Suburban areas13%775475Rural area7%375275Total100%5,8003,625</p></li><li><p>Most efficient land use first</p></li><li><p>Moratoriums/exceptionsWhen annual allocation is reached:Approvals stop temporarilyBut developer can make needed improvementsLimited exceptions:Limited number of projects containing affordable housingStrategic Economic Development ProjectsMetro station area developmentNot available if no feasible school improvement</p></li><li><p>School testIndividual development proposals are not subject to a school adequacy reviewSchool adequacy taken into account in setting Preliminary Plan Approval Rate Countywide &amp; in sub-areasProposal benefits schools in two ways:Slows pace of residential development approvalsRequires payment of development impact tax for schools.</p></li><li><p>Cost of future infrastructure2030 Forecast: 146,000 jobs and 78,000 housing units (31,200 students).Transportation: $5.9 billionAbout $26,000 per forecast job and housing unitSchools: $808 millionAbout $10,000 per housing unit.</p></li><li><p>Transportation impact tax ratesResidential (proposed)AreaDetachedTownApt.SeniorMPDUsMetro station area$1,500$1,500$1,000$500$0Red Line area$3,000$3,000$2,000$1,000$0Suburban area$4,500$4,500$3,000$1,500$0Rural area$6,000$6,000$4,000$2,000$0Residential rates per unit; Senior means multi-family senior housing; MPDU means moderately-priced dwelling unit as defined by County law.</p></li><li><p>Transportation impact tax ratesNon-Residential (proposed)AreaOfficeRetailInd.Bio.OtherMetro station area$2$3$2$0$2Red Line area$4$6$4$0$4Suburban area$6$9$6$0$6Rural area$8$12$8$0$8Non-residential rates per square foot.</p></li><li><p>School impact tax ratesResidential (proposed)DetachedTownGardenHi-RiseSeniorMPDUs$8,000$6,000$4,000$1,600$0$0Residential rates per unit; Senior means multi-family senior housing; MPDU means moderately-priced dwelling unit as defined by County law.</p></li><li><p>ConclusionContinue to pace developmentSlow, but do not stop developmentWork hard to close public infrastructure gapEncourage development to occur where infrastructure already exists (smart growth)</p><p>Although the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance is an important tool, theres plenty that it does not do. I think theres often a misperception that the APFO allows, for example, concentrations of mixed use development near Metro or prevents urban development in the rural areas. In fact, those decisions are made in the General Plan, Master Plans and Sector Plans. The APFOs role is to help determine the conditions planned growth that is, growth called for in our plans should be allowed to be built. The question the APFO asks is: if someone wants to build some of the planned development now, do we have the public facilities needed to support that development?The Annual Growth Policy is a resolution adopted by the Council every year that contains the specific rules for implementing the APFO. What do we mean by adequate roads? Under what conditions would schools be considered inadequate to support additional development? To summarize: the Annual Growth Policy does not regulate the:Amount, Pattern, Location, or Type of DevelopmentIt does regulate the relative timing of development and facilities</p><p>Although the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance is an important tool, theres plenty that it does not do. I think theres often a misperception that the APFO allows, for example, concentrations of mixed use development near Metro or prevents urban development in the rural areas. In fact, those decisions are made in the General Plan, Master Plans and Sector Plans. The APFOs role is to help determine the conditions planned growth that is, growth called for in our plans should be allowed to be built. The question the APFO asks is: if someone wants to build some of the planned development now, do we have the public facilities needed to support that development?The Annual Growth Policy is a resolution adopted by the Council every year that contains the specific rules for implementing the APFO. What do we mean by adequate roads? Under what conditions would schools be considered inadequate to support additional development? To summarize: the Annual Growth Policy does not regulate the:Amount, Pattern, Location, or Type of DevelopmentIt does regulate the relative timing of development and facilities</p><p>The 1964 General Plan was a forward-looking precursor to Smart Growth. Its impressive that citizens and leaders were looking at these issues over 30 years ago, and whats more, were able to put the tools in place to achieve them.Although our focus this morning is on growth management, two other themes are also relevant. Well be talking about how the growth management regulations can help us achieve our goals for affordable housing and concentrating growth at Metro.</p><p>The name of the General Plan and its guiding principle is the phrase Wedges and corridors, a concept that was part of a regional planning effort in the 1960s. Wedges and corridors refers to concentrating growth into compact cities along transportation corridors while reserving the wedges between them for agriculture and open space.</p><p>When Montgomery County first started talking about Wedges and Corridors, our population had been doubling every decade since the 1930s. </p><p>On the right is wedges and corridors as it applies today in Montgomery County. Development is concentrated in the blue area inside &amp; near the Beltway and in the purple area along I-270. The pale green area is primarily but not exclusively residential of moderate density, the gold we call the residential wedge housing at lower densities. The brown area is the agricultural wedge, where the County is working to preserve farmland and open space.</p><p>Toward the end of the 1960s Supreme Court issued landmark Ramapo decision, upholding adequate public facilities ordinances as constitutional.1973: Montgomery County enacts its APFO. APFO principles:Growth is desirable, necessaryNew development adds to demand for public facilitiesThere is a carrying capacity of facilities: public facilities can be overutilizedWait or provide: The public has a right to limit pace of development to match pace of new facilities or development can provide needed facilitiesClear rules for:When is growth OK?What is the impact of development on facilities?These are the public facilities covered by the APFO.The two that are explicitly covered in detail by the AGP are transportation and school facilities. Well be covering these in detail during the breakout sessions.Water and Sewer adequacy is covered in the 10-year water and sewer plan.There is no explicit test for adequacy of police, fire and health facilities. Adoption of the AGP each year by the County Council is an implicit legislative determination that they are.When the County Council directed the Planning Board to do a top-to-bottom review of the AGP, they cited both general concerns and specific problems. Weve also heard from residents and the development community. Here are a few of the issues that were raised that weve explored during the past year.</p><p>Background study findings:Have we changed the pace of growth?Yes: more some periods than othersSmoothed peaks and valleysTraffic congestion?Measurably better on local roads than in comparable localitiesGreater use of transitAPFO requirements = $ millions in road improvementsBut: public sector investments have not kept pace with market demand, andThe County has too much congestion.SchoolsTest has had limited effect. Test as structured is hard to fail. However, transportation moratoriums have slowed residential development which have, in turn, helped the schools somewhat.Now: Most enrollment growth comes from neighborhood turnover, not new development.Many localities use their APFOsOptional Slide:Here are the four background study areas that the Board reviewed before developing our recommendations.Some of the findings were:Have we changed the pace of growth?Yes: more some periods than othersSmoothed peaks and valleysTraffic congestion?Measurably better on local roads than in comparable localitiesGreater use of transitAPFO requirements have generated $ millions in road improvementsBut: public sector investments have not kept pace with market demand, andThe County has too much congestion.SchoolsTest has had limited effect. Test as structured is hard to fail. However, transportation moratoriums have slowed residential development which have, in turn, helped the schools somewhat.Now: Most enrollment growth comes from neighborhood turnover, not new development.Many localities use their APFOs to generate funds for school construction, not to limit pace of development.</p><p>As the Board started to develop our recommended growth policies, here are some of the concepts or principles we were keeping in mind.The first two bullets recognize that we are not growing as fast as we have been, and growth will continue to slow in the future.The second two bullets recognize that we have congestion on our roadways and we have crowding in our schools. On the traffic side, we cant realistically say that were going to solve the problem; but we take steps to minimize increases in traffic congestion.The last bullet recognizes that we have not been providing roads and schools in a way that keeps pace with growth in traffic and enrollment; to do a better job, we need more money. </p><p>The Planning Board spent a lot of time looking at traffic congestion and school crowding numbers. This AGP review isnt the first time weve looked at these issues either. But whether youve read every traffic study ever published, or just drive to work every day, you know the roads are congested. And if you have a students in Montgomery County Public schools, you know that many of them are crowded as well. So I dont think its a landmark finding to say that our roads and schools really dont have the capacity to support unconstrained growth.In fact, you could argue that we dont have the capacity to support any new approvals. But the Planning Board found that for a variety of very good reasons, we cant imposes a moratorium on all new development indefinitely. We cant do it legally, and its not good for the economy, for providing housing choices for our residents, and many would argue its not fair to landowners.But we can keep control on the amount of development approved annually, and require that development to play a bigger role in providing needed roads and schools.Finally, to help limit the negative impact of approved development on the transportation network, we can give priority to land uses that have the smallest impact on transportation.The current AGP sets limits on the amount of development that can be approved in 29 areas of the County based on multiple runs of a transportation model.We need to keep a system for limiting approvals, but it can and should be simpler, more effective, and reduce the amount of development approved. The Boards approach: use the biennial growth policy process to determine how much growth we can approve. Instead of feeding a lot of data into a computer program; lets all look at the relevant information and come to reasonable conclusion about what it means for approving development.</p><p>Boards recommendation to start: a prelimina...</p></li></ul>

Recommended

View more >