growth policy

growth policy

2003-2005

what is growth policy?

growth policy is…a biennial resolution adopted by the montgomery county council aimed at managing growth to match the adequacy of public facilities. historically, growth policy has focused on the adequacy of roads and schools.

does it matter?the timing of development, in coordination with the provision of public facilities, attempts to keep road congestion and school crowding to a minimum.

growth policy - current

currently, an applicant must mitigate site impacts related to transportation and schools:

transportation - - local area transportation review (latr)- policy area mobility review (pamr)

schools - - projected school enrollment vs projected capacity

current PAMR requires mitigation in 16 policy areas

growth policy - pamr

TRANSIT ARTERIAL

A D

B D

C D

D C

E B

E A

current latr examines intersection capacity near each development site

growth policy - latr

• objective: make sure development does not overwhelm nearby intersections.

• applied to all projects generating 30 or more peak hour trips.

• if intersection fails, developer can make improvements, mitigate trips, or in limited cases – make a payment to the County.

• intersection congestion standards vary by area.

local area transportation review (latr) congestion standards by growth policy area

growth policy - latr

growth policy – transportation mitigation

• priority is trip reduction, non-auto, then roads• pamr and latr can be satisfied concurrently• payment in lieu opportunities

• non-auto facilities apply to pamr and latr• current table derived from latr• rates based on old cost data

growth policy - schools

current school test

compares projected 2014 enrollment with 2014 classroom capacity for each of the 25 high school clusters at the elementary, middle and high levels.

if projected enrollment at any level exceeds 105% of program capacity, residential subdivisions in the affected cluster will be required to make a school facility payment.

if projected enrollment at any level exceeds 120% of program capacity, residential subdivisions in the affected cluster will be under moratorium

2009 growth policy - why change?

does it work?with just 4 percent of its land area available for development, which requires more infill and redevelopment – the tests for the adequacy of our facilities must evolve.

what do we do next?provide a framework for the provision of facilities that contribute to a sustainable community.

2009 growth policy - study

review of smart growth initiatives nationwide, leed nd and california sb375:

2009 growth policy – what is changing?

growth management tool application proposedmaster plans where same

zoning how same

subdivision regulations how same

school capacity when minor change to monetary assessment

LATR when minor changes to mitigation types

PAMR when stay within general bounds of PAMR – encourage smart growth

growth policy only affects APFO

2009-2011 growth policy

2009-2011 growth policy___________________________________________________________________________

primary changes

- smart growth criteria

- adequate mobility

- apf transferability for transportation and schools

- grandfathering completed applications 12 months prior to moratorium

eleven recommendations

2009-2011 growth policyrecommendation 1.

smart growth criteria- close to transit- mixed use- uses density in zone- energy efficient- affordable housing

PAMR offset to MPDU

spatial coverage of bus and metro stops within ½ mile


Montgomery County - Smart Growth CriteriaAll projects must meet the following criteria to be considered for an Alternative PAMR Review and PAMR Offset:

Project must be located within ½ mile of an existing or planned major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor. A high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service where service intervals are no longer than 15 minute during peak commute hours. A project shall be considered to be within one-half mile of a major transit stop if all parcels within the project have no more than 25% of their area farther than one-half mile from a transit stop or corridor and if not more than 10% of the residential units in the project are father than one-half mile from the stop or corridor. A planned transit stop or corridor is one that is funded for construction within the first four years of the Consolidated Transportation Program and/or the Capital Improvement Program and

Project must be mixed-use with a minimum 50% residential use and

Project must seek to achieve the maximum density of the site using 75% or more of the maximum density allowed in the zone (including all applicable bonuses) subject to the limits specified in the master/sector plan and

Building(s) exceeds energy efficiency standards by 17.5% for new buildings or by 10.5% for existing building renovation. Or, building(s) has on-site energy production such that 2.5% of the annual building energy cost is off-set by the renewable production system (LEED New Construction/Major Renovation)

And, the project must provide additional affordable housing, either workforce housing or moderately-priced dwelling units, above and beyond that required for plan approval such that 25 percent of the PAMR mitigation resource being offset is applied to this obligation.

The PAMR Offset will be directed as follows: Fifty percent of the PAMR mitigation resource being offset must be directed to transit infrastructure.

Twenty-five percent of the PAMR mitigation resource being offset must be applied to the provision of additional affordable housing, either workforce housing or moderately-priced dwelling units, above and beyond that required for plan approval.

The remaining twenty-five percent of the PAMR mitigation resource will be retained by the developer.


adequate mobility

balance between land use and transportation – establish symmetrical treatment of transit and arterial level of service (LOS) standards

2009-2011 growth policyrecommendation 2. continued

how does LOS D or LOS E compare to current conditions?

D

E


apfo transportation

non-auto facility values – expand the range of candidate non-auto facility types eligible for impact mitigation and set values at $11,000 per vehicle trip


apf transfer: transportation

apf transferability – allow vested apf rights to be transferred into an urban area from within the parent policy area


apfo transportation

TOD trip generation rates – lower the residential trip generation rates in MSPAs by 18% based on MWCOG survey data used in other urban areas


apfo transportation

white flint apf approval process – replace LATR and PAMR with designated public entities and other funding mechanisms, in white flint


policy area boundary changes – change appropriate policy area boundaries as recommended in draft sector plans including establishment of a life sciences center policy area and revision to white flint, germantown town center and r&d village


apfo schools

school facility payment threshold – set the threshold for application of a school facility payment at projected enrollment greater than 110% of projected program capacity at any school level by cluster


apfo schools

moratorium threshold – retain the threshold for moratorium on residential subdivisions at projected enrollment of 120% of projected capacity at any school level by school cluster


apfo schools

grandfather completed applications – grandfather all applications completed within 12 months prior to a moratorium on residential subdivision as a result of school capacity projected deficits. all grandfathered projects would be required to pay the school facility payment.


apf transfer:schools

apf transferability – allow vested apf rights to be transferred within a school cluster (sfp transfers with apf)


future studies

1.biennial growth policy report2.compact subdivision development3.LEED classification as a component of growth policy4.using carbon offsets as an element of sustainable growth5.dedicated transit revenue6.land use impact on vehicle miles travelled7.retail impacts on vmt8.impact tax issues9.highway mobility report funding10.fiscally sustainable development11.options to latr

2009-2011 growth policyfall schedule

september:

county council public hearing 9/22/09

october:

worksessions with the PHED committeepossible worksessions with the MFP committeeworksessions with the full council

november:

growth policy resolution must be adopted by 11/15/09

2009-2011 growth policyerrata

page 36. recommendation 1: transportation and land use-related recommendations

“within Metro Station Policy Areas” should be deleted

page 37. first paragraph

“fifty percent of the transportation impact tax” should read “seventy-five percent of the transportation impact tax”

page 38. heading of graphic

“metro station policy areas” should read “areas with transit proximity”

page 26. population figures by decade

2010 population should be 954,4002030 population should be 1,122,300

page 45. recommendation 7: new life sciences center policy area

life sciences center policy area is within the current R&D village policy area

growth policy

Documents

growth policyrecommendation

managing growth

growth policy2009

growth policy2003

projected enrollment

latr rates

roads pamr

intersection capacity