Managing growth small communities and rural areas

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

MANAGING GROWTH:

SMALL COMMUNITIES

AND

RURAL AREAS

COASTAL ZON-
INFORMATION CENTER

Timothy C. Beatley
David J. Brower
Lou Ann Brower

HD
205
B427.
1988

ioe

MANAGING GROWTH:

SMALL COMMUNITIES AND RURAL AREAS

OS3 ;0 4329doad

Timothy C. Beatley
David J. Brower
Lou Ann Brower

Center for Urban and Regional Studies
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, North Carolina

U . S - DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES.CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413

Financial assistance for this report was provided by a grant from the Maine
Coastal Program and the Maine Department of Economics and Community
Development, through funding provided by the U.S. Department of Commerce,
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, under the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972 as amended.
Clz

March, 1988

elm

C-3

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our appreciation to the large number of Mainers who
contributed of their time and talent to the success of this project. Richard
E. Barringer encouraged the idea and in many ways made it become a reality.
Denise V. Lord, Holly H. Dominie, John R. DelVecchio, and David H. Keeley all
contributed significant wisdom and insight. Our special thanks to Josie
Quintrell for her wisdom, insight, constructive criticism and above all
commitment. We are confident that Maine will be a better place because of
people like these.

In addition our very special thanks to Barbara Rodgers, Carroll Carrozza and
especially Carolyn Jones of the Center for Urban and Regional Studies for
their help.

Table of Contents

Page

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Part One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Chapter One: Rural and Urban Growth in the 1980s:
Change and Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Shrinking Federal Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Shifts in Politics and Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Growth Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Overview of This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 8

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Chapter Two: Some Emerging Goals in Growth Management . . . . . . . . . . 11

The Importance of Setting Community Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Protecting and Enhancing Aesthetic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Protecting Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Preserving Farmland and Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Protecting the Natural Environment . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . 21

Mitigating Natural Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Providing Affordable Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Chapter Three: Tools and Techniques of Growth Management . . . . . . . . . 27
Introduction . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Four Categories of Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Regulations that Affect the Rate of Growth . . . . . . . . 30

Page

Point Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Performance Standards and Performance Zoning . . . . . . . 33

Urban Growth Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Design Review Processes and Sign Ordinances . . . . . . . . 35

Environmental Performance Standards and Other Controls in
Sensitive Ecologic Habitats and Watersheds . . . . . . . 36

Regulations in Areas Subject to Natural Disasters . . . . . 38

Regulations to Preserve Farmlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Refinement Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Land Acquisition . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Purchase of Development Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Taxation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Making Growth Pay Its Own Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Real Estate Transfer Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Other Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Public Spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Impact Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Affordable Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Citizen Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Regional Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Conclusions and Further Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 53

References to Chapters One through Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Part Two

Case Studies of Innovative Local Growth Management Progr s

Annotated Table of Contents

Page

Cannon Beach, Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Demogra Rhics: Small coastal town, 2 hours driving time from
major metropolitan area (Portland); with permanent population
of 1,215, including many local artists, with summer visitor
population of 10-12,000.

Natural Environment: Magnificent coastline; forested coastal
mountains.

Distinctive features of planning: Application and enforcement of
traditional tools of planning such as zoning to protect character
of community; ban on formula food restaurants; procedures and
criteria for review of design of new development.

- Tools and Techniques

A. The Master Plan which includes definition of community
character.

B. Use of zoning ordinance to protect village character,
e.g., by banning "formula food" restaurants.

C. Design review procedures and crit eria applied to all new
development.

D. Protection of natural resources, including designation
of natural hazard danger zones of varying seriousness.

E. Control of pace and pattern of growth through policies of
annexation and extension of facilities.

- Observations -

A. Successful in protecting natural beauty and village
atmosphere.

B. Uncertain thus far on how to protect mountain views
endangered by overharvesting by lumber companies.

Pave

2. Breckenridge, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Demographics: Permanent population: 1300; seasonal (skiing):
15,000.

Historical: An early gold-mining town; downtown is National
Register Historic District.

Natural Environment: Surrounded by the@Rocky Mountains.

General: A pro-development stance while maximizing quality of
life in face of explosive growth in condominium development.

Distinctive Features of Planning: Dedication of open space;
performance-based development code with point system; guided
development in and around historic district.

Tools and Techniques -

A. The comprehensive master plan.

B. A development code built on absolute and relative
performance standards to effec:t environmental protection,
increased dedication of open space, and compatibility with
historic district.

C. Historic preservation.

D. Other tools: criteria for annexation; criteria for
extension of public facilities.

Observations -

A. After a period when frequent modifications were needed,
the point system of the development code seems to work
well.

3. Nags Head, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 93

DemograRhics: An old coastal resort community that is within
4 hours driving time of the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area.
A population of 2,000 permanent residents and a summer population
that swells to 35,000. The number of year-round residents has
risen rapidly in the past decade and is expected to grow. The
town has retained a village atmosphere thus far. Continued
growth is projected for both types of residents.

Page

Natural Environment: Sited on one of a chain of fragile barrier
islands (the Outer Banks); bounded by extensive stretches of
National Seashore; containing one of the few remaining examples
of maritime forest; subject to hurricanes.

Distinctive Features of Planning: Comprehensive plan is based on
carrying capacity; planning for mitigation of natural hazards
(hurricanes, flooding, shifting shoreline); environmental zoning;
preferred land uses given advantage in water allocation.

- Tools and techniques

A. Growth management based on the town's carrying capacity
(e.g., amount of developable land after adjusting estimates
for expectation of beach erosion, availability of treated
water, sewer capacity, percolation readings, vulnerability
to natural disaster) of the town.

B. Ordinance for allocation of water that favors certain
types of development.

C. Plan for mitigation of hurricane hazards and post-storm
reconstruction.

D. Protection of endangered natural resource (maritime
forest) by creation of a special environmental zoning
district.

- Observations

A. There has been successful use of several new and complex
techniques.

B. Vigorous planning is going on in a very small community
with history of an anti-planning orientation.

C. The zoning ordinance was voted down by town council.

4. Manteo, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Demographics: Permanent population: 1,000.

Historical Siznificance: Site of first English settlement in
America (1587).

Natural Setting: Protected harbors and easy access to Atlantic
Ocean.

Page

Recent Experience: Economic strength and significance declined
post-World War II as bridges and highways were built; business
in downtown losing ground to strip development on highway to
beaches of Outer Banks; planning for a State-wide, 4-year
celebration of the First Colony begun in 1980.

Distinctive Features of Planning: Invigoration of historic
significance, natural resource (waterfront).and economic
health; process of definition of community identity, values
and goals, withemphasis on overall appearance and architectural
design; accomplishment of comprehensive planning and redevelop-
ment with limited resources.

- Tools and Techniques

A. Process of defining values and goals by a community.

B. Use of zoning to protect and enhance visual appearance.

- Observations -.

A. There was successful emphasis on visual resources from
which grew a new use for downtown, enhancement of the
.character of the community and coordination with a state-
wide celebration of the first Roanoke colonies in ways that
assured the town's position as a long-term tourist attraction.

B. Venture capital was attracted to the downtown waterfront
redevelopment.

5. Medford Township, New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Demographics: Historic 40-square mile region, 20 miles east of
Philadelphia; the 1980 population (17,622) reflects a 112%
increase since 1970.

Natural Environment: Still primarily rural; within New Jersey
Pinelands region.

Historic significance: Settled by Quakers in 1600s.

Distinctive Features of Planning: Formal ecologic study carried
out; environmentally-based zoning; design and performance standards
applied to new development; transfer of development rights.

Page

Tools and Techniques

A. "Ecological" study and detailed mapping of natural
processes conducted by Ian McHarg and other planning
faculty at the University of Pennsylvania.

B. Four major environmentally-based use zones established
in zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan: residential
growth, environmental management, trade, and village.

C. Subdivision plats required to have composite environmental
constraints map and detailed environmental impact statement.

D. Design and performance standards applied to review of new
development include open space requirement, resource
extraction analysis, scenic and visual buffers, very strict
provisions,on wetlands development, among others.

E. Many types of credits offered in transfer of development
rights program.

6. Martin County, Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Demographics: Area on the Atlantic Coast; 555 square miles with
population of 64,000 (53% urban); 128% increase over 1970
population; 20 miles north of West Palm Beach.

Natural Environment: Extensive wetlands and barrier islands
network.

Distinctive Features of Plannin : Detailed performance standards;
controls on landscaping; beach impact fees, barrier island ordinance.

Tools and Techniques

A. Detailed performance standards that regulate, among others:
1) overall density, 2) development in wetlands, 3) open
space, and 4) impact on transportation.

B. Landscaping ordinance requiring the drawing up of a
landscape plan before land clearance can begin.

C. Beach impact fees.

D. Barrier Islands Ordinance including detailed standards
of design for the site plan including requirements for open
space, buffers, building height restrictions, among others.

Page

Observations -

'A. Beach impact fees have served as "negotiating tool"
in approval of new PUDs.

7. Hilton Head, South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Demographics: Island off coast of South Carolina; once
home of prosperous plantations; later subsistence farming
and fishing by slave descendents who nurtured a distinctive culture and
language (Gullah dialect). Resort development
with extensive recreational facilities (golf and tennis)
begun in 1950s. Permanent population of 17,000, having
increased by 200% over the past decade. Seasonal population
of 50,000. One million people visited the resort in 1987.

Natural Environment: One of the larger barrier islands on
the East Coast; variety of natural habitats.

Recent Developments: Island incorporated as a town in 1983
and took over planning responsibility from the-county.

Distinctive features of planning: Land Management Ordinance; preferred
design elements such as provision of public
access to beaches rewarded with density bonuses; control
of rate of growth; requirement that developers make prior assessment of
impacts on facilities such as schools and
emergency preparedness; environmental performance standards
such as protection of dunes, wetlands and trees.

Tools and Techniques -

A. Comprehensive Land Management Ordinance.

B. Overlay zoning.

C. Impact assessments.

D. Management of rate of growth through absolute annual
limit on number of new dwelling units.

E. Detailed performance standards, bolstered by system of
bonus density points awarded for such elements as
protection of natural resources, scenic beauty and
public's access to beaches.

Page

F. Noncontiguous Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) allowed
around areas of common ownership.

-Observations -

A. Some bonus density provisions were felt to conflict with
cap on growth rate and were repealed.

8. Napa County, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Demographics: 744 square mile region with long history of
agriculture, emphasizing vineyards in recent decades; within
commuting distance of San Francisco and the East Bay region;
population of 100,000 (rural and unincorporated), 81% urban;
population has grown 25% during the 1970-80 decade.

Recent ExRerience: Successful passage of a public referendum
on imposition of cap on annual development, holding rate of
growth to 1% or less.

Distinctive features of plannin : Annual allocation of voter-
determined number of building permits.

-Tools and Techniques

A. Cap on residential development at 1% per year, distributed
among four categories of residential buildings and granted
on a first-come, first-served basis.

Observations -

A. Effect of cap thus far is to delay rather than to stop
development.

B. Large-scale developments have been shifted from
unincorporated to urban areas, thus protecting farmlands.

C. Development by numbers and on first-come, first-served
basis is easy to administer and explain to public.

D. Introduction of the cap has strengthened support for
planning already in place such as very large lot zoning
and contracts between state and farmland owners to protect
working vineyards.

Page

9. Fort Collins, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

DemograRhics: City of 80,000 population, 40 miles north of Denver,
dramatic growth in 60s and 70s.

Natural Environment: Located at the foot of the Rockies.

Recent Experience: City has adopted a pro-growth stance;
private market invited to determine location of industrial
and shopping centers.

Distinctive Features of Planning: Land Development Guidance
System with point system to evaluate conformance with an
elaborate and wide-reaching set of design and performance
criteria; emphasis on PUDs over conventional zoning to direct
growth; establishment of boundaries for new growth; acquisition
of open space; preservation of historic heritage.

Tools and Techniques

A. Comprehensive Plan and accompanying Land Development
Guidance System that includes reports on such topics
as community goals, open space, etc.

B. Land use guidance system covering issues such as
design and consumption of energy.

C. Provisions such as absolute and variable criteria for
review of planned unit developments (PUDs) as alternative
to conventional zoning.

D. Establishment of Urban Growth Area to control fringe
development.

E. Acquisition of open space to preserve scenic backdrop,
bike trails, etc.

F. Preservation of historic district while undertaking
downtown redevelopment.

G. Imposition of impact fees on developers to offset cost
to the public of services such as sewers.

Observations

A. Focus on quality of growth, rather than pace or amount,
has been successful.

Page

B. Favoring mixed use areas and high density residential
projects is seen to diminish problems of the alternative
-- urban sprawl -- such as air and water pollution and
excessive energy consumption.

C. Meaningful participation by citizens and neighborhoods
in review of new developmentis helped by use of explicit
performance standards.

D. Interpretation of design criteria can be difficult and
controversial.

10. Salem, Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Demographics: The state capital, with a population of 95,000
(258,000 in the greater metropolitan area).

Natural Environment: Located in the fertile Willamette Valley.

Recent Enerience: Growth has waxed and waned in the 70s and
80s (18% in late 70s, 6% in early 80s). Growth management
programs were undertaken in a period of high growth.

Distinctive Features og Planning: Regional cooperation in
development of city's comprehensive plan; establishment of
urban growth boundary; maintenance of 10-year supply of
developable land.

Tools and Techniques -

A. A comprehensive plan that sets out policies on growth
management.

B. Involvement of counties in greater metropolitan area in
comprehensive plan.

C. Linkage of development to adequate public facilities and
services, with developers paying substantial proportion
of costs of needed new facilities.

D. Establishment of an Urban Growth Boundary.

E. Separation of Current Developed Area (CDA) and Urban
Growth Areas (UGA), the latter requiring developers
to do special planning and to pay to "link" facilities
to the CDA.

F. Sector plans for facility needs created for geographic
areas of UGA.

Page

G. Creation and maintenance of 10-year supply of developable
land.

H. Levy of a development tax based on value of new
structures and size of land parcel.

I. Refinement plans prepared for each neighborhood.

J. Function-based plans prepared for bicycles, transportation,
and airport, among others.

Eugene, Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Demographics: A city of 200,000, home of the University of
Oregon, attractive to research and development and to high
technology activities.

Natural Environment: Situated in the fertile Willamettte valley.

Recent ExiDerience: Population projected to reach almost
300,000 by year 2000.

Distinctive Features of Planning: Regional approach to
planning; timed annexation and servicing of "urbanizable" land;
preparation of refinement plans for neighborhoods and
functions; multi-jurisdictional refinement plans; renter
protection in condominium conversion law.

Tools and Techniques -

A. A n1990 regional plann sets out policies on growth
management.

B. Urban Growth Boundary established.

C. A 6-10 year surplus of land available for development.

D. Annexation and plan for provision of public facilities
and services must precede conversion to urban uses.

E. Procedures established for amending comprehensive plan.

F. Refinement plans done for geographical areas under
pressure from new development and for functions such
as parks, public facilities and industrial growth areas.

Page

G. Other significant tools are: land division and zoning
ordinances; capital improvements program; historic
preservation program; economic diversification program;
bikes and bikeways; solar access ordinance; condominium
conversion law

Observations

A. Protection of integrity of Urban Growth Boundary has been
successful.

12. Austin, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

Demographics: Capital of Texas; home of flagship branch of
the University of Texas; 116 square mile area; population
(1980i of 346,000, a 36% growth for the previous decade.

Natural Environment: Situated on the Colorado River; on the
edge of the Hill Country, a recreational resource and location
of second homes of Texans living in Houston and other
metropolitan areas.

Recent Experience: A recent city-wide planning effort was
not successful.

Distinctive Features of Planning: Herculean citizen
participation process put in place to develop a comprehensive
plan and implementing ordinances; historic view protection;
protection of watersheds..

Tools and Techniques

A. Citizen participation: representation of all
factions and interest groups in community; staged
publication of a series of milestone reports written
by each task group; use of a sectoral planning approach
drawing on already existing neighborhood associations.

B. Development of a Land Development Code.

C. Capitol View Protection Overlay Zones.

D. Comprehensive Watershed Protection ordinance.

Page

Observations

A. Participatory process itself is likely to create
and sustain the political support needed for passage
of the comprehensive plan.

B. Time commitment of process has been too much for some
of the original participants, and the balanced
representation, especially of minorities, has been eroded.

13. Charlotte, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

DemograRhics: Population of 446,000; a healthy economy and
steady population growth with prediction of 575,000 by the
year 2005. Rapidly developing into a throughly urban region
where there once was the ambience of a small town with several
distinctive neighborhoods surrounded by low density
suburban development and rural lands.

Natural Environment: In the foothills of the Blued Ridge
mountains.

Distinctive Features of Planning: Citizen participation
including citizen study groups and a community-wide symposium;
emphasis on "balanced growth" for entire city-county region,
rather than concentrating on the urban edge; public-private
partnerships encouraged; thorough revision of regulations
to reflect realities of an increasingly urban community.

Tools and Techniques -

A. Strong emphasis on processes of citizen participation
and consensus building; e.g., sponsorship of community-
wide symposia on urban issues; invited citizen review and
revision of position papers on growth issues.

B. Emphasis on city-county cooperation in planning
process and on regional scope; region divided into
seven planning districts.

C. A "Ceneralized Land Plan 2005," the culmination of
citizen participation processes and leadership from
planning departments, which along with demographic
projections and other elements, clearly stated
community preferences, adopted in 1985.

D. "Development enterprise areas" were established to
redirect growth to weak market areas.

E. Development and implementation of a city-county public
investment program.

F. Major revision of regulatory codes, originally written
in the 60s and drawn up for suburban, low density
development, so that they respond to the needs of an
urban area.

Observations

A. Consensus-building processes address the tension
between the goals of continuing economic vitality and
the desire to maintain and enhance the quality of life.

B. Members of business community concerned about efforts to
distribute costs such as impact fees, exactions, and
development taxes which they see as disincentives to
development, but they support funneling capital
expenditures to priority growth areas.

14. Boulder, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Demographics: Settled in 1850s as mining town; located
25 miles northwest of Denver in a county of 750 square miles;
population of 86,000; combined city-county population of
200,000; home of the University of Colorado.

Natural Environment: The Boulder Valley is bounded by the
Rockies to-the west and plateaus to the east and south;.
the western border follows the Continental Divide.

Recent Experience: Rapid rates of city growth: 1960s, 77%;
1970s, 15%; 1980s, 12%; referendum in early 70s directed
city-county leaders to determine and control for optimum
population and growth rate for region.

Dis inctive Features of Planning: To protect mountains,
establishment of elevation boundary beyond which city water
would not be extended; early development of comprehensive
regional plan; consecutive implementation of two plans to
limit growth rate.

Page

Tools and Techniques

A. To control development on the mountains, the extension
of city water services was delimited by establishing
a "Blue Line" at about altitude 6000'.

B. Comprehensive plan written for Boulder Valley in 1970
to respond to explosive growth.

C. Spurred by a public referendum, city implemented
interim growth policies while a study of future regional
growth options was carried out.

D. A cap on annual rate of growth at 2%, with a merit
system to evaluate permit requests.

E. A second "cap", imposed when earlier one ended, uses
a proportional allocation system to encourage favored
uses such as low cost housing.

Observations -

A. Imposition of "blue line" not effective in protecting
mountains from development, but led to program of open
space acquisition, which has been effective.

B. The true effect of development cap difficult to evaluate
since it was imposed coincident with a dramatic slowing of
growth.

C. Downtown revitalization efforts appear to have
benefitted from the limited permit plan.

D. Some note that a negative effect of annual permit
restriction has been rise in housing costs; others
say inflation explains the rise.

15. Denver, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

Demographics: City population of 492,000 reached in 1980,
a 43% change from 1970; area of 110 square miles.

Natural Environment: A city in the Rocky Mountains on the
South Platte River; 5,000 + feet altitude.

Distinctive Features of Planning, Mountain view protection
program.

Page

- Tools and Techniques

A. A view protection ordinance, part of the building
code, sets building height restrictions in certain
zones to prevent obstruction of view of Rockies,
enacted in 1968.

B. Criteria for establishing new view protection
districts were established in 1980s.

C. Other scenic regulations enacted: temporary
moratorium on billboards; building height restrictions
around state capitol building; imposition of bulk plane
limitations on new construction in protected residential
districts; transfer of development rights.

- Observations -

A. View protection is successful in Denver.

B. The view protection ordinance sustained a legal challenge;
the court reasserted that protection of aesthetic value is
legitimate legislative function.

C. Public and political support for view protection was
based on economic as well as aesthetic rationales.

D. The Denver ordinance is strictly enforced, with
variances rare.

E. The law may be diverted to preserve private property
values. Although the original intent was to protect
views from public places such as large city parks,
some say the provisions have been used to protect
a neighborhood.

F. Only buildings are controlled; obstruction from tall
trees and other vegetation is not covered.

16. King County, Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 261

DemograRhics: County population of 1.3 million in 1985;
Seattle, about 500,000; covers area of 2,131 square miles.

Natural Environoment: Bordered on the east by the Cascade
Mountain range, on the west by Puget Sound.

Page

Recent ExRerience: Growth in unincorporated areas has
jeopardized farmlands; efforts to protect rural lands began
in late 70s.

Distinctive Features of Planning: Purchase of development
rights (PDR).

- Tools and Techniques -

A. Funded by a bond issue, about 33,000 acres (divided
into areas by priority) were initially made eligible
for PDR; purchases overseen by committee representing
farmlands and other interests.

- Observations -

A. Program felt to be successful in protecting economically
viable farming areas.

B. Program has succeeded in purchasing interest in about
13,000 acres at a cost of $4200 per acre.

:7 ;J

N @N

APPENDIX*

ordinances and Other Documents Related to Growth Management

1. Austin, Texas

- Austinplan Process Description

- Capitol View Corridor Overlay Zones

- Comprehensive Watersheds Ordinance

2. Boise, Idaho

- Boise River Plan

- Foothills Ordinance

3. Boulder, Colorado

- Growth Rate Ordinance

- Moderate Income Housing Regulations

- Solar Access Ordinance

- Sign Code

4. Boulder County, Colorado

Non-Urban PUD Provisions

5. Breckenridge, Colorado

- Performance Standards and Point System

- Hi storic District Guidelines

6. Cannon Beach, Oregon

- Commercial Zone Regulations

- Design Review Procedures and Criteria

Printed in a separate volume

7. Denver, Colorado

- View Protection Ordinance

8. Eugene, Oregon

- Condominium Conversion Ordinance

- Solar Access Ordinance

9. Fort Collins, Colorado

- Land Development Guidance System

- Design Guidelines for Historic Old Town

10. Hardin County, Kentucky

- Development Guidance System

11. Hilton Head, South Carolina

- Rate of Growth Restrictions

- Overlay Zoning Districts

12. King County, Washington

- Purchase of Development Rights Ordinance

- Deed Restriction Agreement

13. Martin County, Florida

- Performance Standards

- Beach Impact Fee Resolution

- Barrier Island Ordinance

- Landscaping Ordinance

14. Nags Head, North Carolina

- Water Tap Allocation Ordinance

15. Napa County, California

- Growth Rate Restrictions

16. State of North Carolina

- North Carolina Mountain Ridge Protection Act

17. Portland, Oregon

- Downtown Design Guidelines

18. State of Rhode Island

- Act Establishing Little Compton Agricultural Conservancy Trust

19. San Francisco, California

- Housing and Day Care Requirements for Office Development Projects

- Downtown Park Fee Requirements

- Text of Proposition M

MANAGING GROWTH: SMALL COMMUNITIES AND RURAL AREAS

VON

PlAiw. YA

PREFACE

The people of Maine have long struggled with the pain of economic
adversity, but they have enjoyed a challenging and stimulating
environment. What was once merely compensation for the rigours of their
own lives now has become a major attraction for other Americans who are
tired of the pressures and hazards of urban living. Maine's land and
waters have become thereby more valuable and the prospects for higher
income brighter -- and the dangers to Maine's quality of life are
greater. In the 1970s the citizens of the state were endeavoring to see
whether they could achieve a balance between prosperity and those natural
and human qualities that have made Maine unique in the nation.

It is doubtful whether the authors of the above quote -- the editors of

the 15th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica (published in 1979) -- realized

the urgency of their prophetic vision. In the 1980s, Maine has grown far more

rapidly than most observers would have predicted. Much of the growth has been

in the second home and resort market, financed primarily by out-of-state

investors. Much less growth has been seen in industry, farming, and fishing,

the traditional sectors of the Maine economy. Nor is the boom limited to

southern Maine, where proximity to the urban centers of the Northeast is a

natural magnet for growth. More and more small Maine communities are finding

themselves in situations such as that of Cherryfield:

When Ellen Tennon, chairperson of the Cherryfield Planning Board,
testified before the Maine Economic Development Task Force in April, she
spoke with urgency and concern about the enormous development pressure
now facing her Washington County town. The Patten Corporation, a huge
land speculation company from outside Maine, recently purchased over
4,500 acres of valuable coastal land to construct residential
subdivisions. Loopholes in Maine's laws allow the company to develop all
but 500 acres of this land without any review by the community. Yet even
if the Cherryfield planning board had greater authority, Tennon
explained, it lacks the resources and expertise to effectively deal with
the corporate developers and such enormous projects. Cherryfield needs
help, she testified, and quickly.*

*T. Andrews, "Who Will Control Maine's Future?", Habitat, 4: June, 1987.

Many other communities are finding that they need help, and quickly. What form

should that help take? One approach is, anticipating development, to

institute an active, prospective system of managing growth at the local level.

The concept of growth management assumes that (1) growth will occur,

(2) there are and will continue to be problems associated with growth, and

(3) these problems can be moderated through planning. It is clear that Maine

citizens recognize problems: there have been a number of recent citizen-

initiated moratoria on growth in Maine communities. In essence, these

ordinances are buying time during which the community can plan for the growth

that is inevitable -- and in many cases welcomed when the community is ready

for it.

We offer here a book based on the experiences of many communities across

the country that have attempted-to manage growth. Why do we hope that such a

compilation will be relevant and of practical help to Maine communities?

Admittedly, many of the examples described here are more urban, have more

economic resources and planning staff, and reflect community values that

differ from those found in Maine. Nevertheless, we believe that experiences

and approaches in communities selected for study in this book can be helpful

to Maine communities, despite obvious differences. We base our belief on the

following assumptions:

(1) Uncontrolled growth and erosion of the quality of life for

individual.citizens are national phenomena, and for this reason, Maine can

look beyond its borders for solutions to its internal problems. Maine

communities do not have to start from scratch in seeking solutions to local

growth problems.

(2) Growth management has been found to be as effective in small, rural

areas as in large, urban areas.

(3) Growth management is a collection of practical solutions, not an

untested theoretical construct. Growth management emphasizes what will work,

given a particular community's goals.

(4) The choices of tools and their combinations into a single program

suited to a particular community are endless, so it is very helpful to see

what has been tried elsewhere.

Maine, while a "poor" state, is rich in many things -- clean air,

uncrowded streets, a quiet, deeply satisfying way of life, a people steeped in

traditional American values, and the possibility of community. Maine is also

The Country of the Pointed Firs, where the Appalachian Trail begins, where the

coast is wild, where inland lakes and woods offer solace to the human spirit.

Many Americans, whatever their income, feel "poor" in exactly these things,

and want to move to Maine. If planned for, Maine can welcome this influx of

people as an opportunity to improve the economic situation of its citizens.

Too many people in Maine still live below the poverty line. Young people are

now forced to leave Maine to find jobs. By enriching the state's treasury,

growth and development could help support expansion of human services such as

education and health care, as well as encourage programs to rejuvenate small

businesses such as fishing and recruit new industry. But these opportunities,

derived from new development, must be courted with care lest, in a few years,

the state finds it has lost "those natural and human qualities that have made

Maine unique in the nation," and is left with the same long-standing economic

problems.

In many places in the United States, it is too late. The losses are

permanent and no amount of local growth management can retrieve them. It is

not too late for Maine. So then, we offer this source book, with respect, to

the citizens and leaders of Maine communities taking up the challenge of

managing growth. The future of Maine, a national treasure, is in your hands.

Timothy Beatley
David J. Brower
Lou Ann Brower

Chapel Hill, North Carolina
March 1988

Chapter One

Rural and Urban Growth in the 1980s:
Change and Challenge

The Setting

Shrinking Federal Support

Shifts in Politics and Economics

Growth Management

Overview of This Book

Conclusion

Chapter One

Rural and Urban Growth in the 1980s: Change and Challenge

The Setting

The quality of life in urban areas continues to decline, a process that

is accelerating and spreading to suburbs and small rural towns. Some problems

are obvious -- traffic congestion, pollution, ugliness and clutter,

destruction of trees and historic buildings, dying downtowns. Miles of

development from "Anywhere, USA" invade towns of distinctive character and

natural beauty. Other, less visible problems daily exert their insidious

effects on the residents -- decaying infrastructures, shrinking open spaces

for recreation, higher taxes and destruction of a sense of community and

shared values. In once cohesive places the contrasts in quality of life among

social and ethnic groups accentuate divisions and antagonisms. These problems,

once confined to large metropolitan areas and a few regions of the country,

are spreading to small and midsized communities throughout the nation.

City-dwellers, anxious to escape the ills of the big city while still

earning high salaries, look to the rural areas for relief. As the wealthy

seek and buy second homes and ex-urbanite locations for their first homes,

small towns are being caught unaware. Suburbs are becoming "accidental
cities"; small towns are turning into suburbs.* Residents find that the face

of their community and the fabric of their daily lives are being permanently

transformed, and they feel helpless to stop or affect the changes. Small

Todd K. Buchta, "Will We Live in Accidental Cities or Successful
Communities?", Conservation Foundation Letter, No. 6, 1987.

Small rural places and ecologically fragile regions such as coastal areas and

mountainous regions, prized as resort locations, are in special danger.

Response to these changes often follows a pattern. Communities and

regions find themselves torn between, on the one hand, the welcome prospect

(real or merely promised) of new jobs and economic rejuvenation, and on the

other, the wish to preserve natural and/or historic landmarks, deeply held

community values and traditional occupations and ways of life. New

development pours in, and residents see the character of their community

disrupted. The promised long-term benefits to the local economy become less

certain. The residents begin to see more minuses than pluses. Most often

they articulate their desire for order, rational control, a reasonable pace of

change and integration of the new with the old as complaints, rather than as

forceful, positive statements of values and aesthetic concerns. As the

individual resident's sense of helplessness grows, these complaints become

increasingly strident.

Spiralling costs, both public and private, have accompanied this decline

in the quality of life and increased pace of uncoordinated change in our

communities. Residents find themselves paying higher and higher taxes while

the potholes in local roads get bigger from one year to the next. The needs

caused by continuing growth outpace the new dollars available.

Along with the increasing burden on the citizen to pay for public

facilities and services, costs in the private sector have exploded. Rising

costs of land and construction, steadily increasing property taxes and high

interest rates are weakening the housing position of even those long-time

owners, the middle class. Home ownership is out of the grasp of more and more

young families, even those with two incomes. The working poor, the elderly and

others on fixed incomes are being forced out of their homes. Traditional

occupations that are land or water intensive are losing their economic

viability; farmers and fishermen cannot afford to compete for the diminishing

supply of land and shoreline. Put simply, we are paying more and more for

less and less in our communities, and some people are being left out entirely.

Shrinking Federal Saport

Given these circumstances, mirrored in communities across the country,

the public is demanding a change. Local residents want leaders who will

restore the livability of the past. But recent changes at the national level

present formidable obstacles to these hopes for improvement. The obstacles

are both fiscal and structural. The Federal government, after decades of

support and influence on America's cities and towns, is pulling back. Once a

major provider of capital, policies and goals for America's cities and towns,

the Federal government has withdrawn from much of its involvement in local

affairs. Communities have long depended on Washington for assistance with

such problems as waste water treatment, roads, redevelopment and housing.

Block grants (under which each state decides how it will spend its Federal

allocation) and other financial programs are now replacing Federal grants for

specific programs such as housing. And the overall amount of Federal monies

available to local communities is shrinking, and can be expected to continue

to do so.

Much has been written about the changes and decreases in Federal

financial support of cities and towns, but the changes wrought by the absence

of Federal guidance are only now being appreciated. In the 60s and 70s there

were strings attached to the monies that Federal agencies offered to

communities. Through these limitations, seen by some as excessive, the

government provided direction to communities. During the past three decades

many communities designed and implemented local plans in response to what

programs and how much money were available from the Federal government. Local

efforts to define community goals and to make plans tailored to the local

situation took second place to Federal initiatives. In those communities with

long-standing local leadership and citizen commitment to planning, Federal

involvement has been more of a partnership than a leader-follower pattern.

Some towns developed imaginative programs such as redevelopment programs that

rebuilt a working waterfront while renewing a central business district. Here

the effect of Federal withdrawal is different but no less complex.

Thus in the late 80s local leaders and planners face loud and often

conflicting criticism from the public'for failing to guide the forces

threatening the quality of community life. At the same time, they are working

in the vacuum of leadership, direction and fiscal support left by the

withdrawal of the Federal government. Localities must now take the major

responsibility for maintaining and expanding services, facilities for sewage

treatment, solid waste disposal, roads, etc., and an infrastructure in need of

major repair or complete replacement. Along with these traditional planning

and municipal responsibilities, localities must deal with the new problems and

expectations described earlier in this chapter. Furthermore, communities must

plan for the future -- and find ways to pay for all of these. Although the

decline in Federal involvement has been gradual, most communities are only now

facing up to the new realities resulting from this change.

Shifts in Politics and Economics

During this same period, the political and economic forces and attitudes

of many communities have been changing. Where once the business and

industrial scions and real estate developers had the organized political clout

in a locality, now in many states, citizens groups and coalitions organized

around a single issue are becoming political forces to contend with.

Referenda on growth issues, including some that impose a "cap" on growth, once

a hallmark of California politics, are being carried by majorities in many

states and cities. In local politics, neighborhood associations are backing

representatives, often running as a slate of candidates, who are winning

elections. Initially, these "local growth" candidates base their campaigns on

a single issue such as protection of neighborhood property values or the

location of a new town dump. However, more and more of these political

newcomers become knowledgeable on a broad range of urban issues. With their

direct link to a constituency of local residents, these elected officials can

become powerful allies, as well as formidable foes, in community planning

efforts. These representatives, and the grass roots movement they embrace,

are an emerging force that cannot be ignored.

The citizen participation movements of young people in the early 70s have

had an effect throughout American society. People are less willing to give

over most of the responsibility for managing growth to their elected

officials, professionals and municipal administrators. Although planners have

long felt it vital to have citizens involved in the planning process, such

involvement is now un der close public scrutiny. Even the best laid planning

program may fail if all segments of the community have not been drawn into its

initial design and the ongoing decision-making process.

So attempts to cope with growth often take place in communities where the

political mood is complex and volatile, and both the citizenry and its

leadership may feel overwhelmed with the task. The changing economic

situation is equally important and is especially difficult for leaders in

small towns and suburbs. Again, the problems involve both public resources

and the private economy. Small towns and rural areas often do not have the

personnel and fiscal resources to serve a rapidly growing constituency.

Fressing needs for more police officers and for a trash collection service

absorb resources that might be directed toward expansion or creation of a

planning department. In the private sector, the subtle economic

redistribution nationwide, brought on by recent changes in tax laws and social

support programs, has affected the so-called desirable communities. The

wealthy and upper middle class have more money and tax incentives to buy

second homes, while the working class, small businessmen, the poor and the

elderly are being squeezed out of the communities by higher taxes and the cost

of real estate and land. Small local businesses and industries such as

agriculture and fishing are unable to compete with well-funded outside

developers for the resources of the community.

Growth Management

As communities take more responsibility for their own future, many have

turned to the approach of growth management and its associated tools and

techniques for direction and as a guide for decisions. Growth management is

not new; the concept has been around for years. It has withstood legal and

political challenges. At the present time growth management has found support

in all sectors of communities. In the past, the concept has been linked

wrongly with no or slow growthers, militant environmentalists and exclusionary

groups. Now business leaders recognize that the quality of life is an

important factor in whether or not their companies should move into (or out

of) a community. They want excellent public facilities and services, as well

as a favorable economic environment and labor supply, but they also want to be

located in an area that their employees and executives will enjoy. A

community or regional system of managing growth establishes a framework within

which these several goals can be met. Perhaps less so but increasingly,

developers, investors and residents in resort areas are recognizing that

without growth management they are in danger of losing the very natural

resources and beauty that make an area an attractive resort.

In general parlance, the meaning of "growth management" has reflected the

interests of the group using the term: to some, synonymous with no growth and

return to the past, while meaning economic development when used by the

Chamber of Commerce. These biased uses are not correct. We define local

growth management as a conscious government Rrogram intended to affect the

rate. amount. type, location and/or guality of future development within a

local iurisdictio . We chose the term "affect" carefully. Encouragement of

growth, slowing down of growth and/or encouragement of economic development

can be goals and results of a growth management program. Growth management

does not favor any one goal or result to the exclusion of others. The purpose

and direction-of a growth management program is locally determined.

Everything depends on the goals a community sets for itself. In fac-t, a

growth management program can, and often does, simultaneously affect no growth

in some areas and encouragement of growth in others in the same community.

To be successful, a growth management program must fit the particular

situation of the community -- political, physical, social, historic traditions

and economic needs. There are no generic quick fixes, no cookbook solutions

recommended. Excellent work by planning professionals, and community

consensus and support are essential. In addition, the constitutional mandates

for respect for private property, provision of equal protection and others

must be kept in mind at all stages of designing and implementing a growth

management system and/or planning tools and techniques.

An array of tools and techniques associated with growth management is

available to a community to apply to its particular situation and goals.

There are several levels of a growth management program. The growth

management program itself is a syste , which consists of a statement of

community goals and mission, a comprehensive plan and related refinement

plans. Mechanisms for achieving the expressed community goals are called

strategies, tools and techniques. Strategies, tools and techniques are

selected to fit into a system, or one or several may be used selectively. The

tools fall into four major categories:

1. regulation

2. land acquisition

3. taxation

4. public spending

Overview of This Book

This book is meant to gather together the several threads of the concept

of growth management as it has developed over the past decade. We describe

some of the more innovative and effective tools and techniques that fall under
the general rubric of growth manageme nt.*In doing this we hope to give

planners, local officials and citizens a rich and essentially up-to-date

picture of what is and can be done in a growth management program. We rely

heavily on case studies of many types of communities, emphasizing pieces of

existing planning programs that, with careful adaptation, may have practical

application in another locality. We have looked especially for those

experiences and approaches that may be useful for communities in the State of

For a more complete listing and more extensive description of tools and
techniques used to manage growth see Brower et al.., Managilng DeveloRment in
Small Towns, Chicago, Planners Press, 1984.

Maine. Throug h our appendix, we hope to direct practicing planners to

detailed documents from communities that have similar physical, political and

economic characteristics and/or that have experience with a particular tool or

set of tools.

The book is organized as follows. Chapter Two discusses emerging goals

in growth management. Chapter Three discusses several growth guidance

strategies. We then describe, in brief, 16 communities that have particularly

interesting or innovative elements in their growth management systems. In a

companion volume helpful ordinances, reports and related documents are

reproduced in full or are excerpted.

Conclusion

This book is not meant to be read cover to cover, but rather to be dipped

into frequently as problems and ideas come up in a particular community. The

consensus that growth management is beneficial, even essential, is grow ing,

and the successes of several communities, some of which are described in this

book, strengthen the support for growth management. Christopher J. Duerksen*

has identified factors that seem to be critical to the success of communities

under growth pressures. Some of these factors are: (1) identification of

distinctive community assets around which land use plans are designed; (2) a

vision of what the community can be; (3) attention to aesthetic concerns; (4)

use of a variety of tools, rather than overreliance on regulations, to attract

desirable development; (5) the presence of individuals and groups who are

From a manuscript "Successful Communities," by Christopher J. Duerksen, as
excepted in: Todd K. Buchta, OR, cit, pp. 5-6.

informed, vocal and capable of sustained effort on growth. As you read and

refer to this text you will find some or all of these factors in the

communities we have identified and described as innovative. You will find

also much diversity in the goals, problems and resources of these communities.

Yet all have in common the use of growth management to guide growth and

change.

Chapter Two

Emerging Goals in Growth Management

0 The Importance of Setting Community Goals

Protecting and Enhancing Aesthetic Resources

Protecting Historic and Cultural Resources

Preserving Farmland and Open Space

Protecting the Natural Environment

Mitigating Natural Hazards

Providing Affordable Housing

9 Conclusions

Chapter Two

Emerging Goals in Growth Management

(Note: For the reader's convenience, communities that served as case studies
are identified by bold face type. When reference is made to materials
available in the Appendix, this is noted by an asterisk.)

The Importance of Setting Community Goals

As we emphasized in Chapter One, everything in a growth management

program depends on the goals a community sets for itself. The design of the

system and the choice from among the many and varied tools and techniques

available will and should be different for each community. These should

reflect the particular mix of physical, social, economic and political

resources, and the shared values unique to each place. Obviously, the

establishment of these goals (or the writing of a mission statement) is the

first step in a growth management program. The case studies and documents in

this book have some excellent examples of the results of a goal-setting

process, e.g., Manteo and Charlotte, North Carolina; Denver, Colorado.

Put in its simplest terms, a community or rural area needs to come up

with a vision of what it wants to become. This vision (or mission) may

embrace social needs such as schools, on-site day care and housing; economic

needs such as creation of new jobs or protection of traditional occupations

such as farming; enhancement of visual aspects of a place; among others. The

articulation of a vision and definition of goals are the first steps in

development of a comprehensive plan. The plan is the grounding essential to a

growth management program; without it a community may work on one or a few

goals outside of the context of the entire community and to the detriment of

other equally important goals. In another familiar situation, leaders and

professional planners look to one or a few "trendy" techniques rather than

evaluating and selecting from the array of tools, including more traditional

techniques such as zoning that are already proved and tested in their

community.

Despite its obviousness, it is important to reassert the essential place

the comprehensive plan holds in each community. The plan must be well thought

out and carefully executed in order to make growth management work, but it

need not be complex. Many good plans are marked by their simplicity and

clarity. Furthermore, the comprehensive plan has a central place in meeting

legal challenges to all or parts of a growth management program. The design

of the process of developing a community vision and the comprehensive plan

must take into consideration the need for full, representative and ongoing

citizen participation. It is also important that a community assess and act

on the need for coordination among neighboring governmental units.

Traditional goals of growth management programs have been economic

development; provision of adequate transportation, public safety and other

city services; planning for harmonious patterns of land use; and planning for

the infrastructure. In recent years people have become more and more

concerned with quality of life. Quality of life,is not easily defined; often

it is recognized in its decay. Pollution, traffic congestion and long

commuter trips, crowded schools, water shortages, disruptive development in

established neighborhoods, ugly buildings and clutter, destruction of areas of

natural and historic value and of open spaces have been cited here as evidence

of a decline in quality of life. Many of the emerging goals of growth

management discussed in this chapter relate to attempts to enhance the quality

of life in a community.

Protection and Enhancement of Aesthetic Resources

Protection of visual amenities has emerged in recent years as an

important goal in many communities. Increasingly, visual blight is seen as an

ominous--and unnecessary--side effect of urban growth. Several types of

aesthetic concerns can be identified, falling roughly into two categories:

those related to protecting natural beauty and views of natural resources, and

those related to the built environment, including architectural style and man-

made edifices that in excess can create visual clutter or blight.. Often in

setting'overall goals, localities draw both categories together as they seek

to preserve a visual image or flavor that is distinctive.

Many communities are beginning to view visual amenities not simply as

"extras," but rather as essential to maintaining and indeed enhancing the

salability of their communities to business and commerce. And the courts

have upheld regulations and programs directed toward the natural surroundings

and aesthetically pleasing design. Even the city of Houston, famous for its

absence of zoning and a laissez faire attitude toward growth and development,

is worried. As reported recently:

Civic leaders who a few years ago were busy riding the development
boom now confess that the city, still lacking any zoning laws, is at a
competitive disadvantage in the midst of the oil patch recession. Its
problem is one of perceptions. As one developer says from his new perch
atop the growth control wagon, "A businessman from outside Houston flies
in, looks around and says this city looks like trash. It's like having
guests and you've got garbage on the lawn."
Houston, the nation's fourth largest city, is not lacking in
beautiful neighborhoods and snazzy corporate centers. But its failure to
regulate growth has allowed its civic gateways to be subsumed in a tidal
wave of ugly clutter. Billboards, a pennant-bedecked car lot, fast food
joints and gas stations form the gauntlet that a visitor must run. Just
driving into town from the airport is enough to make someone pity the
full-time residents, rather than envy them.
So what is the city doing to cure its hangover? Some of the biggest
local boosters are kicking in 7.5 million dollars to begin a cleanup,
starting with the airport roads. The boosters have made the connection
between good appearance and good business. (Raleigh News and Observer,
June 24, 1987).

Some interesting local growth management efforts have centered on

protecting views of the natural environment. The City of Denver has taken a

strong position to protect views of the Rocky Mountains. The height of

buildings is restricted in eight "view preservation areas," established as

part of the building code of the city. Together these designated areas cover

14 square miles or 12.5% of the city's land area, and include views from the

state capitol and a number of city parks (City and County of Denver, 1985).

In nearby Boulder, more than 20,000 acres of open space around the city,

including a 4,600-acre mountain park, have been acquired. If these lands had

not been secured, the community feared that further growth and development

would jeopardize what has historically made Boulder a special place. Boulder
also has a 55-foot building height limitation, and special conditions must be

met (including protecting existing views and vistas) before a building over 35

feet can be constructed. For similar reasons, Fort Collins, Colorado, has

purchased most of the foothills (the "Hogbacks") to the west of its boundaries

to preserve the natural beauty of its surroundings.

Two states, North Carolina* and South Carolina, have enacted Mountain

Ridge Protection Acts, which place restrictions on the permissible height of

new structures on mountain ridges (Heath, 1983). While the stated objectives

of these programs included concerns ranging from the ability to provide

adequate fire protection to the existence of aviation hazards, it is clear

that the primary impetus was preservation of the appearance of the mountains.

Local officials and legislators in North Carolina supported this bill largely

because the economic vitality of the region depends on visual and natural'

settings for ski and resort activities and the second home industry.

Some of the impetus for protection of the natural environment has always

come from the Federal government. For example, in 1986 the Columbia River

Gorge National Scenic Area Act (PL 99-663) was passed. This is a somewhat new

model for Federal involvement. The act created a bi-state commission with

responsibility for developing a management plan and for passing on all local

plans and implementing ordinances to ensure their consistency with the overall

plan. Also the United States Forest Service is charged with managing

development and forest management practices in certain special management

areas. While the bill lists a number of stated objectives, it is clear that

preservation of the incredible beauty of the gorge is primary among them.

Other examples of Federal involvement in guiding growth in a regional resource

are the Pinelands in New Jersey and Chesapeake Bay.

Communities also value and fear for cultural and historic landmarks.

Austin, Texas, has enacted a Capitol View Protection Overlay Zone, with

building height restrictions, as part of its zoning ordinance. View corridors

open onto the Texas capitol building, the largest of the state capitols, which

is one foot taller than the United States Capitol. Similar provisions have
been adopted by the City of Lincoln, Nebraska, and Denver, Colorado.* When a

54-story trade tower (Port America) was planned on the outskirts of the

nation's capital, in Prince George's County, Maryland (Forgery, 1986), many

feared that the United States Capitol and other national monuments would be

dwarfed. A Senate bill, designating "'sensitive visual zones" and imposing

severe economic sanctions on buildings that are very tall, was introduced.

(The controversy was eventually resolved when the developer agreed to build

smaller twin towers.) As these examples, all of them recent, indicate, goals

of protecting natural treasures and historic landmarks are driving growth

management efforts in many towns.

As the Port America case demonstrates, issues of urban design and

architecture are the second major aesthetic force underlying recent growth

management programs. Towns of all sizes, and more and more resort

communities, are enacting strict controls on billboards and commercial strip

development (e.g., Nags Head, N.C.; Hilton Head, S.C.; Medford Township,

N.J.). More and more frequently, larger cities are demanding a design review

of large development; ugliness is not tolerated, nor is damage to other urban

amenities through the development process. San Francisco has perhaps gone the

furthest with the adoption in 1985 of its Downtown Plan. Concerned about the

"Manhattanization" of San Francisco, the residents supported the plan which,

among other things, places an annual cap on the quantity of downtown office

development, reduces the permissible height of downtown structures (from 700

to 550 feet), and now requires tapered structures with "designer tops" (as

opposed to flat rooftops). Through the Downtown Plan, high-rise growth has

been reoriented to minimize its impact on surrounding neighborhoods and views

of the San Francisco Bay (Shaffer, 1985), and 250 historic buildings in the

downtown are to be preserved. Boston has considered a similar plan for its

downtown (Guenther, 1986).

This concern with the built environment is not limited to the big cities.

Tiny Cannon Beach, Oregon, a coastal community surrounded by dramatic natural

beauty, has attracted many artists and tourists. Its efforts at protecting

the "character" of the community are oriented toward artistic sensibilities

and appreciation of the natural environment. The town has instituted a design

review process for all development other than single-family detached units.

Of special interest is the prohibition of all "formula-food" (fast-food)

restaurants. Other places that have acted upon their concern for the

aesthetic effects of the built environment are Raleigh and Nags Head in North

Carolina, which have stringent billboard restrictions. The land development

codes of Hilton Head, South Carolina and Medford Township, New Jersey have

stringent sign regulations.

Protectinz Historic and Cultural Resources

Another emerging goal of growth management programs, one related to

protection of visual amenities, is preservation of historic and cultural

resources. Several of the communities studied and described in this book are

good examples. The town of Breckenridge, Colorado,* an 1860s gold mining

town, has architecture from three different historic periods. Clearly, the

charm and flavor of the place grow out of these several heritages and are a

major attraction for tourists and skiers. The town has undertaken a

substantial effort to build upon and enhance these historic resources. Among

other things, the design standards prevent new buildings that attempt to

"imitate" historic architecture, and the efforts to protect historic landmarks

are integrated with those directed toward open space and views of the

surrounding mountains.

The town of Manteo, North Carolina, is using its land use plan and

development regulations to enhance its historic importance as the site of the

first English colony in the New World. In doing so, the town attracted major

redevelopment on the waterfront and broadened its economic base with tourism.

Other communities, including Fort Collins, Colorado, Nags Head, North

Carolina, Eugene, Oregon, and Austin, Texas, have built growth management

programs upon their historic and cultural heritage. Linking plans for future

growth with design standards and the protection of the elements of a community

that make it memorable and unique is being done more and more frequently.

Community leaders see that the goal of historic and cultural preservation

makes good economic sense, promoting tourism, a sense of local pride and

community attractiveness, as well as having intrinsic value to the locality,

region and nation.

Preserving Farmland and ORen Space

Many growth management programs center around, or have as a major

component, the acquisition of open space lands and the protection of farmland

and other productive resource land. Often these acquisitions are intended to

serve several objectives. Acquisition of rights in farmland may be intended

to protect these areas for their agricultural productivity, but also because

farmland represents an important and valued form of open space. Open space

programs also serve other types of natural and scenic lands not being

protected for agricultural potential. Moreover, many of these open space

preservation programs are strengthened by the increasing importance being

placed on aesthetic and visual quality. One of the most interesting land

acquisition/preservation programs was implemented on Nantucket Island, where

real property costs are being driven up in a booming and speculative market

(see Chapter Three and the Appendix for more detail). Other communities, all

in New England, have been finding creative ways to overcome the major

financial obstacles to preserving open space. These include Little Compton*

and New Shoreham, Rhode Island. Boulder County, Colorado, also has programs

in place to preserve open space. Most of these are discussed in more detail

in the next chapter.

The rich and beautiful vineyards of Napa County, California,* are being

protected despite pressures from the nearby metropolitan areas of San

Francisco and Oakland. King County,* which includes Seattle, is also working

to preserve its farmlands, as are Suffolk County, Long Island, Montgomery

County, Maryland, and several areas in Oregon, among others (see Chapter

Three). As will be described later, many land acquisition programs have been

enhanced when applied in concert with regulations such as zoning.

Protecting Sensitive Areas

Growth management programs are increasingly concerned with protecting the

natural environment: reduction of air pollution, protection against

groundwater contamination and protection of sensitive habitats such as

wetlands, coastal beaches and dunes.

Groundwater, and the ways in which urban development influences its

quality, have been receiving special attention in recent years. Communities

such as Duxbury, Massachusetts, San Antonio and Austin, Texas,-and Suffolk

County, New York, are currently or are considering development regulations

designed to prevent groundwater contamination (e.g., Celis., 1987). These laws

regulate density of development, and/or types of uses allowed in the areas.

South Kingstown, Rhode Island, has enacted a special rural low density, five-

acre minimum lot size zone to protect its groundwater. Middletown, Rhode

Island, uses a special aquifer protection overlay regulation. Nantucket,

Massachusetts, has similarly stringent groundwater protection provisions.

Groundwater protection is clearly a widespread important goal of growth

management.

A number of localities have placed the protection of natural ecosystems

and habitats at the center of their growth management efforts. The Sanibel,

Florida, land use plan and land development controls are explicitly based on

the carrying capacity of that island's natural systems. Medford, New Jersey,

implements a similar plan where the suitability of future development has been

determined through the consideration of a range of natural characteristics,

including geology, soils, vegetation and visual quality. Their land use

regulations and extensive performance and design standards are explicitly

tied to the presence of these environmental constraints..

New development is increasingly being held to stringent environmental

protection standards as a means of meeting the community goal of protecting

special and fragile natural areas. The case studies of Breckenridge and Fort

Collins, Hilton Head, Medford Township, Martin County, and Boulder are

illustrative. Communities are conducting thorough assessments of the

sensitive ecological habitats within their boundaries, a first and essential

step in developing an environmentally sound plan. The Medford Township

program, done by Ian McHarg and discussed in more detail in the next chapter,

is an excellent example of this approach. Beaverton and Cannon Beach, Oregon,

are examples of relatively developed areas that have recently made efforts to

protect the remaining wetlands within their boundaries. An extensive review

of natural resources in Beaverton, a suburb of Portland, Oregon, resulted in

the designation of sensitive environmental areas where special development

restrictions apply (City of Beaverton, 1984). King County, Washington, has

recently completed a similar assessment of natural habitats, and has already

taken some efforts to protect its areas and to acquire Cougar Mountain (see

King County, 1987). Nags Head, North Carolina, has taken special action to

minimize the impact of development on a nature preserve, The Nags Head Woods,

as will be described in more detail later.

Some of this progress at the local level is in response to increasingly

stringent state requirements. State coastal management programs, which were

themselves largely stimulated by Federal legislation (the Coastal Zone

Management Act), have encouraged substantial local efforts toward protecting

natural resources. Arundel County, Maryland, adopted a strong shoreline

management plan in response to the requirements of Maryland's Chesapeake Bay

Critical Areas Program. King County, Washington, developed strong shoreline

policies as a result of requirements under Washington State's Shoreline

Management Program.

Mitigating Natural Disasters

Floods, hurricanes, avalanches and other hazards are regular events in

certain areas and should guide plans for future growth. Incorporation of the

potential for natural hazards into the management of land use and growth is

becoming more common. Restricting the quantity or type of development in high

hazard flood areas is perhaps the most widespread of these management

activities, spurred in part through the requirements of the National Flood

Insurance Program. Nags Head, North Carolina, has made the mitigation of

coastal hazards a major component of its growth management system and

implementation is directed toward minimizing the effects of storms and floods

in vulnerable areas. The states of North Carolina and Florida now require

their coastal localities to prepare hurricane mitigation and disaster

reconstruction plans as part of their normal land use planning requirements

(see Brower, Godschalk and Beatley, 1986).

Mountainous areas are controlling growth to prevent slides and slope

failure. Hazard reduction strategies can include low density development on

high slopes, such as San Mateo County, California (Kockelman, 1986). The

foothills ordinance in Boise, Idaho,* for example, imposes special

requirements on all proposed construction on slopes of 15% or more, including

the preparation of detailed grading and drainage plans. Development must

adhere to detailed hillside development standards addressing, among other

things, grading and vegetation, drainage controls, and roadways and

circulation. Scottsdale, Arizona, has also adopted special regulations for

development in its district. Similarly, some California communities have also

taken actions to restrict the amount and,type of growth near earthquake fault

zones (Brown and Kockelman, 1985).

Providing Affordable Housinz

A shrinking supply of affordable housing can be one result of rapid

growth. Many communities believe that urban growth should be accompanied by,

and indeed should promote, affordable housing. A number of communities have

been implementing inclusionary housing programs, typically as a part of their

land use regulatory mechanisms. Often high density developers are asked to

"set-aside" a number of units for low and moderate income families. A number

of communities have used creative approaches to boost the supply of low cost

housing in a period of rapid growth and development of high cost housing.

The city of Eugene, Oregon, has enacted an ordinance placing restrictions on

conversion of rental units to condominiums. As discussed in Chapter Three,

however, there are limits to what growth management can do to assure an

adequate range and quantity of housing options in a community.

Conclusions

The emerging goals for growth management described here reflect the need

felt by a community of people to conserve, to protect and to enhance the

guality of life of the particular place that is their home and workplace.

These goals have gained acceptance in part because of the rapid pace of change

and uncontrolled development that have characterized much of the American

landscape in the 1980s. In concluding this chapter, we want to re-emphasize

the importance of blending these emerging goals with those of long-standing in

a community. These may be economic development, improvement of public

services, and enhancement of the quality of life overall. The themes of the

emerging goals -- conservation, preservation and articulation of the aesthetic

and social values -- cannot be anti-progress or anti-growth. To become and

remain a successful community, there must be year-round jobs for its people,

family farms must survive and local businesses must stay healthy and viable.

Thus in most places the emerging goals for growth management related to

quality of life will and should be blended in with such traditional goals as

maintaining a thriving local economy and providing adequate public services.

As we have pointed out, there is strong economic force behind the emerging

goals, especially in a state such as Maine that has attracted growth because

of its natural beauty and lifestyle. It is essential for a community that the

process of assessing the present, looking into the future and defining goals

be broadly based, open to all voices in the community; the process should

emphasize the broad view while responding to the immediate problems of the

present. The outcome of such a process should be a set of goals, with some

sense of the priorities among them. We have called this set of goals a vision

of what the community wants to become.

Chapter Three

Tools and Techniques of Growth Management

Introduction

Four Categories of Techniques

� Regulation

Regulations That Affect the Rate of Growth
Point Systems
Performance Standards and Performance Zoning
Urban Growth Boundaries
Design Review Processes and Sign Ordinances
Environmental Performance Standards and Other Controls in
Sensitive Ecologic Habitats and Watersheds
Regulations in Areas Subject to Natural Disasters
Regulations to Preserve Farmlands
Refinement Plans

� Land Acquisition

Purchase of Development Rights

� Taxation

Making Growth Pay Its Own Way
Real Estate Transfer Taxes
Other Approaches

� Public Spending

Impact Fees

Other Considerations

� Affordable Housing
� Citizen Participation
� Regional Coordination

Conclusions and Further Reading

Chapter Three

Tools and Techniques of Growth Management

Introduction

The concept of growth management has evolved in the last 20 years. As we

have gained experience, and as societal changes have reshaped the environment

in which community planning must take place, the goals that communities seek

to achieve through growth management have expanded to include a large number

of 'issues broadly described as quality of life. Also, the tools and

techniques available to achieve these goals are much more varied and

sophisticated than they were two decades ago. They can be grouped into four

categories: regulation, land acquisition, taxation and public spending.

Depending on the goals and resources available, communities can select from

this wide array. In the previous chapter we presented several techniques used

by one or more places to achieve a community goal such as protection of the

natural environment. In this chapter's discussion, we elaborate on some of

these. We focus on techniques that are more frequently used, found to be

effective, and/or considered to be innovative. The list is not meant to be

comprehensive. Where applicable, we describe the experience of one or more of

the 16 communities we studied. As with the process.of developing community

goals,.the needs of citizen participation and regional coordination must be

addressed. Finally, planners need to assure that the constitutional mandates

for equal protection, respect for private property, and others are held

inviolable.

Four Categories of Technigues

Regulation

Regulations that Affect the Rate of Growth. A number of localities

around the country regulate the amount of growth that is allowed in a given

year. Based on the so-called Petaluma (California) model, a growth rate is

established, either as a precise number (e.g., 500 dwelling units per year) or

as a rate (e.g., 2% of existing dwelling units per year). Santa Cruz County,

California passed a referendum that placed a 1% annual growth rate cap on new

development. A number of other California communities have adopted a similar

approach, including the city of Davis and Napa County.* Enacted by a citizen-

generated referendum, the Napa ordinance restricts annual growth to a rate

equal to that of the region. The ordinance addresses four categories of

housing, one of which is "affordable." Permits are issued on a first-come,

first-served basis. When demand for development permits exceeds the supply in

a given year, a lottery system is used.

Hilton Head,* a resort island off the South Carolina coast, has enacted a

similar restriction in its Land Management Ordinance which sets an absolute

limit on permits (4,250) over a five-year period ending in 1991. Of that

number, 2,050 are reserved for single-family units and 800 for hotel/motel

units. An allocation schedule is established for each year. Potential

developers submit a "building permit allocation reservation request." The

Administrator makes allocations "according to the order in which such

reservation requests are received." Priority is given to single family units;

when the allocation for single family units is exhausted, units from other

categories can be used. The ordinance clearly states that this limitation and

the allocation scheme are temporary, enacted because of the limited capacity

of the island's existing infrastructure.

Many of these local efforts have included point systems to control the

type as well as the timing of growth. Boulder, Colorado,* adopted a 2% per

year "cap" on building permits in 1976. Named after one of its most vigorous

advocates, Paul Danish, the Danish Plan required the city to set priorities

among development proposals. Those proposals given the most points were

granted permits. The Danish plan ended in 1982 because of a sunset clause;

however, the technique of an annual development cap continues to be used. The

city has added a set of performance standards (see discussion below) that all

proposed development projects must satisfy, thus separating the goal of

control of the quality and purpose of a development proposal from the goal

of allocating a scarce resource, that is, the number of permits. Boulder now

uses a proportional allocation system related to the total number of permits

requested in a given period. For example, if 100 permitslare available and

200 are requested, an applicant who requested 50 permits would be entitled to

one-fourth of the pool, or 25.

Some cities' efforts to slow the pace of growth have been directed to

only certain areas. San Francisco's Downtown Plan placed an annual cap on new

downtown development in an effort to direct development away from the city's

financial district. Proposition M*, passed in the fall of 1986, reduces

office development even further.

Point Systems, Some localities have developed growth management systems

that rely, entirely or in combination with other types of regulations, on

point systems to determine the permissibility of proposed developments. Fort

Collins* and Breckenridge, Colorado,* were among the first communities to

develop and apply point systems. As in the Boulder approach discussed above,

the Fort Collins Land Development Guidance System, enacted in 1982, combines

performance standards with a point system. Development proposals are subject

to both absolute and relative standards. Each type of development --

residential, industrial, neighborhood service -- is held to a specific set of

standards, some of which are absolute and some of which vary according to

priority and category. Absolute standards are just that, absolute; a project

will not be approved if these standards are not satisfied. For example, all

vehicular use areas, pedestrian circulation paths and building exteriors must

have adequate security lighting (City of Fort Collins, 1982, p. 7). The point

systems use the relative standards. One to three points are assigned for each

element (e.g., density); this number is then multiplied by a weighting factor

derived from the priority of that element. Projects can proceed if they earn

a specified percentage of the maximum points possible; usually that percentage

is 50%. For residential uses, permissible density is determined by a point

system that promotes certain types and locations of development. For example,

.developments located next to existing development, those close to a

neighborhood shopping center, public transportation, and schools "earn

credit"; this earned credit can be conveyed into permission for increased

density.

The Breckenridge plan, which was enacted before the one in Fort Collins,

is very similar, incorporating both absolute and relative performance

standards and a point system. In Fort Collins, however, the land use plan

establishes general use zones and density levels, although there are

provisions for density bonuses. Negative as well as positive points can be

assigned under the Breckenridge system. A proposed development must earn a

final positive score (or at least zero) before it can proceed. A developer

can compensate for a factor in his plan that receives a negative grade by

earning extra points for other elements where he or she has added amenities.

The point systems in the two Colorado communities also differ in specific

performance standards applied because of local needs. For example,

Breckenridge, a very small town with a very large transient population of

skiers and seasonal workers, imposes performance standards related to snow

removal and employee housing.

Hardin County, Kentucky,* adopted its point system in January, 1984 (see

Harned, 1984). The use categories found in typical-zoning ordinances are

replaced with a unified evaluation scheme. Most developments must obtain a

special use permit and in that process are assigned points based on a number

of factors relating to the site. For example, the system evaluates relative

productivity of the soil, access to roads and types of development surrounding

the proposed site (Cordon, 1984). If a project earns at least 150 out of the

possible 325 points, it is automatically approved. If a project earns less

than 90 points, it is not approved; projects with 91 - 149 points are reviewed

by the county planning commission and may be approved by them. Even after

approval based on this point system each project is subjected to a

compatibility assessment and a detailed review of its development plans.

Since they can be somewhat complex, an important ingredient in making such

point systems work is an adequate planning staff.

Performance Standards and Performance Zoning. The application of

performance standards represents one of many efforts by planners to overcome

the limitations they have found with traditional Euclidean zoning (Kendig,

1980). "Performance zoning sets standards for each zone based on the

permissible effects of a development rather than specifically enumerating the

types of uses permitted" (Brower, Carraway, et al., 1984, p. 109). Used

either as an overlay to or a replacement of conventional zoning, growth

management systems with performance standards can be helpful in reducing

environmental degradation and in promoting quality development. A number of

small communities and rural areas have used the techniques of performance

standards to protect environmentally sensitive areas (Brower, 1984, p. 110-

11).

Largo, Florida, has adopted a performance-based land development system,

replacing many of its traditional use restrictions. The new system focuses on

intensity;

Intensity of development is controlled through standards for floor-
area ratios and impervious-surface ratios. Cone are most arbitrary side-
and rear-yard setbacks, along with height limits and minimum lot
dimension. Nearly 20 zoning districts were eliminated in favor of eleven
land use categories on the Land Use Plan Map, five of which are
residential, differing only by maximum density. Four performance
districts allow the establishment of different performance standards for
each district (downtown, redevelopment, management and environmental
conservation). (Easley, 1984, p. 25)

Urban Growth Boundaries, Many localities have identified areas where

growth is preferred or permitted and those where no or only very limited

growth is allowed. These efforts vary in sophistication and in legal

implementation. Oregon requires that all municipalities in the state

establish Urban Growth Boundaries (Senate Bill 100). These boundaries

separate urban and "urbanizable" lands (the latter defined as land not yet

developed but which could be developed for urban uses) from land to remain as

a resource and/or for rural uses. This state mandate has been'successful in

promoting efficient patterns of growth and in preserving valuable farms and

forests (Beatley, 1987).

The Oregon law leaves room for local adaptation and innovation. The city

of Salem, for example, established a system of phasing development within the

urban growth boundary that encourages growth in areas where services are less

costly. Land within Salem's urban growth boundary is divided into two areas:

a developed area and an urban growth area. In the urban growth area

developers are required to construct public facilities such as streets, sewers

and drainage to "link" with the developed area. The intended public benefits

are that developers share the costs of growth and that inefficient development

patterns are discouraged. Another interesting part of the Salem growth

management program is the maintenance of a reserve of at least a 10 year

supply of serviced land in or contiguous to the developed area.

Similar techniques are being used in Boulder to control the timing and

sequence of growth. The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, which is based on

a 15-year planning period, delineates three broad development zones. These

zones will guide the city in making annexation and capital improvement

decisions. The definition of "adequate" public facilities and services needed

for growth to occur is precise, including acceptable levels set for police and

fire response times, and sewer and water flow standards.

Montgomery County, Maryland, located just outside Washington, D.C., has

planned for concentration of growth in the area nearest the city. Its

comprehensive plan calls for the preservation of open space "wedges" between

growth "corridors." Development on farmland and open space is restricted,

with local landowners compensated for loss of development possibilities

through transfer of development rights (see below) to designated growth areas.
@'Elements of this strategy to guide growth have come under political and legal

attack recently. Nevertheless, the "wedges and corridors" plan has been

effective in protecting open space in the Montgomery County.

Desip-n Review Processes and Sign Ordinances- The use of design review

boards is increasing as communities turn their attention to protecting beauty,

order and distinctive characteristics. The programs in San Francisco have

been mentioned; other examples of active design review boards are the Vieux

Carre Commission in New Orleans, The Fine Arts Advisory Committee in

Cleveland, the River Walk Advisory Commission in San Antonio, the Fine Arts

Commission in Washington, D.C., and Boston's new Civic Design Commission. The

active regulation of visual characteristics of a place is not limited to large

cities; communities of all sizes are instituting design review processes

(Zotti, 1987). For example, Freeport, Maine, has initiated such a program.

These design review bodies are not necessarily given established

standards or guidelines on which to make their judgments; where such design

standards do exist, their level of detail and specificity differs from place

to place. Design standards in Portland, Oregon,* represent an effort to be

quite specific. The general standards that guide Portland's.visual management

program were adopted in 1980 to implement goals established in a Downtown

Plan. Among the design issues addressed are: a ratio of open space to

buildings; protection of existing pathway systems and pedestrian rights-of-

way; protection or reinforcement of special urban sub-areas; reinforcement of

the sense of a gateway at bridgeheads; invigoration of intersections at

activity areas; inclusion of architectural features that connect the interior

activity of a building with the streets; and reservation of places for people

to rest and meet others. The ordinance provides examples to illustrate how

each standard might be satisfied. There are extra standards for special

districts such as Chinatown.

Environmental Performance Standards and Other Controls in Sensitive

Ecologic Habitats and Watersheds, Clearly, one of the substantial problems

that growth management programs have addressed is protection of groundwater.

The New Castle County, Delaware, Water Resources Agency recently proposed the

prohibition of future development in certain important recharge areas,

including sand and gravel areas (Pummer, 1987). Middletown, Rhode Island,

uses a special aquifer protection overlay zone. Nantuckett, Massachusetts,

also has stringent provisions for groundwater protection.

Several localities place protection of natural ecosystems and habitats at

the center of their growth management efforts. In Sanibel, Florida, land use

plan and land development controls are explicitly based on the carrying

capacity of the island's natural systems, e.g., the capacity of those systems

to absorb developments without seriously harming them. Medford, New Jersey,

has a similar plan in which decisions on future development are based on a

consideration of the geological and biological characteristics of the site;

soil types, vegetation, and also visual quality are examined. The Medford

regulations explicitly tie the performance and design standards to the

environmental conditions of the area.

Several case studies describe the use of environmental performance

standards. In Boulder all new development must meet a certain minimum level of

resource conservation, achieved through orientation of buildings for solar

energy systems, use of water-conserving toilets, among other requirements.

The point systems used in Breckenridge and Fort Collins emphasize

environmental prote ction. For example, Breckenridge places penalties on

developments that contribute to air pollution by having an excessive number of

fireplaces. Eugene, Oregon,* is one of several communities that have adopted

solar access ordinances.

Communities are giving more attention to sensitive ecological habitats

within their boundaries that may be permanently changed or destroyed by nearby

development. Beaverton and Cannon Beach, Oregon, have taken steps to protect

wetlands. After an extensive review of its natural resources, Beaverton

designated certain areas as sensitive environments where special development

restrictions apply. These restrictions are especially important in a suburban

environment (City of Beaverton, 1984). King County, Washington, has acquired

Cougar Mountain on the basis of a similar assessment of natural habitats (see

King County, 1987). Nags Head, North Carolina, has imposed regulations on

both privately and publicly owned land in and around one of the last maritime

forests, Nags Head Woods.

To a large extent the states have taken the lead in protection of

sensitive habitats. State coastal management programs encourage the local

efforts to protect natural resources. For example, Arundel County, Maryland,

adopted a forceful shoreline management plan in response to the requirements

of the state's Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas Program. King County,

Washington, wrote a vigorous set of policies on the shoreline as a result of

requirements under Washington State's Shoreline Management Program.

Regulations in Areas Subiect to Natural Disasters. More and more

frequently, plans to manage growth speak to concerns about natural hazards.

The most widespread of these management activities is the restriction of the

quantity and type of development in areas subject to flooding. Again, the

Federal government has spurred many of these efforts through the requirements

of the National Flood Insurance Program.

The town of Nags Head has made the mitigation of coastal hazards a major

component of its growth management. Several actions have been taken or are

being contemplated now to direct future patterns of growth so that the town

will be less vulnerable to coastal storms. North Carolina and Florida require

that coastal towns prepare hurricane mitigation and disaster reconstruction

plans as part of land use planning (see Brower, Godschalk, and Beatley, 1986).

Mountainous and steep-slope areas are being controlled to prevent slides

and collapse of slopes. In San Mateo County, California, the permissible

density of development on steep slopes and unstable zones is limited to one

unit per 40 acres (Kockelman, 1986). Another approach is to impose special

engineering requirements on development in areas at risk. The foothills

ordinance in Boise, Idaho,* requires that all new construction on slopes of

15% or greater prepare detailed grading and drainage plans, among other

requirements. The hillside development standards are detailed, addressing

grading, vegetation, drainage controls, roadways and circulation, among other

things. Benton County, Washington, has established hillside development

standards as a condition for the issuance of special use permits. Scottsdale,

Arizona, has also imposed standards. Some California communities have imposed

controls on growth and requirements for seismic design for new structures on

sites at risk from earthquakes.

Regulations to Preserve Farmlands, Although acquisition is probably the

most effective way to preserve agricultural land, regulatory approaches are

most common. In an innovative approach that ties regulations to farmland

productivity, Oregon's Senate Bill 100 requires that all counties place

farmland of a certain quality (SCS classes I through IV west of the Cascade

Mountains, classes I through VI east of the Cascades) in an Exclusive Farm Use

zone. Land parcels in these zones are not allowed to be reduced below a size

needed for a commercially viable farm unit (Beatley, 1984). Local governments

throughout the country have adopted farmland protection provisions based on

the Department of Agriculture's new Land Evaluation and Site Assessment

system, among them, Clarke County, Virginia, and Linn County, Oregon.

Many communities continue to rely on traditional zoning, particularly

large lot provisions, to protect farmland and open space; for example, the

townships of Plainsboro, Cransbury, Colts Neck, Franklin and Bethlehem in New

Jersey. Perhaps the most successful application of zoning for this purpose is

in Napa County, California.* Lot sizes in the vineyards must be 40 acres or

more.

Another approach to preservation of farmland and open space is use of

incentives. We mention here two techniques that have been used for this

purpose. Boulder County. Colorado,* provides a special non-urban Planned Unit

Development designation in which the right to develop high density units is

given in exchange for a commitment to keep a certain percentage of the land as

open space or farm use in perpetuity. Specifically, the maximum permissible

density in most rural zoning districts in the county of one dwelling unit per

35 acres can be increased under the non-urban PUD provisions to two units,

plus one existing homestead, if the landowner agrees (1) to place both

structures on 25% of the land parcel and (2) to enter into an easement to

maintain the remaining 75% in open space and agricultural uses. Another

approach to saving farmlands, with which there has been more experience, is

use of transfer of development rights; the technique is discussed in more

detail in the section on Land Acquisition that follows. A number of case

studies reflect this use. Montgomery County, Maryland, relies on TDR to

maintain its open space wedges.

Refinement Plans, Some cities refine city-wide growth management

programs with a series of more specific or refinement plans, related either to

geographic area or function. It is common for Oregon communities to have

active neighborhood planning programs, which are integrated into the larger

community planning fram work. In Eugene, formal procedures exist for

informing and consulting with some 20 neighborhood groups on planning and

development matters. As a part of Austinplan, 22 sectors will prepare plans

to be integrated in a plan for the City of Austin as a whole. King (Seattle)

and Snohomish counties, Washington, combined refinement plans into the county

plans.

Functional planning is not new, but it is especially important to growth

management programs. In Eugene, Oregon, a master plans for each of the

following were prepared: bikeways, culture/leisure, entrance beautification,

airport, parks and recreation, fire and emergency services, downtown housing,

among others. King County followed a similar course.

A recent use of refinement planning is resource area planning. For

example, Martin County, Florida,* adopted special planning and regulatory

provisions for its barrier islands. Accomack County, Virginia, recently.

enacted a special barrier island ordinance that restricts the types of

development and modifications of the natural environment (e.g., prohibition of

sand fences). Boise, Idaho, adopted special planning and regulatory

provisions governing future development along the Boise River. The plan calls

for establishment of a continuous public greenbelt along the river (City of

Boise, 1985). Similar regulations had been adopted earlier for Boise's

hillside and foothills areas (City of Boise, 1981).

Land Acouisition

Purchase of DeveloRment Rights, Acquisition of less-than-fee-simple

interests in open space and resource lands is being used more and more in

growth management programs. One of the most successful programs using the

purchase of development rights (PDR) is in King County, Washington.* King

County has acquired development rights to 12,650 acres of farmland. The

program was funded through a $50 million bond issue passed in 1979. A

farmland ordinance enacted at the same time established in detail the areas

where purchase of development rights was permissible and encouraged. A series

of maps was appended to the ordinance, and priorities were set for the

selection of farmland to be acquired. Acquisition took place over an 8-year

period. With the plan completed in 1986, county officials report that the

approach of PDR has worked extremely well.

The technique of purchase of development rights has been used by many

types and sizes of governmental units in areas of differing sizes, populations

and economic positions. Perhaps the oldest example of the use of PDR is that

of Suffolk County, Long Island. Faced with rapid suburbanization, the

government acquired development rights to several thousand acres of prime

farmland and open space. Forsyth County, North Carolina, has begun a PDR

program to protect farmland from the expanding city of Winston-Salem. There

are statewide PDR programs in Maryland, New Jersey and Connecticut (Kwong,

1987).

Taxation

Making Growth Pay Its Own Way, For decades localities have been making

demands on developers that would soften the economic and social effects of

proposed new growth on governmental units. Towns have required that

developers dedicate land, or fees in lieu of dedication, as a condition of

approval of a subdivision or development proposal. Cities have also required

that certain facilities be installed at the expense of the developer.

However, the idea that growth and development should in a real sense pay its

own way has only recently gained credence. More and more developers in the

1980s are being required to assume a substantial portion of the costs of

growth. These requirements cover a widening range of public facilities and

services, from road construction to police and fire protection to the

provision of libraries. Developers are also being required to assume a large

portion of the "off-site" costs associated with their projects. The extent to

which this trend of-making growth pay its way is evident varies by state and

region, as do the particular techniques employed.

Real Estate Transfer Taxes. The Nantucket Land Bank, created by a

special act of the State of Massachusetts in 1983, uses an effective and

progressive means to fund and implement its land acquisition and preservation

program. In the booming and speculative land market of Cape Cod, the amount

of money Nantucket can raise by imposing a tax on each real estate transaction

is impressive, approaching $80,000 per week. By July 1986 the Bank had raised

over $6 million from about 3,000 real estate transfers (Klein, 1986, p. 12).

These monies were used as leverage to float tax-free bonds. The Bank,

governed by a five member board elected locally, has exceptional authority,

including the power to acquire land through eminent domain.

The experience in Nantucket may be unique, however, and not instructive

to other areas in the country. Being an island, the condition of land

scarcity is immediately obvious to all. The situation of a large number of

pieces of property changing hands with frequency is necessary to generate

monies. In addition, some have observed that it was easier to rally public

opinion behind this plan among the high income residents of the island,

distinguished by a long history of.concern for conservation of natural

resources, historic preservation and high architectural standards (Phillips,

1985). on the other hand, as we have noted at several points in this book,

the concern with quality of the environment is not limited to "those who can

afford to care," but is advocated with equal ardor in many communities in the

country. Thus, the Nantucket strategy may be found to be effective in other

localities in the future. Among those using the real estate transfer tax are

Little Compton and New Shoreham, Rhode Island.*

Other ARRroaches. Although not-a tax, a few localities have sought to

tap into the profits of growth-related development through equity-sharing

agreements. This may be a trend in growth management programs. The

California cities of Fontana, Fairfield, Monrovia and Duarte have entered into

agreements with private developers, which secure for the community a certain

percentage of the net profits from the operation of the proposed development.

Monrovia has become a partner in the development of a shopping center. The

city, through the Monrovia Redevelopment Agency, acquired and prepared the

land for development. A developer then purchased the land and a 30-year lease

on land for a parking lot. In exchange, the city will receive 17% of the

annual net income for the life of the shopping center. Duarte, California,

has joined in the development of a 5-story condominium.

Public SRendinz

Impact Fees. One of the most popular new techniques being used to defray

the costs of growth is the impact fee, with its underlying concept of linking

approval of new development to the provision of certain services and

facilities. Increasingly, developers are being expected to offset, at least

in part, the effects that their investment decisions have on the social and

economic structures of the broader community. To some, this is an issue of

equity. For example, to the extent that new office development will create

problems such as traffic congestion and needs for new housing, that

development should be required to contribute to their resolution. As San

Francisco residents recently note, "These developers are getting a lot out of

this city, so it's only right that they put something back in." (Myers, 1986).

Impact fees are used extensively in California and Florida (Kirlin and

Kirlin, 1982; McKay, 1986; Snyder and Stegman, 1986). Florida's innovative

1985 growth management package explicitly encourages localities to use impact

fees (Bosselman and Stroud, 1985). The technique is now spreading beyond

California and Florida. Oregon and Washington use impact fees extensively,

although they may be called "systems development charges" or some other

similar term.

The type and percentage of services and facilities expected to be paid

for by new development are expanding. At first, impact fees were applied to

water and sewer improvements, the construction of roads, parks and

recreational facilities, police and fire protection and schools. Recently,

they have been applied to goals such as conservation. Martin County,

Florida,* enacted a Beach Impact Fee Ordinance, to build funds to purchase

recreational beachlands. The percentage of the total costs created by new

development that developers are required to pay through impact fees varies

greatly; some places reach 100%. The total cost of these fees to a developer

is growing and can be enormous. In Fairfield, California, impact fees are as

,.much as $15,000 per dwelling unit (Vesey, 1987).

Special units of local government such as school districts can be given

authority to impose impact fees. A relatively new law in California permits

school districts to impose an impact fee on new residential and commercial

development based on the number of square feet being built (Billiter, 1987).

The fee is not permitted to exceed $1.50 per square foot for new residences

$0.25 per square foot for commercial structures. The Los Angeles Unified

School District, the largest system in the state, adopted such a fee

requirement shortly after the state law passed.

In order to withstand a legal challenge, the community that imposes

impact fees must show a "rational nexus" between growth and the service

demands created by it. Some communities have incorporated sophisticated

computer models to calculate impacts. The Traffic Review and Impact Planning

System in Broward County, Florida, is one example; the setting of road impact

fees is directly related to the street and traffic impacts of a project as

predicted by the computer model (see Knack, 1984). Other places that have
developed traffic impact models are Washington County, Oregon, and Austin,

Texas.

More and more large cities are holding downtown development projects

accountable for their social impacts on the wider community; high-rise office

buildings are the most likely target. For years San Francisco* has required

that new downtown office complexes contribute to a trust fund for construction

of affordable housing. Now downtown deve lopment must also contribute to a

transit fund, and perhaps for the first time in any city, to child-care

facilities, either as on-site construction or in the form of contributions to

a city child care fund (at the rate of $1 per square foot). Concord,

California, a burgeoning suburb in the Bay Area, has adopted similar

requirements for builder-funded day care facilities.

Looked at in its broadest context, impact fees are a form of linkage

program, that is, approval of urban development is linked to provision of

certain services and facilities. Few municipalities attempt to cover as broad

a range of social needs as San Francisco. Notable linkage programs have been

established in Santa Monica and Palo Alto, California, in Chicago, and in

Washington, D.C. (Keating, 1986).

Other Considerations

Affordable Housinz

Many communities are concerned that the supply of affordable housing keep

pace with, or at least be maintained during urban growth. A number of

communities rely on land use regulatory mechanisms to implement inclusionary

housing programs. Often developers seeking zoning changes to permit high

density development will be asked to "set aside" a certain number of units for

low and moderate income families. In Newton, Massachusetts, for example,

developers who seek an increase in permissible residential density must agree

either to set aside 10% of the dwelling units for low income and elderly

citizens or to provide for these units in some other way (e.g., through a cash

payment, provision on a different site) (Metropolitan Area Planning Council,

1986).

In Boulder, Colorado, affordable housing was originally a part of its

deve lopment point system, creating an incentive for the provision of

affordable housing. This incentive approach has been replaced by a mandatory

performance standard that all new development must satisfy. These standards

vary depending upon when the land to be developed was annexed. For

residential projects proposed on land annexed on or after December 1973 at

least 15% of the units must be for moderate income residents, or 7.5% for low

income persons. For projects proposed on sites annexed before that time, the

requirement drops to 10% for moderate income, or 5% for low income units.

The case studies illustrate several approaches to the provision of

affordable housing. Hilton Head, South Carolina,* has a special affordable

housing overlay zone, where density bonuses are offered to projects that

incorporate low and moderate income housing in their plans. The point system

in Fort Collins rewards developments that address the need for moderately

priced units with density bonuses. Breckenridge* uses a similar positive

incentive, but also subtracts points when affordable housing plans are deemed

inadequate. Napa Valley, California,* with its cap on development rate, sets.

aside a certain number of its annual permit allocation for affordable housing

projects. Eugene* has enacted an ordinance placing restrictions on the

conversion of rental units to condominiums. The developer involved in the

condominium conversion is required to find displaced tenants comparable

housing elsewhere (or provide a lifetime tenancy), or to provide moving

expenses, among other compensations.

There are many examples of planning programs and private redevelopment

projects that have destroyed existing neighborhoods and a pool of low-cost

housing. Planners developing a growth management program need to assess its

effect on the local and regional housing markets. Compensatory plans,

inclusionary programs and incentive point systems such as those mentioned here

should be essential parts of a growth management system in many local

situations. However, it is important to acknowledge that the techniques of

growth management can only enable provision of adequate housing for low and

moderate income residents. Growth management cannot assure that an additional

supply of such housing will be built. If one of the goals of a community is

maintenance or expansion of affordable housing options, the community must

look beyond the techniques of growth management to achieve it.

Citizen Participation

John Naisbitt, in his book Megatrends, argues that the United States is

experiencing a "massive shift from a representative to a participatory

democracy" (1982, p. 160). One indication of this shift is the use of "ballot

box measures," that is, citizen initiatives and public referenda. Public

concern about growth issues are putting more and more referenda up for voters

to decide on. Ormon (1984) has counted some 50 ballot box measures related to

growth management in California in the past decade; he predicts their use will

increase. The purposes of these referenda have ranged from the setting of

annual rates of growth to establishing minimum lot sizes for agricultural

land. In Corvallis, Oregon, all annexations must be approved by a popular

vote. In Portland, Maine, residents passed a referendum that restricted the

types of development permitted on its waterfront. At least 30 other towns in

Maine have enacted emergency moratoria on local growth.

Several recent ballot box measures illustrate the ways these direct

democracy endeavors have affected growth management. In November 1985, the

voters in San Diego passed Proposition A, which placed 52,000 acres of

farmland located on the city's northern fringe in a "future urbanizing zone."

Over the succeeding ten years the city was prohibited from modifying the

zoning to allow any development other than low density. The rezoning of these

lands to permit more intensive development requires voter approval (Colburn,

1986; Stein, 1986). The citizens of Santa Cruz County created one of the most

extensive grass roots based growth management programs when they approved

Measure J in 1978 (Stein, 1986). The ordinance placed a 2% annual cap on

population growth and requires 15% of the new housing in the county to be

affordable. Through passage of Proposition M, San Francisco residents

tightened a growth cap already in place. As mentioned, residents of Portland,

Maine, used a referendum to affect waterfront development.

The recent passage of Proposition U in Los Angeles -- the so-called slow-

growth initiative -- is a further example of this recent trend toward

participatory democracy in planning decisions. This proposition, which won by

a 2 to I majority, is directed toward commercial development. The allowable

size of new buildings was cut in half in 70% of the land zoned for commercial

and industrial uses. Supporters of the proposition heralded the victory:

"People no longer want the destiny of their city to be determined by large

developers and their paid lobbyists" (Connell, 1986).

There are mixed reactions to the increasing use of ballot box measures to

decide growth policy. While many argue that it is a healthy trend, returning

decisions to those who are most affected, others are apprehensive. Many

growth issues are complex and call for careful thought and deliberation by

representative government. The approach is also expensive; supporters of

Proposition U in Los Angeles reportedly spent $300,000 in their campaign.

Other critics predict that the rights and interests of minorities will be,

.overlooked in this pursuit of popular government. Some towns require that

almost all growth issues must be put before the public. In Corvallis, Oregon,

a referendum mandated that all future annexations be approved by popular vote.

The requirement has resulted in project-by-project votes, with small projects

gaining easy approval and larger ones subject to scrutiny and suspicion. The

arrangement has not prevented the city's growth but has slowed its pace.

Despite the shortcomings and unpredictable results of public initiatives, it

seems that planners will have to contend with injections of ballot box

measures into the traditional planning process for some time to come.

Communities and their planners are looking for other means of drawing out

citizen participation in the planning process, ones that are deliberative,

that have assured representativeness and that are consistently used at all

stages and levels of planning. One approach is citizen participation in the

formal planning process. Austin, Texas,* has embarked on a community

participation program in which citizens and community leaders, aided by

planning staff, are given most of the responsibility for developing the city's

new plan. The process, called Austinplan, is overseen by an 87-member

steering committee. A conscious effort was made to ensure representation of

the many interests and constituencies in the community on this steering

committee. These included real estate and land development leaders,

environmental groups, various neighborhoods in the city, business and finance

heads and ethnic minorities, among others. In addition to the goal of full

representation, the appointment decisions were guided by the intent to build

lasting political credibility into the final plan and implementing program.

Fourteen task groups were formed to address substantive planning and growth-

related issues ranging from transportation to environmental protection and

provision of health services. Planning for specific geographical areas is

taking place concurrently through sectoral plans. The guiding principle of

Austinplan ig-consensus-building; volunteer facilitators have been assigned to

working groups. So far, the process has generated vigorous dialogue on growth

issues, and the citizen groups are moving toward a deadline for submission of

a final plan and a set of development ordinances and other implementation

techniques.

Other areas using formal citizen participation processes are Charlotte,

North Carolina, and San Antonio, Texas. In Charlotte, a series of public

workshops and a day-long conference on "Planning for a Livable Community" were

held to promote citizen involvement. A 12-member citizens task force was also

appointed to oversee development of the comprehensive plan and to provide a

forum for discussion of planning and urban growth (Crompton and Morris, 1986).

Extensive citizen review preceded adoption of Charlotte's 2005 Plan.

In an interesting cooperation among groups with different interests,

Williamsburg, James City/County and York County, Virginia, in collaboration

with the Williamsburg Foundation and Busch Properties (Anheiser-Busch), began

with a series of growth forums in the fall of 1986. Citizen participation was

solicited through newspaper advertisements. Next, idea groups were formed

around four growth-related topics: Housing and Balanced Development, Public

Service Capacity, Visual Quality and Urban Design and Environmental and

Historic Resources. The Institute of Environmental Negotiation at the

University of Virginia designed and staffed the.meetings. After several

months of meetings, a conference, "Perspectives on Growth," was held in March

of 1987 at the College of William and Mary. The idea groups presented their

conclusions and recommendations at this conference, after which a 21-member

commission was established to pursue the work. The commission is composed of

public officials and private citizens, an equal number from each of the three

local jurisdictions.

Regional Coordination

In recent years growth management has been applied at the regional level.

The primary objective is often protection of a sensitive environmental

resource, the natural boundaries of which exceed those of any one local

jurisdiction. Some regional programs reflect state and local leadership;

others respond to Federal programs or legislation;.some are informal in the

sense that they are not mandated by law. Since the passage of the Land and

Water Management Act of 1972, Florida has implemented an Areas of Critical

State Concern (ACSC) program. The state established four areas of critical

state concern: Big Cypress, Green Swamp, Florida Keys and Appalachiocola Bay.

The state requires that special management plans and land use regulations be

prepared for these areas. In addition, special resource planning and

management programs have been established for other sensitive regional

environmental resources.

In North Carolina the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) was enacted in

response to the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. Other examples

of regional growth management include the San Francisco Bay Conservation and

Development Commission, the Maryland Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas Commission,

the Columbia River Estuary Study Task Groups, the Tahoe Regional Planning

Agency, the New Jersey Pinelands Commission, the Puget Sound Water Quality

Authority, and the Connecticut River Gateway Conservation Zone, among others.

These regional growth management efforts vary substantially in their specific

objectives and operation. Some such as the Columbia River program are formed

voluntarily; others are mandated by law (e.g., Pinelands Commission). Some

groups have direct regulatory powers (e.g., Tahoe Regional Planning Agency)

while others are only advisory or coordinating bodies (e.g., Puget Sound Water

Quality Authority). The programs vary in the geographic extent of their

authority and the management tools employed.

Conclusions and Further Reading

The list of planning tools and techniques discussed in this chapter is

selected. We have not tried to be comprehensive. The techniques are

representative of the wide and growing array of options available. Also, we

have emphasized certain strategies that have been applied in innovative ways

in the 16 communities we studied. Some of these were described in Chapter Two

(e.g., establishment of zones such as overlay, view protection, historic

districts), and we did not repeat them here. We urge the reader to look

closely at the case studies that follow. Examples of some very important

techniques (such as the Planned Unit Development), not discussed in this

chapter, are amply represented there. Other techniques such as purchase of

development rights and development taxes deserve the reader's attention if

they seem to fit a community's problems and resources. Finally, we do not

discuss here two very powerful tools for shaping growth and development the

local budgeting process and capital improvements programming. Nor do we spend

much time on what are perhaps the most tested and proven techniques:

conventional zoning and subdivision regulation. As in Chapter Two, our

purpose is to highlight recent trends and to emphasize newer tools or

combinations of tools that might be applicable to the types of communities

found in Maine. We hope thereby to draw the reader into the case studies,

where he or she will learn specifics of how various growth management efforts

have worked in practice in selected communities throughout the country. A

more comprehensive treatment of tools and techniques can be found in Managing

Development in Small Towns by D.J. Brower, C. Carraway, T. Pollard, and C.L.

Propst (Washington, D.C. and Chicago: Planners Press, 1984).

Looming in the back of the minds of most local planners contemplating the

design of an effective growth management system is the vulnerability to legal

challenge. Litigation is costly, time-consuming, and whatever the outcome of

the specific case, may make a community leery of innovative planning in the

future. These problems are discussed in D.R. Godschalk, D.J. Brower, et al.,

Constitutional Issues of Growth Management (Chicago: Planners Press, 1979).

A carefully designed growth management program, tied closely to community

goals, developed through an open and flexible process, and cognizant of

constitutional and statutory mandates should surmount any legal challenge.

Furthermore, some experts have said that the best way to avoid challenges

coming up at all is to build and maintain a planning process that is open and

politically credible. Developers, builders, local businessmen, community

groups and the citizenry at large need to be drawn together and informed; all

will be affected by the operation of a growth management system. Public

hearings alone, while essential, do not constitute a program of citizen

participation or an inclusive decision-making process. It is important to

gauge the values of average citizens. This can be done through such

traditional approaches as opinion surveys and citizen advisory boards. But

in-depth involvement such as that used in Austin, Texas, and Charlotte, North

Carolina,-should also be considered. It is also becoming obvious that new

methods are needed to draw out such intangible issues as what are the

aesthetic values of a community. of course, concerns with these matters are

more than a strategy for forestalling legal challenges; they are hallmarks of

excellent planning. Similarly, attention to the process, goal-setting, and

the comprehensive plan that underlie a growth management program build

community acceptance and strengthen a community's chances of guiding its

growth in a positive and prospective manner.

For further reading we recommend, in addition to those books already

cited, the following sources:

Appleyard, D.K., and J. Myer. 1964. The View from the Road. Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press.

Arthur, L.M., and R.S. Boster. 1976. Measuring Scenic Beauty: A Selected
Annotated Bibliography. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-
25. Ft. Collins., CO: Rocky Mountain and Range Exper. Sta.

Beatley, Timothy C. 1985. Bibliography of Growth Management Sources (1970
Forward). Chicago: Council of Planning Librarians, CPL Bibliography
166.

Brower, David J. et al. 1976. Urban Growth Management Throuah Development
TimjU. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Burrows, Lawrence B. 1978. Growth Management: Issues, Technique and Policy
ImRlications. New Brunswick, NJ: The Center for Urban Policy Research,
Rutgers University.

Chapin, F. Stuart and Edward J. Kaiser. 1979. Urban Land Use Planning.
Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press.

Coomber, N.H. and A.K. Biswas. 1973. Evaluation of Environmental
Intangibles. Bronxville, NY: Geneva Press.

DeGrove, John. 1984. Land, Growth and Politics. Chicago: APA Planners
Press.

Einsweiler, Robert C. et al. 1975. Urban Growth Management Systems: An
Evaluation of Policy-Related Research. Chicago: APA, PAS Report.

Lynch, K. 1976. Managing the Sense of a Region. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT
Press.

Porter, Douglas (ed.). 1986. Growth Management: KeeRinp- on Target?
Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.

Scott, Randall W. (ed.). 1975. Management and Control of Growth: Issues,
Technigues, Problems. Trends. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.

Snyder, Thomas P. and Michael A. Stegman. 1986. Paying for Growth: Using
Development Fees to Finance Infrastructure. Washington, D.C.: Urban
Land Institute.

Thurow, Charles, William Toner and Duncan Erley. 1975. Performance Controls
for Sensitive Lands. Chicago, ILL: ASPO.

Zube, E.H., R.O. Brush, and J. Gy. Fabas (eds.). 1975. Landscape Assessment;.
Values, Perceptions, and Resources. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson
and Ross.

References to Chapters One - Three

Beatley, Timothy. 1982. "One States' Innovative Approval to the Protection
of Farmland: Oregon's Senate Bill 100," Carolina Planning, summer.

Bosselman, Fred P. and Nancy E. Stroud. 1985. "Pariah to Paragon: Developer
Exactions in Florida, 1975-1985," Florida State Law Review, Vol. XIV:527-
563.

Brown, Robert D. and William Kockelman. 1985. "Geology for Decisionmakers:
Protecting Life, Property, and Resources," Public Affairs Report,
University of California, Vol. 26, February.

Brower, David J., Candace Carraway, Thomas Pollard, and C. Luther Propst.
1984. Managing Development in Small Towns. Washington, DC, Chicago:
Planners Press.

Brower, David J., David R. Godschalk and Timothy Beatley. 1986. ImRlementing
Coastal Storm Hazard Policy, Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Center for Urban and
Regional Studies.

Celis, William. 1987. "Building Atop Water Supplies Raising Safety Issue in
Cities," The Wall Street Journ&1, Wednesday 24.

Christeller, Norman L. 1986. "Wrestling with Growth in Montgomery County,
Maryland," in Douglas Porter (ed.) Growth Management: Keeping o
Target? Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.

City and County of Denver, Colorado, 1985. "Building Heights in Denver As
Affected by Mountain View Presentation Ordinances," April 17, Denver
Planning Office.

City of Beaverton, Oregon. 1984. A Comprehensive Plan for Beaverton's
Natural Resources, Planning Department, July.

City of Boise, Idaho. 1985. Boise ver Plan, adopted October 1, 1985.

City of Fort Collins, Colorado. 1982. Land Development Guidance System for
Planned Units Development, Planning and Development Department.

City of Portland, Oregon. 1983. Downtown Design Guidelines, Bureau of
Planning, January.

Colburn, George A. 1986. "San Diego: Beyond Spits and Polish," in Douglas
R. Porter (ed.) Growth Management: Keeping on Target? Washington:
Urban Land Institute.

Connell, Rich. 1986. "L.A.'s Slow-Growth Measure Wins by Wide Margin,"
L.A.Times, November 5.

Cramston, Martin R. Jr. and Carol Stealey Morris. 1986. "Managing Growth
Through Strategic Planning: Charlotte-Mecklenburg's 2005 Plan," Urban
Land, (April):2-5.

Easley, Gail. 1984. "Performance Controls in an Urban Setting." Urban Land
(October):24-27.

Forgery, Benjamin. 1986. "Intruder on the Horizon: Port America's Planned
Sky Scraper Threatens the Area's Skyline," Washington Post, June 7.

Gordon, Dennis. 1984. "The Power of the Point System," Planning
(December):15-17.

Guenther, Robert. 1986. "San Francisco Curbs Growth: But Will Other Cities
Follow?" The Wall Street Journal, March 5.

Harned, Catherine C. 1984. "Rebuilding a Rural Constituency," Planning
(December):10-14.

Heath, Milton. 1983. North Carolina's Mountain Ridge Protection Act," North
Carolina Law Revie

Keating, Dennis W. 1986. "Linking Downtown Development to Broader Community
Goals: An Analysis of Linkage Policy in Three Cities," Journal of the
American Planning Associatio , Vol. 52, No. 2 (Spring):133-141.

Kendig, Lane. 1980. Performance Zonin . Chicago: APA Planners Press.

King County, WA. 1987. Wildlife Habitat Profile, Parks, Planning and
Resources Department, February.

Kirlin, John J. and Anne M. Kirlin. 1982. Public Choices--Private Resources:
Financing Capital Infrastructure for California's Growth Through
Public/Private Bargaining, Sacramento, CA: California Tax Foundation.

Klein, William R. 1986. "Nantucket Tithes for Open Space," Planning
(August):10-13.

Knack, Ruth. 1984. "How Road Impact Fees are Working in Broward County."
Planning. June.

Kockelman, William J. 1986. "Some Techniques for Reducing Landslide
Hazards," Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists, Vol.
XXIII, No. 1: pp. 29-52.

Kwong, Jo Ann. 1987. "Farmland Preservation: The Evolution of State and
Local Policies," Urban Land, January: 20-23.

McKay, Patricia L. 1986. "Use of Impact Fees Encouraged by Florida Courts
and Lawmakers," Economic Leaflets, Bureau of Economic and Business
Research, University of Florida, Vol. 45, No. 8, August.

Metropolitan Area Planning Council. 1986. Inclusionaz:y Housing and Linkay-e
Programs in Metrooooooopolitan Boston, May.

Miller, Elizabeth L. and Elizabeth Lines. 1986. "Paying for Florida's
Growth: Survey Shows Use of Impact Fees,",Economic Leaflets, Bureau of
Economic and Business Research, University of Florida, Vol. 45, No. 4,
April.

Myers, David W. 1986. "San Francisco Limit Gets Cheers, Jeers: Growth Curb
on Downtown Buildings Given Mixed Reviews," Los Angeles Times, August 3.

Naisbett, John. 1982. Megatrends. New York: Warner Books.

Ormon, Larry. 1984. "Ballot-Box Planning: The Boom in Electoral Land-Use
Control," Public Affairs Report, Vol. 25, No. 6 (December).

Phillips, Patrick. 1985. "Nantucket's Land Bank: A New Direction in Land
Conservation," Urban Land (December):34-35.

Pummer, Christopher. 1987. "Water Plan Would Limit Land Use," Wilmington
News Journal, April 22.

Rubin, Saul. 1985. "San F rancisco Ties Downtown Growth to Child-Care Steps,"
Los Angeles Times, Wednesday, July 3.

Shaffer, Ralph. 1985. "San Francisco OKs Growth Limit: Downtown Plan
Restricts Building Space, Height, Design," Los Angeles Times, September
22.

Stein, Mark A. "Growth Policy: Votes Putting the Brakes On," L.A. Times,
March 10, 1986.

Snyder, Thomas P. and Michael A. Stegman. 1986. Paying for Growth: Using
DeveloRment Fees to Finance Infrastructure. Washington, DC: Urban Land
Institute.

"Uglification Brings a Headache," Raleigh News and Observer, June 24, 1987.

"Update on Local Development Rights Programs," 1987. Farmland Update, July.

Vesey, Tom. 1987. "Fee Proposal Angers Home Buyers and Builders," Washington
Post, April 23.

Zotti, Ed. 1987. "Design by Committee," Planning (May):22-27.

CASE STUDIES OF INNOVATIVE LOCAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

Case Studies of Innovative Local Growth Management Programs

� Cannon Beach, Oregon

� Breckenridge, Colorado

� Nags Head, North Carolina

� Manteo, North Carolina

� Medford Township, New Jersey

� Martin County, Florida

� Hilton Head, South Carolina

� Napa County, California

� Fort Collins, Colorado

� Salem, Oregon

� Eugene, Oregon

� Austin, Texas

� Charlotte, North Carolina

� Boulder, Colorado

� Denver, Colorado

� King County, Washington

Cannon Beach, Oregon

Demographics: Small coastal town, 2 hours driving time from major
metropolitan area (Portland); with permanent population of 1,215,
including many local artists, with summer visitor population of 10-
12,000.

Natural Environment: Magnificent coastline; forested coastal mountains.

Distinctive features of planning: Application and enforcement of
traditional tools of planning such as zoning to protect character of
community; ban on formula food restaurants; procedures and criteria for
review of design of new development.

- Tools and Techniques

A. The Master Plan which includes definition of community character.

B. Use of zoning ordinance to protect village character, e.g., by
banning "formula food" restaurants.

C. Design review procedures and criteria applied to all new
development.'

D. Protection of natural resources, including designation of natural
hazard danger zones of varying seriousness.

E. Control of pace and pattern of growth through policies of
annexation and extension of facilities.

- Observations

A. Successful in protecting natural beauty and village atmosphere.

B. Uncertain thus far on how to protect mountain views endangered by
overharvesting by lumber companies.

Cannon Beach, Oregon

Intgoduction

Located along the northern Oregon coast, approximately seventy miles

northwest of Portland, Cannon Beach is a quaint and charming small town. The

city has a reputation of being an artists colony, a sort of Carmel of the

Oregon coast. Nestled between the coast range to the east and the Pacific

ocean to the west the town lies in an incredibly scenic location. Haystack

Rock and the Needles, off-shore rock formations, as well as Chapman Point to

the north (Ecola State Park), make for a breathtaking shoreline. While many

of the artists have left Cannon Beach since their hayday there in the 1970s,

there is still considerable concern about protecting this atmosphere and

charm, as well as the scenic resources in the area. While the city is

primarily a residential community, its downtown areas have developed as a

collection of shops, galleries, and other small-scale commercial activities.

A major concern of locals, then, is maintaining this non-commercialized

village environment.

As in the case of the other Oregon localities described in this case

study volume, Cannon Beach is highly influenced by the planning requirements

of Senate Bill 100. As required by law it has prepared a comprehensive plan

(adopted 1984), consistent with,the statewide goals. As well, Cannon Beach

has delineated, in cooperation with Clatsop County, as an Urban Growth

Boundary separating urbanizable and resource land. As already mentioned, the

UGB restrictions are very effective both in promoting more efficient provision

or urban services and protecting important resource and environmental lands.

Cannon Beach has, as well, adopted fairly conventional land use regulations to

implement the plan -- regulations which must, according to Oregon law, be

consistent with the plan (the land use plan is a legally-binding document in

Oregon).

Protecting Community Character

What makes Cannon Beach interesting from a growth management point of

view is not that the Town is employing any particularly innovative management

or regulatory tools, but rather is using its conventional land use regulations

to protect the charm and character of the community. Cannon Beach has made a

conscious attempt to control and enhance these factors while other coastal

Oregon localities have left them to the whims of the free market. The

preamble of the comprehensive plan stresses the importance of protecting this

"character."

This character has, and is, created by having charm in design of
buildings, by keeping buildings small in scale, by honoring the beauty
and ecology of the geographical and topographical setting, by utilizing
structures for small intimate shops, quality food establishments,
adequate visitor housing, arts and crafts studios and galleries, by
maintaining high quality merchandise and services, performing and visual
arts experiences for visitors and citizens alike, and by recognition that
the arts are an integral part of the community and business, reflecting
the quality of life we desire.

The special beauty of the natural environment as well as our unique
village character and its business enterprises attract thousands of
visitors and potential new residents,annually. This increase in growth
creates problems as well as benefits to the community. Adequate parking,
housing, public services and private enterprise are affected.

This Comprehensive Plan is the basis for our management of the
growth, and the goals, policies, plus subsequent ordinances developed
shall reflect the goals and recommendations of the Plan in order to
maintain the unique character and quality of life in Cannon Beach (1984,
p. 6).

The Comprehensive Plan goes on to set forth both general development

policies for the City, and development policies for different geographical

sectors in the city (North Side, Downtown, Ecola Creek Estuary, Midtown,

Tolovana Park). The plan also sets forth policies in different substantive

policy areas, including policies for the Urban Growth Area (area within the

Cannon Beach Urban Growth Boundary but outside the town's boundaries);

housing; the economy; transportation; a bike plan; natural hazards;

construction on sand dunes; construction of beachfront protective structures;

energy; recreation; openspace; natural, visual and historic resources; public

services and facilities; visual and performing arts; and air, water and land

quality; among others.

The City's Zoning Ordinance is the primary mechanism for implementing

many of these policies. It is similar to most zoning ordinances in that it

designates use districts, establishes permissible densities and building

heights, and contains a number of development performance requirements. Many

of these restrictions, as already indicated, are intended to maintain the

village character of Cannon Beach. There are only two commercial districts

contained in the zoning ordinance and special restrictions have been placed on

the type of commercial activities permitted within them as well as their

location. The Limited Commercial Zone, including the city's downtown area, is

primarily intended to accommodate retail uses which require prime locations.

Eating and drinking establishments are a use permitted outright (not permitted

at all in the other commercial zone) except that....

a mobile food vending wagon, or like service, a drive-in
restaurant or formula food restaurant is not permitted (City of Cannon
Beach, 1984, p. 37).

A formula food restaurant is further defined in the definitions section

of the ordinance to mean "a restaurant required by contractual or other

arrangements to offer standardized menus, ingredients, food preparation,

interior or exterior design, or uniforms" (1984b, p. 6). Cannon Beach

currently has no fast food restaurants and is proud of this fact. There is a

strong local sense that any type of fast food establishment, no matter how

tastefully developed, would damage the village character of the city. City

officials are aware of the legal problems encountered by this type of

restriction in Maine and Massachusetts but are not worried by them. This

provision of the ordinance has not yet been challenged legally. Local

officials see these provisions also as being useful simply in their ability to

"send the right signal" about these types of uses.

The second commercial district in the city -- General Commercial Zone

(CZ) -- is intended to provide sites for more intensive commercial uses.

Relatively few uses are permitted either by right or as conditional uses.

This zone also specifically prohibits retail uses "that are oriented to or

dependent upon highway traffic for business including, but not limited to gas

stations, drive-in restaurants and similar uses (City of Cannon Beach,

1984b, p. 40). The full zoning texts of these two zones are included in

Volume III, the Technical Appendix.

Desizn Review

All proposed development in the city, with the exception of the

construction of a single family dwelling and renovations of existing

structures, is subject to special design review procedures and criteria.

These provisions are included in Section 4.100 of the zoning ordinance and

have the stated intention of ensuring that development is 11 ... compatible with

the community in terms of size, use of materials, architectural design, use of

signs, landscaping and similar design aspects" (City of Cannon Beach, 1984b,

p. 91). A special Design Review Board conducts the review and applies the

design standards. It consists of one member of the planning commission and

five other members "with expertise, education, or demonstrated ability in the

field of design, including architecture, landscape design, art of

construction" (p. 91).

Those wishing to construct a building for which design review is required

must submit to the Design Review Board the following materials: (1) a site

analysis diagram (e.g., location and species of trees, slopes, drainage, other

natural features); (2) a site development plan (e.g., location of proposed

structures, parking and circulation areas, grading and drainage plan); (3) a

landscape plan (e.g., placement and type of plant materials), and;

(4) architectural drawings. Specific design guidelines, to be used by the

Design Review Board, are provided in the Ordinance. Site design standards

specify, for instance, that existing trees must be left standing, that

lighting shall be subdued, and that a certain portion of a site must be

devoted to landscaping (to a maximum of 40% in the case of duplexes and

triplexes). The Design Review Board is to apply the following standards when

considering building design:

(1) The height, bulk and scale of buildings should be compatible with
the site and adjoining buildings. Use of materials should promote
harmony with surrounding structures and sites.

(2) Evaluation of a project should be based on quality of design and
relationship to its surroundings. However, the use of styles
characteristic of Cannon Beach and the coastal area are preferred.
This includes the use of natural wood siding such as cedar shingles,
pitched roofs, and, in commercial areas, wood signs. Colors should
be harmonious with the structure, with bright or brilliant colors
used only for accent.

(3) Monotony of design in single or multiple projects should be avoided.
Variety of detail, form and siting should be used to provide visual
interest.

(4) Design attention should be given to the placement of storage or
mechanical equipment so as to be screened from view (City of Cannon
Beach, 1984b, p. 96).

Reinmar Bartl, planner for the Clatsop-Tillamook Intergovernmental

Council, indicates that the design review process has not so much been

effective at promoting excellence in design, but rather has served to screen

out the potential eyesores. The process and guidelines have been relatively

successful at ensuring the compatibility of new development and growth. The

full text of the design review requirements is included in Volume III, the

Technical Appendix.

Other elements of the city's effort to maintain its village character

include building height limitations (maximum 28 feet, most zoning districts

limited to 24 feet), strong sign regulations, buffering and screening

requirements, and restrictions to tree removal (a permit is required for tree

removal and will only be issued upon certain findings).

Natural Resources and Hazard Mitigation

In addition to protecting the architectural character and integrity of

the community, the city's land use plan and zoning ordinance also stress the

importance of protecting natural resources. As already mentioned the land use

plan contains detailed policies to guide development in several sensitive

environmental areas in the city, including the Ecola Creek estuary, beach and

dune areas, floodplains, and high-slope/geologic hazard areas. The zoning

ordinance includes, for instance, a special estuary zone which prohibits, most

forms of development in these areas. An Active Dune Overlay District is also

contained in the ordinance which places similar restrictions on building in

beach and active foredune areas. These dune regulations essentially follow,

however, the requirements of the state concerning setbacks out of and away

from dunes. There is a belief on the part of some in the community that these

standards are still too permissive, and allow development too close to the

dunes. As a result, there has been some discussion, but no action yet, of

strengthening the dune provisions. A flood hazard overlay zone is also

contained in the zoning ordinance.

Geological hazards receive considerable attention both in the

comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance. Under general development

policies, the Comprehensive Plan states that the permissible density of

development in hillside areas shall be directly related to the slope and

geologic hazards evident in these areas, and establishes density limits for

different ranges of slope ((e.g., 10-24% slope, density limits of four

dwelling units per acre). The zoning ordinance reflects the existence of

these hazard areas by placing them in lower density residential categories

(e.g., RVL -- ResidentialVery Low Density Zones; RL -- Lower Density Zones).

Section 4.110 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a site investigation by a

qualified expert in cases where development is proposed on slopes of 20% or

greater or in other hazard zones (e.g., high hazard coastal zones, potential

landslide hazard areas as delineated on the City Master Hazards Map, areas of

weak foundation soils). Where serious hazards from a proposed use are found

to exist the site investigation must identify engineering or construction

methods which will eliminate or minimize the hazards. The city may then make

the issuance of a building permit contingent upon these special mitigation and

design features.

Other Growth Management Tools

The city's annexation and capital facilities extension policies also

strongly influence the rate and pattern of growth in Cannon Beach. The UGB

requirement means that the city will continue to assume a fairly compact and

contiguous form. The city and county have jointly adopted policies for the

urban conversion of the urbanizable land within the UGB but outside the Cannon

Beach municipal boundaries. Under the joint management agreement the county

notifies the city of proposed land use actions in the urban growth area,

providing the city with the opportunity to offer its input and

recommendations. All land use actions must be consistent with the City' s

Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, as well as the Clatsop County

subdivision ordinance. Density is to be in the range of one to three acres

per dwelling unit, though this will vary depending on the actual

characteristics of the land and the availability of public services.

Annexation to the city is necessary for development to obtain full public

services (water, sewer, police, street maintenance, etc), and the city and

county have jointly agreed upon specific policies to govern annexation.

Specifically, the city must find, and the county concur with, the following:

a. There is a demonstrated need to accommodate long-range urban
population growth.

b. There is a need for housing, employment opportunities, and livability
that the change would accommodate.

c. The change would provide for orderly and economic extension of public
facilities. For annexation requests, adequate sewer and water system
capacity must be available at the time of the request, or the
applicant must commit to providing the required sewer and water
system improvements.

d. The change would allow for efficient land use and utility patterns.

e. Environmental, energy, economic and social consequences are
considered. (City of Cannon Beach, 1984a, p. 31)

Generally, the City of Cannon Beach has been extremely successful at

protecting the visual and cultural flavor of the community. Unlike many other

parts of the Oregon Coast (e.g., Lincoln City; what Senator Hatfield has

called "the twenty miserable miles") Cannon Beach remains uncommercialized.

It has managed to protect this village atmosphere and to capitalize upon it.

Still, there are some things that are beyond the city's control. An issue of

extreme importance, and on the minds of many local officials, is how the

forestlands surrounding the city will be used in thefuture. Much of the

visual beauty in Cannon Beach derives from the lush mountain backdrop. Most

fear, however, that the lumber companies owning most of this land1will begin

harvesting in the next few years.

The visual quality and attractiveness of Cannon Beach would be diminished

significantly if the forestlands were fully harvested. Bartl, the planner

with the Clatsop-Tillanook Intergovernmental Council, notes the paradox of the

Oregon Planning System which lets this type of situation occur. The UGB in a

sense almost works too well at constraining urban growth and protecting these

forest resource lands. If these backdrop areas were available instead for

residential development perhaps the visual consequences would not be as

severe. Residents might have to tolerate seeing a home here and there, but

the vegetative canopy would basically remain intact. Concern about future

forest harvesting has spurred some local discussion about the possibility of

the city purchasing some of these lands (or acquiring some interest in them).

However, no serious proposals to do this have yet been generated.

References

Bartl, Reinmar, Clatsop-Tillamook Intergovernmental Council, interview, April,
1987.

City of Cannon Beach, Oregon. 1984a. Cannon Beach CoMgrehensive Plan,
amended through January, 1987, prepared by the Cannon Beach Planning
Commission and'the Clatsop-Tillamook Intergovernmental Council staff.

1984b. City of Cannon Beach Zoning Ordinance. Ordinance
79-4A, adopted July 13, 1984; as amended January 22, 1987; prepared by
Cannon Beach Planning Commission with assistance of the Clatsop-Tillamook
Intergovernmental Council staff.

Breckenridge, Colorado

Demographics: Permanent population: 1300; seasonal (skiing): 15,000.

Historical: An early gold-mining town; downtown is National Register
Historic District.

Natural Environment: Surrounded by the Rocky Mountains.

General: A pro-development stance while maximizing quality of life in
face of explosive growth in condominium development.

Distinctive Features of Planning: Dedication of open space; performance-
based development code with point system; guided development in and
around historic district.

Tools and Techniques

A. The comprehensive master plan.

B. A development code built on absolute and relative performance standards
to effect environmental protection, increased dedication of open space,
and compatibility with historic district.

C. Historic preservation.

D. Other tools: criteria for annexation; criteria for extension of public
facilities.

Observations

A. After a period when frequent modifications were needed, the point system
of the development code seems to work well.

Breckenridge, Colorado

Introduction

The Town of Breckenridge was established in the 1800's as a gold mining

town. It has gone through several boom-bust cycles over the years,

essentially until the ski industry entered the picture in about 1960. The

Town is now heavily dependent on skiing and tourism. Located in the Rockies,

about eighty miles west of Denver, the Town is a unique mixture of historic

mining town buildings (from several different periods) and modern ski-related

development. The Town's downtown area was designated as a National Register

Historic District in 1980 by the National Park Service, and much of the town's

planning efforts in recent years have centered on preserving the history and

flavor of the town, while at the same time accommodating the new growth

generated by the ski economy.

The town is home to approximately 1300 permanent residents, with peak

population during the winter jumping to over 15,000. During the 1985-86 ski

season, over 907,000 skier visits were recorded (Town of Breckenridge, 1986).

New construction in the'town has in recent years reflected the demands of the

ski market, with extreme growth in the number of multi-family units

(condominiums). At Table 0-1 indicates, in 1970, there were very few multi-

family units in the town (about 100). By 1980, however, multi-family units

comprised some 80% of the total housing units in the town. Between 1980 and

1987, the number of multi-family units more than doubled.

Table 0-1

Housing Units in Breckenridge
(As of January 1 of year shown)

Single multi- Apart- Employee Mobile Total
Family Duplex Family ment Housing Homes Housing Lodging

1970 220 0 102 - - - 324

1975 235 10 847 1082

1980 245 26 1024 1295

1983 271 60 2153 51 106 6 26472 93

1984 273 64 2171 53 112 5 2678 157

1985 277 66 2183 57 124 5 2712 157

1986 281 72 2284 57 125 5 1818 369

1987 281 72 2666 59 125 5 3208 402

Source: Breckenridge Department of Community Development, July, 1987.

The Breckenridge Master Plan

Breckenridge's efforts at planning for this explosive resort growth began

in earnest in the late 1970's. A comprehensive plan was prepared and adopted

in 1978, and later updated (1983). It analyzed the capacity of natural and

manmade systems to accommodate growth and set forth goals and policies for

guiding future growth and development. A number of detailed studies were

prepared to serve as the factual foundation for the plan, including a detailed

analysis of the natural system, the transportation system and other public

facilities, and an inventory and analysis of historic buildings and resources,

among others.

Among the urban growth problems identified in the plan, the occurrence of

uncontrolled urban fringe development is indicated to be one of the more

serious. This pattern of development is seen as a threat to scenic backdrop

areas, to wildlife habitats, commercial woodlots, as creating special

pollution problems and creating inefficiencies in the provision of public

services, among others. In response, the plan delineates a master plan

boundary, intended to separate urbanized land from rural land. The master

plan boundary includes enough land to accommodate future growth in

Breckenridge for the next 15 to 20 years. A number of specific criteria and

factors considered in determining the specific master plan boundary are

contained in the plan.

The land use element of the plan establishes the appropriate pattern of

uses and densities within the master plan boundary. Initially certain lands

within the boundary were identified as being nonbuildable. The following

lands were considered nonbuildable:

1. Areas with slopes of 15% or greater

2-. Wetland areas

3. Areas adjacent to, and parallel to rivers, streams, and gulches

4. A scenic corridor along Colorado State Highway 9 from the northern
boundary of the Master Plan to the Commercial Core of the Town (Town
of Breckenridge, 1983, p. 5-1).

These are areas considered to be inappropriate for development and are

designated as open space on the plan's land use map. Approximately 40% of the

land within the master plan boundary is included in this classification. For

developable areas, four use categories are employed: residential, retail

commercial, service commercial and recreational. Of these categories

residential is by far the largest, also comprising about 40% of the total area

within the master plan boundaries. From these general use categories, a

series of more specific districts have been delineated, establishing

appropriate base densities. (More than forty use/density districts are

delineated in the plan.) Some residential districts permit a base density of

twenty units per acre, some only one unit per three acres, much as a

conventional zoning ordinance would specify.

The open space districts, comprising more than forty percent of the mast

plan area deserve a special note. While designated as open space and

considered inappropriate for development, a density of one unit per ten acres

is permitted. As the plan states, "(T)his designation recognizes that there

is some residential value connected with the land, but very little" (Town of

Breckenridge, 1983, p. 5-15). The plan states, as well, that the Town will do

everything it can to encourage either the transfer of open space densities to

other parcels or ensure that residential structures are located on the site in

such a way as to minimize their impacts.

The plan serves as the primary policy document guiding growth and

development in the town. It is implemented in several ways. Unlike Boulder,

and similar to Ft. Collins, little explicit attempt is made to control the

rate of growth in the town. Rather, the focus is on enhancing the quality of

growth which does occur and accomplishing various other community objectives

through the development process. The city's annexation policies and public

service agreements do have an influence on the rate of growth and these are

described in a later section. The primary regulatory mechanism used by the

town is its development code which contains a set of performance standards and

a point system very similar to that in place at Ft. Collins. (Ft. Collins, in

fact, studied the Breckenridge system when developing their own.)

The Breckenridze DeveloRment Code: Performance Standards and the Point Syste

The land use and density specifications, as well as many other goals and

policies contained in the Breckenridge Master Plan, are implemented through

the town's development code. Unlike conventional zoning and land use

regulations, the Breckenridge Code consists entirely of a series of detailed

performance standards. Some standards are absolute -- that is, a proposed

development must satisfy the standard to obtain approval. Other standards are

relative and involve the assignment of points based upon the extent to which a

proposed project does or does not address the standard. According to the

Development Code, a +2 score, for instance, indicates that the project

provides a significant public benefit or does an excellent job at implementing

the standard. On the other hand, a score of -2 indicates just the opposite,

and that the project may even create an unmitigated negative effect.

Multipliers are also used to express the relative priority of certain

standards or project features. A multiplier of xl indicates that a policy is

of minimal importance, while a multiplier of x5 indicates that a policy is of

significant community importance (Town of Breckenridge, 1983, p. 3-2). For a

project to gain approval it must satisfy all absolute performance standards,

and must accumulate points on the relative standards such that the total score

is positive or at least zero (i.e., not negative). This set of standards is

included in its entirety in Volume III, the Technical Appendix.

The absolute and relative standards address a range of local issues,

including: architectural compatibility, building height, site design, the

placement of structures, fire control and prevention, snow removal and

storage, parking, landscaping, open space, economic base, social diversity,

public transit, infrastructure, air and water quality, water and energy

conservation, and geologic hazards, among others. Some of the standards are

fairly subjective and call for considerable judgement on the part of the

Town's staff, while others incorporate specific quantitative or other

measures. The staff have developed their own internal guidelines-for

determining compliance and assigning points (what a member of the planning

staff called a "cheat sheet").

The Town recognizes that different types of residential units may be more

desirable (from the Town's point of view) than others and provides, as part of

the absolute standards, a multiplier table to provide incentives for the

provision of these types of units. As Table 0-2 below indicates, permitted

density for condominium or apartment projects is reduced, reflecting the

town's concern over the proliferation of these types of uses in recent years.

On the other hand, additional density is provided for hotels or inns, and for

employee housing.

A number of issues concerning the economic and social composition of the

town are addressed through relative standards. Positive points are assigned,

Table 0-2

Density Bonuses for Desired Residential Uses

Use MultiRlier

Hotel or Inn 1.15

Employee Housing 1.15

Lands/Hotel 1.00

Single Family 1.00

Duplex and Townhouse 1.00

Condominiums or Apartments .75

Source: Breckenridge Development Code

for instance, where a proposed project will encourage off-season activities,

year-round activities, will provide long-term job opportunities, or will

contribute to the diversity of the local economic base. Under the category of

f1social community," point assessments are made based on the extent to which

employee housing is incorporated into a proposed project. For all residential

projects of greater than 10,000 square feet in size, four points (4x+l) are

given for "the provision of employee housing units equal to or greater than

10 percent of the proposed gross dwelling area of the proposed project" (Town

of Breckenridge, undated, p. 6-16). On the other end of the scale, a project

can receive a minus 8 points (4x-2) if the provision of employee housing units

is "equal to less than 3 percent of the gross dwelling area of the proposed

project." In this case, the accumulation of negative points must be

compensated for by an equal or greater number of positive points obtained

under a different relative standard. The Development Code defines "employee

housing" in the following way:

a living unit which is deed restricted, restricting the units to
either one of the following:

1. Long-term lease for a minimum period of six months or,

2. Sale to a person, residing in and employed in Summit County, as their
primary residence under a Town-approved sale program

Units not sold under the provisions of number two above shall be
held in the ownership of an acceptable entity as approved by the Town
Planning Commission and Town Council. (Homeowners' Associations,
Condominium Associations, and businesses providing the units are
acceptable entities among others.)

All employee units shall be between 500 and 1200 square feet in size
unless otherwise determined by the Planning Commission (Town of
Breckenridge, undated, p. 1-5).

A number of the absolute and relative standards are oriented to

protecting the town's natural environment. Air quality is a good example.

Here both relative and absolute standards are included. The absolute

standards stipulate that only one wood-burning appliance (i.e., a woodburning

stove) is permitted for each new residential unit, except that a maximum of

two are permitted in single family detached units. Woodburning stoves are

prohibited in dwelling units or rooms of less than 600 square feet "that are

designed and operated primarily as short-term accommodations". The relative

air quality standards encourage the provision of fireplaces in central lounge

areas only, and assign negative points for projects incorporating additional

fireplaces. Specifically, the code provides the following formula:

2 x -3 1 woodburning appliance per 1200 sq. ft. feet of
dwelling area

-2 1 woodburning appliance per 2400 sq. ft. of dwelling area

-1 1 woodburning appliance per 3600 sq. ft. of dwelling area

Additional point benefits are also given for the use of woodburning

appliances which are designed to minimize air pollution or to maximize heat

gain.

A number of standards relate to water quality and water conservation.

All projects must sati sfy, for example, certain minimum water conservation

requirements. Specifically, all projects must include low flush toilets, low-

flow shower heads, faucet aerators, and pressure reducing valves. The water

quality standards address such issues as internal drainage requirements,

provisions to minimize vegetation disturbance, project designs which minimize

impervious surfaces, and the use of pesticides and fertilizers, among others.

The development code also contains a relative standard which encourages

the provision of open space. For residential areas it is recommended that at

least 30% of the project's land area be left in open space (excluding street

and parking lots). For commercial areas it is recommended that at least 10%

of the project's area be left in open space. Under the point formula for this

standard, projects may receive point scores ranging from -6 to +6, depending

upon the extent to which the proposed project satisfies these recommendations.

A project would receive positive points for additional open space set asides.

Many of the standards reflect a general concern with protecting the high

quality of the visual environment. The environmental protection and open

space standards certainly reflect this. Standards are also included which

seek to maintain the visual compatibility of new development with the historic

district. The relative standard dealing with building height (there are no

pre-established building heights in the town) assign points based upon, among

other things, the extent to which views and scenic vistas are maintained or

destroyed.

One of the more interesting absolute standards which relates as well to

the visual quality and flavor of the town is Standard No. 16 -- Internal

Circulation -- Subpart (c), which prohibits drive-thru window operations in

certain districts in the town (the older sections). The creation of this

standard was precipitated by a request by Wendys to build a drive-thru

restaurant on main street in the heart of the historic district. Despite

threats by Wendys that they would take their restaurant elsewhere, the town

held firm on its prohibition on this type of use. Wendys ended up complying

with the Town and built the restaurant without the drive-thru window. The

planning staff claim that this is one of only two Wendys nationwide without a

drive-thru window.

Generally, the Breckenridge planning staff feel the point system works

well. It provides the developer with substantial flexibility and provides

considerable certainty about what the expectations of the town in fact are.

(The developer can sit down and compute the points himself.) Problems have

developed since its initial use and over the years certain unexpected physical

outcomes have resulted requiring modification of the point system. These

modifications have been continual and ongoing and the staff feel that over

time most of the bugs have been worked out. A tour of development projects

built under the point system conducted by one of the UNC researchers is fairly

convincing that the quality of new development is quite high. New development

has been by and large highly compatible with the older, more historic portions

of the town, and has incorporated numerous amenities as a direct result of the

point system. The "Windwood Condominium" is perhaps a good example. This

project gained point advantages for including a large percentage of its site

in open space and by restricting the fireplaces to only central lounge areas.

Historic Preservation

Protecting the historic district is a high priority in Breckenridge. The

town's historic heritage, and the physical remnants of this history, are

impressive and a major aspect of the attraction many visitors have for the

town. (Comparisons with Vail which has few historic buildings are often

made.)

As with protecting the natural and scenic environment, protecting the

integrity of the historic district is seen not as a luxury, but rather as good

economic sense for the town. It is their bread and butter and there is

generally strong support for stringent design and compatibility requirements.

There are three distinct periods of architecture represented in the town: The

Settlement Phase (1859-1870); the Camp Phase (1870-1880) and the Town Phase

(1880-present) (Town of Breckenridge, 1984). Buildings from each of these

architectural periods have been preserved.

The town seeks to maintain the integrity of historic districts in several

ways. The compatibility standards incorporated into the development code have

already been mentioned. As well, the town exercises additional special

controls over building and redevelopment in the historic district through The

Breckenridge Historic Commission. A detailed set of historic district

guidelines (1984) have been developed and serve as the basis for regulating

new construction and changes to the exteriors of existing structures. The

following are general historic district guidelines (without the text

elaboration and examples included in the guidelines document) that must be

followed:

Natural Setting

1. The views of the mountains should be protected.

2. The natural setting of the buildings should be maintained.

3. The grid pattern of the original town should be preserved.

4. The physical and visual access to traditional community focal points
(e.g., Blue River, the mountains, courthouse, mainstreet) should be
preserved.

Manmade Elements

5. The visual integrity of area boundaries should be protected and a
transitional or buffer area outside the District boundary encouraged.

6. The duplication of historic styles is strongly discouraged.

The Block

7. The unity of the block (as seen from alley to alley) should be viewed
as single entity and strengthened.

Color

8. The colors of the buildings should be compatible with the District.

Building Details

9. Building elements like brackets and porches should be functional.

Parking

10. Parking areas should not be visible from the street.

Following these general guidelines are more specific guidelines for new

construction as well as for rehabilitation of, and additions to, existing

structures. In total there are sixty-two guidelines addressing a

comprehensive set of design issues, including questions of scale, proportion,

building height, materials, visual patterns, landscaping, and building

setbacks, among others. These guidelines are included in their entirety in

Volume III, the Technical Appendix.

Other Growth Management Tools

In addition to the development code and historic district restrictions

there are several other tools the town employs to manage growth. Its

annexation policies and public facility extension policies have substantial

influence on the rate and location of growth. Annexation policies are

contained in the Master Plan and essentially state the conditions under which

annexations will be approved.

For the annexation of undeveloped land the following criteria must be

answered in the affirmative (Town of Breckenridge, 1983, p. 4-16):

a. There is a need for additional developable land within the town which
is usually indicated by a 50 to 70 percent build out of the type of
use proposed.

b. There is a need for developable land within the town for a stated
high priority use such as affordable housing, or recreation.

C. The town and other service entities have the physical and economic
capabilities and capacity to provide urban level services within a
reasonable period of time.

d. The developer f the site to be annexed has the ability to develop
within a reasonable period of time.

e. There will be a positive economic and/or social benefit to the
community.

f. The developer of the site has the ability to install all needed
services and facilities to the site.

For annexation of already developed areas the following criteria must be

satisfied (Town of Breckenridge, 1983, p. 4-17):

a. The town has the ability to provide needed urban services within a
reasonable period of time.

b. The residents are willing to annex to the town.

c. There are social and economic ties of the subdivision to the town.

d. The residents have the ability and are willing to upgrade substandard
facilities (roads, and perhaps sidewalks, sewage, water) upon or
prior to annexation.

e. There is an economic benefit to the town realized by the annexation,
or the social benefits outweigh any economic concerns.

It is also the town's policy to annex only lands within the Master Plan

boundaries and to give priority to the annexation of already built-up areas

adjacent to the town, as well as to "vacant lands than can provide uses or

housing mixes not readily available within the town limits" (Town of

Breckenridge, 1983, p. 4-16). The plan also includes a-more specific

prioritizing of different areas of the town for annexation (e.g., the Peak 8

area is a high priority area for annexation; the Silver Shekel subdivision is

a moderate to high priority area for annexation).

Water and sewerage disposal are two services the town has some degree of

control over and which have direct influence on the town's growth. Water is

provided in the area both by the Town of Breckenridge and the Blue River Water

District. The town is the primary source of water within the Master Plan

areas and anticipates being able to provide water to this entire area under

total buildout. The town obtains the water from the Blue River and has in

recent years purchased additional water rights from outlying ranches (and

continues to work towards securing additional rights). While the town has in

the past provided water service to areas outside of its boundaries, in the

future areas must be annexed first before extension of water service will be

permitted.

The town has less control over wastewater treatment service which is

provided for the town through the Breckenridge Sanitation District. The

allocation of sewer taps has in the past been controlled through agreements

between the town, the Sanitation District and Summit County. While the

Sanitation District's 3 mgd treatment plant will likely accommodate future

growth for the next 5 to 10 years (as reported in the 1983 plan) it appears

inadequate to accommodate build-out within the master plan area, requiring the

district to eventually secure additional treatment capacity. While not a

problem in the near future, this may eventually represent a constraint to

growth in Breckenridge. It may also suggest, as the Breckenridge Master Plan

notes, that the town should be cautious in granting additional higher

densities within the master plan area.

References

Davidson, William. Breckenridge Department of Community Development,
interview, July, 1987.

Town of Breckenridge, Colorado. 1983. Master Plan, Department of Community
Development, July.

Undated. Development Code, Department of Community
Development.

1984. Historic District Guidelines, Department of
Community Development.

1986. "Breckenridge Overview," December

Nags Head, North Carolina

DemograRhics: An old coastal resort community that is within 4 hours
driving time of the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. A population of
2,000 permanent residents and a summer population that swells to 35,000.
The number of year-round residents has risen rapidly in the past decade
and is expected to grow. The town has retained a village atmosphere thus
far. Continued growth is projected for both types of residents.

I
Natural Environment: Sited on one of a chain of fragile barrier islands
(the Outer Banks); bounded by extensive stretches of National Seashore;
containing one of the few remaining examples of maritime forest; subject
to hurricanes.

- Tools and techniques

A. Growth management based on the town's carrying capacity (e.g.,
amount of developable land after adjusting estimates for expecta-
tion of beach erosion, availability of treated water, sewer
capacity, percolation readings, vulnerability to natural
disaster) of the town.

B. Ordinance for allocation of water that favors certain types of
development.

C. Plan for mitigation of hurricane hazards and post-storm
reconstruction.

D. Protection of endangered natural resource (maritime forest) by
creation of a special environmental zoning district.

- Observations

A. There has been successful use of several new and complex
techniques.

B. Vigorous planning is going on in a very small community with
history of an anti-planning orientation.

C. The zoning ordinance was voted down.by town council.

Nags Head, North Carolina*

Introduction

A coastal community with approximately 2,200 permanent residents, Nags

Head experienced an explosive 146% growth rate between 1970 and 1980.

Compounding the problems of managing this rapid growth is the town's

continually increasing popularity as a summer vacation spot. Estimates

indicate that Nags Head swells with up to 35,000 residents during the peak

season as vacationers swarm the beaches of North Carolina's Outer Banks (Bryan

et al., 1987). Local planners, however, believe that such extraordinary

conditions call for extraordinary measures. These include Nags Head's

innovative growth management effort which serves as the focus of this case

study.

Growth Pressures

A variety of factors are responsible for attracting growth to Nags Head.

According to the 1985 land use plan, several characteristics make-the

community an attractive place to live and vacation. "Among them are its

proximity to water and beaches, its abundance of open spaces, its generally

low density of development, and the overall quality of its natural

environment" (Town of Nags Head, 1986, p. 1).

Composed primarily of single family cottages and a small number of

motels, Nags Head is often described as a quaint village. And although a -

small shopping mall has opened on the main highway, including many nationally

franchised establishments, the commercial center remains dominated by family

operated businesses and cottage courts. These features reinforce one's

perception of Nags Head as a slow-paced, village community.

*Prepared by Joel Alan Boyette

Growth and development have been slower in coming to Nags Head than to

many other vacation areas along the east coast, but the community has still

experienced steady growth throughout the past decade. In fact, in 1985 it was

claimed that "the forces of growth and change are being seen in Nags Head as

they have never been seen before, and ... these forces will have tremendous

implications for everything from water quality to hurricane evacuation... 11

(Town of Nags Head, 1986, p. 4). This statement reflected growth concerns

that began to surface in Nags Head in the early 1970s. It wasn't until 1981,

however, that the town hired its first professional planner.

Part of the motivation for land use planning in Nags Head was provided by

projections which indicated that the town would reach a permanent population

of 6,000 residents by the year 2000 -- a growth rate of 488% over a 20-year

period (Lewis, 1987, p. 15). Local officials realized, however, that

permanent population growth did not represent the community's greatest growth

pressure. Instead, the dramatic increase in seasonal population was

recognized as being Nags Head's leading challenge, including planning for the

residential and commercial development that would be produced to accommodate

it.

The town's planning efforts concentrated on these two issues - managing

the steady growth in the number of permanent residents and accommodating the

dramatic increase of the summertime population. Incorporated into Nags Head's

planning process was the preparation of a carrying capacity study, a hurricane

hazard mitigation and post-storm reconstruction plan, a water allocation

ordinance, and a special zoning district designated to protect one of its

greatest natural assets. These will be discussed in the sections that follow.

Other growth management techniques instituted or evaluated for use in Nags

Head were planned unit development regulations, large-lot zoning provisions,

modified height and bulk restrictions, and a variety of impact fee systems.

Carrying Capacity

Facing the prospect of long-term continued growth, Nags Head officials

decided to explore the extent to which the island community's natural and

manmade systems could support increased population and development. As stated

by the city manager, "preparing a study of carrying capacity was the next

logical step. We needed to find out what was the most limiting factor" (Bryan

et al., 1987).

Located on a barrier island, a wide range of environmental growth

constraints were quickly identified. Nags Head officials realized that land

area presented the most significant obstacle to the expansion of the

community. With a total of 4,600 acres, it became obvious that Nags Head was

more likely to be reduced in area through beach erosion and inlet formation

than to experience any increase in size. Having determined the extent of land

area with which to work, planners turned their attention to identifying the

most substantial growth limiting factors.

The strategy selected for the carrying capacity process involved a

comparison of future population scenarios with the community's capacity for

growth. In order to determine realistic growth projections, the analysts

estimated future residential buildout scenarios under two different density

levels.

The first scenario involved residential buildout using the state mandated

standard of 15,000 square foot lots with septic systems. Compared to this was

a scenario that projected residential buildout at densities allowed under the

current zoning ordinance and with packaged treatment plants. This scenario

resulted in 2,930 more dwelling units.

The. study included an assessment of how future development would affect

the community's provision of all public services. It was determined that Nags

Head's most significant growth constraints were water supply, water quality,

sewage disposal, and the potential hazards of a major hurricane. These issues

assumed a high priority among Nags Head's elected and appointed officials.

Allocatina the Water SuRRly

Nags Head drains its water from the Roanoke Island aquifer and operates

its own storage, pumping, and distribution facilities. Although the aquifer

has an estimated capacity of 15 million gallons per day, of which 5 million

gallon are drawn, Nags Head only receives an allocation of 2.3 million gallon

per day because it shares this water source with other Dare County towns.

This limited allocation, along with concerns over the capacity of the pumping

and distribution systems, motivated the development of Nags Head's water

consumption ordinance.

This ordinance established a process for distributing Nags Head's

allocation from the county water system to preferred development projects,

over intervals of time. No more than 214 water consumption units (WCUs) of

400 gallons per day may be allocated each year to new developments. The

essence of the regulation is that applicants for building permits or site plan

approval must obtain a water tap permit for the amount of WCUs the proposed

project requires before poceeding. This is.based on a formula of one WCU per

dwelling unit, or the equivalent.

According to the ordinance, proposed projects are divided among

categories: Category I, single-family and duplex; Category II, hotel and

multi-family; and Category III, commercial and office. Category I applicants

may be allocated up to 132 WCUs per year or eleven per month through a monthly

first-come, first-serve procedure. A lottery is held if there are more than

eleven applicants in a given month. Categories II and III applicants, by

contrast, must undergo a complex biennial application, ranking, and permitting

process. These applicants must file a conceptual site plan which is ranked on

a point system based on non-water-related growth management goals and

objectives. These include fire safety, location, water quality impacts, land

use compatibility, transportation issues, aesthetic concerns, and recreation

and open space. For example, the maximum of eight points is awarded for a

recycled greywater system, and six points is given for tertiary sewage package

plants, fire sprinkler systems, densities less than 25 percent of the maximum

allowed, and the dedication of beach access or open space. All Category II

and III site plans received in a six-month period are then ranked according to

their,point totals, and the Board of Commissioners allocates available WCUs

and water tap permits in order of rank.

Tied to the water allocation ordinance is a $2,000 water impact fee that

is due when an applicant receives'the required water tap permit. Half of this

money is earmarked for improvement of the water distribution facilities and

the rest is added to the fund for source improvements. Clearly, the

allocation of a limited water supply in Nags Head is used to achieve growth

management objectives and to promote an integrated, comprehensive approach.

(The water consumption ordinance is included in Volume III, the Technical

Appendix).

Hurricane Hazard Mitigatio

Recognizing the need to plan for hurricanes and severe coastal storms,

the State of North Carolina requires through its Coastal Area Management Act

(CAMA) that local land use plans explicitly consider and plan for these

events. In particular, coastal communities such as Nags Head are required to

include storm mitigation and post-disaster recovery and reconstruction

components which are consistent with CAMA guidelines in their land use plans

(Brower et al., 1984, p. 1).

Having already identified the potential hazards of a major hurricane to

be among the most significant factors limiting Nags Head's future growth, town

leaders sought guidance for managing recovery and reconstruction following a

storm, and also for actions and policies it could implement in advance to

mitigate the severity of storm impacts. With this in mind, the town hired a

consulting company well known for its growth management approach to coastal

planning and hurricane hazard mitigation.

The Hurricane Hazard Mitigation and Post-Storm Reconstruction Plan

promoted the general policies of redirecting new development away from high

hazard areas through regulation, public facilities control, and land

acquisition. It also stressed the wisdom of integrating hazard management

into other growth management goals. In general, these strategies addressed

methods,of encouraging new development to locate outside of areas vulnerable

to hurricane and storm damage or of decreasing the density allowed in these

areas.

The consultants' study included an extensive analysis of the nature and

location of physical hazards as well as estimations of the extent to which

people and property in Nags Head were exposed to these forces. Detailed

information was provided regarding total amount and value of real property

located in various hazard zones, value of real property at-risk in incipient

inlets, and public investment vulnerable to storm damage. Also included was a

discussion of mitigation options, such as structural programs, provisions to

strengthen buildings and facilities, and management of land development. The

100

plan concluded with a description of the town's storm hazard reduction goals,

pre-storm mitigation objectives and tasks, and finally, the post-storm

reconstruction objectives and tasks.

Like the need to cautiously allocate a limited water supply, hurricane

hazards provide indisputable evidence of the virtues of growth management.

Equally important is planning in advance for post-storm reconstruction in

order to avoid the panic and shortsightedness that can occur within local

government immediately after a major storm or other disaster.- Hazard

mitigation strategies and post-storm reconstruction plans, such as those

prepared for Nags Head, should help to promote effective emergency response

activities and permit orderly reconstruction with a more responsible pattern

of development.

Environmental Zoning

Occupying the northwestern portion of Nags Head on Roanoke Sound is an

irreplaceable, maritime forest known as Nags Head Woods. One of North

Carolina's remaining maritime forests, and the most diverse on the east coast

in terms of its variety of flora and fauna, the Woods consist of ecologically

important marshland, pine hammocks, bay forest, hardwoods, ponds, and dunes.

Due to the sigriificance and rarity of this resource, town officials determined

that land management was needed to protect its natural, cultural, recreational

and scenic features.

The 1985 land use plan stated that existing land use in the area was

limited to one farm and a small number of residences. In 1987, however, new

homes were being constructed there and the town began to realize that greater

development pressures would eventually mount, threatening this cherished

natural area. The marshes werealready protected through an Area of

101

Environmental Concern (AEC) permit with the state, but development was thought

.to be likely on another 650 acres of buildable property. The existing zoning

regulations allowed one dwelling unit per approximately one acre, and for

years private owners had resisted zoning chan ges that would increase the

minimum acreage for building sites (Lewis, 1987, p. 17).

With the support of a 1984 citizen survey in which 85 percent of the

respondents said that preservation of open spaces, forests, and vegetation was

important or very important, town officials began work on a special

environmental district for the Woods (Brown et al., 1984). In order to

prevent any legal charges that the community did not have the authority to

manage the property in this manner, four Dare County communities petitioned

the State General Assembly to ratify a bill giving them explicit authority.

On May 14, 1987, N.C. House Bill 765 became a law "to permit regulation of

maritime forests by Kitty Hawk, Kill Devel Hills, Nags Head, and Southern

Shores" (North Carolina General Assembly, 1987). The new Special

Environmental District doubled the lot size necessary for construction and

added requirements regarding permitted uses, the building site, forest canopy,

groundwater recharge area and tree removal. (The text of the new district is

included in the Technical Appendix.)

Considered by the Mayor as a major victory for Nags Head's growth

management effort, the preservation of Nags Head Woods through more

restrictive zoning was an example of the community's attempt "to put more

teeth into the ordinances" (Bryan, 1987). With the previous success of

planning and growth management, it appeared that the community was well on its

way to achieving that goal.

102

Conclusion

An aggressive planning process is evident in Nags Head. For a community

of its relatively small size, local planners have experimented with a

surprising number of the newer and often more complex growth management

techniques. Their experiments have generally ended with success.

In January, 1986, a workshop was held during which members of the joint

Board of Commissioners and Planning Board evaluated town policies and ranked

them as to priority., Through implementation of action strategies in the 1985

land use plan and activities associated with the subsequent preparation of the

water allocation ordinance, the'Hurricane Hazard Mitigation and Post Storm

Reconstruction Plan, and the Special Environmental District, all of the items

of highest priority had been addressed within the first year. The challenge

remains to insure a vigorous and ongoing process.

103

References

Bryan, Donald, Mayor of Nags Head; Webb Fuller, City Manager, Town of Nags
Head; and Bruce Bortz, Code Compliance Officer and interim planner, Town
of Nags Head; interview, July 17, 1987.

Brower, David J., et al. 1984. CarryLng Capacity Analysis. Nags Head, North
Carolina. Coastal Resources Collaborative, Inc., Chapel Hill, N.C. @

Brower, David J.; William E. Collins; and Timothy Beatley *19 84. Hurricane
Hazard Mitigation and Post-Storm Reconstruction Plan for Nags Head. North
Carolina. Coastal Resources Collaborative, Inc., Chapel Hill, N.C.

Brown, J.D.; S. Wearden, and S. Ghorpade. 1984. Town of Nags Head 1984 Land
use Survey. School of Journalism, University of North Carolina, Chapel
Hill, N.C.

Lewis, Sylvia. 1987. "The Little Town That Could: What One North Carolina
Resort Town is Doing to Keep the Tides at Bay." Planning, June: pp. 14-
17.

North Carolina General Assembly, Chapter 187, House Bill 765, 1987. "An Act
to Permit Regulation.of Maritime Forests by Kitty Hawk, Kill Devil Hills,
Nags Head, and Southern Shores." May.

Town of Nags Head, North Carolina. 1985 Land Use Plan Update, adopted by Nags
Head Board of Commissioners, March 3, 1986; certified by N.C. Coastal
Resources Commission, April 4, 1986

Town of Nags Head, North Carolina. 1987. Article V. Allocation of Water
Consumption Units. Section 19. Water. As amended through May 4.

Town of Nags Head, North Carolina. 1987. Zoning Ordinance, "An Ordinance
Amending the Zoning Ordinance. Section 8.02.- SED-80 Special
Environmental District." March,

105

Manteo, North Carolina

Demographics: Permanent population: 1,000.

Historical Significance: Site of first English settlement in America
(1587).

Natural Setting: Protected harbors and easy access to Atlantic Ocean.

Recent Experience: Economic strength and significance declined post-World
War II as bridges and highways were built; business in downtown losing
ground to strip development on highway to beaches of Outer Banks;
planning for a State-wide, 4-year celebration of the First Colony begun
in 1980.

Distinctive Features of Planning: Invigoration of historic significance,
natural resource (waterfront) and economic health; process of definition
of community identity, values and goals, with emphasis on overall
appearance and architectural design; accomplishment of comprehensive
planning and redevelopment with limited resources.

- Tools and Techniques

A. Process of defining values and goals by a community.

B. Use of zoning to protect and enhance visual appearance.

- Observations -

A. There was successful emphasis on visual resources from which grew
a new use for downtown, enhancement of the character of the
community and coordination with a state-wide celebration of the
first Roanoke colonies in ways that assured the town's position
as a long-term tourist attraction.

B. Venture capital was attracted to the downtown waterfront
redevelopment.

106

Manteo, North Carolina*

Introduction

Manteo, North Carolina is located on Roanoke Island in coastal Dare

County. Dating back to 1584, this historic area is the site of the first

English settlement in North America. Today Manteo is home to slightly more

than 1,000 residents.

The case of Manteo is an interesting yet atypical example of growth

management as it is commonly perceived. In particular, Manteo's involvement

with growth management, which began in 1980, was not triggered by growth and

development but was instead part of the community's planning for the 400th

anniversary of the original Roanoke colonies. In addition, rather than

seeking to limit or balance growth, Manteo's actions were aimed at the

preservation of the community's historic image and identity.

This study focuses on that uncommon land use planning effort that

occurred in Manteo between 1980 and 1981. Three primary goals of the

community are discussed in this case study. These illustrate most clearly

Manteo's unusual form of planning and growth management. Three additional

goals included improving community services, developing a more economically

viable community and providing recreational opportunities for all residents.

Manteols Past

Offering protected harbors and easy oceanaccess, Manteo was once the

region's leading center of commerce. -But with the development of major

highways, including the widespread construction of bridges from the mainland

to the far banks, Manteo gradually lost most of its economic significance. By

*Prepared by Joel Alan Boyette

107

1979 the town was commonly perceived as little more than a place to get caught

between traffic lights as one traveled to the beaches of the Outer Banks

(Creef, 1987).

With the flow of tourists heading to and from the beaches, Highway 64,

the main east/west route, became a crowded corridor of strip commercial

development. Downtown Manteo contained a small number of thriving businesses,

but their number was matched by empty storefronts, vacant lots, and

deteriorated structures. The traditional commercial and cultural center, the

historic Manteo waterfront, was being displaced in terms of social and

economic importance. As stated by the Mayor, nthe Highway 64 corridor, with

its billboards and fast food restaurants, could exist anywhere in the world,

but the downtown was.distinctively Manteo" (Wilson, 1987). The community's

planning process sought to lay the framework for the 400th anniversary of the

Roanoke Colonies, but also to return central Manteo, including the waterfront,

to its original place of importance.

The Planning Process

North Carolina's Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) requires coastal

communities to develop and implement land use plans in order to ensure the

orderly development of the state's coastal resources. These plans, which are

updated every five years, are subject to the approval of the local governing

body as well as the state's Coastal Resources Commission.

Realizing that the CAMA land planning process would occur simultaneously

with planning for the state and local celebration of the original colonies,

Manteo's Board of Commissioners sought to establish a process that would

combine these two tasks. As stated in a working document prepared during the

planning process," It seemed fitting that the town develop a plan to celebrate

108

the quadricentennial and at the same time prepare a plan for the town's

future... The goal was to prepare a community development process, a roadmap

to the future, that would celebrate the highest ideals of the townspeople,

protect the most valued aspects of the town, address the most serious

problems, share the dreams embodied in the past and recent history of Roanoke

Island, and create a healthier community" (N.C. State University, 1980).

In order to identify, develop, and institute this desired process, the

town's mayor suggested the idea of offering the community as a laboratory for

students in the School of Design at North Carolina State University in

Raleigh. As an architect and an alumni, the Mayor was familiar with similar

community development efforts the school had completed in the past. After

approval of the Board of Commissioners, a university planning team moved to

Manteo in July, 1980 and began the process of "slowly evolving a plan with the

townspeople, listening, taking the community's pulse, checking its vital

signs, introducing the town to itself through the eyes of outside

professionals, providing technical assistance, and getting people involved in

a process to design their own future" (NCSU, 1980, p. 1). The town also hired

its first professional planner.

Manteo's planning process was begun in the fall of 1980 with a survey of

local residents, combined with a series of 150 local interviews; these efforts

were found to be the most effective means of informing and involving the

community. According to the university planning team, "To develop a plan for

the future that would celebrate the highest ideals of the townspeople, protect

the most valued aspects of the town, and address the most serious problems

requires that those ideals, valued aspects, and problems be clearly

articulated not by just a few citizens, but by a broad cross-section of the

community. One way to do that is,to interview a randomly chosen sample of

109

people who will represent the feelings of the entire town" (NCSU, 1980, p.

III). This process established the community goals that ser-ved as the basis

for the 1981 CAMA land use plan and for planning the quadricentennial

celebration.

Community Goals

Recognizing that the historic function of downtown Manteo as a mercantile

center was no longer an economically viable use, the community set a goal of

developing a new purpose for the area. Specific objectives included the

development of an historically based, low-key tourism program designed to

attract day visitors from the beaches. According to the survey of local

residents, 65% favored the development of a tourist attraction in the

downtown, with a majority also supporting historically based attractions in

order to capture the past and present character of the town.

Planning for the community's future at the same time as planning for the

400th anniversary of the Roanoke Colonies allowed the community to build an

overall tourist strategy into its 1981 land use plan. This objective was

found to be compatible with the goal of establishing a new purpose for the

downtown. The tourism plan was based on the anniversary celebration and

included downtown projects such as the development of a fifty room inn, shops

where traditional craftwork of the area would be demonstrated, and a large

Elizabethan ship that would serve as an attraction on the Manteo waterfront.

Another aspect of the tourism plan was the development of a theme for the

area. As explained by the planning team, "The people of Manteo need to

understand what the town is, how it got to be the way it is, what it is likely

to become, and what their aspirations are both for themselves and their

community. That understanding will provide a theme for the future ... The theme

110

'come sit on our front porch, let us tell you of the dreams we keep,' emerged

as the appropriate catchphrase, the appropriate expression of the people and

place, past and present, to guide the next phase of development in Manteo."

This theme was intended to describe the essence of Manteo, highlighting

its distinguished character. However, it was also designed to help residents

realize that Manteo and particularly the downtown, had changed significantly

over time and that its future would include many more changes. Although the

downtown had retained its attractive pedestrian scale, including several

buildings with architectural styles modeled after European villages, it was

obvious to the community that the area would not likely become the primary

shopping area it once was. "Although townspeople remember the mercantile past

fondly, most acknowledge that downtown Manteo must become something different,

that the past is a memory and the future a new dream to be realized (NCSU,

1980, p.3). The community envisioned the new downtown as one that combined

governmental services and housing with a significant tourist attraction

related to the history of Roanoke Island.. "The downtown, in short, needs to

become a place where residents share their island's history and their

waterfront with visitors" (NCSU, 1980, p. 4).

Image, Identity, and Visual Appearance

Preservation and enhancement of the character of Manteo was the second

goal established by the community. Developed through a group process that

included the local citizenry, the Town Board of Commissioners, the Planning

Board, and the University Planning Team, the chosen strategy for achieving

this goal included an emphasis on visual resources as a means of improving the

town's image and identity.

Influenced by the mayor's architectural background and the choice of a

design-oriented planning team, the process included public forums where

residents were asked questions such as, "How do you want your town to look and

feel in the next ten years and twenty years?" (Wilson, 1987) Eleven different

objectives were ultimately agreed upon in order to achieve this goal. Most

essential to the town was upgrading the appearance of the waterfront.

Realizing that its strongest natural asset was its connection to the water, a

variety of proposals were submitted for strengthening this connection. The

development of a boardwalk and marina facilities were most commonly advocated,

along with public facilities such as an exhibition hall, an interpretive

center, a visitor center, parking, a location for the Elizabethan ship, and a

boat building center. It was assumed that these investments would attract

mixed commercial and residential development.

A variety of other objectives were closely related to the improvement of

the waterfront's appearance as a means of preserving and enhancing the

character of Manteo. These included protecting residential neighborhoods from

commercial encroachment, minimizing the automobile's impact on the downtown,

encouraging public participation in planning, protecting local lifestyles from

impacts of tourism, maintaining the friendly small town atmosphere and

preserving natural resources and rural areas.

The Ouadricentennial Celebration

In 1980 when the planning process was originally undertaken, Manteo faced

the challenge of preparing for the 400th anniversary of the Roanoke Colonies,

a statewide observance that would last from 1984 through 1987. The challenge

existed in terms of finding an appropriate yet affordable style of

festivities.

After numerous proposals made by local residents, the town determined

that it would encourage the building and docking of a replica of a Roanoke

112

voyage ship, the Elizabeth II, in Manteo. The town would also host key

historical commemorations and would cooperate with the State Department of

Cultural Resources in establishing an annual Anglo-American folk festival in

Manteo.

As stated earlier, these projects were compatible with the plan's first

goal, that of discovering a new use for the downtown. Community leaders

realized that long after the quadricentennial celebration ended, the

Elizabeth II would remain on the Manteo waterfront, attracting an estimated

100,000 additional visitors each year. This supported the strategy of

establishing low-key tourism as a new use for the downtown. In turn, each of

these goals serves to preserve and enhance the character of Manteo, which was

stated as another community goal.

Implementation

The work of the university planners resulted in six public documents, a

model of what the community could look like in ten to twenty years, and a

series of conceptual drawings. The community had made bold plans, but had few

resources with which to implement them.

Community leaders later decided to evaluate Manteo's financial condition

in order to determine whether the town could afford to hire a consultant to

provide technical assistance regarding implementation of the plan. At about

this time, the planning board discovered that James Rouse, the well known

specialist on waterfront development projects, was a friend and college

roommate of one of the residents of Roanoke Island. After a telephone

conversation between Rouse and his former roommate, Manteo's Mayor and other

officials had an invitation to visit Rouse's company and discuss Manteo's

plans.

113

According to the Mayor, Rouse's critique of the plan was invaluable to

the success of later implementation efforts. Moreover, Rouse became intrigued

by the prospect of working for a small community and instructed his subsidiary

organization, American City Corporation, to assist Manteo's leaders with

planning and implementation strategies. The t@ownls association with American

City Corporation is ongoing and, although some projects have not been

implemented, the plan is beginning to take shape in downtown Manteo. The

Elizabeth II rests in the harbor, a new waterfront retail and residential

complex is two-thirds occupied, new marina and boardwalk facilities exist, and

ground-breaking for the new inn has been announced. The participation of a

nationally recognized development firm was instrumental in "selling the town

to developers, encouraging the new development that has been observed"

(Wilson, 1987)*.

A final aspect of project implementation involved the town's zoning

ordinance. Throughout the planning process amendments were made to restrict

the size of advertising signs, eliminate billboards, and provide buffer areas

between land uses. These actions were motivated by the town's orientation

toward strengthening community character through.visual resources.

A special district was also created in order to maintain the community's

image of what downtown Manteo should be. Called the "Village Business

District" (Section 7.04), this district "is established to provide for a

centrally located commercial and service area and governmental center for the

town and region. These regulations are designed to encourage the continued

use of land for commercial and governmental purposes, to insure continued

local use and historic tourism, to maintain the village character and to

permit a concentrated mixed use development of the Village Business

District..." (Town of Manteo, 1982). The ordinance continues to specify

114

permitted uses and other requirements of this district, such as lot size and

height limitations.

Conclusion

Manteo's planning efforts served the town well. Taking an unconventional

approach allowed the community to plan for a major celebration of historic

significance at the same time that it reassessed its growth and development

strategies.

Particularly significant was Manteo's emphasis on visual resources as a

means of achieving its goals of developing a new use for the downtown,

preserving and enhancing Manteo's character, and celebrating the anniversary

of the Roanoke Colonies. In addition, the town managed to receive a

significant amount of services with limited resources. The use of University

planners served to trim expenses while at the same time it vastly improved the

level of citizen participation. Finally, allying itself with a major

development corporation, Manteo was able to substantially improve developer

confidence in the downtown. The results of the collective acts involved in

this process can now be seen in an improved Manteo.

115

Referenc s

Creef, H.A., former member, Manteo Board of Commissions, interview, July 17,
1987.

North Carolina State University, School of Design. Raleigh, N.C. 1980.
(includes a series of reports, as follows:)

Coastal Areas Management Act Land Use Plan 1981 for the Town of
-Manteo. N.C.

Survey of TownsReORle, Public Report One

Theme for the Future, Public Report Two

Guide for Development, Public Report Three

Economic Analysis, Public Report Four

Roanoke Island's Past, Public Report Five

Town of Manteo, N.C. Zoning Ordinance, as amended through August 25, 1982

Wilson, John, former Mayor, Town of Manteo, interview, July 21, 1987.

117

Medford Township, New Jersey

Demographics: Historic 40-square mile region, 20 miles east of
Philadelphia; the 1980 population (17,622) reflects a 112% increase
since 197&.

Natural Environment: Still primarily rural; within New Jersey Pinelands
region.

Historic significance: Settled by Quakers in 1600s.

Distinctive Features of Planning: Formal ecologic study carried out;
environmentally-based zoning; design and performance standards applied to
new development; transfer of development rights.

Tools and Techniques -

A. "Ecological" study and detailed mapping of natura 'I processes
conducted by Ian McHarg and other planning faculty at the
University of Pennsylvania.

B. Four major environmentally-based use zones established in zoning
ordinance and comprehensive plan: residential growth,
environmental management, trade, and village.

C. Subdivision plats required to have composite environmental
constraints map and detailed environmental impact statement.

D. Design and performance standards applied to review of new
development include open space requirement, resource extraction
analysis, scenic and visual buffers, very strict provisions on
wetlands development, among others.

E. Many types of credits offered in transfer of development rights
program.

118

Medford TownshiR. New Jersey

Introduction

Medford Township is located in the southwest portion of New Jersey

(Burlington County), approximately twenty miles east of Philadelphia. The

Township was originally settled in the mid 1600s by Quakers. The Township has

experienced substantial growth pressures, doubling its population since 1970

(Medford Township, 1986), and there has been great concern about preserving

its rural and historic heritage. The Township comprises approximately forty

square miles of land, much of it still open and undeveloped.

The Medford Ecological Study

The Townships triannual report talks about the town's commitment to

development of "high environmental and aesthetic qualities." This commitment

began in earnest, and was aided tremendously, through an Ecological Planning

Study of Township prepared by a group of faculty and students from the

Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning at the University

of Pennsylvania. Ian McHarg, noted ecological planner, was the principle

investigator, and the study largely reflects the "McHargian" planning

methodology, as it has come to be known. It was the premise of this study

that "... by rational planning, founded on knowledge of the ecosystems of the

Township and the opportunities and constraints they afford, man's use of the

land can be accommodated to nature's delicate balance and beauty without

detriment to the health and welfare of the community." (Juneja, 1974, p. 6)

The resulting study is an exhaustive review and analysis of the natural

processes at work in the Township. Among the specific natural and ecological

119

variables examined in the Medford Report were the areas of geology, hydrology,

soils, and vegetation. Detailed maps of these different environmental factors

were prepared for the township as well as performance requirements which

correspond to them. A final section of the report synthesizes the findings of

this ecological analysis through the preparation of a series of suitability

maps for different types of land uses (e.g., agricultural production,

recreation, urban development).

Implementing the Medford StuU

This study and its recommendations in turn led to local regulatory

changes and continues to this day to set the stage for planning and growth

guidance efforts in the Township. The Township's subdivision ordinance was

the first to be modified to take into account the study's recommendations. A

master plan and zoning ordinance based on the McHargian analysis were adopted

in 1978, and 1979 respectively (and documented in Palmer's 1981 book). The

plan was updated in 1982, partly in order to bring it into conformance with

the requirements of the New Jersey Pineland Commission's Comprehensive

Management Plan. The Township's plan divides the Township into different use

zones, consistent with the environmental constraints identified in the Medford

Report. Specifically, land is classified into four use categories:

residential growth, environmental management, trade, and village. A number of

sub-categories are provided within these general categories, as under a

traditional zoning scheme.

The Medford study is repeatedly cited (even quoted at length) in the

Township's plan and has clearly been important to the designation of these

different use zones. The major mechanism for implementing the Medford plan,

and the findings of the Medford Report, is the Township's Land Development

120

Code (Chapter 160). The code specifically requires that officials consider

the Medford study when reviewing plats for major subdivisions. The

preliminary plat submitted must include, among other things, a composite

environmental constraints map utilizing the Medford Ecological Study, and a

detailed environmental impact statement. This environmental impact statement

must include maps of the proposed subdivision as displayed on each of the

Medford ecological study maps, and must identify whether or not each of the

specific environmental factors identified in the Medford report are

applicable.

Performance Standards

Article VI of the Medford Development Ordinance sets forth a set of

design and performance standards which all development in the Township must

satisfy. At a general level Article VI states that all future development

must preserve whenever possible the natural features identified in the Medford

study. It is also stated that no extensions of the public sewer system will

be permitted outside the Village, Trade and Growth District, Growth Management

North and Growth Management South Districts.

Specific performance standards are included which deal with: drainage;

floodplain protection; stormwater management; fire management; forestry

harvesting and management; landscaping and erosion control;1resource

extraction; scenic and buffer standards; storage and waste disposal;

endangered plants, trees and clearing standards; water quality; wetlands

protection; and open space requirements.

The scenic and visual buffer standards (Section 160-50) reflect the

Township's concern about maintaining the natural beauty of the area, again as

identified and documented in the Medford report. As part of these standards

121

the ordinance identifies zones in the Township where scenic road corridors are

to be located and where special development standards to protect visual

resources are necessary. Specifically, development along scenic corridors

must be set back a distance of at least 200 feet from the centerline of a

corridor. The ordinance also requires extensive buffers along roadways,

screening for utility lines and facilities and places substantial restrictions

on the erection of signs. Billboards or billboard-type signs are prohibited

in the Township as are most off-premise signs.

As a further example of these performance standards, the wetlands

provisions (Sec. 160-57) prohibit all forms of development in or on any

wetlands, as well as development within 300 feet of wetlands if one or more of

the following negative consequences is likely to occur:

(a) An increase in surface water runoff discharging into a wetland.

(b) A change in the normal seasonal flow patterns in the wetland.

(d) An increase in erosion resulting in increased sedimentation in the
wetland.

(e) A change in the natural chemistry of the ground or surface water in
the wetland.

(f) A loss of wetland habitat.

(g) A reduction in wetland habitat diversity.

(h) A change in wetlands species composition.

(i) A significant disturbance of areas used by indigenous and migratory
wildlife for breeding, nesting or feeding."

Other activities are permitted in wetlands, but again subject to

conditions. Special standards are provided for "infill wetlands," or wetlands

located in designated growth areas (as well as having other characteristics).

122

The Landscape and Clearing Standards (Section 160-54) provide an

additional example of the ordinance's performance standards. Clearance of

1,500 square feet or greater of vegetation requires approval of the Township

and will be approved only if certain conditions are met (such as the need to

remove vegetation for fire management). Developers are required to plant

trees along streets, and to ensure that the front yard of each residential lot

has at least three deciduous shade trees in it.

Environmentally-based Zoning

The Medford Development Ordinance also accomplishes many of the

objectives of the Medford study through the use of conventional zoning

restrictions, including standard restrictions on use and density. Permissible

densities are substantially higher in the residential zones, with the bulk of

the future growth to be absorbed in the Growth Management North, Growth ,

Management South, Growth District and Reserve Growth District Zones. These

are areas which have already been substantially developed or are contiguous to

developed areas (e.g., Medford Village). Permissible density in the Growth

Management North Zone, for instance, may reach 3.5 dwelling units per acre

when developed as multifamily. In contrast, permitted densities are

substantially lower in the Environmental Management Zone, whichincludes

several districts (e.g., agricultural retention, forest, preservation and

park). The stated purpose of the Environmental Management Zone is to "permit

development only where the natural resource inventory, soils maps and

ecological plan ning study indicates development can occur without serious

advance environmental impact." (Sec. 180-87) For example, in the

preservation zone an individual can build one unit on a 3.2 acre lot, but only

under the following conditions:

123

(a) The dwelling will be the applicants principal place of residence.

(b) The applicant has not developed a dwelling unit-under this section
within the previous five (5) years.
(c) The applicant can demonstrate a cultural, social or economic link to
the essential character of the Pinelands ... (several alternative
tests are offered as ways of satisfying this last standard).

Transfer of DevelORment Rights (TDR)

An additional interesting element of the Medford ordinance is the use of

Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). Several different types of development

credits are created. Development credits are available to lands located in

Preservation Area Districts, Agricultural Production Area Districts and

Special Agricultural Production Area Districts as designated by the Pinelands

Comprehensive Management Plan (State of New Jersey). Called "Pinelands

Development Credits," they can be used to obtain density bonuses in the Growth

Management South and Growth District Zones. "Agricultural Development

Credits" are available for land located in the Agriculture Retention District

and can be used to obtain density bonuses in the Growth Management North Zone.

Finally, "Recreation Development Credits" are available to non-profit

corporations for lands devoted to recreational uses of at least 50 acres in

size. These credits can be used to obtain density bonuses in the Growth

Management North District Zone. The Development Ordinance includes several

different "ratios" for allocating the rights. For example, Pinelands

Development Credits for upland areas within preservation areas are assigned at

a ratio of one per 39 acres. When used to obtain a density bonus in the

Growth Management South or Growth District this results in a bonus of four

dwelling units per credit. Agricultural Development Credits are assigned at a

rate of one per four acres of land. When they are applied to development in

the Growth Management North Zone they yield a bonus of one dwelling unit per

124

credit. This arrangement results in a two-tier schedule of permissible

densities in these "receiving" zones -- a normal density limit and a density

limit assuming the use of bonus credits.

125

References

Juneja, Narendra. 1974. Medford: Performance Reguirements for the
Maintenance of Social Values Represented by the Natural Environment of
Medford TownshiR, N.J. Center for Ecological Research in Planning and
Design, Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning,
University of Pennsylvania.

Palmer, Arthur. 1981. Toward Eden. Wintersville, NC: Creative Resource
Systems, Inc.

Township of Medford. 1986. TownshiR of Medford 1983. 1984, 1985, Tri-Annual
Report, Officer of the Manager.

1983. "Chapter 160: Land Use and Development," Code of
the TownshiR of Medford.

1985. Circulation Plan Element of the Master Plan for
Medford Township, Burlington County, New Jer�ey. Prepared by Thomas J.
Scangarello and Associates, December.

127

Martin County, Florida

Demographics: Area on the Atlantic Coast; 555 square miles with
population of 64,000 (53% urban); 128% increase over 1970 population; 20
miles north of West Palm Beach.

Natural Environment: Extensive wetlands and barrier islands network.

Distinctive Features of Planning: Detailed performance standards;
controls on landscaping; beach impact fees, barrier island ordinance.

- Tools and Techniques -

A. Detailed performance standards that regulate, among others:
1) overall density, 2) development in wetlands, 3) open space,
and 4) impact on transportation.

B. Landscaping ordinance requiring the drawing up of a landscape
plan before land clearance can begin.

C. Beach impact fees.

D. Barrier Islands Ordinance including detailed standards of design
for the site plan including requirements for open space, buffers,
building height restrictions, among others.

- Observations

A. Beach impact fees have served as "negotiating tool" in approval
of new PUDs.

128

Martin County, Florida

Introductio

Martin County is located on the Atlantic Coast of Florida, some twenty

miles north of West Palm Beach. It is bounded to the west by Lake Okeechobee

and includes an extensive network of barrier islands along the coast. In

recent years the county has been experiencing, along with the State of Florida

as a whole, substantial growth pressures.

The county has adopted a number of interesting growth management

provisions. Its Comprehensive Plan, for instance, includes a series of fairly

detailed performance standards which-regulate, among other things, overall

density limits, development in wetland areas, open space requirements, surface.

water management, delineation of lands for parks and recreation,

transportation impact analysis, potable water requirements, wastewater

services, soil erosion and sedimentation control, parking and street access,

appearance and nuisances and fire services (Martin County, 1982). These

standards are included in the technical appendix, Volume III. As well, the

county has adopted a special landscaping provision which, among other things,

prohibits the planting of certain damaging non-indigenous vegetation and

prohibits land clearance without an approval landscape plan. The Martin

County landscape Ordinance is also included in the Technical Appendix (Volume

III). The County is also currently in the process of developing several

different impact fee ordinances,. including a road impact fee ordinance, an

impact fee for public capital improvements, and a park improvements impact

fee.

129

Beach Impact Fee

Two components of Martin County's efforts to manage growth deserve

particular attention: the County's Beach Impact Fee provisions and its

Barrier Islands Ordinance. The Beach Impact Fee provisions were adopted as a

resolution in July, 1985 by the County's Beach Acquisition Committee. While

the requirements were never formally adopted as an ordinance, the county

attorney indicates that they have become the county's clear policy and have

not been challenged by developers. The provisions are described by the county

attorney as a "negotiating tool" in PUD approvals. Developers agree to pay

the fee in exchange for the more flexible development restrictions provided

under the PUD provisions.

The precise impact fee contribution asked of PUD developments is computed

from several formulas included in the Beach Impact Fee Resolution (Beach

Acquisition Committee, 1983). The computation of the fee is first based on

certain assumptions about how much demand for recreational beach lands is

created by new residents. Based on the State of Florida Recreational Planning

Standards, and adjusting for the fact that beaches will be in greater demand

during certain peak times of the year, it is assumed that the beach land

required by each new resident is .0211 linear feet. Assuming that the cost of

a linear foot of beachland is $3,000, a per capita fee of $63.30 is computed.

This in turn is translated into a dwelling unit fee based on assumptions about

the average household size for different types of dwelling units. The Beach

Impact Fee for a single family dwelling unit in a PUD is computed to be

$183.57 (assuming 2.9 individuals per household). County officials indicate

that these funds have been used to acquire new beachlands, to maintain

existing beach properties and to service a 1982 beach acquisition bond issue.

130

(The Beach Impact Fee Resolution is included in the Technical Appendix, Volume

Under the Beach Impact Fee provisions, a rebate is available for

subsequent property taxes which are used to retire the 1982 bond issue. The

methodology for computing the rebate is included in Appendix A of the Beach

Impact Fee Resolution. A credit is also available to PUD projects which

provide their own beach land for use by new residents. The extent of the

credit is not fixed but "shall be determined by the Board of Commissioners

after recommendation by the Community Development Department."

Barrier Island Ordinance

In September of 1985 the Board of County Commissioners for Martin County

enacted its Barrier Island Ordinance (Ordinance No. 271). The stated

intention of the ordinance is the implementation of those components of the

County Comprehensive Plan which relate to barrier island development and the

recommendations contained in the Hutchinson Island Resource and Management

Plan (under the provisions of the states' areas of Critical State Concern

Program) adopted by the Florida Governor and Cabinet. Among other things, the

ordinance establishes a dune preservation zone where development is prohibited

(50 feet west of the State Coastal Construction Control Line). The ordinance

restricts mechanical beach cleaning during the nesting season of the sea

turtle (May to October), and specifies practices to be followed during those

periods where such activities are permitted. Provisions restricting the type

and nature of lighting along the beach are also provided.

Detailed site plan design standards are also included in the ordinance.

These standards specify open space requirements, buffer yard requirements,

minimum building separations, maximum permissible height of structures (4

131

stories or 40 feet), setback requirements, park and recreation requirements,

transportation requirements, public safety requirements (including a

requirement that certain structures incorporate sprinkler systems), and

stormwater requirements. The Barrier Island Ordinance is included in the

Technical Appendix.

132

References

Dreyer, Noreen, Martin County Attorney, interview, July, 1987.

Martin County. 1982. Martin County Comprehensive Plan, April 1.

1985. "Barrier Island Ordinance -- Ordinance No. 271,"
September 24.

. 1986. "Article III: Landscape Requirements" See. 23-49
Martin County Code, Ordinance No. 285, February 18.

. 1983. "Resolution to the Board of County Commissioners From
the Beach Acquisition Committee Regarding Establishment of Beach Impact
Fee," Resolution No. 83-2, July 21.

133

Hilton Head, South Carolina

Demographics: Island off coast of South Carolina; once home of prosperous
plantations; later subsistence farming and fishing by slave descendents
who nurtured a distinctive culture and language (Gullah dialect). Resort
development with extensive recreational facilities (golf and tennis)
begun in 1950s. Permanent population of 17,000, having increased by 200%
over the past decade. Seasonal population of 50,000. One million people
visited the resort in 1987.

Natural Environment: One of the larger barrier islands on the East Coast;
variety of natural habitats.

Recent DeveloRments: Island incorporated as a town in 1983 and took over
planning responsibility from the county.

Distinctive features of plannina: Land Management Ordinance; preferred
design elements such as provision of public access to beaches rewarded
with density bonuses; control of rate of growth; requirement that
developers make prior assessment of impacts on facilities such as schools
and emergency preparedness; environmental performance standards such as
protection of dunes, wetlands and trees.

Tools and Techniques

A. Comprehensive Land Management Ordinance.

B. Overlay zoning.

C. Impact assessments.

D. Management of rate of growth through absolute annual limit on
number of new dwelling units.

E. Detailed performance standards, bolstered by system of bonus
density points awarded for such elements as protection of
natural resources, scenic beauty and public's access to
beaches.

F. Noncontiguous Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) allowed around
areas of common ownership.

Observations

A. Some bonus density provisions were felt to conflict with cap on
growth rate and were repealed.

134

Hilton Head. South Carolina

Introduction

Hilton Head is an island off the South Carolina coast which has been

developed since the 1950's as a resort community. Substantial growth has

occurred in recent years, growing from a permanent population of 6,511 in 1975

to an estimated 17,000 in 1985. The island incorporated as a town in 1983 and

hired John Rahenkamp and Associates to prepare a comprehensive plan and a set

of land use controls for the island (Rahenkamp, 1986). Prior to its

incorporation, land use management on the island had been the responsibility

of the county. The land use plan was adopted by the Town in November, 1985.

This plan sets forth a set of specific policy statements to guide future

growth and development on the island.

The Land Management Ordinance (1240)

The main mechanism for implementing the comprehensive plan and for

managing growth on Hilton Head is the Town's Land Management Ordinance (LMO)

(Chapter 7 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code). Adopted in 1986, this

ordinance substantially modifies the regulatory provisions proposed by

Rahenkamp and Associates. In addition to conventional use districts and

zoning maps, the Town's LMO has a number of innovative features. For each use

category specific site restrictions, including maximum impervious coverage,

minimum open space requirements, minimum lot sizes and maximum structure

heights. In a number of the districts, bonus density is given when certain

design conditions are satisfied.' As Table E-1 indicates, in the Central

Forest Beach district, for instance, density bonuses are available for several

135

Table E-1

Density Bonuses for Central Forest Beach District

Maximum Units or Rooms
Per Net Acre

over 25 over 20
over 8 Hotel Motel
Units Rooms Rooms

Improvement of neighborhood
drainage systems 2 4 3

Dune and beach preservation 1 2 1

Additional parking 2 3 2

Public beach access beyond
site users 2 4 3

Provision of pathways for
pedestrian which facilitate
movement among different parcels 1 2 1

MAXIMUM POSSIBLE 8 15 10

project design features, including public beach access and dune and beach

preservation.

The Hilton Head ordinance makes extensive use of overlay zones, and

employs them in fairly innovative ways. Specifically, the following special

overlay zones are included in the LMO: an airport hazard overlay district, a

road corridor overlay district, a waterfront corridor overlay district and an

affordable housing overlay. (The full text of these overlay provisions is

included in the Technical Appendix, Volume III.) For each of these overlay

districts special development standards apply. The airport hazard overlay,

geographically delineated by a certain noise zone (curve) permits residential

development, for instance, but only if it satisfies certain requirements

(e.g., window glazing requiring to cut down on glare problems for pilots,

solid core exterior doors, prohibition of single plank roof construction,

136

etc.). As well, additional restrictions apply in more hazardous subdistricts.

Residential development is prohibited, for instance, inside the LDNGS noise

area, and high assembly uses (e.g., schools, churches) are prohibited within

approach paths. Detailed height restrictions also apply.

The Road Corridor Overlay district creates special requirements for

development along major roadways. The stated intention of these regulations

is "to encourage and better articulate positive visual experiences along the

island's major existing and proposed highways and to provide for the continued

safe and efficient utilization of these roadways." (Sec. 16-7-480) The

overlay zone includes all lands within 500 feet of the centerline of six

existing or proposed major roadways on the island. Development proposed

within this zone must be reviewed by a Special Corridor Review Committee

(CRC). Among other things, development in the zone must satisfy stringent

visual buffers, vegetation and tree protection requirements, and must satisfy

stringent architectural and signage standards.

The Waterfront Overlay district extends 500 feet landward from the

Coastal Council Critical Line. As in Road Corridor Districts, development

here is also subject to review by the Corridor Review Committee. Similar

development standards apply, including minimum visual buffers and extensive

architectural standards. One of the architectural review standards states,

for instance, that proposed development...

shall be located and configured in a visually harmonious manner with
the terrain and vegetation of the parcel and surrounding parcels.
Structures shall impede, as little as reasonably practical, scenic views
from the beach and waterfront or from existing structures and the natural
environment. Structures shall not dominate any general development or
natural landscape in an incompatible manner. (Sec. 16-7-489)

The objective of the affordable housing overlay zone is to encourage the

construction of low and moderate income housing on the island ("low" and

137

"moderate" incomes are specifically defined in the IMO). This overlay zone is

not attached in advance to a specific geographical area of the island. It

provides certain bonus densities in existing zones for low and moderate income

units. These proposals are also reviewed by the Corridor Review Committee.

Managing the Rate of Growth

A major component of Hilton Head's growth policy is found in Article VII

of the LMO -- Rate of Growth and Impact Documentation. This portion of the

LMO establishes a development permit phasing program which restricts the

absolute number of dwelling units the Town will permit in a given year

(established for a five year period, through the year 1991). The total

dwelling units to be issued during this five-year period is established in the

LMO at 4,250, of which 2,050 are reserved for single family units and 800 for

hotel/motel units. An allocation schedule is established with the 850

dwelling units permitted in the first year (the base allocation). Allocations

are on a first-come-first-serve basis, with priority given to single family

units. (If the number of single family units is reached, remaining units in

other categories can then be tapped.) The 1140 clearly states that this

allocation scheme is meant to be temporary, and a direct function of local

infrastructure capacity.

It is not the intent of this ordinance to deny to any person a
reasonable opportunity to develop his land in a beneficial manner, but
rather is intended to guide the rate of growth within the town during the
stated temporary period, during which time further long-range planning
will be completed and a capital improvements program providing for the
enhancement of transportation and other infrastructure capacities, in
cooperation with other governmental entities, is being implemented.
(Section 16-7-700)

138

Impact Assessment and Performance Standards

Requirements for impact assessment are also included in the LMO. All

proposed development, with the exception of a proposed single-family dwelling

unit, must submit the following: a traffic impact assessment, emergency

preparedness impact assessment and plan (which is submitted to the Beaufort

County Emergency Preparedness Department for review), a water and sewer impact

assessment, and a school impact assessment.

A major component of the LMO, and a major approach used by the Town to

influence the quality and impact of growth in the community, are the detailed

performance standards. Detailed design and performance standards are provided

for the following: open space, streets, bikeways and pedestrianways,

storLuwater drainage management, landscaping, flood and fire safety, among

others. Article IX -- Natural Resources Protection -- contains a number of

performance standards relating to local environmental resources. These

standards establish, among other things, required setbacks from wetlands,

beach and dune protection requirements, and standards protecting trees. Bonus

densities are given for projects which provide greater public beach access,

and for projects which provide dune restoration and stabilization. Earlier

provisions also existed which gave density bonuses for additional ocean

setbacks, but these provisions have since been repealed. Diagram E-1

illustrates how this provision was to have worked. This provision was

apparently scrapped by the Town because some local leaders were concerned

about the awarding of density bonuses at the same time the town was placing

limits on the amount of annual growth.

139-

AREA TO BE USED FOR BONUS CALCULATION

E
E-

REQUIRED SETBACK TO BUILDINGS 751

-R-EQUIRE-DSE-TBACK -TO STRUCTURES 50

SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL CRITICAL LINE

DUNE
-4
M.H. WATFR

Diagram E-1
ILLUSTRATION OF BONUS INCENTIVE CALCULATION AS PER 16-*7-92@

140

Another interesting provision of the Hilton Head CDA is that which allows

noncontiguous Planned Unit Developments (PUD's). This allows a developer,

where lands are under common ownership, to use the flexibility of PUD

provisions to creatively develop noncontiguous parcels. The IMO sets forth

several explicit objectives that would justify use of the non-urban PUD

provisions.

141

References

Bell, Mike, long range planner, Hilton Head Planning Department, interview,
July, 1987.

Town of Hilton Head. 1986. Land Manaaement Ordinance, Chapter 7, Title 16 of
the Municipal Code.

Rahenkamp, John. 1986. "Coming to Grips with Growth in Hilton Head, South
Carolina," in Douglas Porter (ed.), Growth Management: Keeping o
Target? Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.

143

Napa County, California

Demographics: 744 square mile region with long history of agriculture,
emphasizing vineyards in recent decades; within commuting distance of San
Francisco and the East Bay region; population of 100,000 (rural and
unincorporated), 81% urban; population has grown 25% during the 1970-80
decade.

Recent Experience: Successful passage of a public referendum on
imposition of cap on annual development, holding rate of growth to 1% or
less.

Distinctive features of Rlanning: Annual allocation of voter-determined
number of building permits.

Tools and Techniques -

A. Cap on residential development at 1% per year, distributed among
four categories of residential buildings and granted on a first-
come, first-served basis.

Observations

A. Effect of cap thus far is to delay rather than to stop
development.

B. Large-scale developments have been shifted from unincorporated to,
urban areas, thus protecting farmlands.

C. Development by numbers and on first7come, first-served basis is
easy to administer and explain to public.

D. Introduction of the cap has strengthened support for planning
already in place such as very large lot zoning and contracts
between state and farmland owners to protect working vineyards.

144

Naga County. California

Introduction

Napa County is located north of San Francisco Bay and is within commuting

distance of Oakland and other bay area centers. Because of this close

proximity the county has received substantial growth pressures in recent

years, pressures which have threatened the county's rural flavor and its

productive agricultural resource lands, including the famous Napa Valley

Vineyards.

Measure A: Controlling the Annual Gy-owth Rate

When it looked as though a pro-development Board of Supervisors was

about to gain election in 1980, a groundswell of public support land to the

enactment of Measure A. The text of Measure A stated the following finding:

The people of the County of Napa find that mismanaged and unlimited
residential growth causes conditions harmful to the public, safety and
general welfare and results in substantial increase in the cost of
government services, loss of irreplaceable agricultural land, inadequate
police and fire protection, increased traffic congestion, inadequate
parks and recreation facilities, loss of open space, increased air
pollution, deterioration of older urban areas, general urban sprawl,
increased crime rate and overcrowded schools.

Modelled after Santa Cruz County's Measure I, the Napa measure

specifically required the Napa Board of Supervisors to restrict the annual

issuance of building permits in the unincorporated areas so that this number

was consistent with (did not exceed) the growth rate of the nine counties in

the San Francisco Bay area, and not to exceed one percent. The measure

specified that at least 15% of the annual permits were to be for affordable

housing units. The measure directed the Board of Supervisors to amend the

145

county comprehensive plan within nine months of passage to carry out the

provisions of the measure. Specifically, the Board was to adopt a growth

management system "and such ordinances as are required to implement the intent

of this ordinance, to regulate the character, location, amount, and timing of

future residential development..." If the board did not adopt the necessary

program a prohibition on the issuance of all building permits would go into

effect. Ironically, the new Board of County Commissioners were forced to put

into place precisely the kinds of development restrictions they campaigned

against.

The regional growth rate was determined to be 1.13%, and thus one percent

was adopted as the growth rate restriction for the county. This has

translated into an annual allocation of 132 dwelling units (to remain in

effect until the next U.S. Census is taken). The annual development cap

restricts residential development only; industrial and commercial uses are not

affected. Other exceptions include: replacement housing (to replace a unit

which has been removed, demolished or burned within the past year); relocation

of existing units; additions and renovations; guest cottages; and certain

,vested development projects. In cases where the unit allocation is not

expended in one year, the balance may be carried over into the next year.

The annual allocation is distributed across four categories of

residential units: owner-occupied, small-scale builder, large-scale builder

and "affordable home." These are described as follows:

A. Category 1 is single dwelling built by or for a permit holder (owner-
builder or his contractor) who is building only one dwelling unit per
year.

B. Category 2 is any type of dwelling which requires no discretionary
review, but the permit holder is building more than one dwelling unit
per year. A good example would be the small scale builder using
existing lots.

146

C. Category 3 is any type of residential project for 2 or more dwelling
units which requires discretionary review (e.g., subdivision, parcel
map, use permit). A large-scale housing project would be a good
example.

D. Category 4 is housing which is affordable to persons with average or
below average income. This category would require a development
agreement signed by the developer and the County; the development
agreement shall contain guarantees that the dwelling units would be
affordable to persons of average or below average income.

Table H-1 presents the breakdown of annual building permits between these

four categories. Permits are issued on a first-come, first-serve basis,

available January 1 of each year. There is also a provision which allows the

Board of County Supervisors to redistribute unused units in one of the first

three categories to any of the other categories (in June and December of each

year). The Board can add units to the affordable housing category, but

cannot take any units out of that category. When demand for permits exceeds

the annual supply permits are to be allocated through the use of a lottery.

Applicants who lose out on the lottery are given first-claim on the following

year's allocation of permits.

Success of the Annual Cap

Staff at the Napa County Department of Conservation, Development and

Planning, the implementing agency, have indicated that the system has so far.

operated smoothly. In no case has an applicant been completely denied a

permit under the allocation system; rather, applicants have had to wait for

subsequent allocations of permits, resulting only in delays in the timing of

development. The county has yet to have to use the lottery system. Staff

believes, however, that the net effect of the program has been to discourage

large tract subdivisions and other large-scale forms of development in

unincorporated areas of the county. The program has shifted this type of

147

Table H-1

Residential Building Permit Categories, Shares of Annual Allocation,
Building Permit Availability Dates

Building Permit
Share of Annual Availability Dates
Category Allocation January 1 June-1

1. Owner-occupied 80 D.U. 40 D.U. 40 D.U.

2. Small-scale builder 16 D.U. 16 D.U.

3. Large-scale builder 16 D.U. 16 D.U.

4. "Affordable" house 20 D.U. 20 D.U.

Total 132,D.U.

Source: Growth Management System, Napa General Plan, 1983.

148

growth, consistent with the county's goals, into incorporated and more urban

areas in the county where such permit limitations do not exist. The

allocation system has been relatively free of controversy, partly staff

believe because the county, unlike other jurisdictions with similar systems,

has not attempted to construct a complex system for prioritizing the permit

allocation. There is a general sense that the first-come, first-serve system

is a very equitable and sensible one. Moreover, the strategy of establishing

a single quantitative restriction ("growth management by the numbers") has the

advantage of being very easy to understand by the public.

County staff have described the main thrusts of the Napa County planning

program as directing growth into already urbanized areas and protecting

important farmland resources. In pursuit of the later objective the county

has enacted strong agricultural zoning provisions. In the Napa Valley area,

for instance, minimum lot sizes have been set at forty acres. While these

restrictions were very controversial when first enacted in the late 1960's (20

acre minimums originally), there is strong support for them now. The support

for and effectiveness of these restrictions, however, are largely a function

of the economic importance of the Napa Valley vineyards--The restrictions are

strongly justified from an economic point of view. The provisions of

California's Williamson Act, which permit the state to enter into contracts

with farmland owners to maintain farm uses, have also been used in the county.

Another important factor helping to preserve.Napa farmland are the decisions

of the county's Local Agency Formation Commission, which must approve all

annexations to municipalities and utility and other districts. Its policy has

been to prohibit the annexation of farmland areas.

149

References

Napa County, California. "Growth Management System," Napa County General
Plan. 1983. Napa County Department of Conservation, Development and
Planning.

Interview with staff, Department of Conservation, Development and Planning,
Napa County, June, 1987.

151

Fort Collins, Colorado

DemograRhics: City of 80,000 population, 40 miles north of Denver,
dramatic growth in 60s and 70s.

Natural Environment: Located at the foot of the Rockies.

Recent Experience: City has adopted a pro-growth stance; private market
invited to determine location of industrial and shopping centers.

Distinctive Features of Planning: Land Development Guidance System with
point system to evaluate conformance with an elaborate and wide-reaching
set of design and performance criteria; emphasis on PUDs over
conventional zoning to direct growth; establishment of boundaries for new
growth; acquisiton of open space; preservation of historic heritage.

- Tools and Techniques -

A. Comprehensive Plan and accompanying Land Development Guidance
System that includes reports on such topics as community goals,
open space, etc.

B. Land use guidance system covering issues such as design and
consumption of energy.

C. Provisions such as absolute and variable criteria for review of
planned unit developments (PUDs) as alternative to conventional
zoning.

D. Establishment of Urban Growth Area to control fringe development.

E. Acquisition of open space to preserve scenic backdrop, bike
trails, etc.

F. Preservation of historic district while undertaking downtown
redevelopment.

G. Imposition of impact fees on developers to offset cost to the
public of services such as sewers.

- Observations

A. Focus on quality of growth, rather than pace or amount, has been
successful.

152

B. Favoring mixed use areas and high density residential projects is
seen to diminish problems of the alternative -- urban sprawl --
such as air and water pollution and excessive energy consumption.

C. Meaningful participation by citizens and neighborhoods in review
of new development is helped by use of explicit performance
standards.

D. Interpretation of design criteria can be difficult and
controversial.

153

Fort Collins, Colorado

Introduction

Fort Collins is a city of approximately 80,000 population located about

forty miles due north of Denver. Named for an 1860's military outpost, the

city lies just east of the front range of the Rockies. The city experienced

dramatic growth in the 1960s, largely in response to the growth of Colorado

State University. In 1976, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that Fort Collins

was the fourth fastest growing SMSA in the country (City of Fort Collins,

1985).

The Land Development Guidance System (LDGS)

The key element of the Ft. Collins planning and growth management program

is its point system used to evaluate Planned Unit Developments (PUDs). Called

the "Land Development Guidance System," (or "LDGS" for short), it consists of

a set of design and performance criteria against which proposed PUD projects

are evaluated. The vast majority of new development occurring in the city,

perhaps 95% according to the planning staff, goes through the PUD mechanism.

As described by the city, the system is intended to replace conventional

zoning:

The development potential of any particular site will be evaluated
on its own merits -- size, shape, location, natural features and site
concept development -- rather than according to a pre-determined zoning
district classification. (City of Ft. Collins, undated, p.i)

The background of the Guidance System can be found in the city's Land Use

Policies Plan (1979). The land use policies plan is one of several documents

which together comprise the Ft. Collins Comprehensive Plan. Included among

the other documents which comprise the Comprehensive Plan are the city's Goals

154

and Objectives (1977), and the city's Open SRace Plan (1974). The Land Use

Policies Plan calls for the development of a guidance system and the specific

policies contained within it are the basis for many of the design criteria

employed in the guidance system. Another city document, the Energy

Conservation Plan (1979) also serves as the basis for several of the guidance

system criteria which address energy issues in development. The Guidance

System Report (City of Ft. Collins, undated) states that the system is based

on the following assumptions:

-1. That any land use likely to occur in Fort Collins can in most cases
be made compatible with any neighboring land use through careful
design and buffering.

2. Site design, use, and, in many cases, architectural design review,
are critical for all development.

3. Increasing the opportunity for higher density residential development
and mixed land uses is good for the community.

4. The city should encourage the provision of low income housing, energy
conservation and other important goals of the city through an
incentive program.

5. The city should encourage larger scale development on the periphery
of the city through an incentive program.

6. The private market is in a better position to determine the
appropriate location of industrial uses and regional/community
shopping centers than the City of Fort Collins.

7. The City of Fort Collins should provide guidance for the location of
higher density residential and neighborhood commercial uses.

8. Higher density can be an incentive for residential developers to
incorporate measures which address larger community needs, such as
low income housing and energy conservation, which otherwise might be
ignored.

9. The system should incorporate recognition that there are tradeoffs
among quality attributes of a project and also among city objectives.

10. The system should recognize that certain policies and criteria are of
more or less importance than others through the establishment of
weighting factors.

11. Both the public and the development industry can benefit from a more
predictable and flexible regulatory process (pp. vi-vii).

155

The city, with the help of a planning consultant, began reviewing

alternatives to conventional zoning in 1979. As the above assumptions

indicate, the development guidance system was seen as a way to overcome the

inflexibility of conventional zoning. The PUD provisions are designed to

permit the simultaneous consideration of land use type/intensity and site

design, to encourage mixed use development, to more comprehensively consider

the negative impacts of development, and to clarify for all concerned

(developers, citizens, staff) the development rules of the game. The PUD

provisions generally assume that any proposed development can be made

compatible with existing development and surrounding neighborhoods and uses if

the appropriate design and buffering requirements are applied. This

assumption is generally consistent with the city's pro-development philosophy.

The necessary ordinance enacting this innovative PUD system was adopted by the

Ft. Collins City Council in 1981.

PUD Projects are reviewed against two types of criteria: absolute

criteria (referred to as "numbered" criteria) and variable criteria (referred

to as "lettered" criteria). For absolute criteria, a project is evaluated

according to whether or not it satisfies the criterion (i.e., yes or no). A

project must satisfy all absolute criteria to gain ultimate development

approval (or receive a variance from the failed criteria). A point system is

constructed through the use of the variable criteria. Here, a project may

receive an evaluative rating along a 0-to-2 point range. A score of '10"

indicates failure to implement the criterion; "VI indicates an adequate job of

implementing the criterion and, "3" indicates an excellent job. The number

assigned to a particular project for a specific criterion is also multiplied

by a weighting factor which takes into account the relative priority of

different community criteria. Priority weightings are from 1 to 5 with "1" of

156

lowest community priority and '151' of greatest priority. The relative merits

of a particular proposed project are then determined by adding up the number

of points assigned on these different variable criteria. A proposed project,

depending upon the type of development, must receive a minimum number of

points to proceed. The allowable residential density on a site is also

determined by this resulting score.

Specific absolute design (numbered) criteria and variable (lettered)

criteria are provided for the following "activity" categories:

A. All development
B. Neighborhood service center
C. Community/regional shopping center
D. Auto-related and roadside commercial uses
E. Business service uses
F. Industrial uses
G. Extraction, salvages, and junk yard uses
H. Residential uses
I. Downtown River Corridor

For a residential project, for example, criteria in categories A and H

would need to be satisfied. The complete text of the design standards (as

amended) for all activity categories is included in the Technical Appendix

(Volume III). The absolute criteria for all activities (A above) include

those which seek to determine whether the proposed project is compatible with

neighborhood character, is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan, will

be served by adequate public facilities, etc. Specific resource protection,

environmental and site design standards, must also be satisfied by all

proposed development. For instance, does the project preserve, to the extent

practical, significant existing vegetation? (Standard A-12). Have precautions

been taken to prevent damage to important natural habitats (A-14)? Will the

project conform to local, state and federal air and water quality standards

(A-19, A-20)? All proposed development must satisfy these types of standards.

Other absolute standards must- be satisfied depending upon the activity

157

.category in which the project falls. For instance, if the project is

residential, average residential density must be at least three dwelling units

per acre (on a gross acreage basis).

Once the absolute standards are met, the point system comes into play. A

proposed industrial use, for example, must obtain at least 50% of the maximum

point that are possible on "Point Chart F." For industrial uses, the two

criteria of greatest priority to the community (given 11311s) are whether or not

the proposed project is next to or a part of an existing industrial center,

and whether the project reduces non-renewable energy usage. In thecase of an

industrial project the maximum score is sixteen points, thus to be permitted

the project would need to score at least eight (i.e., at least 50% of the

points available).

Density, in the case of residential projects, is also a function of the

point system. The greater the point score the higher the permissible density

(calculated in terms of maximum percentage credits). If a project obtains 100

or more percentage points on the density chart the permissible density is ten

dwelling units or more per acre. In contrast, if the project only scores 30-

40 percentage points, density is only allowed at 3-4 dwelling units per acre.

The density chart contains a number of bonus factors which reward project

designs containing important amenities or other features. For example, bonus

points are given for expenditures on public transit facilities, for special

parking accommodations, for the provision of housing for low income and

handicapped and for contiguity with existing development. A maximum bonus of

30 percentage points is available for low income housing (translating to a

maximum increase of 3 units per acre). A bonus is also available for projects

which incorporate land devoted to recreational uses and for projects which

commit to preserving off-site open space. If the project applicant provides.

158

off-site open space in a quantity which amounts to, say, 20% of the total

project acreage, this becomes the amount of the bonus (2 additional units per

acre).

Other Growth Management Tools

While the CDGS is clearly the centerpiece of Ft. Collins' growth

management program, there are other components which are also important. In a

manner similar to that described in Boulder, the City of Ft. Collins and

Larimer County have jointly established the boundaries of the Ft. Collins

"Urban Growth Area." This represents an area outside of the city's existing

corporate boundaries that is expected to be developed at urban densities in

the future (Smith, undated). Unlike Boulder County, however, Larimer County

has historically been much more tolerant of development in fringe areas and

has permitted the creation of special utility districts to service it where

the city has refused to. The delineation of the Urban Growth Area is an

attempt to overcome these fringe development problems and represents a set of

planning agreements between the city and county (similar to Boulder and

Boulder County's). As Smith (undated) states:

By defining an Urban Growth Area around th e city, the city agrees to
allow urban density development within the area. The county, in turn,
limits urban development to the Urban Growth Area and requires all
development to conform to city development codes and standards. The city
is given responsibility for long-range planning in the area, including
planning for land use, transportation and utilities. These agreements
and responsibilities are established by formal agreements between the
City Council and County Commissioners.

The delineation of the Urban Growth Area and the city-county agreements,

then, constitute the drawing of an urban growth boundary, similar to those

required in Oregon. (See Diagram N-1.) Note that a major impetus for these

types of city-county agreements is that cities in Colorado do not have any

form of extra-territorial planning or land use powers.

159

17i
......... .
!ZO

..............
% .......
COUNTRY C U .........

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
........... . . ... . . . .
WILLO@
. . . ... . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . ... . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . . .
.... .. . . . . . . .

... . . . . . . . . . .

.... ...........

Ln ..........

..... ...............

....... ...
. . . . . . HIGHWAY 14
N

. ..... ...... ..... ...
d..u:-:-XI@

.... ........
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....
. . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - -
. . . . . . . . . . . . ...
xl'

. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .....

. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . ... . . . . . ... .
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .
V..

all

:xtv

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .
4@

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...... . . . . . . . . . . .

TRILBY R 0
R

Diagram N-1
FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA

160

Ft. Collins also has an open space acquisition program, though not nearly

as active as Boulder's. The ORen Space Plan, originally adopted in 1974, is

currently being revised by the city. It establishes goals and objectives of

the program and identifies priority areas in and around the city for

acquisition. The city has already acquired much of the foothills ("Hogbacks")

to the immediate west of the city, which provide an important scenic backdrop,

as well lands along the Poudre River. The city has provided an impressive

bike trail along the Pondre (see City of Ft. Collins, 1981).

Ft. Collins has also expended great efforts to improve its historic

downtown. A Landmark Preservation Commission exercises direct control over

proposed changes to the exterior of buildings in the Old Town Historic

District. The city has developed and adopted a set of specific design

guidelines which are used during this review process (City of Ft. Collins,

1981). (These guidelines have been included in Volume III, the Technical

Appendix.) The city is also currently developing a downtown redevelopment

plan.

As with many Colorado communities, Ft. Collins has adopted an extensive

set of impact fees (City of Ft. Collins, 1987). Fees are collected for a

range of public services and facilities including sewer plant investment,

storm drainage and parklands (see Table N-1).

Success of the Land Development Guidance Syste

The PUD development guidance system used by Ft. Collins has dramatically

changed the way that growth is managed in this community. While conventional

zoning remains in place, it has lost most of its importance. Ft. Collins

contrasts with a community like Boulder in its general pro-growth attitude and

thus the guidance system does not seek to regulate the amount or the pace of

161

Table N-1

Fees Normally Reguired of New Development in Ft. Collins*

Water plant investment fee

Water rights acquisition charge

Sewer plant investment fee

.Storm drainage fee

Off-site street improvements

Electric off-site and on-site service fees

Parkland fee

Source: Ft. Collins Department of Community Development

*These are in addition to plan processing/submittal fees and building permit
fees. There is also a sewer and water tap charge which represents the actual
costs of connection.

162

growth, but rather its quality. The Ft. Collins system appears to have done

this well. A 1985 study by the City's Department of Community Development

(planning division) conducted an analysis of how the system functioned between

1981, when first established, and 1984. In terms of actual differences in

resulting development projects, the study found that the guidance system did

result in a greater mix of land uses (mixes of industrial, office, retail,

public and private recreation and residential uses). As the study states:

There are several advantages to a greater mixing of land uses. By
having homes, places of employment, and shopping in close proximity
discourages the use of the automobile and encourages bicycling, walking
and other modes of transportation, as well as decreases trip length of
automobile travel and encourages trip consolidation. The experience in
Ft. Collins prior to the adoption of the LDGS demonstrated an emerging
pattern of more uniform land uses. The residential to non-residential
land use ratio is 1:1.7 for the master plans as compared to the overall
city figure of 1:1.29. The master plans demonstrate an increase of over
32 percent in terms of greater mixing of land uses (City of Ft. Collins,
1985, p. 12).

A field survey of PUD projects by one of the UNC researchers confirmed

this conclusion. Mixed uses occurred both within single projects, and between

projects within a general area. While there are often significant design and

buffering features required, the general assumption, again, is that mixed uses

are a good thing and that most problems of,compatibility can be overcome. An

area where city staff think the benefits and feasibility of mixed-use

development are most obvious is the corner of Drake and Lemay. On a recent

tour of the city, a group of reporters from USA Today writing a profile on the

city were particularly impressed with this intersection (Getz, 1987). This

area is perhaps prototypical of what the Ft. Collins system attempts to

achieve. As described by a local Ft. Collins reporter (Getz, 1987).

Parkwood Lake and the elegant homes around it sit on one corner.
The First Christian Church, surrounded by acres of grass, sits on
another. The southwest corner has the Scotch Pines shopping center, a
subdued place with shake roofs that is hardly visible from the street,
thanks to nice landscaping. The northwest corner features a park-like

163

setting of trees and flower beds wrapped in a stately black fence. The
visitors were surprised to hear that in the midst of the trees was a
Woodward Governor factory -- essentially in a residential neighborhood.

The city study also concluded that residential densities have been

increasing, at least partly in response to the flexibility of the LDGS. This

result is also consistent with the city's stated land use policies, reducing

the higher public costs associated with low density urban sprawl (e.g.,

greater construction and operating costs of sewerage systems, roads and

streets, etc.), as well as the environmental consequences of this pattern of

growth (e.g., air and water pollution). The report also concludes that many

new development projects include various community amenities, such as designs

which reduce energy consumption or which provide low income housing units,

which would not otherwise be provided without the incentives of the LDGS.

The city's study also concluded that generally new projects were better

designed under the LDGS than under previous conventional zoning. This is due

in part, it is hypothesized, to the increasing need to rely on design

professionals (e.g., architects, landscape architects) given the demands of

the LDGS.

The LDGS also appears to have significantly changed the pattern of

citizen involvement in the development review process. Citizens and

neighborhood groups are now more fully involved in this review process and the

city study concludes that this is in large part due to the explicit

performance standards that are used during project review. "The explicit

listing of criteria in the LDGS has reduced differences in the evaluation from

project to project, increased the sophistication of citizens input on specific

development projects and has helped neighborhood residents better understand

the basis for decisionmaking by the City in advance." (City of Ft. Collins,

164

1985, p. 15) For proposed projects which are likely to have "significant

neighborhood impacts" the LDGS review criteria, in fact, specifically require

informal neighborhood meetings. These meetings have provided informal forums

for developers to present their projects prior to formal application to the

city, and an opportunity for neighborhood residents to express concerns about

compatibility. Often these concerns can be resolved in advance through

changes in project design.

While this increase in the citizen involvement in project review is a

positive result of the LDGS, it is not without its problems. The planning

staff indicate that one problem is that there is often disagreement about how

some of the project review criteria are to be interpreted. The staff or

developer may feel that one set of buffering requirements are adequate, for

instance, while neighborhood representatives may feel that another more

stringent set of requirements is demanded by the criteria. Often it appears

that neighborhoods are offended by any form of development and would rather

have a parcel remain undeveloped. Under these expectations it is often

difficult to provide a set of design and buffering standards which satisfy

neighborhood groups. Nevertheless, this adversarial process of interpreting

the design criteria is probably beneficial.

165

References

City of Ft. Collins, Colorado. Undated. Land Development Guidance System For
Planned Unit Developments.

. 1974. Open Space Plan, Planning Division, Department
of Community Development, March.

1977. Goals and Elements, August.

1979. Energy Conservation Plan..

1979. Land Use Policies Plan, Ft. Collins Planning
Division, August.

1981. Design Guidelines for Historic Old Town Fort
Collins prepared by Downing/Leach and Associates.

. 1981. Poudre Area River ConceRt, Vols. I and II, Ft.
Collins Planning Department, January.

1984. Strategic Plan for Solar Access, Planning and
Development Department, October.

. 1987. "Development Fees and Charges." Division of
Planning, Department of Community Development.

Frank, Joe E., Senior City Planner, Ft. Collins Department of Community
Development, interview, July, 1987.

Getz, Bob. 1987. "So far, Fort Collins gets glowing reviews from visiting
press," Ft. Collins NewspaRer.

167

Salem Oregon

DemograRhics: The state capital, with a population of 95,000 (258,000 in
the greater metropolitan area).

Natural Environment: Located in the fertile Willamette Valley.

Recent Experience: Growth has waxed and waned in the 70s and 80s (18% in
late 70s, 6% in early 80s). Growth management programs were undertaken
in a.period of high growth.

Distinctive Features of Planning: Regional cooperation.in development of
city's comprehensive plan; establishment of urban growth boundary;
maintenance of 10-year supply of developable land.

Tools and Techniques

A. A comprehensive plan that sets out policies on growth management.

B. Involvement of counties in greater metropolitan area in
comprehensive plan.

C. Linkage of development to adequate public facilities and
services, with developers paying substantial proportion of costs
of needed new facilities.

D. Establishment of an Urban Growth Boundary.

E. Separation of Current Developed Area (CDA) and Urban Growth Areas
(UGA), the latter requiring developers to do special planning and
to pay to "link" facilities to the CDA.

F. Sector plans for facility needs created for geographic areas of
UGA.

G. Creation and maintenance of 10-year supply of developable land.

H. Levy of a development tax based on value of new structures and
size of land parcel.

I. Refinement plans prepared for each neighborhood.

J. Function-based plans prepared for bicycles, transportation, and
airport, among others.

168

Salem, Oregon

Introduction

The City of Salem, Oregon's state capital, is located in the fertile

Willamette Valley. In 1985 it contained a population of about 95,000, with

some 258,000 in the Salem Metropolitan statistical area. Salem, as with the

most of the state of Oregon, is highly dependent on national economic patterns

and trends, particularly those which influence the lumber and woods product

industry. Since the late 1970's the entire state's economy has experienced a

downturn, and Salem has not been insulated. While the city has in the past

experienced tremendous population growth pressures, growth in recent years has

been modest. Between 1980 and 1985, for instance, the city's population grew

by only about 6%, or a little over 1% per year. In the mid to late 1970s,

Salem experienced rapid growth. By way of comparison, the city issued

building permits for 2,153 single family and duplex units in 1977, while in

1985 it issued only permits for 212 units (single family and multi-family)

(City of Salem, 1986; City of Salem, 1979). In the three year period from

1975 to 1978, the city grew by 14,000 people, or by about 18%.

Salem's strong concern with growth management developed in the earlier

years of high growth. City officials describe the Salem growth management

program as a good one, but one which has not been fully utilized given recent

development trends. Salem was one of the first localities to embark on the

Oregon-style growth management approach. It, in fact, adopted and implemented

an urban growth boundary before one was actually required under the provisions

of Senate Bill 100.

169

CoMRonents of the Growth Management System

The Salem Area Comprehensive Plan, last updated in January of 1987,

provides the broad policy framework in which the growth management program

operates. This document was prepared jointly by the city and Marion and Polk

counties in which Salem is located. All more detailed plans must be

consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. Among other things, the plan

(and its land use map) establish general use and density restrictions for the

city.

The comprehensive plan contains a strong goal in support of growth

management. It is the goal of the city:

To manage growth in the Salem area through cooperative efforts of
the City of Salem and Marion and Polk Counties, to insure the quality of
life of present and future residents of the area, and to contain urban
development and to preserve adjacent farmlands by:

a. Establishing and periodically reviewing an urban growth boundary
to identify and separate urbanizable land from rural land while insuring
sufficient amounts of urbanizable land to accommodate the population
needs for the year 2000.

b. Planning and developing a timely, orderly and efficient
arrangement of public facilities, and services to serve as a framework
for urban development. (City of.Salem, 1982, p. 35.)

These goals are further elaborated upon in the plan through an extensive

set of growth management policies. Among other things, these policies

establish conditions under which the urban growth boundary may be changed and

procedures for its periodic review. The policies state that urban development

shall be encouraged first in those areas of the city where adequate public

services and facilities already exist, Where new development creates

substantial new service and facility costs, this development is to be required

to assume.an increasingly larger portion of these costs. The policies state

that extension of public services must be in conformance with an adopted urban

growth management program.

170
SALEM URBAN AREA

CURRENT
DEVELOPED
AREABOUNDARY

IDR.--th seal*

RRE
-D
ELO 0
AREA 0

------ ... ..

J4,.,
in

CURRENT
DEVELOPED
AREABOUNDARY

Diairam A-1

CURRENT DEVELOPED AREA (CDA)
As revised and adopted July 231 1979, by the Salem City Council

171

Current Develoi3ment Areas and Urban Growth Areas

Salem began developing this growth management component in 1978, again at

the height of the city's development boom. The U rban Growth Management

Program was formally adopted by the City Council in 1979, and later revised in

1983. The program has as its focus the encouragement of growth in areas where

public services and facilities already exist. As in all Oregon municipalities

the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) plays an essential role in separating "urban"

(already developed areas) and "unbanizable" (land not yet developed but which

can be developed) from resource and rural lands which lie outside the UGB.

Within the UGB the city seeks to guide growth through an important

distinction between areas designated as Current Developed Areas (CDA) and

Urban Growth Areas (UGA). Current developed areas are defined in the Urban

Growth Management Report (1979) As 11 ... that part of the Salem urban area

within which residential and commercialdevelopment essentially is complete,

contiguous and in reasonably compact form..." This area includes most of the

land in the corporate limits of the city (see Diagram A-1). The Urban Growth

Area includes those lands outside the CDA, but within the Urban Growth

Boundary. Special planning requirements are imposed on projects that are

proposed in Urban Growth Areas, and a special UGA development permit must be

obtained. The process for review of a UGA permit precedes subdivision review,

rezoning review, and the issuance of building permits. An initial step in the

process is annexation, if the parcel is not already within the city (see

Diagram A-2). Industrial use are exempt from these special UGA provisions.

A number of special facility standards apply to development within the

UGA, specifically dealing with street improvements, sewer and water

improvements and drainage improvements. The standards for street improvements

require a developer to make those street improvements necessary to "link" the

172

Building
Permit

Sector
Plan

Rezone
Public
Parcel Annexation Development Hearing
Review
Permit

Subdiv.
Review
Cont.

IDiagram A-2

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE URBAN GROWTH AREA

173

development to the CDA (see Diagram A-3). Streets must be constructed which

,either connect to streets at the CDA boundary or major streets which have been

extended beyond the CDA boundary. Specific provisions are included in the

city code which define more precisely the linking requirements. Sewer

improvement standards also call for the development to be linked to the CDA.

Temporary sewer facilities, such as lift stations and temporary water pump

stations and reservoirs, are permitted if approved by the public works

director, but must include all facilities necessary for transition to

permanent facilities. Similar linking improvements are also required for

water system improvements and drainage improvements.

CURAENF DEVELOPED AREA

URUAM GROWTH
AREA

LINKING
RESPONSIBILITY

.. .. .. .. ...... ...
ON-SI E
RESPONSIBILITY

W-

Diagram A-3

DEVELOPER RESPONSIBILITIES IN UGA

174

It is the developer's responsibility to pay for these linking facilities,

although subsequent developments that benefit from "oversized" facility

improvements are charged for their proportional share of the costs and the

original developer is reimbursed. This subsequent development must occur

within ten years of these investments.. The recapture is usually accomplished

through the use of a "prior facility'charge" collected b y the city. The

developer is also eligible for reimbixrsement for projects included in the

city's five-year capital improvements program. Reimbursement is only

permitted in the year for which the improvement was scheduled, however.

The improvements which developers are required to make in UGA's must be

consistent both with city functional plans (e.g., water distribution master

plan) as well as individual sector plians. Sector plans are basically facility

plans which have been prepared for different geographical segments of the UGA.

These plans indicate the facilities and improvements necessary to meet the

area's needs when it reaches full grbwth. Sector plans must be consistent

with, but are more detailed than, the city's comprehensive plan and growth

management program.
The Sector plan shows the @Preplanned location and size, to full city
standards, of major streets, sewers and water facilities, and where
specific sites are known, the location of parks and fire stations. The
geographical area of a sector is large enough to show a functional system
of all facilities. It also shows the necessary linkages to either
Currently Developed Areas (CDA) or existing facilities that accommodate
operation to city standards. (City of Salem, February 1986, p. 2)

One of the key concepts ofthe Salem Urban Growth Management Program is

to provide at least a ten-year suppl'y of sewered, developable land at all

times. Consequently, the Urban Growth Management Plan sought to identify

areas generally contiguous-to the CDA where future urban facility expansion

would be most efficient. Considering the costs of expansion of public

facilities and various natural constraints several preferred areas were

175

identified. Specifically, areas in the west and northeast were identified as

priority expansion areas. An additional priority expansion area in south

Salem has been identified as a result of several subsequent public

improvements making facility extension into this area more feasible.

Other Growth Management Tools

Salem collects funds for capital improvements through the imposition of a

"development tax." All development within the city is subject to the tax,

which has two components: one based on the value of new structures, and a

square footage-based tax on land. For all new construction in the city, the

following tax is assessed, based on building permit value (Salem Statutes

Chapter 41):

One percent of the valuation for $1.00 to $999,999: two-thirds of
one percent of the additional valuation from $1,000,000 to $10,000,000
and one-third of one percent of the additional value over $10,000,000.

The second component of the tax is on the size of the land parcel

involved. This is computed in the following way:

Five cents per square foot of gross land area which composes the
total development site upon which development is to occur, provided that
on single family residential sites the tax shall be applied only on the
first one-half acre'.

As well, owners of mobile home developments are required to pay a $300

per lot charge. The development tax is due at the time the building permit(s)

is issued, although the developer can request deferral of payment until the

building(s) is ready to receive occupancy authorization. Reconstruction of

damaged structures (e.g., following a fire or flood) is exempt from the tax.

The provisions of the development tax stipulate that the proceeds can

only be used for "the cost of extra capacity facilities scheduled for

construction or installation as shall be provided for in the city's duly

approved Capital Improvements Program, provided said revenues may be pledged

176

and used toward payment of principal and interest on bonds issued for the

purpose of financing the extra capacity facilities" (Salem Code 41.060).

These funds are placed in a special O.Extra Capacity Facilities Tax Fund."

Extra capacity facilities are defined in the Salem Code (41.020) as

improvements which "provide increased capacity to serve new or expanded

development as distinguished from replacement or restoration of facilities

that have or may become worn or obsolete." The Salem City Council adopted a

policy in June, 1986 which establishes several specific criteria which

facilities must meet to satisfy the extra capacities requirement (City of

Salem, August, 1986, p. 147):

1. Design should only be considered as a legitimate part of the
cost of providing extra capacity if the design is part of a scheduled
construction activity.

2. The construction tax/d6velopment charge improvement project can
correct undersize conditions but the conditions should not be those that
are easily corrected by maintenances or for safety reasons, or may
otherwise be required through the development process.

3. The construction tax/development charge improvement project opens
vacant land or supports development of vacant land outside the currently
developed area.

There are other elements of Salem's management program which have not

been discussed here. Basic land use regulations are included in the city's

zoning and subdivision regulations. Additional functional plans exist but

have not been described. These include the city's bicycle plan, airport

master plan, and parks and recreation study, among others. As well, more

specific refinement plans have been,prepared for Salem's nei ghborhoods.

177

References

Budke, Roger, Assistant Planning Administrator, Salem Department of Community
Development, Inteview, April, 1987.

City of Salem. 1986. "Data Report: Population, Residential Construction and
Annexation, City of Salem." Report No. 9, Community Development
Department, March.

City of Salem. 1982. Salem Area CoMRrehensive Pla , acknowledged by CCDC May
20, 1982, revised most recently in January, 1987.

1986. South Salem Sectog Plan, adopted February, 10.

1986. Preliminaly Capital IMRrovement Program 1997-88
throug-h 1991-92, August.

. 1979. Urban Growth Management Program Report, August 1978,
revised May, 1979; adopted by Salem City Council July 23, 1979.

179

Eugene, Springfield and Lane Counties, Oregon

DemograRhics: A city of 200,000, home of the University of Oregon,
attractive to research and development and to high technology activities.

Natural Environment: Situated in the fertile Willamettte valley.

Recent Experience: Population projected to reach almost 300,000 by year
2000.

Distinctive Features of Planning: Regional approach to planning; timed
annexation and servicing of "urbanizable" land; preparation of refinement
plans for neighborhoods and functions; multi-jurisdictional refinement
plans; renter protection in condominium conversion law.

Tools and Techniques

A. A '11990 regional plan" sets out policies on growth management.

B. Urban Growth Boundary established.

C. A 6-10 year surplus of land available for development.

D. Annexation and plan for provision of public facilities and
services must precede conversion to urban uses.

E. Procedures established for amending comprehensive plan.

F. Refinement plans done for geographical areas under pressure from
new development and for functions such as parks, public
facilities and industrial growth areas.

G. Other significant tools are: land division and zoning ordinances;
capital improvements program; historic preservation program;
economic diversification program; bikes and bikeways; solar
access ordinance; condominium conversion law

Observations -

A. Protection of integrity of Urban Growth Boundary has been
successful.

180

Eugene.-Spriny-field and Lane County, Or@Zon

Introduction

The planning approach of the govIlernments in the Eugene metropolitan area

is interesting in the context of the Oregon Land Use Program. As with all

Oregon localities there are certain 'fundamental commonalities -- such as the

designation of an urban growth boun4ary, required under Senate Bill 100.

The Eugene planning program is somewhat unique in its regional focus.

The metropolitan area encompasses three distinct governmental units: the

cities of Eugene and Springfield, and Lane County, each with its own powers

and authorities. The metropolitan Area includes a population of approximately

200,000 people, with the largest nuiiber of people residing within the

boundaries of Eugene proper.

Focus on a Regional ADRroach to Planning and Growth Management: The Metro
Plan

The regional planning focus evident in Eugene has a long history, and in

fact precedes Senate Bill 100. While regional planning efforts date back to

the 19501s, 1972 marks an especially important year, when the three

jurisdictions joined together to adopt the "1990 regional plan," a major

accomplishment to coordinate and manage the direction of development on a

regional level. Later, following the establishment of the Oregon Land Use

System, an update of this regional plan was initiated which ultimately
resulted in the joint adoption in 1682 of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan

Area General Plan (City of Eugene, 1986). This was the culmination of

extensive work over a five-year period (1977-1982) and the result of some 250

public meetings.

181

Initially (1980), Eugene and Springfield adopted identical metropolitan

plans, but a different version of the plan was adopted by the county. Both

versions were submitted to LCDC for acknowledgement, and in 1981 LCDC

identified steps that would need to be taken for the plans to be consistent

with the statewide goals (Lane Council of Governments, 1982). In late 1981

and early 1982, a coordinated effort to modify the plan was made by the three

jurisdictions. This function was performed primarily by the Elected Officials

Coordinating Committee, consisting of two elected officials and one planning

commission member (as a non-voting member) from each of the jurisdictions.

The Lane Council of Governments also provided technical assistance. The City

of Eugene and Lane County adopted the resulting modified Metro Plan in

February of 1982, and the City of Springfield adopted the plan in March of the

same year. The common plan was again submitted to LCDC and was acknowledged

(for the area within the UGB) in August, 1982.

The metro plan's stated purpose is to "set forth general planning

policies and land use allocations and serve as the basis for the coordinated

development of programs concerning the use and conservation of physical

resources, furtherance of assets, and development or redevelopment of the

metropolitan area." (Lane COG 1982, p. I-1) As required under Senate Bill

100, the plan establishes an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) -- in this case a

regional UGB -- to accommodate population growth to the year 2000 (projected

to be 293,700). Key components of the plan include: a fundamental principles

section (putting forth the "basic concepts of the plan, including geographical

growth management and a compact urban service area); specific elements (e.g.,

residential land use and housing, environmental resources, etc.); and a

component outlying specific procedures for updating and amending the plan, as

well as resolving conflicts where they may arise. In addition to the text,

182

the plan includes a plan diagram delineating, among other things, the urban

growth boundary, different land use categories and major transportation

corridors.

Chapter II of the metro plan, "@undamental Principles," sets forth, among

other things, a list of metropolitan goals and extensive policies for managing

regional growth. This section of the plan makes a strong statement in support

of a compact and contiguous pattern of regional growth, siting the benefits of

protecting important resource lands and the greater efficiency of public

services and facilities. Its regional growth strategy is stated clearly in

the following passage:

To effectively control the potential for urban sprawl and scattered
urbanization, compact growth and the urban service area concepts are, and
will remain, the primary growth management techniques for directing
geographic patterns of urbanization in the community. In general, this
means the filling in of vacant and underutilized lands, as well as
redevelopment inside the urban growth boundary.

Outward expansion of the p,tojected urban service area, as defined in
the glossary, will occur only when it is proven necessary according to
the policies set forth in the Plan, particularly in this element (Lane
COG, 1982, p. II-B-1).

Consistent with the Oregon planning framework, its policies are defended

through the listing of a series of findings of fact.

More specific policy statements elaborate on this growth management

approach and provide greater policy direction. The plan states the policy

that urbanizable land within the urban service area will only be permitted to

convert to urban uses following annexation and when it is found that a minimum

level of certain key public services and facilities (e.g., public sewer,

police and fire protection) can be provided "in an orderly and efficient

manner." The policies in this section also identify desirable metropolitan

wide density levels, and areas where additional planning studies are needed in

183

the future. One policy states that subsequent refinement and functional plans

must be consistent with the metro plan.

The regional plan also emphasizes the importance of maintaining an

adequate surplus of available undeveloped land within the UGB. This is to be

accomplished through timely annexation of "urbanizable" lands and the

provision of accompanying facilities. The plan suggests that the cities

should strive to maintain a 6- to 10- year surplus of land (land available for

development, as a subset of "urbanizable" lands). This concept is illustrated

by Diagram C-1, found in the metro plan. The Santa Clara and River Road areas

are specifically identified in the metro plan as efficient areas to

accommodate future urban growth. One plan finding states, for instance, that

"Because of the substantial public investments already made in both

neighborhoods, it is most cost-effective to achieve urban densities in River

Road and Santa Clara prior to accommodating new development needs in totally

undeveloped areas." (Lane COG, 1982, p. II-D-5) The plan states the intent

of Eugene to extend public sewer lines and other services into these areas and

to proceed incrementally with annexation.

A general classification of desired land uses in the region is provided

in the plan diagram, categorizing areas into residential, commercial,

industrial, natural resource uses, etc. Each use is discussed and defined in

the plan text. Median density residential, for instance, is considered to

mean residential densities of between 10 and 20 dwelling units per gross acre.

More specific and detailed policies are also provided in separate sections of

the plan dealing with: residential land use and housing; economy;

environmental resources; the Willamette River Greenway, river corridors and

waterways; environmental design; transportation; public utilities, services

184

and facilities; parks and recreatiori facilities; historic preservation;

energy; and citizen involvement.

Included also in the plan are procedures for amending and updating the

plan. Any of the three jurisdictions can initiate a plan amendment, with the

pr ocess for agreeing and mutually adopting the amendment to be established on

a case-by-case basis. Citizens can also initiate amendments at specified

times during the year. The Metro Pl.An (as amended) contains specific

information concerning the procedures to be followed when considering the

am ndments, including procedural steps to be taken in resolving disagreement

by the three jurisdictions concerning proposed amendments.

The plan has been amended since its initial acknowledgement, the majority

of these amendments generated through the Plan's two and a half year mid-

period review. These amendments have been made both to the text (e.g.,

fundamental principles, policies) and to the plan diagram. The amendments do

not appear to have modified in any substantial way the general growth

management strategy as outlined above. Rather, they address a range of

specific land use and growth issues, often simply clarifying the existing plan

test. The amendments range, for inspance, from delineating new criteria for

establishing new service districts within the metropolitan area, to the

division of service responsibilities between Eugene and Springfield, to the

modification of density and use restkictions for rural lands in the region.

Refinements to the Metro Plan: Functional and Neiahborhood/SRecial Area Plans

The Metro Plan is the official LCDC-recognized plan for controlling and

guiding development and growth in the Eugene/Springfield area. Yet, it's

policies apply at a relatively large geographical scale. Moreover, the plan

does not deal in detail with a host of important functional areas from

185

transportation to industrial lands. Consequently, a number of "refinement

plans" have been prepared by the jurisdictions to expand upon and give greater

meaning and direction to the Metro Plan. The Metro Plan itself states the

importance of these refinement efforts:

While the Metropolitan Plan is the basic guiding land use document,
it is not the only such document; it can be augmented and implemented by
more detailed refinement plans and regulatory measures. Refinements are
necessary in certain geographical portions of the community where there
is a great deal of development pressure or for certain special purposes.
All refinement plans and regulatory measures must be consistent with the
Metropolitan Plan; and should inconsistencies occur, the Metropolitan
Plan is the prevailing policy document. (Metro Area General Plan
Amendments, 1986)

A procedure has been established for obtaining coordination and consensus

on refinement plans. According to this procedure, the jurisdiction preparing

the refinement plan must submit the plan for review by the other

jurisdictions. The respective planning directors in the other jurisdictions

review the proposed plan for consistency with the Metro Plan and report

findings of fact to the planning commission of the initiating jurisdiction.

The findings are to include, as well, changes that could be made to make the

refinement plan consistent. The planning commission of the initiating

jurisdiction then holds a public meeting and makes appropriate recommendations

to the initiating governing body. If the governing body chooses to adopt the

plan the decision must be accompanied by findings of fact that such a plan or

program is indeed consistent with the Metro Area Plan.

A number of refinement plans have been prepared by each jurisdiction.

The City of Eugene has adopted by far the greatest number of these refinement

plans, and several of the more important of these are described below. In

addition, each jurisdiction has its own set of regulatory (e.g., zoning and

subdivision regulations) and other ordinances with implement and must also be

consistent with the Metro Area Plan under Oregon law.

186

Regional Refinement

Refinement plans or studies have been prepared to provide more detailed

planning direction for specific functional or geographical areas. Included

among these are a regional public facilities plan (currently in progress)

which will address the provision of sewer, water and other facilities on a

region-wide level; a plan for Alton Baker Park; and TransPlan, the metro area

transportation plan. Each of these refinement plans are to be consistent with

the Metro Plan.

Several multi-jurisdictional plans and studies have also been prepared

for special areas of regional significance. The River Road-Santa Clara Urban

Facilities Plan (in progress), for instance, is intended to provide agreement

between Lane County and Eugene and Springfield upon how this area will grow,

which jurisdiction will have responsibility for providing services, and so on.

One of the most recent and interesting of the functional regional

planning efforts has been the preparation of the Alternative Industrial Growth

Areas StUd
.y (1986). This study grew out of a concern that there were
insufficient industrial sites in the' Eugene-Springfield area to accommodate

desired industrial growth and to achieve the economic diversification desired

by the region. The study concludes, among other things, that the existing

industrial land designations contained in the Metro Plan are adequate to meet

likely industrial demands for the area (high-tech industrial uses), but

probably not adequate to accommodate the needs of a heavy, large lot or

industrial park-oriented industry. If these are to accommodated, the study

identifies two specific sites that should be designated for such uses.

(designated by a new large heavy industrial category in the Metro Plan). The

study recommends holding these sites' only for large industrial development,

preventing smaller, less-intensive industrial uses which could be accommodated

187

on existing industrial sites. No actions have yet been taken on these study

recommendations.

Refinement in the City of Eugene

While both Lane County and the City of Springfield have taken numerous

actions to refine and implement the Metro Plan, for the sake of space, I will

focus on Eugene's efforts. Moreover, the refinement efforts here have been

the most extensive and in many ways the more interesting. Several of the

primary components of Eugene's attempts at refinement are described below.

This is by no means a complete listing, but identifies the more important

elements of the Eugene planning program. Diagram C-2 depicts the vertical

heirarchy and integration of the different components of Eugene's planning

program.

Urbanizable
Lands
N')
65

(U
S- e6
<

Developed Urban
Lands

1977 1980 1985 1�90 1995 2000

Diagram C-1

URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY
INN

188

1984 Eugene Community Goals and Policies. This document is a supplement

to the Metro Plan, and were initially adopted in 1967, with major updates in

1974, 1979, and 1984. These goals and policies represent "the vision of

Eugene citizens for their city" (City, of Eugene, 1986, p. 111-2). Contained

here are policies intended to guide growth and development in Eugene, and in

turn constrain and provide further direction to other elements of the Eugene

planning program (see Diagram C-2).

Neizhborhood Plans. Eugene is well known around the country as a city

strongly concerned with extending extensive land use and planning powers to

its neighborhoods. This happens through several means. Foremost is the

central position occupied by the city's neighborhood plans. The most recent

of these plans is the Westside Neighborhood Plan, adopted in January of 1987.

These plans generally set forth goals for the area, and more specific policies

to implement them, usually contained within a land use element.

The Westside Neighborhood Plan K1987), for example, in its land use

element states the following policies:

1. Prevent erosion of the neighborhood's residential character.
2. Support improving existing housing and reducing the number of
substandard units.

3. Encourage the concentration of commercial activities within the core
of downtown and prevent the conversion of residentially zoned
properties to non-residentiAl zoning districts within the Westside
neighborhood.

4. Rec,ognize the diversity of uses currently allowed in the residential,
commercial, and mixed use zoning districts that exist in the Westside
neighborhood.

5. Recognize the important role neighborhood-oriented commercial uses
play in meeting the needs of those living and working in.the area (p.
3-2).

189

Also contained in the land use element is a plan diagram for the

neighborhood, and specific discussions and policies for each separate plan

diagram zone (see Diagram C-3). Also contained in the plan are transportation

and traffic elements, public facilities and services elements, and

neighborhood character and design elements. Plan implementation strategies

and priorities are also discussed. Ideally, this type of refinement plan is

intended to "... guide the provision of public facilities and services, such

as streets and recreational facilities, and serve as a basis for evaluating

private development proposals such as those involving requests for changes in

zoning designations. It will also provide a common framework for those

engaged in conservation and redevelopment of the area." (City of Eugene,

1987, p. 1-1)

The City also contains some twenty chartered neighborhood groups, and

formal procedures exist for informing and consulting these,groups about city

planning and development matters.

Other Refinement Plans. There are a number of other refinement plans

developed and used by the City of Eugene. These include a culture/leisure

plan, an airport master plan (outlying improvements and development of Mahlon

Sweet Airport), an entrance beautification study (in progress), a bikeways

master plan, a parks and recreation master plan, a fire and emergency services

plan, a downtown housing plan.

Maior Implementation Measures

The City of Eugene uses a number of techniques and programs to implement

its plans and policies, as well as the Metro Plan and other regional planning

documents. Several of the more important implementation measures are

identified and briefly described below. This listing is necessarily selective

but does capture many of the specific components of Eugene's planning program.

190

Statewide Goals

F
,-Springfield Metropolitan
ugene Area General PI an

Eugene Community Goals and Policies

Major
Functional Plans Neighborhood Plans Implementation
and Policies Special Area Studies Activities

Diag',ram C-2

EUGENE PLANNING PROGRAM

191

9 Land Division Ordinance. This is the city's ordinance which regulates

the subdivision of land (including minor partitions, major partitions and

subdivisions) as well an annexations.

9 Com.Rrehensive Zoning Ordinance. One of the primary land use tools,

regulating the types of uses and buildings permitted, as well as regulations

concerning building height, density, and setback. The City is divided into

eighteen zoning districts. There are a number of interesting provisions

including efforts to promote mixed uses, provisions to allow shared housing

and accessory housing units, and provisions to protect solar access (see

below), among others.

Capital Improvement Program. This is a ten-year CIP program revised
and a:opted on a yearly basis. Two ty .pes or categories of projects are

identified in the program: (1) those relating to the budget process (projects

to be funded in the next three years) and (2) those relating to larger-term

planning needs (to be funded in the latter seven years). The projects listed

in the first year in the CIP are forwarded to the City's budget committee to

be included in that year's budget. A common way by which projects are

included in the CIP is through identification in functional or neighborhood

plans.

Generally, the review process for the CIP is as follows: The Draft CIP
is printed and widely distributed in the early fall of each year. The
Planning Commission holds a public hearing on the document in November or
December and forwards a recommendation to the City Council. The Council
also holds a public hearing in January, then forwards the adopted
document to the Budget Committee-for preparation of the annual budget.
(City of Eugene, 1986, p. IV-2)

Historic Preservation Program. The City is quite concerned with
prote:ting its historic buildings and resources. The City has an Historic

Review Board which regulates landmarks and construction within historic

192

districts. The Board also conducts'a public information and involvement

program.

* Economic Diversification Pr6gra . Eugene has adopted a program of

actions designed to strengthen the local economy and to shield it somewhat

from the erratic fluctuations of national economic trends (e.g., and

particularly the effects of the state's lumber and wood products industry).

The economic diversification program involves six points: site and

infrastructure development; business' assistance; marketing and recruitment;

downtown development; destination point development; and public and private

partnerships. These objectives are implemented through city policies, and a

1985 Action Plan which, among other things, identifies a number of needed

projects and tasks, and outlines ways to accomplish them.

e Bikes and Bikeways. An immediate impression of visitors to Eugene is

the emphasis given to bikes. In Eugene, unlike few other American cities,

bicycles truly represent an alternative form of transportation to the

automobile. The city, as already mentioned, has a bikeways master plan and a

history of public improvements designed to encourage and facilitate bike use.

There are many miles of protected bike lanes and paths throughout the city as

well as extensive bike facilities (6.g., bike racks).

6 Solar Access Ordinance. In 1986 the city adopted a fairly stringent

solar access ordinance, the text of which is included in the Technical

Appendix (Volume III). The ordinance, among other things, places restrictions

on the planting of certain types of trees and vegetation, and specific solar

design standards which apply in ceriain zoning districts (e.g., orientation of

subdivision lots, building sites to minimize shading, solar setback

requirements, etc.).

193

Condominium Conversion Bill. This act is illustrative of some of the
innov:tion Eugene has shown in its planning activities. The condominium

conversion issue became important in Eugene in the late seventies.

Specifically, two downtown highrise apartment buildings -- primarily occupied

by elderly residents -- were slated for conversion. (See Eugene Department of

Planning, 1986, p. 1.) An ordinance establishing a moratorium on conversion

was enacted in 1979, and remained in force until the current condominium

conversion was enacted by the City Council in June of 1980. This bill

requires a developer to obtain a conversion permit from the city prior to the

conversion of a rental unit into a condominium or cooperative housing unit.

Before issuance of such a permit, the developer must show that certain key

conditions will be satisfied. This permit will generally not be issued before

a 180 day period has passed (except in certain circumstances). Each

conversion applicant is required to prepare a tenant assistance plan (TAP)

which stipulates that the applicant will take certain actions to mitigate the

impact of the conversion on tenants. Included among these provisions are:

(1) a requirement that applicant pay moving expenses for elderly and low-

income tenants, (2) a requirement that the applicant find comparable housing

for the tenant elsewhere or provide the tenant with a lifetime tenancy, and

(3) places certain restrictions on evictions and rent increases. Comparable

housing is defined quite specifically in the bill and refers to a unit which,

among other things, rents for no more than 120% of the rent in the unit being

converted.

The condominium law has not been without controversy, however, and recent

efforts have been made to loosen its requirements. In response, a state

legislator has recently introduced a bill into the Oregon legislature which

would have made the current Eugene standards apply statewide (Detzel, 1987).

194

The full text of the Eugene Condominium Conversion Ordinance is included in

Volume III, the Technical Appendix.

Inlementation ExReriences

While the Eugene/Springfield experience is fundamentally similar to other

Oregon localities attempting to satisfy the requirements of Senate Bill 100,

it is unique in its explicit regional approach. The notion of embracing a

single comprehensive plan, adopted by each of the three jurisdictions

involved, is in the Oregon context q4ite unique. The efforts in

Eugene/Springfield to coordinate growth and development on a regional level,

and the processes and mechanisms put in place to permit this coordination and

consensus, are impressive.

As with the other Oregon localities examined, the Urban Growth Boundary

is quite important. Generally, local planning officials feel they have been

successful at protecting the integrity of the UGB, and in concert with

annexation and public facilities extension policies have been successful at

promoting a more efficient pattern of compact and contiguous growth.

Individual jurisdictions, especially Eugene, have also managed to

undertake a progressive city planning program, with an extensive neighborhood

planning focus, and the passage of such innovative planning laws as a tough

condominium conversion ordinance.

Efforts at promoting contiguous Igrowth patterns have been assisted in

recent months by the completion of EPA-funded sewer trunk lines in the River

Road-Santa Clara area. As a result, officials indicate that much of the

area's future growth will likely be funneled there to take advantage of the

existence of these facilities and to prevent inefficient extension of similar

facilities in other areas.

195

References

Brody, Susan, Planning Director, City of Eugene, interview, April, 1987.

Chenkin, Senior Planner, City of Eugene, interview, April, 1987.

City of Eugene. 1986. A Guide to Eugene's Planning Progra , Department of
Planning, July.

. 1987. Westside Neighborhood Pla . Eugene Planning
Department, adopted January 12. 1

. 1986. "Condominium Conversion Ordinance Tentative Changes,"
Memorandum, Planning Department, October 15.

Detzel, Tom. 1987. "Kerans Submits State Condo Bill, "Eugene Register Guard,
March 13.

Draft Alternative Industrial Growth A_reas Study, Eugene, Springfield, Lane
Comnty. 1986. September.

Lane Council of Governments. 1982. Eugene-SRringfield Metropolitan Area
General Plan, February-March, 1982.

1986. MetroRolitan Area General Plan Amendments,
July.

197

Austin, Texas

DemograRhics: Capital of Texas; home of flagship branch of the University
of Texas; 116 square mile area; population (1980) of 346,000, a 36%
growth for the previous decade.

Natural Environment: Situated on the Colorado River; on the edge of the
Hill Country, a recreational resource and location of second homes of
Texans living in Houston and other metropolitan areas.

Recent ExRerience: A recent city-wide planning effort was not successful.

Distingtive Features of Plannin : Herculean citizen participation process
put in place to develop a comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances;
historic view protection; protection of watersheds.

- Tools and Techniques

A. Citizen participation: representation of all factions and
interest groups in community; staged publication of a series of
milestone reports written by each task group; use of a sectoral
planning approach drawing on already existing neighborhood
associations.

B. Development of a Land Development Code.,

C. Capitol View Protection Overlay Zones.

D. Comprehensive Watershed Protection ordinance.

- Observations -

A. Participatory process itself is likely to create and sustain the
political support needed for passage of the comprehensive plan.

B. Time commitment of process has been too much for some of the
original participants, and the balanced representation,
especially of minorities, has been eroded.

198

Austin, Texas

Introduction

Austin, the capitol of Texas and the home of the main campus of the

University of Texas, has a history of an active citizenry. It is said that

everything in Austin is done by committee. It is not surprising then that

Austin's current attempt to prepare a new comprehensive plan for the city

known as "Austinplan" -- is characterized by its emphasis on community and

citizen involvement. In Austinplan, the planners, technical experts, and

full-time politicians, have taken a back seat to the community and citizen

participation.

Austinplan

Austinplan saw its beginnings in the charter Amendment passed by

referendum in January, 1985. The City was given the charge of developing and

enacting a comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances to be presented to

the City Council for action no later than February 22, 1988. According to the

mission statement adopted by the Austin City Council February 20, 1986, the

product is to be a legally binding document which does at least the following

things (DPGM, 1986, p. 7):

a Describes one community's vision of the future - where we hope to be
in the year 2020;

establishes the policy direction needed to reach that future;

specifies the tools for implementing those policies; and

evaluates the costs of carrying out the Plan.

The process by which Austinplan is to be developed has received a great

deal of emphasis, and is in many ways as important if not more important than

199

the product itself. According to the City Council Mission Statement the

process is to be based on the active participation of all segments of the

community, is to rely on consensus in decisionmaking, is oriented to action,

and starts an on-going process of plan review and refinement.

The plan, according to the mission statement, is to include, among other

things, "a description of the qualities which characterize the Austin of

2020," "a statement of goals and major policies to guide the City toward that

desired future," "an evaluation of the fiscal and economic implications of

these goals and policies," and "an analysis of the dimensions of growth and

change which are critical to the future character of the City" (Austinplan

Steering Committee, 1986).

The Austinplan Steering Committee

An 87-member Steering Committee was appointed by the City Council to

oversee the preparation of the plan. This committee is both distinctive in

its size and its composition. A conscious attempt was made when appointing

members to ensure that all factions and interest groups in the community were

duly represented. It is commonly believed that the failure of an earlier

citywide planning effort, called AustinTomorrow, was due in large part because

certain influential political interests were excluded from the process (see

Beatley, 1987). Austinplan was explicitly designed with this earlier

experience in mind. In appointing members to the committee nine specific

community interest groups were to be represented. Table G-1 presents these

groups and the member of individuals appointed in each.

200

Table G-1

ReRresentation on the Steering Committee
(as originally formed in February, 1986)

Group/Faction Number of Members

Business and Finance 6

Community at-large 21

Cultural affairs 6

Environmentalists 5

Ethnic minorities 5

Human services 7

Neighborhoods (sectors and neighborhoods) 20

Public institutions 6

Real estate and development 10

*The number and distribution of steering committee members
has changed over time.

Source: Austin Department of Planning and Growth Management

201

Austinplan Task Groups

Thirteen substantive areas were originally identified in the mission

statement as important elements in the plan. The original thirteen were

expanded to fourteen with the later addition of cultural affairs. These are

listed in Table G-2 and include such things as transportation and the

environment. Each of these elements were to "identify the key issues affecting

future growth, should contain objectives and policies to accomplish City

goals, should include a program of implementation techniques to carry out

these policies, and should include a fiscal assessment of the implementation

techniques." Moreover, each component was to be "specific enough to be used

in the evaluation of development projects and proposals for capital

improvements." (DPGM, 1986, p.8). Specific task groups were formed to deal

with each of these substantive components. Much of the actual work in

preparing the plan has so far been done by these substantive task groups.

Each member of the steering committee is also on one or more of the task

groups, along with other citizens. Typically each task group is comprised, as

well, of a number of resource people, or individuals who have some particular

experience or expertise in the subject area at hand (e.g., health services,

transportation, environment, etc.) It is estimated that about 250 citizens

are actually involved in either the steering committee or task groups. The

task groups, as well as the entire process, are staffed by the City's

Department of Planning and Crowth Management.

The bulk of the work in Austinplan so far has focused on the preparation

of a series of "milestone reports" in each of the task groups. Each task

group will eventually complete three milestone reports: Milestone 1, a

"context for evaluation" report (assessing existing conditions and trends,

identification of important values and critical issues); Milestone 2, a

202

Table G-2

Substantive Task GrouRs

Land use

Economic development

Housing

Environment

Transportation

Water/wastewater

Health/Human services

Urban design

.Recreation/open space

Public services/facilities

Public buildings/facilities

Energy

Land development code

Cultural affairs

Source: Austin Department of Planning and Growth Management

203

"strategy for action" report (providing a statement of goals, objectives and

policies and discussion of how this substantive policy area interrelates with

other areas); and Milestone 3, a "plan for implementation" (relevant criteria

and standards, plans, maps, ordinances, etc.). These three milestone reports

will then be used by the Task Groups to prepare a recommended plan element,

which will be integrated with other elements into the final Austinplan. A

technical document describing in greater detail the Austinplan process is

provided in Volume III, the Technical Appendix.

Sectoral Planning

Another important feature of Austinplan is the sectoral planning program.

While the Task Groups deal goals and policies in a particular substantive area

(e.g., transportation, urban design, energy) that would apply to the City at-

large, the sectoral planning is an attempt to plan for the development and

growth of sub-local areas. The sectoral planning program has its beginnings

prior to Austinplan, and the City has for many years had an active group of

neighborhood associations. The City is divided into 22 different sectors,

typically including multiple neighborhoods in each particular sector. Each

sector has its own sector council and bylaws for making decisions (each set of

sector bylaws is somewhat unique). The sectors have no substantive legal

powers or authority and have served essentially in an advisory role to the

City Council. According to the Council Mission Statement the sectoral plans

developed under the Austinplan process are to contain the following:

A. A map showing planned land uses and/or intensities for each part of
the sector.

B. Text addressing issues specific to that sector (for example, unique
environmental features or localized service provision problems).

C. Text identifying the contributions of this sector to reaching the
citywide goals contained in Austinplan. (DPGM, 1986, p. 8)

204

The Council Mission Statement also states that Austinplan is to devise a

"system of land use designations which define the uses and/or intensities of

development which the City encourages at particular locations," as well plan

for making necessary capital facilities and services investments. In

addition, a key component of Austinplan is the development of a land

development code. A specific task group was assigned the responsibility of

developing this code, with the input of the other task groups. Incorporating

the code as a key element was at least in major part a response to the

perceived failure of the AustinTomorrow effort. Many believed AustinTomorrow

was a failure largely because of its lack of an explicit implementation

element. A land use intensity system has been proposed as a key regulatory

tool by which to implement the plans goals and policies.

Functioning of the Austinplan Process

The Austinplan process is a relatively bold attempt to put in the hands

of citizens a complex planning process. It remains to be seen whether the

process will result in a workable plan and implementing program. Both

positive and negative aspects of the process can be cited so far. On the

positive side, participants in the process have generally been able to keep up

with the frenzied pace of the program, and the task groups have accomplished

much. A number of task groups have completed their second milestone report

and appear to be on schedule. While there have been numerous points of

contention along the way, these have been overcome and the process has moved

steadily forward. Once the plan is put forward to the City Council for review

and adoption, and once adopted, it is hoped that the process will have created

a political credibility and support group that has not existed in the past.

As one task group chair recently commented, "We're in it for whatever time it

205

takes for completion of the plan. We will lobby for it and once accomplished,

will monitor it to keep the gains in place."

Difficulties are also apparent in this type of participatory planning.

The time and energy commitments required of participants are tremendous and a

number of individuals have dropped out of Austinplan because of them. Loss of

minority representation, and increasingly representatives of the business

community, may spell future political difficulties for the resulting plan.

For many participants it is difficult to visualize the product of their

tremendous efforts and this has been frustrating. A major element of

uncertainty is how all the different pieces of plan will be meshed together to

create a unified direction for the city. Despite these difficulties and

uncertainties the Austinplan process has already accomplished much and

represents one of the most ambitious experiments in democratic growth

management 'ever to have been embarked upon.

In addition to the Austinplan process, Austin has developed a number of

smaller-scope growth management programs. Included among these are its

comprehensive watershed protection ordinance and its capitol View Protection

Overlay Zones which has been discussed briefly in Volume I (the trends

report). The full text of these two ordinances are included in Volume III,

the Technical Appendix.

206

References

Austinplan Department of Planning and Growth Management. 1986. The
Austinplan Process, February 22.

Beatley, Timothy. 1987. Preliminary Observations on the Austinplan Process,
prepared for Austin Department of Planning and Growth Management.

Interviews with Norman Standerfer, Director, Austin Department of Planning and
Growth Manager; Karen Walz, Chief, Comprehensive Planning Division; as
well as numerous staff and citizens.

207

Charlotte, North Carolina

Demographics: Population of 446,000; a healthy economy and steady
population growth with prediction of 575,000 by the year 2005. Rapidly
developing into a throughly urban region where there once was the
ambience of a small town with several distinctive neighborhoods
surrounded by low density suburban development and rural lands.

Natural Environment: In the foothills of the Blud Ridge mountains.

Distinctive Features of Planning: Citizen pa rticipation including
citizen study groups and a community-wide symposium; emphasis on
"balanced growth" for entire city-county region, rather than
concentrating on the urban edge; public-private partnerships encouraged;
thorough revision of regulations to reflect realities of an increasingly
urban community.

Tools and Techniques

A. Strong emphasis on processes of citizen participation and
consensus building; e.g., sponsorship of community-wide symposia
on urban issues; invited citizen review and revision of position
papers on growth issues.

B. Emphasis on city-county cooperation in planning process and on
regional scope; region divided into seven planning districts.

C. A "Generalized Land Plan 2005," the culmination of citizen
participation processes and leadership from planning departments,,
which along with demographic projections and other elements,
clearly stated community preferences, adopted in 1985.

D. "Development enterprise areas" were established to redirect
growth to weak market areas.

E. Development and implementation of a city-county public investment
program.

F. Major revision of regulatory codes, originally written in the 60s
and drawn up for suburban, low density development, so that they
respond to the needs of an urban area.

208

Observations

A. Consensus-building processes address the tension between the
goals of continuing economic vitality and the desire to maintain
and enhance the quality of life.

209

Charlotte, North Carolina*

Introduction

Located among the gently rolling hills that form the dividing line

between the Carolinas, Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, North Carolina have

benefitted from the sunbelt growth of the past decade. The area has witnessed

steady population growth fueled by the location and expansion of business and

industry. While the economy of Mecklenburg County is bolstered by a diverse

group of business concerns, the City of Charlotte has gained a national .

reputation as a leader in banking and other financial services. Economic

vitality may be the primary attraction for newcomers to the area, but closely

related and equally important is the perceived high quality of life in

Charlotte-Mecklenburg County.

With full recognition of the importance of these two assets livability

and economic vitality -- community leaders have sought to determine the

implications of future growth in an effort to protect and strengthen the

area's most cherished qualities. Their work has resulted in an innovative and

effective growth management program. Of particular interest, aside from the

tools used to guide growth, is the exemplary process through which city and

county officials were able to reach community consensus on the desired pattern

of future growth and development in Charlotte-Mecklenburg County-

Charlotte's Urban Growth

Population figures for Charlotte-Mecklenburg County document the area's

steady growth. There were approximately 416,700 residents in the city and

county in 1980 (RTKL Associates, Inc. et al, 1980, p. 10). The population

*Prepared by Joel Alan Boyette

210

estimate rose to 445,479 by 1985, with year 2005 projections of 573,866

(Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission, November, 1985, p. 14). The joint

planning commission reported that this growth would bring about 136,058 new

jobs and require the construction of app roximately 68,190 additional homes.

These estimates were partially responsible for convincing area leaders that

effective land use planning was necessary to accommodate the rapidly changing

.pattern of growth and development in Charlotte-Mecklenburg County.

While helpful for planning purposes, Charlotte-area residents did not

need access to population and development figures iri order to realize that the

city-county area was becoming an increasingly urban place. In a 1985

assessment of the growth situation, The Generalized Land-Plan 2005 included

the following observations.

It is clear from these prospects, as well as from development
patterns of recent years, that we are well on our way to becoming an
urban communit7. We are literally becoming more urban each day. It can
be said of Charlotte-Mecklenburg that we are now:

� A community of increasing urban character, yet wishing to retain its
unique neighborhood assets and natural and historic features;

� a community growing in regional interdependence, yet wanting to
maintain its special economic, social, and cultural identity; and

� a community striving vigorously to integrate into an economic
structure of national and international character, while still needing
to ensure a distinctive quality of life for residents at all income
levels (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission, November, 1985,
p. 5).

With these community preferences and growth pressures in mind, local leaders

determined that involvement by city and county residents would be crucial for

the success of any growth management effort. Already experienced in building

effective citizen participation programs, the planning commission accepted the

challenge of establishing a workable process of citizen involvement.

211

A Process Emerges

Long before the 1985 adoption of the 2005 plan, Charlotte-Mecklenburg

officials were involved in efforts to include the public in programs designed

to guide future growth. In 1979,-Thg Charlotte News claimed that "The issue

most crying out for planning commission advice and leadership.... is 'growth

management.' And it is to this hot and divisive issue that the commission

will first direct its new-found energies" (Bradbury, 1979). The "new-found

energies" included the appointment of a new planninj director and an increase

in the level of participation among planning commission members.

One of the first priorities of the newly hired director was to establish

a consensus among local residents on the preferred pace and direction of

growth. In 1979 and 1980, he periodically served as a guest columnist for

local newspapers, keeping planning and growth management issues alive with

articles such as "Cooperation Needed as We Face Growth," and "Planning as

Consensus Building" (Cramton, November, 1979; February, 1980). The first

article stated that "an open forum for discussion of growth and change is

required among neighborhoods, civic, business, education, service, and general

public interests ... It is expected that the Charlotte Mecklenburg Planning

Commission will promote such discussion in the months to come." Within two

months, the Charlotte City Council and Mecklenburg Board of County

Commissioners had established a panel of five citizen study groups with a

total of 65 members. The ten weekly meetings of these groups culminated in

the communitywide Urban Symposium Conference held at the Charlotte Civic

Center in April 1980.

Over 2,500 area residents attended the series of keynote addresses and

discussion forums and recorded their viewpoints on individual questionnaires.

Sixteen additional public meetings were hosted by the planning commission

212

between May and September, 1980 to consider the issues raised by the study

groups, other symposium participants, and an appointed citizens advisory

committee. The results of this citizen participation process led to the
planning commission's recommendations for updating many planning policies and

provided a planned, cooperative, and coordinated approach to the urban change

occurring in the city and county (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission,

August, 1983, pp. 6-11).

Plannine for Urban Change

In the early 1980s, Charlotte and Mecklenburg County were changing more

rapidly than local officials had anticipated. The lure of a healthy economy

brought growth, and along with it, immediate problems such as water shortages,

traffic congestion, and inadequate open space. According to one observer,

"The ominous prospect emerged of a weakened economy over the long run, because

of the spilling over of jobs, households, and tax revenues into adjacent

jurisdictions (Cramton and Morris, April, 1986, p. 3).

Attempting to shift policy toward existing trends in urban growth and

development, the planning commission released its "Urban Policy Program"

(August, 1983) and "1990 Transportation and Land Development Policy"

(December, 1983). Heavily influenced by citizen input, the first document

maintains as a central theme that a public and private partnership should

exist in planning and development. It "highlights the consensus building

approach and content of Charlotte-Mecklenburg's planning for urban change" and

emphasizes that "the notion of a community working together is being followed

in Charlotte-Mecklenburg" (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission, August,

1983).

The second document relied upon the results of a citizen survey conducted

by the Urban Institute at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte

213

(Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission, December, 1983, p. 6). This

survey on housing and transportation issues among Charlotte-Mecklenburg

residents was widely used by planners who formulated recommendations on land

use strategies. However, it was realized that the strategic gains provided by

this work, along with the policy achievements of the citizen participatory

urban symposium process, still fell short in terms of the community's eventual

need for a comprehensive plan that would take into consideration Charlotte-

Mecklenburg's increasingly urban characteristics. Accordingly, the planning

commission was charged in early 1984 with the task of preparing a new land use

plan for Charlotte and Mecklenburg County.

Maintaining Citizen Involvement

Local officials remained firm in their conviction that the key to the

planning process is consensus building through public participation. An

elaborate process of citizen involvement gradually ensued. In February 1984,

the planning commission released a document that clarified the current

official position on growth issues. This compilation of objectives, policies,

and strategies formed a starting point for discussion. By the following

month, over 700 citizens had met to review this working document. An "Issues

Report," released in April 1984, summarized the reviewers' comments and

emphasized the issues of greatest concern (Cramton and Morris, April, 1986).

Public participation continued in a formal manner on May 1, 1984., as the

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission sponsored a conference entitled,

"Urban Renaissance: Planning for a Livable Community" (Charlotte-Mecklenburg

Planning Commission, May, 1984). Tracing its roots to the 1980 Urban

Symposium, the conference attracted over 600 registrants for an open

discussion of growth and development issues in Charlotte-Mecklenburg.

214

In December of 1984, a consultant hired by the City and County released

projections regarding the relative strength or weakness of

Charlotte/Mecklenburg's seven planning districts. These growth assumptions

served as a point of discussion for local officials as well as for those from

neighboring town and county governments. This process provided an

understanding of the potential effect of development in the wider region.of

Charlotte-Mecklenburg County and also established among area governments a

working rapport for future planning efforts (Cramton and Morris, April, 1986).

Between March and June of 1985, public meetings were held in each of the

seven planning districts to review and modify a working draft document that

included statements of the community's growth assumptions, objectives,

policies, and tools. The purpose of these meetings was also to determine the

general attitudes toward growth in each district. This process led to the

development of broad land use strategies and infrastructure policies. Growth

accommodation was emphasized in strong market areas, while weak markets were

targeted for growth inducing strategies that would increase the population and

employment bases.

Subsequent citizen input allowed for the identification of critical

issues generated by the assumptions of future growth trends. These were

addressed in the 2005 plan and served as the basis for Charlotte-Mecklenburg's

growth management activities.

215

Growth Manazement in Charlotte-Mecklenbur

Charlotte-Mecklenburg has taken an unconventional approach to growth

management. According to the planning director, many growth management

programs are biased toward the urban edge, with insufficient attention paid to

the inner city and existing suburban areas. Rather than concentrate its

energies on new development on the urban edge, the planning staff sought

growth management objectives for the entire city-county area. Public hearings

that were part of the 2005 land planning process made it clear that the

community supported a more balanced growth pattern, an increasingly urban land

use pattern, and a stronger urban design consciousness (Charlotte-Mecklenburg

Planning Commission, November, 1985, p 6). To achieve these goals, a three

part action plan was devised. This included an emphasis on continued land

planning, appropriate public investment through capital budgeting, and

effective use of regulatory powers and the legislative process (Cramton, July,

1987).

Charlotte-Mecklenburg officials evaluated a variety of tools in

implementing its growth management program. Under the strategy of continued

land planning, development enterprise areas have been established in order to

redirect growth toward weak market areas. These were believed to be

necessary, according to the planning commission, "to alleviate the present

development imbalance that is causing overcrowded roads and over-used services

in the south and east and bringing on school closings and deterioration

elsewhere" (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission, June, 1986, p. 2). The

planning commission defines development enterprise zones as intensive

employment and housing centers that serve as magnets to attract growth to less

intensively developed areas. Area plans are also completed for defined

regions where growth and development problems exist.

216

In terms of capital budgeting activities, growth management is

facilitated through the city-county public investment program, covering five-

and teii-year periods. This involves the 10-year capital needs inventory and

.the five-year capital improvement program. For example, priority growth areas

may receive infrastructure funding in order to stimulate additional private

sector investment. The local business community has supported this sort of

incentive as a means of achieving balanced growth; their primary concerns have

stemmed from what they perceived to be development disincentives, such as

impact fees (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission, June 4, 1986, p.5.).

The use of regulatory provisions is probably the most important aspect of

Charlotte-Mecklenburg's growth management effort. Heavily relied upon are the

recently revised codes for zoning, subdivisions, and sign control. Revision

of these regulations became necessary when local leaders realized that these

land use guidelines, written in the 1960s, reflected a suburban, low density

bias that was inconsistent with the area's increasingly urban flavor. At the

beginning of the ordinance revision workshop, held in June, 1986, Charlotte's

mayor emphasizes that the existing codes were inadequate to guide growth in a

manner compatible with the community vision expressed in the 2005 plan

(Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission, June 4, 1986, p. 4).

Design standards were built into the revised ordinances and the approval

of rezoning applications was tied to the availability of infrastructure. In

this manner, the burden is placed upon the applicant to prove that the

proposal will not stimulate or compound infrastructure problems. Policy

guidelines also exist for farmland preservation and stormwater management.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg has sought equitable ways to distribute the costs

of services between the public and private sectors. Since continued growth is

likely in the strongest market areas, funds for road improvements, parks, and

217

water and sewer projects are necessary for growth accommodation. Impact fees

and development taxes, which can be levied to assist a community in paying for

a variety of capital improvements, are therefore being studied as additional

growth management tools. Exactions, which are, agreements between private

developers and local government concerning improvements to be made either on

or off site by the developers, are also being evaluated (Charlotte-Mecklenburg

Planning Commission, March, 1987, p. 25).

Conclusion

In Charlotte-Mecklenburg County, growth management is an ongoing, dynamic

process. Through the use of continued land planning, the regulatory framework,

and capital budgeting, the program has the potential for yielding a response

that is in the best interest of the community with regard to the specific

growth issue being considered. Local officials believe that the key to

effectiveness is determining the scope and direction of growth favored by the

community's residents. Accordingly, growth management in Charlotte-

Mecklenburg is characterized by its citizen participatory process of consensus

building.

A second characteristic of growth management.in Charlotte-Mecklenburg is

the emphasis on continued planning and growth accommodation in the entire

city-county area. Rather than focusing on limiting the successive rin gs of

new development at the urban edge, local planners are working to ensure that

growth can be adequ ately accommodated, particularly in the inner city and

existing suburban development zones.

Finally, planners and other officials in Charlotte-Mecklenburg realized

that the city-county area was becoming increasingly urban and that their low

density, suburban oriented ordinances were inadequate for guiding growth as

218

they desired. Therefore, a third characteristic of growth management in

Charlotte-Mecklenburg is the effort at targeting the regulatory framework

toward existing development trends and the community's vision of the future.

As the city, county, and region continue to grow, planners will continue

to face new challenges. Economic prosperity may be accompanied by continued

urban change, possibly creating problems for residents currently accustomed to

a more rural lifestyle. These individuals, as well as others in the inner

city or suburban areas, may feel that the area's economic vitality will

ultimately threaten the quality of life in the community. However, effective

growth management has been shown to be a strategy that holds the promise of

allowing these two qualities to exist simultaneously in Charlotte-Mecklenburg.

219

References

Bradbury, Tom. 1979. "Ambitious Agenda," The Charlotte News, October 4.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission. 1987. "Uptown Mixed Use District
Ordinance and Urban Design Guidelines," April.

1987. "The 1987 Spring Retreat: A Summary," March.

1987. "South Mecklenburg Interim District Plan," March.

1986. "1986 Annual Report," June.

1986. "Proceedings Report of the Ordinance Revision
Workshopfor Zoning, Subdivision, and Sign Ordinances in Charlotte and
Mecklenburg County," June 4.

1986. "Zoning, Sign, and Subdivision Ordinances
Revisions," January.

1985. "Generalized Land Plan 2005 - Final Text,"
November.

1985. "1985 Annual Report," June.

1984. "1984 Annual Report," June.

1984. "Urban Renaissance: Planning for a Livable
Community, Proceedings Document," May 1.

. 1983. "1990 Transportation and Land Development Policy,"
December.

1983. "Urban Policy Program for Charlotte-Mecklenburg:
Basis,for Planning and Partnerships," August.

1983. "1983 Annual Report," June.

Cramston, Martin R., Jr., Director, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission,
interview, July 15, 1987.

Cramston, Martin R., Jr. 1984. "Development Dialogue: Getting the Message
Across in Charlotte-Mecklenburg County," Urban Land, April.

Cramston, Martin, Jr. 1980. "Planning as Consensus Building," The Charlotte
News, February 21.

Cramston, Martin R., Jr. 1979. "Cooperation Needed as We Face Growth," The
Charlotte News, November.

220

Cramston, Martin R., Jr., and Carol Stealey Morris. 1986. "Managing Growth
Through Strategic Planning: Charlotte-Mecklenburg's 2005 Plan," Urban
Land, April.

RTKL Associates, Inc., Real Estate Research Corporation and Wilbur Smith and
Associates. 1980. Charlotte: Central Area Plan.

221

City of Boulder/Boulder County, Colorado

Demographics: Settled in 1850s as mining town; located 25 miles
northwest of Denver in a county of 750 square miles; population of
86,000; combined city-county population of 200,000; home of the
University of Colorado.

Natural Environment: The Boulder Valley is bounded by the Rockies to the
west and plateaus to the east and south; the western border follows the
Continental Divide.

Recent Experience: Rapid rates of city growth: 1960s, 77%; 1970s, 15%;
1980s, 12%; referendum in early 70s directed city-county leaders to
determine and control for optimum population and growth rate for region.

Distinctive Features of Planning: To protect mountains, establishment of
elevation boundary beyond which city water would not be extended; early
development of comprehensive regional plan; consecutive implementation of
two plans to limit growth rate.

- Tools and Techniques -

A. To control development on the mountains, the extension of city
water services was delimited by establishing a "Blue Line" at
about altitude 6000'.

B. Comprehensive plan written for Boulder Valley in 1970 to respond
to explosive growth.

C. Spurred by a public referendum, city implemented interim growth
policies while a study of future regional growth options was
carried out.

D. A cap on annual rate of growth at 2%, with a merit system to
evaluate permit requests.

E. A second "cap", imposed when earlier one ended, uses a
proportional allocation system to encourage favored uses such as
low cost housing.

- Observations

A. Imposition of "blue line" not effective in protecting mountains
from development, but led to program of open space acquisition,
which has been effective.

222

B. The true effect of development cap difficult to evaluate since it
was imposed coincident with a dramatic slowing of growth.

C. Downtown revitalization efforts appear to have benefitted from
the limited permit plan.

D. Some note that a negative effect of annual permit restriction has
been rise in housing costs; others say inflation explains the
rise.

223

City of Boulder/Boulder County, Colorado

Introduction

The City of Boulder is located approximately twenty-five miles northwest

of Denver. Nestled in the Boulder Valley, between plateaus to the east and

south, and the front range of the Rockies to the west, the city has a

population of about 86,000 (Baron, 1987). Boulder city is located within the

county of Boulder, with a total population of around 200,000 (and containing

about 750 square miles). The county's western border follows the Continental

Divide. Boulder is also the home of the University of Colorado, with a total

enrollment of about 23,000. Settled in the 1850's as a pioneer mining town,

Boulder has acquired the reputation of being a highly desirable place in which

to live and work. Part of this attraction, which the city has worked hard to

protect, is clearly related to the area's immense beauty. The attractiveness

of the area has lead to high rates of growth since the 1960s. Between 1960

and 1970, the city grew by approximately 77%. While substantially lower, the

city grew by about 15% between 1970 and 1980, and by about 12% between 1980

and 1987.

Efforts to manage and plan for growth are, in fact, not new in Boulder.

An analysis of Boulder's settlement history documents the establishment of The

Boulder City Town Company, and the development within this association of

different growth factions.-- the "lowers" and the "uppers." "The 'lowers'

wanted to encourage men to come to the valley and settle their families on

relatively cheap land. The 'uppers' felt that the company should control

immigration by setting a high value on the real estate" (Smith, 1981). As it

turned out, the uppers gained control and the community began as a relatively

224

exclusive real estate venture, with lots along Boulder Creek put up for sale

at a tremendous $1,000 a piece (a great deal of money considering that

homestead lands were selling at $1.25 per acre). From its early beginnings

the Boulder Company placed substantial restrictions on the way the town

developed. As Smith (1981:18) notes:

Already Boulder City had 'city planners' and 'building codes' at
work. The company specified that a cabin foundation must be laid in
seven days; the cabin walls must measure more than eight and one-half
feet to the eaves. Chimneys must be built inside the cabin.
Construction must be finished within sixty days; houses must be oriented
north and south. Streets were to be eighty feet wide, alleys twenty feet
wide. No stoves had been built, and any goods that were available were
sold from wagons.

Modern Growth Management in Boulder: The Blue Line. The Boulder Vallay
CoMprehensive Plan and the "Danish Plan"

The City of Boulder has employed a number of techniques over the years

designed to influence the rate, location and quality of its growth (see

Godschalk, Brower et al. 1979). Early among these efforts was the delineation

of the so-called Blue Line in 1958, strongly advocated by the citizens group

PLAN-Boulder. This line, drawn along the 5,750 foot elevation, was to mark

the western border of city water service. Beyond the line, the city would not

extend these services. The intention of the line was essentially to prevent

the loss of its western mountains to development. The city found later that

the Blue Line did not ensure the protection of its mountains, and at least

partly because of this initiated what has become an extensive open space

acquisition program. The history and specific provisions of this program are

described in detail in a subsequent section below.

A significant planning milestone was the adoption, both by the city and

county, of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan in 1970. This plan provided

a set of development and growth policies for the 58 square mile area called

225

Boulder Valley, including the city of Boulder, and projected a population

growth of 140,000 by the year 19�0. This projection lead many citizens groups

in the city to campaign for growth management measures which would place some

form of cap or limit on these projected growth levels. After a failed attempt

to pass a citizen-initiated population cap in 1971, a similar measure proposed

by the Boulder City Council did gain approval in a later referendum. The

failed referendum, advanced by a group called Zero Population Growth (ZPA),

"sufficiently frightened the prevailing local establishment" that they

proposed their own measure which did pass (Danish, 1986, p. 27). The measure

was in the form of a policy directive, calling on the city, in cooperation

with the county, to determine the "optimum population and growth rate for the

Boulder Valley," and in the interim to take actions necessary to hold the

growth rate below that experienced during the 1960s. This in turn led to the

adoption of a set of interim growth policies, including a resolution that all

new development projects incorporate low and moderate income housing.

In 1973 a study of future growth options for the city and county was

prepared by the Boulder Area Growth Study Commission (BAGS) which layed the

groundwork for the city's current program. A major focus of Boulder's growth

management effort which grew at this period was the creation of a cap on the

annual rate of growth in the city, fashioned after Petaluma's (California).

Passed by referendum in November, 1976, the program -- known as the "Danish

Plan" because it was the brainchild of then City Councilman Paul Danish

placed an annual limit on building permits. Based on the intention of

limiting annual growth to between 1.5 and 2.0 percent per year, this resulted

in an average annual limit of 450 building permits over a five year period.

These permits were issued according to a point system giving preference to

certain factors and community objectives (the so-called "merit system"). In

226

particular, points were awarded based on the inclusion of low and moderate

income housing, public facilities, environmental elements and site design (see

Godschalk, Brower et al., 1979). Because of a sunset clause the ordinance

went out of existence in 1982.

The New Annual Development CaR

The city has modified the original Danish Plan idea several times since

1982. The city currently maintains an annual development permit cap system,

but it is substantially different from the Danish approach. The new

provisions, adopted in January, 1985 are found in Chapter 6, "Residential

Growth Management System," of the City's Land Use Regulations. Table M-1

presents the yearly allocation of building permits established for Boulder

through 1990. The new provisions maintain the same objective of keeping

annual growth to 2%, yet they replace the merit point system with a

proportional allocation system. This system awards a particular applicant

that number of permits which represents his or her proportion of the total

pool of requested permits. That is,

If the total number of allocations applied for in a development is
more than the number which can be applied for... the applications shall be
reduced pro-rata so that the total applications applied for in any such
development do not exceed such number. But no application shall be
reduced to less.than one allocation, unless the total number of
allocations within a development exceeds the number of allocations for
which the development may apply.'..in which case a random selection will
be used to reduce the allocations to the allowed number (Section 9-6-6).
(See a similar explanation in Section 9-6-7).

These building permit allocations are issued at four points during the

year: February 1, May 1, August 1, and November 1. The city is permitted to

issue only 25% of the year allocations at each of these points, although this

can be modified under certain circumstances. Applications for permits cannot

be made until the land for which the units would be used first meets all land

227

use and zoning requirements (e.g., has obtained the necessary rezoning).

While the city is usually restricted to the quantity of permits listed for

each year in Table M-1, the actual permits available may differ either because

there are unallocated permits carried over from the previous year, or the city

(Planning Board) has chosen to borrow, which it has the power to do, from the

next year's allocation. (Note: The entire text of the ordinance amending the

annual permit cap and establishing the proportional allocation system is

included in Volume III, the Technical Appendix.)

Certain kinds of residential development are exempt from the allocation

restrictions. Specifically, the following types of development can be issued

a building permit without receiving an allocation: (1) low income dwelling

units and moderate income dwelling units up to a certain number when in

combination with low income units; (2) detached dwelling units on single lots

platted before November, 1976; (3) housing built by the University of

Colorado; and (4) up to thirty exemptions per year, at the Planning Board's

discretion, for development projects involving historic buildings, mixed

commercial and residential uses in certain zoning districts, and group housing

for a special population (Note that "exemption" refers to a single dwelling

unit; thus thirty exemptions means exemptions for 30 dwelling units.)

There has been considerable debate over the local effects of this type of

annual permit restriction. In recent years Boulder's growth has not been

meteoric, as it was in the 1960's, and the annual permit restrictions have not

caused great hardship. For critics of the program, the most frequently cited

negative effect is the increase in the cost of local housing. Paul Danish,

.looking back on the city's permit allocation system, has questioned this

conventional wisdom:

That initial growth ordinance had four consequences worth
mentioning. First, it had no lasting effect on the average price of a

228

housing unit. Historically, Boulder housing prices have run 10 to 15
percent above those in Denver. But in the six months immediately
following the enactment of the ordinance, that gap grew to about 25 to 30
percent. The gap, however, closed again almost immediately; the
differential dropped back down to its normal 10 to 15 percent; and the
two sets of housing prices went up almost in lockstep during the rest of
the life of the ordinance.

The ordinance was in affect from 1977 to 1982. And this was a
period of fairly high housing inflation in the Denver/Boulder market.
Although it was widely perceived that the ordinance did,contribute to
higher housing prices, the data - looked at closely at the end of the
period of the ordinance - showed that the evidence for this perception
simply was not there (1986, p. 29).

Danish identifies three other possible effects of the annual permit

restrictions: downtown revitalization, demographic effects (specifically on

the traditional family and income distribution) and effects on the growth

rates of neighboring localities. Danish believes there is little evidence to

suggest that the syst em had the latter two effects, though he does believe

downtown revitalization has been enhanced through the system. Downtown

revitalization appears to have been advanced significantly, both because of

exemptions in the original ordinance for small projects on existing lots and

because a large percentage of the annual permits was aside for construction in

Central Boulder. (This is an incentive which, of course, no longer exists in

the ordinance.)

229

Table M-1

Yearly Allocation of Dwelling Units in Boulder

Year Allocations

1985 799

1986 815

1987 831

1988 847

1989 865

1990 882

Source: Boulder Land Use Regulations

230

Conversion of the Merit System to Mandatory Performance Standards

What was intended to be accomplished by the merit point system is now

being accomplished by virtue of the fact that all development is subject to

strong performance standards in many of the same substantive areas. Chapter 7

of the land use regulations, for example, establishes certain requirements for

moderate income housing which are mandatory, rather than optional.

Specifically, this provision requires that a certain percentage of the units

in each new residential development be affordable units (i.e., for low or

moderate income residents). These can be units either for sale or rent. The

required percentage depends on whether the set asides are for low or moderate

income units, and when the land was annexed by the city. For residential

developments on land annexed on or after December 18, 1973, 15% of the units

must be for moderate-income residents, or 7.5% for low income residents. For

developments on land annexed to the city before December 18, 1973, the

required percentage drops to 10% for moderate income units or 5% for low

income units. In some circumstances this requirement can be satisfied in

other ways besides the provision of actual units, such as through cash

payments. Generally the units must be provided on the actual development site

being proposed. If a developer provides a greater number of low or moderate

income units than required, there is a provision in the land use code which

would allow him or her to use these toward the affordable housing requirements

in future projects. The Boulder Housing Authority has primary responsibility

for administering these provisions (including how low and moderate income will

be defined).

Resource conservation (i.e., energy, water) is another example of these

performance standards. All new dwelling units built in Boulder must satisfy

resource conservation standards. Specifically, Chapter 3 includes a point

231

system assigning points to developments with certain energy and resource

conservation features. Each proposed project must accumulate a minimum score

of twenty points to gain approval. The system allows, for example, for the

awarding of two points for proposed developments where 80% or more of the new

residential buildings are either "oriented within thirty degrees of true

south; and ... physically and structurally capable of supporting at least

seventy-five square feet of solar collectors for each dwelling unit in the

building..." The system gives six points, for instance, to projects using

natural gas space heating equipment, where a minimum analyzed fuel utilization

efficiency of 96% is achieved. As a further example, three points would be

obtained for projects which incorporate toilets with a 2.0 gallon flush

maximum. (These provisions have also been included in Volume III, the

Technical Appendix.) Separate minimum solar access standards must also be

satisfied. Minimum.performance requirements also exist for a range of other

issues, including floodplain management, landscaping, and bicycle parking,

among others.

Adeguate Public Facilities and Urban Growth Phasing

While the rate of growth provisions contained in the Boulder Land Use

Regulations establish an annual permissible quantity of growth, these

provisions do not explicitly indicate where this growth should or will go.

Boulder City and Boulder County have together ratified a set of policies in

the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (revised 1986) which are intended to

govern the physical expansion of the city and which identify those locations

where future growth is to be preferred. A centerpiece among these policies is

the city and county agreement that new urban development should only occur

where adequate urban facilities and services exist. Indeed, the presence of

232

adequate levels of urban services is what indicates to the city that an area

can accommodate urban development. The county agrees that it is desirable and

appropriate for the city, not the county, to provide these urban services.

The Boulder Valley Comprehensive specifically delineates what is meant by

11adequate urban services," providing specific service levels (criteria) for

the availability of public water, public sewer, urban fire and police

protection, urban transportation, parks and schools. The Plan sets out for

each of these service areas, detailed criteria which address adequacy in terms

of responsiveness to public objectives, sufficiency of funding and operational

effectiveness. The criteria range in specificity from general statements

about the quality of the service or facility to specific operational

objectives. In the case of fire service, for instance, an area is considered

adequately serviced if it is within a six-minute response zone (among a list

of other service requirements). In the case of police protection, patrol

routes must be located so that development areas are within a two-minute

emergency response time, twenty-four hours a day. As a further example,

specific design standards are specified for adequate public sewer and water

service, including minimum size, pressure and flow standards.

These adequate facility standards are thus used in identifying areas

suitable for urban development. The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan states

the important policy connection between facilities and urban growth:

In Boulder County, and not unlike most other areas throughout the
country, land use regulations have traditionally permitted urban areas
and development in areas where inadequate urban facilities and services
are not yet provided, coordinated or planned. If it is uniformly and
universally agreed that the resulting patterns of leapfrog remote urban
development are inefficient, wasteful, and seriously contrary to the
public interest, health, safety and welfare. one of the most important
objectives of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan is the reduction, if
not elimination, of this urban sprawl.

The basic outlines and approach of the Plan can be concisely stated.
The areas immediately surrounding the City can most efficiently and

233

effectively be provided facilities and services by the City. These areas
are the most logical areas for urban development. The city intends to
provide, on a phased basis over the planning period, the facilities and
services to accommodate this urban development. This context should be
kept in mind when considering the policies and other statements that
follow. (Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, p. 5).

The Plan divides the Boulder Valley into three zones for the purpose of

managing growth, and are tied to the plan's fifteen year planning period.

Area I is the existing city and contains urban services and facilities

sufficient to continue to accommodate urban growth. On the other end of

growth continuum, Area III, most of it under County jurisdiction, includes

areas which do not have adequate services to accommodate urban growth and are

not likely to have them within the next 15 years. Lands designated as Area II

are expected to accommodate urban growth within the 15 year planning period,

as adequate services and facilities come on line. These areas have been

further divided into IIA and IIB, with the former representing areas which

will be ready for urban development first (within three years), and the latter

areas will be ready at a later part in the fifteen year planning period

(between 3 and 15 years). This growth policy scheme is implemented primarily

through annexation and the city's capital improvements program. Annexation is

required by the city before adequate public facilities and services are

provided. The county, as will be described in more detail below, reinforce

these growth planning policies both through its land use regulations which

keep to low levels the amount of permissible rural development and by clearly

staying out of the business of providing urban services and facilities. The

city and county have entered into an intergovernmental agreement which permits

each to have a substantial say in the planning and regulatory decisions of the

other (this is also described below). The city's very active open space

program (also described below) has created a nearly contiguous greenbelt

around the city which also reinforces these growth policies.

234

While this method of identifying growth areas and defining them in terms

of the future availability of public facilities and services appears to work

well in Boulder, the planning director indicates that to some the time periods

are confusing. Some landowners and developers want to know when the fifteen

year period begins, and exactly when different areas will have adequate

services. As the director explains, the time periods attached to different

growth areas are meant to be "design" timeframes. For many reasons, including

changes in local population trends, land designated as an Area II may not have

adequate facilities provided within fifteen years. Rather, these are

approximate timeframes.

Another aspect of Boulders public facility policies are its impact tees.

For a number of years the city has imposed sewer and water plant investment

fees, and a parklands acquisition. A new proposal is currently under

consideration which would create a development excise tax, which would collect

funds from new development to pay for the costs of providing the following

services and facilities: police, fire, library, human services, municipal

offices, streets, and parks and recreation improvements. These fees would

apply to both commercial and residential developments. A single excise tax

would be imposed, and would be set at 79 cents for each square foot of floor

area in the case of commercial development. For residential development the

tax would be set at approximately $1800 for each single-unit dwelling, or $690

for each unit in a multi-unit dwelling or for each mobile home. These funds

would be collected and deposited in one central fund to be used for capital

improvements in the various service areas identified.

Height Restrictions and Other Land Use Regulations

Along with Boulder's more unique growth management provisions, the city

also employs relatively conventional regulatory mechanisms in effective ways

235

to accomplish community objectives. One relatively effective conventional

regulation is the city's building-height limitation. A fifty-five foot height

limitation for all buildings was es tablished through a citizen initiative.

This is very helpful in terms of preventing the obstruction of views of the

mountains. As well, the city conducts a special height review process for

proposed building between thirty-five and fifty-five feet in height.

Proposals for buildings in excess of thirty-five feet are subject to special

height review standards and criteria (Section 9-4-11, Height Review). Among

other things, such proposed buildings must set aside a certain percentage of

its total land area as useable open space (depending upon the actual height);

must adhere to special setback standards where adjacent to residential uses;

must be designed and sited to minimize the effects of shadows on adjacent

structures and sidewalks; must protect public view corridors and minimize

visual impacts on existing structures or established districts; must be in

proportion to the heights of other existing or proposed buildings in the area;

must incorporate elements which provide for the safety, attractiveness and

convenience of the pedestrian; must be made of materials and colors which are

compatible with the surrounding area; and must be of a scale appropriate to

pedestrians and which provides an attractive streetscape for motorists.

Certain additional restrictions are placed on the floor area ratio of

structures over thirty-five feet in height. (These height review standards

are included in Volume III, the Technical Appendix).

The Boulder zoning ordinance also contains a special high density overlay

zone, which includes a special review process and development criteria for

high density development in these areas. The primary intent behind the zone

is to deal with the special compatibility problems presented by new higher

236

density development in and around the downtown central business district. The

city also has zoning provisions which deal with Planned Unit Developments.

The Boulder Open Space Program

One of the most important and effective features of Boulder's growth

management program, and one of the most visible, is its open space program.

Boulder's interest in acquiring and protecting its open space is not new. In

fact its initial acquisition was in 1898 when it purchased the Chautauqua

property (for a summer camp for adults) on the edge of the western range. It

@in fact sold bonds to pay for this acquisition, perhaps foreshadowing what was

to come in the future. Shortly after the land for Chautauqua was purchased,

the city bought the eastern slope of Flagstaff Mountain, amounting to about

eighty acres, from the federal government (Smith 1981). Following this

purchase Boulder petitioned the federal government for an additional 1800

acres in the mountains, which Congress approved as a gift in 1899. The city

also;acquired lands in the early 1900's to begin its park system along Boulder

Creek. In 1908 landscape architect Frederick Law Olmstead Jr. was hired by

the Boulder City Improvements Association to develop a plan for the city's

physical development, including its parks and open spaces. Thus, Boulder has

had a long, and in some ways, unique history of concern for open space and

park acquisition.

As noted earlier, modern efforts to prevent the-loss of open space to

growth and development began with the delineation in 1959, by public

referendum, of the City's Blue Line. This specifically prohibited further

water service expansion, west of the city's 1959 urban boundary. The city

quickly found, however, that the Blue Line would not stop development in the

mountains. The city was forced to buy 155 acres of land on the Enchanted Mesa

to prevent the building of a luxury hotel there.

237

During the 1960's public support for open space protection grew

dramatically. A group called Greenbelts for Boulder lead a drive to get an

open space referendum on the ballot, and in 1967 voters of Boulder approved a

measure which created a 1 percent sales tax, of which 40 percent was to be

specifically designated for open space acquisition (a similar measure failed

in 1963). The other 60 percent was to be used for transportation improvements

and some local observers have suggested that this helped the political

saleability of the measure.

Since the initiation of this on-going open space acquisition program,

16,000 acres have been acquired by the city, along with 4600 acres in the

Boulder Mountain Park. Thus, over roughly a twenty-five year period the,city

has acquired rights to over 20,000 acres of open space. The city has expended

approximately $50 million over this period. The vast majority of the land is

owned in fee-simple by the city, with an estimated 1000 acres of development

rights acquired. City staff have indicated that because of the general

proximity of open space areas to the city, most of the market value of the

land is a function of its development potential and it thus makes sense to

purchase the fee-simple rights in most cases. Much of the open space not in

the mountain park is leased to farmers. Lease revenues have in the past

generated funds sufficient to cover the costs of maintenance and protection of

the open space lands (Walker 1977). In some cases the original owners have

been permitted to remain on the land and to continue to use it on a lease

basis.

The Boulder Open Space program is fully and completed distinct from the

city's parks program. There are different staff, different sources of funds,

and different plans governing acquisition. This is a reflection both of the

political and programatic need to keep the programs separate, and the

238

fundamental differences in the purposes and objectives of these different

programs. The Parks Department has the objective of providing active

recreational opportunities (e.g. soccer fields, tennis courts, etc.), usually

involving relatively small parcels of land. The objectives of the open space

program are to provide visual amenities and environmental buffers,- and to

promote a compact and efficient pattern of urban growth. Where recreational

opportunities are provided, such as in the case of trails, these are of a

passive nature. There is a fear that if these programs were not separate, the

open space program would end up getting shortchanged, either because open

space areas would appear attractive locations for recreational facilities or

because funds that could be used for acquisition of open spaces would be

diverted to these other uses.

Most of the open space lands have been acquired through amicable

negotiations between landowners and the city. Eminent domain has been used in

only a few cases, although the threat of eminent domain has been more

extensively used. The city's detailed open space plan and map which

designates all open space lands to be eventually acquired under the program

have proven to be very helpful in this regard. They are helpful both because

they prevent the city from acting arbitrarily (and prevent the perception that

the city is acting arbitrarily), and because they create an expectation in the

minds of landowners located within open space areas that the city plans to

eventually acquire their land. It prepares landowners in advance to think in

terms of city acquisition.

The fact that the city has a specific and definite open space plan,

originally adopted in 1974, is one reason why the results are impressive.

There is clear goal and areas to be acquired are specifically delineated on a

map. The Boulder open space plan as currently conceived will.ultimately

239

create a solid greenbelt which completely surrounds the city. As the city' s

open space maps indicate, this has already been largely accomplished, with

the largest acquisitions to the north, south and west. The greenbelt is

"thinnest" and the amount of acquired open space smallest to the east of the

city and this is where future acquisitions are likely to focus. Staff in the

City's Real Estate Services/Open Space Department estimate that 4,000 to 5,000

additional acres are needed to complete the greenbelt program as currently

conceived. There is also a good possibility that the program will be expanded

in the future--that is, that additional areas will be designated for open

space acquisition. The city is also currently exploring new ways to protect

open space, including the possible use of transferable development rights.

The city's ability to finance its acquisitions was enhanced considerably

in 1971 when a charter amendment allowing the sale of bonds, backed by future

expected sales tax revenues, was passed by referendum. Two bond issues have

been floated since this time, the most recent was an issuance in 1983 of $12

million. Unfortunately, sales tax revenues in recent years have been on the

decline meaning that much, if not most, of these revenues must go to financing

bond debt. In 1987, for example, although the sales tax generated $5 million

for the open space program, this was $1 million short of the predictions. In

1987, all revenues went to paying off the bond debt, with no funds available

for actual acquisition. While this indicates the negative side of issuing

bonds, the open space staff generally feel that the ability to float bonds has

been a highly useful tool. It permitted the early acquisition of a large

amount of acreage--acreage that might have been lost or eventually acquired at

a higher cost.

The option of turning the open space program into a landbank has been

discussed in the past and firmly rejected; that is, an approach which would

240

advocate occasionally selling a public parcel and then using the resulting

profits to purchase a presumably larger amount of acreage elsewhere. The

citizens of Boulder appear firmly committed to the.notion that lands acquired

under the open space program are to remain in public hands in perpetuity. In

fact, a recent referendum was passed modifying the city's charter so that any

sale of lands which were acquired under the open space program must be

approved by both the City Council and the Open Space Board of Trustees. This

was perceived as a way to prevent future sales by councils perhaps less

supportive of the program and its objectives.

The Open Space Board of Trustees is the public body which directly

oversees the open space program. Created by City Council Ordinance in 1973,

it consists of 5 members appointed by the city council for 5-year terms (see

Technical Appendix). The Board reviews every proposed acquisition and submits

its recommendations to the city council.

Because most of Boulder's open space land is located in the

unincorporated county these lands are taken off the county tax rolls.

Apparently this is not a concern to the county and in fact is viewed by them

as favorable in the sense that it reduces the need to provide service to areas

that might have been developed, albeit at very low densities, under the

county's land use regulations. An area to the south of the city is a case in

point. Here, because of open space acquisition by the city, the County

Sheriff's Department has no need to police this area, in turn reducing service

costs there. While the city does not pay property taxes on its open space

lands, it does contribute fees in lieu of taxes to rural fire districts,

which it does not legally have to do. The general feeling is that this is

necessary and appropriate to ensure that open space areas are adequately

protected from fire (they want to make sure the fire trucks show up!).

241

Other Management Efforts: Promoting the Downtown. Urban and-Environmental
Amenities

An interesting aspect of the Boulder program are its efforts to protect

and enhance the viability of its downtown commercial center. The Pearl Street

Mall is the centerpiece of this program, and was recently described in a Wall

Street Journal article as one of only twenty successful downtown malls in the

country. Part of the success of this mall, and the city's downtown commercial

areas generally, is due to the city's aggressive policies discouraging

suburban-type malls in outlying areas. Boulder's development and growth

policies have been important in reinforcing the downtown as the center for

employment, commerce, and government. It has vehemently opposed the

construction of conventional-suburban type shopping malls.

Boulder has taken a host of other actions to enhance the local quality of

life. Its extensive network of bikeways and trails is impressive, for

example. The city continues its effort to create a continuous green corridor

along Boulder Creek, which runs through the heart of the city. A bike trail

exists along much of the creek, as well as a string of community parks (e.g.,

Central Park). The city also has a strong sign ordinance and places

considerable importance on urban design.

Planning and Growth Management in Boulder County

The County of Boulder iscomprised of ten other municipalities besides

Boulder, although Boulder is the largest. It is difficult to fully understand

the City of Boulder's growth management efforts without also understanding the

county's role. The county exercises a strong growth management function in

several ways. First, the county has entered into an intergovernmental

agreement with the City of Boulder in 1978, formalizing the coordination of

their planning activities. The county and city have jointly enacted the

242

Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (described above), and in accordance with

the intergovernmental agreement the county must thus approve any amendments to

the plan (specifically, the Board of County Commissioners, and the County

Planning Commission). (This intergovernmental agreement is included in Volume

III, the Technical Appendix). As a jointly adopted policy document, the

county as well as the city is obligated to "exercise its planning, zoning,

subdivision, and related functions in a manner consistent therewith and to the

end of attaining the goals and objectives of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive

Plan." The practical result of this agreement is that the county reviews

proposed plan amendments, as well as city annexations and annual capital

improvements programs put forth by the city.

Amendments to policies are expected to be modified only every five years

during the five-year plan review and update. Map am ndments are made on a

yearly basis as part of the city's annual plan review. Detailed procedures

governing this amendment process are contained in the Boulder Valley

Comprehensive Plan (and included in Volume III). In addition, the city and

county have established a mutual referral process by which each jurisdiction

is permitted to review and comment upon land use and regulatory changes

proposed by the other. The county must inform the city through the referral

process of any replats, rezonings, special use review or major improvements in

the unincorporated areas of the Boulder Valley. Conversely, the city provides

referral to the county for proposed rezonings, annexations, capital

improvements and open space acquisitions by the city.

The county exercises a strong reinforcing role in its attitude toward

growth and the provision of services in non-urban areas. The County

Comprehensive Plan clearly states its intention to direct growth into the

municipalities and existing growth areas. (Boulder County, 1986). The

243

county's posture on the provision of urban services has been to squarely place

the responsibility for them with municipalities. Again, heavy reliance is

placed on the urban service area concept. From the county's perspective, it

is up to the cities (including Boulder) to determine the appropriate level of

services to be required. It is clear that that County intends never to be in

competition with its municipalities for the provision of urban services. Such

a county position is obviously of immense help in preventing the type of urban

sprawl and disjointed urban growth found in other parts of the country.

Protectinz Farmland and Open Space iLi Boulder County

The county implements much of this growth policy through its zoning and

subdivision regulations. As recently as two years ago the county further

downzoned some 25,000 acres of land outside urban service areas so that these

zone designations were more consistent with the non-urban nature of these

areas. Several large industrial zones in the northern portion of the county,

and outside of urban service areas, for instance, were changed to a different

use to prevent more intensive, urban-oriented activities.

The county imposes relatively stringent restrictions on the density of.

development in its farmland and resource zones, which comprise much of the

county's unincorporated area. Much of the western part of the county is

included in a forestry district, which permits a density of only one dwelling

unit per thirty-five acres (and a maximum structure height of 35 feet). Large

unincorporated portions of the county east of the rockies are included in

agricultural districts, which also permit only one unit per thirty-five acres.

A floodplain overlay district prohibits all development (even recreational

structures) in the floodway, and requires certification of floodproofing for

structures in the flood fringe.

244

Perhaps the most interesting and innovative zoning tool used by the

county is its non-urban PUD. These provisions allow additional development

density in restrictive agricultural zones (as well as other rural zones) in

exchange for a clustered design and donation of open space easements. As

stated in the Boulder County zoning resolution, the purpose of the non-urban

PUD are the following:

In order to preserve Boulder County's agricultural lands for the
continuation of agricultural and its related uses; to discourage the
conversion of agricultural lands identified within the Boulder County
Comprehensive Plan as "lands of National, Statewide, and Local
Importance" to urban uses and encourage continuation of agricultural or
non-urban uses," to provide for the preservation of environmental
resources; to provide that future urban development should be located
within or adjacent to existing urban areas; to discourage the conversion
of agricultural water to urban uses; to provide an incentive to the
farmer to keep the major part of his land in agricultural production by
allowing the conveyance of small land parcels; to provide for a variety
of lifestyles in Boulder County . . . (21-201).

Under the Non-Urban PUD provisions (or "NUPUD"), the owner of a thirty-

five acre parcel of land in a farm zone can obtain an additional unit in

exchange for clustering the units on 25% of the parcel, and ensuring that at

least 75% of the NUPUD remains committed to agriculture or open space uses.

An additional dwelling unit is permitted per development where the unit

"existed and was accessory or incidental to the agricultural use of the

acreage prior to March 22, 1978, and which dwelling unit continues to exist on

the subject property" (Boulder County, 1986, p. 89). The developer or

landowner must ensure the protection of this agricultural or open space area

from further subdivision or development by providing a conservation easement.

Acording to Ed Tepe, Director of County Land Use, there have been

approximately fifty NUPUD's approved in the county. They appear to be a

relatively effective way of preserving farmland and open space. One of the

UNC researchers toured several NUPUD sites and was favorably impressed. Homes

245

do,appear to be clustered and on what appears to be considerably less than 25%

of the NUPUD parcel. These development clusters do not appear to be

obstructive to existing farming operations.

The county has also been very active in acquiring open space, though on a

considerably smaller scale than the City of Boulder. It finances its open

space acquisitions through a $1 million annual allocation from general revenue

funds. Despite this fact, the county planning staff have recently developed

and put forth for approval a program for purchasing development rights of

farmland (see July 2, 1987 staff memorandum). The county has acquired several

large tracts, including the Walker Ranch (west of Boulder's Mountain Park) and

Rock Creek Farm. Consistent with the county's perspective on the provision of

services, its acquisitions have generally not been meant to provide active,

park-like functions, but rather as passive greenbelt open spaces. The Rock

Creek Farm acquisition is a case in point. This tract is intended to provide

a greenbelt buffer separating, visually and otherwise, the City of Broomfield

from Louisville and Lafayette.

Geoloiic and Other Hazards

Consideration of geologic and other hazards is also prominent in the

county's plan and land use regulations. Low minimum lot sizes (again, 35

acres) are required for most of the mountainous western portion of the county.

As well, subdivision applications must be accompanied by a geology report

prepared by a professional geologist. This geologist report is to identify

any potential natural or manmade hazards, including snow avalanche danger,

soil creep, flooding, landslides, mudslides, expansive soils, among others.

246

Where the development plans to use well water the report must also include a

special geohydrology section. The report must discuss methods of mitigating

the hazard identified and must include specific plans for undertaking such

mitigative actions.

247

References

Baron, Diane. 1987. A Summary of Information About Boulder, Division of
Research and Evaluation, Department of Community Planning and
Development, March.

Boulder County, Colorado. 1986. Boulder County ComRrehensive Pla , adopted
March 22, 1978, revised and updated 1986.

. 1983. Boulder County Subdivision Regulations, adopted November
29.

. 1986. Boulder County Zoning Resolution, October 30.

City of Boulder. 1971. Sign Regulations, Department of Planning and
Community Development.

Undated. Title 9: Land Use Rgaulations. Boulder City Code.

1986. The Boulder Vglley CoMRrehensive Pla , revised through
October 9, 1986, prepared by Boulder County Land Use Department, City of
Boulder Planning Department.

. 1987. "Agricultural Preservation Program: Memorandum to Board
of County Commissioners," July 2.

Danish, Paul. 1986. "Boulder's Self Examination," in Douglas Porter (ed)
Growth Management: Keeping on Target? Washington, DC: Urban Land
Institute.

Godschalk, David R., David J. Brower et al. 1979. Constitutional Issues of
Growth Management, Chicago: APA Planners Press.

Gawf, Ed. Director, Department of Community Planning and Development; City of
Boulder, inter-view, July, 1987.

Smith, Phyllis. 1981. A Look at Boulder From Settlement to City, Boulder:
Pruett Publishing Company.

Tepe, Ed, Land use Director, Boulder County, interview, July, 1987.

Walker, Donald V. H. 1977. "Boulder Preserves Open Space," Urban Lan
October.

. Undated. "Lessons From a Greenbelt Program: Boulder,
Colorado.

Wheeler, Delani, Assistant Director, Real Estate Services/Open Space, City of
Boulder, interview, July, 1987.

249

City of Denver, Colorado

DemograRhics: City population of 492,000, reached in 1980, a 43% change
from 1970; area of 110 square miles.

Natural Environment: A city in the Rocky Mountains on the South Platte
River; 5,000 + feet altitude.

Distinctive Features of Planni , Mountain view protection program.

- Tools and Techniques -

A. A view protection ordinance, part of the building code, sets
building height restrictions in certain zones to prevent
obstruction of view of Rockies, enacted in 1968.

B. Criteria for establishing new view protection districts were
established in 1980s.

C. Other scenic regulations enacted: temporary moratorium on
billboards; building height restrictions around state capitol
building; imposition of bulk plane limitations on new.
construction in protected residential districts; transfer of
development rights.

- Observations -

A. View protection is successful in Denver.

B. The view protection ordinance sustained a legal challenge; the
court reasserted that protection of aesthetic value is legitimate
legislative function.

C. Public and political support for view protection was based on
economic as well as aesthetic rationales.

D. The Denver ordinance is strictly enforced, with variances rare.

E. The law may be diverted to preserve private property values.
Although the original intent was to protect views from public
places such as large city parks, some say the provisions have
been used to protect a neighborhood.

F. Only buildings are controlled; obstruction from tall trees and
other vegetation is not covered.

250

City of Denver. Colorado

Introduction

Denver, Colorado, has a popular image of a city in the mountains i.e.,

the "Mile High City." The Rocky Mountains have historically played an

important cultural and-economic role in the cityps development. As the city

grew vertically, as well as horizontally, concerns about the ability to

maintain a visual connectedness with the Rockies emerged. Denver's view

protection ordinance grew out of these concerns, originally enacted in 1968.

The ordinance, part of the City's building code (Chapter 10, Building and

Building Regulations) and not its zoning ordinance, delineates certain

geographical zones where height limitations are imposed to prevent

obstructions of views of the Rockies to the west.

The View Protection Proer

There are currently eight designated view protection zones, with three

new districts added by amendment since 1982. One of these new areas -- that

protecting views from the Southmoor Park -- lead to a court challenge which

was decided in favor of the city and which strongly supports the legal

foundation of the city's program. This court case is described in greater

detail below.

Generally, the view protection zones are intended to protect views of the

Rockies from historically important points in the city, essentially city

parks. Specifically, view protection areas have been established around the

following locations: Cranmer Park, Cheesman Park-Botanic Gardens, City Park,

Washington Park, State Home Park, Ruby Hill Park, Southmoor Park and the State

251

Capitol. Together these view protection zones emcompass some fourteen square

miles, or about 12.5% of the city's total area (Denver Office of Planning,

1985). The Ruby Hill Park district is the largest of the zones, including 3.5

square miles.

The specific provisions of the law are included in Article 14, Chapter 10

of the City Code -- "Restrictions on Structures Within Areas Necessary to

Preserve Mountain Views." It sets forth a set of findings establishing the

purpose behind the restrictions:

(1) That the protection and perpetuation of certain panoramic mountain
views from various parks and public places within the city is
required in the interests of the prosperity, civic pride and general
welfare of the people;

(2) That it is desirable to designate, preserve and perpetuate certain
existing panoramic mountain views for the enjoyment and
environmental enrichment of the citizens of the community and
visitors hereto;

(3) That the preservation of such views will strengthen and preserve the
municipality's unique environmental heritage and attributes as a
city of the plains at the foot of the Rocky Mountains;

(4) That the preservation of such views will foster civic pride in the
beauty of the city;

(5) That the preservation of such views will stabilize and enhance the
aesthetic and economic vitality and values of the surrounding areas
within which such views are preserved;

(6) That the preservation of such views will protect and enhance the
city's attraction to tourists and visitors;

(7) That the preservation of such views will promote good urban design;

(8) That regular specified areas constituting panoramic views should be
established by protecting such panoramic views from encroachment and
physical obstruction.

As diagram L-1 indicates, the particular dimensions of each district are

somewhat different. In each case, a zone is fashioned by establishing a

reference point (usually in a public park) and projecting a zone in a fanlike

manner to the west. For each district a map is adopted and a specific set of

252

"o
jZA
_t 416
:7

.7
t _0 . -
F r-1

J"
+7
!T
'44
4.4
1p

e city
Z arl
-4

011
3.
:'$' State Capit

Jl@
d
7 eesman
Par

r
T_7:@ J1 ill cranmer
1 9,& fit-
"-4 1
1 -, -T k
M '!@ "'.. @t
_:.7 Par
ft" d
J+.L T_
it LT... @ Ttt@A ffA! TA

7
41L4

Ai.
14 i i
7
517
ashing on 44
Park

y11r.q n
M1 n
;k
-Y,
1 46, Iq L--, 11 -
o 7.-

r
@.T kFIT. ILI
Park
ome
7- Wr 7v
t
S ate

YA
I E '"I

x.
PIZ
41-, 1
T

7
_-@IAMPP814-_AV
-q44ASouthmnor
Par
r

!:.-v s
QUINCY. AVE.
A-1 4

Diagram L-1
MAP 1
MOUNTAIN VIEW AREAS

253

building height restrictions within this-zone are established. Permissible

heights in the zone are established by projecting a line of sight plane from

the reference point to the mountain with actual permissible building heights

depending upon proximity to the reference point. For example, in the Cranmer

Park View Protection Zone the following restrictions are placed on

construction:

No part of a structure within the area on the attached map indicated
by shading or cross-matching shall exceed an elevation of five thousand
four hundred thirty-four (5,434) feet above mean sea level plus one foot
for each one hundred (100) feet that the part of a structure is
horizontally distant from the reference point. Wherever a structure lies
partially outside and partially inside of the area on the attached map
indicated by shading and cross-hatching, the provisions of this section
shall apply only to that part of the structure that lies within the area
indicated on the map by shading or cross-hatching.

Thus, areas which are located in close proximity to the reference point

(which is actually a brass plug placed in the ground indicating elevation

above sea level), will have lower permissible building heights than those

located in the outer areas of the view plane. The lateral or side dimensions

of the view corridor have been established based on the location of good views

and the presence of existing structures obstructing views of the mountains.

Because of renewed interest in the View Protection Program in the early

1980's, the Denver Planning Staff developed a set of four criteria to be used

in judging the appropriateness of new view protection districts. These

criteria were: (1) the major characteristics of the park/public place in

which the reference viewpoint is located, (2) the general quality of the view

as determined by provisions of the ordinance and by measurement of the

existing views, (3) the relative permanence of the view as determined by the

extent to which views established by ordinance could be violated by foliage

outside the park/public place, and (4) the relative extent to which

restrictions on building heights are imposed by the Ordinance (Denver

254

Planning Office, 1982). While these criteria were never formally adopted by

the City Council, they are currently used by the city's planning staff to

conduct internal reviews of view protection proposals and in formulating

recommendations. The criteria were essentially an attempt by the planning

staff to identify those aspects of existing zones which made them particularly

workable or appropriate. When the criteria were developed, the staff compared

the existing view protection districts (then only five districts designated)

and concluded, among other things, that new areas should generally have

topography which is level with or downsloping away from the reference point,

should be at least 25 acres in size, and should be a park or public place of

at least citywide significance. Using these criteria, in fact, the city

planning staff recommended against adoption of the Southmoor Park View

Protection District, as did the Denver Planning Board. Part of the concern

was a result of topographical features of the park; the fact that it lies in a

low area and,does not allow for a sufficient "runway." The staff's

recommendation and the Planning Board's opinion were not needed and the City

Council adopted the Southmoor Park View Protection District.

Legal and Constitutional Challenges

Of all the view protection districts to be challenged in court, the

planning staff felt the Southmoor Park was the weakest and thus were very

concerned about the implications the decision would hold for the entire view

protection program. The case, Landmark Land Compgny. Inc. v, the City an

County of Denver, involved challenges made to the legality and

constitutionality of the City ordinance by owners of land near the park, which

would be restricted under the district's height limitations. The View

Protection Zone would restrict the development of this land to buildings

255

substantially lower than the twenty-one st ories they wished to build, although

a special amendment to the view protection law for commercial areas would have

ensured the developer at least a forty-foot structure (or the height allowed

by the viewplane, whichever is higher). The trial court found the ordinance

to be valid, and the case was directly appealed to the Colorado Supreme

Court.

The developers proposal to build a twenty-one story office building was

vehemently opposed by the Southmoor Park East Homeowners Association, Inc.

(SPEHA) which attempted to obtain rezoning and downzoning actions to prevent

the project. A councilman, at the request of SPERA, proposed the extension of

view protection status to the area and, despite the staff and planning board

recommendations to the contrary, the City Council adopted the new district in

July, 1982. An appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court the landowners claimed

the ordinance was unconstitutional based upon several grounds, including that

the view protection provision amounted to "special legislation," that the

provisions are "neither rationally nor reasonably related to a legitimate

public purpose," that even if the provisions are related to a legitimate

public purpose this must be accomplished through a rezoning, and finally that

the view protection provisions constituted a taking of private property

without just compensation. The court refuted each of these challenges.

Concerning the question of whether the ordinance is reasonably related to a

legitimate public purpose, the court made a strong statement in support of

view protection:

It has been well established that protection of aesthetics is a
legitimate function of a legislature ... Especially in the context of
Denver -- a City whose civic identity if associated with its connection
with the mountains -- preservation of the view of the mountains from a
city park is within the city's police power.

Appellants argue that SPEHA's reason for promoting the amendment was
to protect the property values of its members' homes, not to protect the

256

mountain view. Assuming that this is true, it does not affect the
validity of the City Council's action. The Council enacted an amendment
that is clearly directly related to preserving the mountain view --
indeed, the gradations in allowable height based on distance from the
sighting point are tailored to nothing else.

Lessons Learned

This relatively strong legal decision has given the city additional

confidence in pursuing its view protection and aesthetic objectives.

Nonetheless the Southmoor Park case presents to some a troubling contrast

between the original intent of the program and how it has been used in recent

years. Initially the establishment of view protection areas was an attempt to

maintain public views from relatively large, established city parks or civic

areas. The impetus came from civic-minded public officials. The Southmoor

Park case represents the trend of view protection restrictions being initiated

by elected official at the request of neighborhood groups. Here, as in the

Southmoor case, the issue is not so much concern about preserving "public"

views from large, established public parks, but rather of using the

restrictions as a way to prevent high-rise construction which is undesirable

from a neighborhood point-of-view. Concern about protecting views of the

Rockies is still clearly important, but it loses much of the "public"

dimension evident in, say, the "City Park" (which includes the Zoo and Denver

Museum of Natural History) or the State Capital. There are numerous

neighborhood parks throughout the city of Denver where technically the city

council could place similar view protection provisions. Perhaps a future

strategyfor neighborhoods wishing to combat highrise development will be to

first secure a neighborhood park, and then to secure view protection status

for it. This is an issue which the city must confront in the future.

A problem of a somewhat more technical nature is that the view protection

restrictions do not address trees and vegetation. While substantial height

257

restrictions are placed on buildings, these benefits may end up being vitiated

because of tall trees or other vegetation that gets in the way of views. As

Bob Werner of the City's Planning Office notes, it has been difficult to get

some developers and landowners to consider the visual impacts of planting tall

species ok-trees and other obstructive vegetation.

Despite these concerns, the city's view protection program is highly

successful. A tour of the view protection sights is convincing in that it is

clear that impressive panoramic view corridors have been protected. The

incredible views from, say, Cheesman Park, must significantly enhance the

recreational value and experience of this park. It is, in fact, hard to

imagine the functioning of this park without its free visual access to the

mountains.

The city has been able to strongly implement the view protection

provisions. There does exist a procedure for obtaining a variance in certain

cases from the City's Plan Review and Enforcement Committee, but variance

approvals are rare. A typical variance request involves a situation where a

lot is partially in the view district and where a developer seeks a variance

in order that a more normal building design can be used. What has happened is

that the city has held its ground, and builders end up designing structures

around the zone boundaries.

While it is uncertain how extensive the view protection system will grow

to be, additional amendments creating new protection zones will undoubtedly be

adopted. In fact, the city is considering proposing that as part of a

downtown redevelopment project (an area along the South Platte River) a view

protection district would be included.

A major lesson learned from the Denver View Protection Program is the

importance of stressing the economic rationale behind such restrictions.

258

According to Werner of the Denver Planning Office the program has strong

public and political support because it is seen as important to maintaining

the attractiveness and image of the city and is supportive of the tourism

economy. Enhancing the quality of life in Denver contributes as well to the

attractiveness of the city to industry and commerce. To simply argue the need

to protect views from the position of beauty or aesthetics would not

accomplish as much, at least not in Denver. Denver's recent efforts to clea n

up its air, including the mandatory use of oxidated fuels, have also been

justified on similar economic grounds.

Other Scenic Reaulations

Denver is conscious of aesthetics and the visual implications of its

development in other ways. It recently enacted (in March, 1987), for

instance, a six month moratorium on the construction of billboards while it

studies the need for stronger billboard restrictions. It has also adopted a

downtown plan and is using some interesting tools to implement it. One of

these tools is the transfer of development rights which allows and encourages

the transfer of development density from the historic district to other

downtown parcels that can more appropriately accommodate higher density

(transfers are permitted only in B-5 and B-7 zoning districts). The densities

of receiving parcels can be increased, but only up to certain specified

limits. The TDR provisions are relatively new, and to date only one downtown

development (approved but not yet built) has increased its permissible density

through the purchase of development rights.

As well, and similar to the Austin Texas Capitol View Protection Overlay,

Denver has enacted special zoning restrictions around its capitol building.

These restrictions are in addition to those created by the designation of the

259

Mountain View District. Specifically, three different concentric zones

surround the capitol building, with greater height limitations thelcloser a

parcel is to the building. There are sub-zones within these stepped planes,

creating six different height zones in total (A through F). In the inner most

zone adjacent to the state capitol building (area E primarily) "no part of a

structure ... shall exceed an elevation of five thousans three three hundred

fifty-three (5,350) feet above sea level." Compared with the reference point

of 5,286 at the state capitol, this represents a height limitation of about

seventy feet. The permissible building heights rise to over two hundred feet

in portions of the outer ring.

The City has also adopted special bulk plane limitations which restrict

building height when adjacent to low density residential areas. Specifically,

within one hundred and seventy-feet of certain protected residential zones, no

buildings within certain controlled districts .....

... shall project up-through bulk limits which are defined by planes
extending up and over the zone lot at an angle of forty-five (45) degrees
with respect to the horizontal and which planes start at horizontal lines
which are codirectional to the district boundary lines separating the
zone lot from the protected district and pass through points ten (10)
feet above the midpoint of each such district boundary line...

A specific height limitation of 75 feet is also specified for

construction within 175 feet of the protected district. Neither of these

restrictions would apply in cases where a highrise building already exists in

the protected district.

260

References

Denver Planning Office. 1985. "Building Heights in Denver as Affected by
Mountain View Preservation Ordinances," April 17.

1982. "Denver Mountain View Ordinance: Analysis
and Criteria for New Area Designations," July

Rei d, T. R. 1986. "Denver Limits High-Rises to Protect Vista," Washing-to
Post, December 5.

Werner, Bob, Denver Office of Planning, interview, July, 1987.

261

King County, Washington

Demographics: County population of 1.3 million in 1985; Seattle, about
500,000; covers area of 2,131 square miles.

Natural Environoment: Bordered on the east by the Cascade Mountain
range, on the west by Puget Sound.

Recent ExRerience: Growth in unincorporated areas has jeopardized
farmlands; efforts to protect rural lands began in late 70s.

Distinctive Features of Planning: Purchase of development rights (PDR).

- Tools and Techniques

A. Funded by a bond issue, about 33,000 acres (divided into areas by
priority) were initially made eligible for PDR; purchases
overseen by committee representing farmlands and other interests.

- Observations -

A. Program felt to be successful in protecting economically viable
farming areas.

B. Program has succeeded in purchasing interest in about 13,000
acres at a cost of $4200 per acre.

262

King CojLnty, Washington

Introduction

King County, located in western Washington State, and containing the City

of Seattle, had a population of approximately 1.3 million in 1985. The county

contains 29 municipalities, with Seattle the largest (about 490,000 in 1985).

Historically, the county has relied heavily upon its resource base,

specifically farming and forestry. As the county's population and the Seattle

metropolitan areas have expanded, both the economic viability and scenic

benefits of its farmlands have been placed in jeopardy. Since 1970, 3/4 of

the population growth in the county have occurred in unincorporated areas

(King County, 1986, p. 5). In 1985 alone, more than 50% of all new housing

units in the county occurred in unincorporated areas. The county has been

actively involved in protecting particularly important lands since the late

1970's, through what is perhaps the most successful and extensive use of the

technique of purchase of development rights or "PDR."

Protecting Farmland Through Purchase of Development Rights (PDR)

King County initiated its efforts at acquiring farmland in 1978 when it

sought passage of a ballot measure to issue $35 million to acquire farmland

and open space. While the measure did win a simple majority it failed to gain

the 60% necessary for passage. Following this defeat a citizens study was

formed to "review the 1978 ballot measure, examine charged conditions and

available alternatives, and present a written recommendation on the best means

of preserving farmland and open space." (Farmlands Study Committee, 1978,

p. 1). The study, financed by private contributions from citizens and

263

businesses, was completed anda final ordinance recommended and forwarded to

the County Executive and County Council in May of 1979. Among other things,

the study committee reviewed the efforts of Suffolk County, New York, one of

the first jurisdictions to employ the PDR technique..

The study committee's report recommended putting to the vote a $50

million bond package to finance a PDR program. The study group, identified

the most important farmlands in the county, placing them in their priority

categories. Based on-the experiences of Suffolk County, they assumed that

about 50% of the owners of land would voluntarily participate in the program.

Based on this estimate, $50 million would be a sufficient bond issue to cover

the costs of the between 10,000 and 15,000 areas that were expected to be

offered in an open selection process. An ordinance was adopted by the council

in June 1979, which authorized the bond referendum and set forth the

mechanical procedures for acquiring thedevelopment rights (provisions of this

ordinance were further modified in an additional ordinance adopted in July of

the same year).

The ordinance, largely following the recommendations of the study

committee, established a three-tier priority system. First, second and third

priority areas were defined (a copy of this ordinance is included in

Volume III, the technical appendix) and specific maps showing delineated areas

are referred to in the ordinance and attached as appendices to the ordinance.

About 33,000 acres were identified in advance as being eligible for

acquisition (King County, undated). First priority lands were those most

threatened by urban development. The ordinance permits the county to secure

both fee-simple and less-than-fee-simple interests in land. The county can

acquire first priority lands using either technique, but can only acquire

less-than-fee interests in second and third priority lands. Where full

264

ownership was purchased, however, the ordinance requires the county to resell

their agricultural rights as soon as practical. Land can only be purchased

which is offered voluntarily by the owner, and the county cannot pay more for

the land than what it was officially appraised for. The county was authorized

to make payment either in the form of a-lump sum or through contract

installments. Once a landowner's development right has been purchased he or

she must sign a deed restriction which acts to legally restrict the use of the

land to agricultural and open space uses. A copy of this deed restriction is

included in the appendix.

A seven member selection committee was formed to advise the county

council of acquisition decisions. Two members were to be selected from the

farming community (were to have at least five years experience in the

operation and management of commercial farms), two from the construction and

real estate trades, and three lay persons from different parts,of the county.

The ordinance provided detailed directions concerning how farmlands were to be

related. The county was to engage in a yearly "selection round" for a period

of six years or until the bond proceeds were exhausted. Certain stipulations

were placed on which lands were eligible in which selection rounds. In rounds

one and two, for instance, only priority-one lands were eligible for

selection.

Selection rounds were advertised in local newspapers, inviting owners of

eligible lands to apply. For qualifying lands, two appraisals of the value of

the development rights were required one appraisal of the value of full

ownership of the land (without the buildings) and one appraisal just of the

value of the development rights. Where funds in any given round are (were)

not sufficient to purchase all lands in a given priority ranking the

following criteria were to be used in deciding which offers to accept:

265

1. An offer which is below appraisal shall be favored over an offer
which is at appraisal;

2. An offer of development rights in land shall be favored over an
offer of full ownership;

3. An offer of farmland producing in the twelve months preceding
application shall be favored over an offer of land which lies fallow;
4. An offer of land which is more threatened by urban development
shall be favored over an offer of land which is less threatened;

5. An offer of land which will form a contiguous farming area with
other offered or acquired eligible land shall be favored over an offer of
land which is separated;

6. An offer of land which will serve the dual purpose of urban
separation and agricultural production shall be favored over an offer of
land which will serve only one of such purposes;

7. An offer of farmlands in commercial production shall be favored
over an offer of non-commercial farmlands.

Development righ.ts purchased by the county must be held in perpetuity.

Program Success

The bond referendum passed on November 6, 1979 by 63% of the voters.

Table 1 presents a summary of the land acquisition activities under the PDR

program as of JAnuary 1, 1987. As the table indicates, interest in some

12,658 acres has been purchased, quite consistent with the original objective

of obtaining development rights for between 10,000 and 15,000 acres. The

total cost of obtaining these interests was $53.8 million, thus with an

average cost of about $4,200 per acre of development rights purchased.

King County officials feel after having just completed the programs

acquisition that critical masses of farmland have been protected. While

initially acquisition was scattered and unconcentrated, subsequent rounds of

acquisition has had the effect of filling in these areas. County officials

are confident that the program has managed to protect economically viable

farming areas.

266

Table B-1

Agriculture Progr
Farmlands Preservation Progra

Activities Summary
(as of January 9, 1987)

AREA AQRES PURCHASED NO, OF PARCELS VALUE

ROUND 1:

Lower Green 319.62 3 3,075,620
Upper Green 305.55 7 999,483
Sammammish -21.46 2 194,909
TOTAL 646.63 12 $ 4,270.012

ROUND 2

Lower Green 401.14 10 5,089,423
Upper Green 330.35 12 1,185,645
Sammamish 561.87 5 7,072,172
Food Producing 165.42 4 - 916,393
TOTAL 1,458.78 31 $14,263,633

ROUND 3

Lower Green 258.84 8 3,871,709
Upper Green 261.61 8 1,097,402
Sammamish 149.72 6 1,921,938
Food Producing 94.03 2 459,491
Snoqualmie 4,661.41 42 6,086,191
Enumclaw 1,902.14 43 7,232,030
County Wide 3,224.98 35 14 6-45,911
TOTAL 10,552.73 144 $35,314,672

PROGRAM TOTALS 12,658.14 187 $53,848,317

Source: King County Agricultural Program

267

References

Jones, LeRoy A., Manager, Agriculture Program, King County, interview, July,
1987.

King County, WA. 1986 Annual Growth Report, Planning Division, Department of
Planning and Community Development, June.

King County, WA. Undated. "King County's Farmland Preservation Program,"
Office of Agriculture.

King County Farmlands Study Committee. 1978. Saving Farmlands and ORe
Space, report to the Executive and Council of King County, revised
July 9, 1979.

3 6668 00000 6785