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

                                             MANAGING URBAN GROWTH

                                                VOLUME I AND II

                                                  D R A F T

                                      Timothy Beatley and David J. Brower
                                     Center for Urban and Regional Studies
                                The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
                                       Chapel Hill, North Carolina 21514

                      HT
                      123
                      B4                         August, 1987
                      .1987

                                                                                L ZONE
                                                                        COASTA
                                                                    INFORTMATION CENTER

        Qj                            MANAGLNG URBAN GROWTH

                                         VOLUME-I AND II

                                             D R A F T

                                Timothy-Beatley And David J. Brower
                              Center,for Urban  and Regional Studies
                         The Unive.rsity of North@C.arolina at Chapel Hill,
                                Chapel,Hill, North-Carolina.27514

                                           August,  1987

                     Financial assistance  for- preparation of this document was
                     provided by 4 grant from  Maine's Coastal Program through
                     Funding provided by  U. S. Department of Commerce, Office of
                     Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, under the Coastal
                     Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended.

                                                        Vo lume I

                                 Alternative Approaches to Local Growth Management:
                                        A Review of.the State of the Practice

                                         Timothy  Beatley  and David J. Brower
                                        Center  for Urban  and  Regional'Studies,
                                   The University of North Carolina.at Chapel     Hill
                                          Chapel Hill,. North  Carolina 27514.@

                                                      August, 1987

                                                Qcopyright 1987,

                                                   Timothy Beatley
                                                   David J. Brower

                                                ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

                                               TO BE ADDED-LATER.

                                                       Table of Contents

                                                                                                   Paae

                     I. Introduction    . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

                    II. Some Emergent Goals in.Growth Management        . . . . . . . . . . . .       2

                        A. Scenic and Visual Management        . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        2

                        B. Protecting Historic and Cultural Resources          . . . . . . . . .      8

                        C. Preserving Farmland and Open Space         . . . . . . . . . . . . .     10

                        D.   Growth Management and the Natural Environment: Protecting
                               Sensitive Areas and Mitigating.Natural Hazards         . . . . . .   14

                        E.   Making Growth Pay Its Way    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             18

                        F.   Affordable'Housing    . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .    I    I. . . . 22

                        G.   Sharing in the Profits@of     Growth  and-Development . . . .          24

                   III. New  Approaches.to Citizen Involvement-in,Growth Management/
                            New Decision Processes.                          . . . . . .   . . . . 24

                    IV.,Some Important Growth Guidance'Strategies.@'.                               29

                        A. C6ntrolling-the Rate of       Growth              . ... . . . . . . .    29

                        B.   Urban Growth Boundaries     and Delineation   of;Preferred
                               Growth Areas               . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..      31

                        C.   Performance Controls and     Point Systems.          . . . . . . . .   32,

                        D.   Functional and   Geographic   Refinement   . . . . . . . . . . . .     35

                        E.   Regional Approaches.       . . . . . . ... . . ...                     37

                     V. References
                                      . . . . . . . . . .           . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

                 I. Introduction

                      Growth management became a popular subject in the 1910's 'as communities

                 experiencing urban growth pressures began to formulate new and innovative ways

                 to,manage the pace, location and quality of this growth. The term conjures up

                 the image of Petuluma,  Ramapo and Boca Raton, among others. These were

                 attempts to guide growth in some systematic or comprehensive fashion, or in

                 some cases to stop growth completely (e.g..:Boca Raton development cap ...

                 While.variable in  their success, these experiences have tended to shape our

                 conception of growth management. Our notion of growth management, however,

                 while including these. "systematic" efforts, is much broader. It also includes

                 the more atomized efforts of localities and states to manage oneor more

                 aspects of growth.   As the discus'sion to follow will indicate., we:are

                 interested in  communities, for instance, which have made substantial efforts

                 at protecting  say, important viewsheds or important components of the

                 ecosystem. They need not beaddressing.all such issues, nor addressing      them

                 in.any kind of coordinated  way. We are concerned here, as another    example,

                 with both single-purpose implementation/growth guidance tools and     techniques

                 (e.g. an impact fee or overlay zone) as well as implementation strategies or

                 mechanisms which may command control   over all or most development activities

                 in a locality   e.g. a development point system). Each locality.adopts those

                 combinations of techniques, in somecases highly coordin4ted and centralized

                 development guidance strategies, to address that issue or combination of

                 issues and problems that are.,of local importance.

                      This paper'has several objectives. First, it seeks to present a,concise

                 description of the primary trends in growth management at the national level.

                                                          2

                   While state-level programs are mentioned, the primary focus of this trend

                   analysis is at the local level. Second, through this analysis of trends the

                   authors hope to identify a number of promisin g tools and techniques which can

                   be used in managing growth and development a s well as provide some discussion

                   of their relative advantages and disadvantages. Third, the paper provides

                   specific examples of different local jurisdictions which are exploring these

                   approaches. Two documents accompany and aid the objectives of this essay.

                   One is a collection of two-to-three page (or more) case description of

                   different local growth management programs, often focusing on a particularly

                   interesting or innovative element (Volume Il@)_. A second-document is a

                   technical appendix which includes actual local ordinances, reports and    other

                   more detailed documentation that may be helpful to the reader (Volume   III).

                   II.  Some Emergent'Goals in Growth Manay-ement

                        A.  Scenic and Visual Management

                        Concern about protecting visual amenities has emerged in recent years    as

                                 0    n many co
                   an impottant.g al i         mmunities. Increasingly, visual blight is    seen as

                   an unfortunate and unnecessary side effect of urban growth. Several types of

                   visual amenity-related concerns can be identified. For the sake of

                   convenience these concerns can be roughly placed into two categories

                   namely, concerns about protecting natural beauty and vi ews of natural

                   resources; and concerns about how the built environment looks, including

                   concerns about such things as architectural style and the presence of

                   billboards and other forms of visual clutter or blight. Often these two

                   categories are merged when localities seek to preserve their visual image or

                   flavor.

                        Increasingly local growth management efforts  center on protecting views

                   of the natural environment. The City of D6nver has taken some strong actions

                                                               3

                   to protect views of the sur    rounding Rocky Mountains. The City has eight

                   ordinance-designated view presentation areas in the city where the height of

                   buildings is restricted. Together these        designated areas cover 14 square

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

                   capital a number of city parks (City and County of Denver, 1985).            The

                   legality of these, restrictions was recently upheld by the Colorado          Supreme

                   Court. In Landmark Land Comany. Inc. v. The City and County of Denver, the

                   court determined that protection of mountain views was a valid exercise of

                   police power and that the height restrictions placed on buildings within

                   viewsheds did not constitute unconstitutional taking        s of property. The

                   court's opinion presents a strong statement in support of such aesthetic and,

                   visual management, programs.     The court finds    that "(E)specially in the context

                                                                                                          t
                   of.Denver--a city whose civic identity       is associated with its connection wi h.

                   the mountains--preservation     of.the view of the mountains      from a.city park.is

                   within the  city's police power." This-program is, described in more detail in

                   the accompanying case study.report (Volume II)-, and specific provisions of the.

                   program included in the    appendix   (Volume III).

                        In nearby   Boulder,  the.city   has  acquired,  through a   one cent  sales  tax,

                   more than.20,000 acres of open space.around        the@city, including a    4,600  acre

                   mountain park. These efforts were       fueled in   large part by concerns that if

                   these lands were not secured the historical visual benefits they have provided

                   would be,jeopardized with'the city's.further        growth and development. Boulder

                   also has a 55-foot building height.limitation, and.special conditions must be

                   met (including protecting     existing views and vistas) before a building can be

                   constructed over 35 feet. The Boulder program is discussed in greater depth

                   in,the case study volume. BoulderCo       unty has developed     a similar acquisition

                   program, though-on a smaller scale      and within the sales     tax funding.

                                                         4

                  Fort Collins, Colorado, aescribed in detail in the case studies volume, also

                  has an active open space program and has, similar to Boulder, purchased most

                  of the foothills to the west (the "Hogbacks").

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

                  Ridge Protection Acts which place restrictions on the permissible height of

                  new structures in sensitive ridge zones (Heath, 1983). While the stated

                  objectives of these programs included a range of concerns from the ability to

                  provide adequ ate fire protection to the existence of aviation hazards, it is

                  clear that the primary impetus behind them was a concern about preserving the

                  aesthetic quality of the mountains. Local officials and representatives in

                  North Carolina supported this bill largely because they saw it as important  to

                  maintaining the visual attractiveness of the mountains, and thus the economic

                  vitality of the region which in turn depends on this attractiveness (e.g.,

                  through ski and resort activities, second home industry). The North Carolina

                  law has been included in the technical appendix (Volume III).

                       Many communities are beginning to view visual amenities-not simply as-

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

                  salability.of their communities to business and commerce. Even the City of

                  Houston, Texas, long proud of its laissez faire attitude toward growth and

                  development, and famous for the absence of zoning, has begun to become worried

                  about-how its physical appearance influences its economic health. 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 che.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 crash. Its 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

                                                             5

                        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)

                        Communities are-also concerned about obscuring views of important

                  cultural and historic landmarks. Austin, Texas, for instance has enacted a

                  Capital View Protection Overlay Zone as part of its.zoning ordinance. This

                  provision, following a study    of important views of the capitol,      from prominent

                  points  around the city*, place height restrictions on buildings in designated

                  view corridors. -TheTexas capitol building,is the largest of the state

                  capitols, i*s a foot -taller than   the United.States   Capitol building, and

                  represents 'an important   symbolic landmark in the City. For those        property

                  owners  restricted  by the.ordinance, a   transfer  of development rights.component

                  allows  them to transfer   some of  the unused density to   other sites   outside  the

                  capital  view corridors. Similar     pro-visions have been  adopted  by-the City   of

                  Lincoln, Nebraska, and Denver, Colorado, to      protect views-of   their capital

                  buildings. (The Denver    Capitol View Protection restrictions are-discussed       in

                  the Denver case study in    Volume 11.)

                        Visual concerns have also been elevated     at the national level in recent.

                  years,'perhaps,most.notably in the, Port America controversy in Washington,-

                  D.C.@... Here, a fifty-four story trade tower was. planned on the outskirts of

                  the city (in Prince George's County, Maryland) (Forgery, 1986). Many feared

                  this would serve to dwarf the city, which has imposed stringent building

                  height limits since.its early beginn    ings, as well as upstage the U.S. Capitol

                  and other important national monuments. In.response Senator Alan Cranston

                                                            6

                   (D-California) introduced a bill, the Nation's Capital Preservation Act, which

                   would have placed severe economic sanctions on excessively high structures

                   within designated sensitive visual zones (specifically, a $1 dillion per foot

                   surcharge). The Port American project has recently been resolved in favor of

                   two lower towers, and the Cranston bill has never been enacted.

                        Another recent federal effort in the visual management area, this one

                   focused more on the natural environment, was the passage in 1986 of the

                   Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act (PL 99-663). 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 plan.

                   Also, the U.S. Forest Service is charged with managing development and forest

                   management practices in certain special management practices. While there are

                   a number of stated objectives of the bill it is clear that preventing the loss

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

                        Another expression of concern about the aesthetics of growth relates to

                   issues of urban design. Increasingly, it seems, growth is being held to high

                   design standards. Larger cities are increasingly demanding that highrise

                   buildings and development no@t be ugly and not damage the quality of other

                   urban amenities through the development process. San Francisco has perhaps

                   gone the furthest on this topic with the adoption in 1985 of its Downtown

                   Plan. Concerned about the "Manhattanizationu of San Francisco, th     e plan,

                   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). Many have cricic-iz6d the new design standards as

                   nothing more than a beauty contest   (Myers, 1986). A November 1986 referendum

                                                        7

                 (Proposition M) further reduced the quantity of permissible  office@space that

                 can be built downtown (to 450,000 square feet per year). (The text of

                 Proposition M has been included in-the Technical Appendix.) Through the

                 Downtown Plan highrise growth has also been reoriented to minimize its impact

                 on surrounding-neighborhoods and views of the San Francisco Bay (Shaffer,

                 1985). In addition, the plan calls for the preservation of 250 historic

                 buildings in the downtown. Boston has considered a similar plan for its

                 downtown (Guenther, 1986).

                      The San Francisco experience is indicative of a trend toward  the use of

                 design review processes. The use of design review boards is an increasingly

                 popular institutional approach to these types of,visual issues, and they can

                 be found in communities of almost all sizes (Zotti, 1987).. Along with San

                 Fra ncisco, among the other noted examples of design,review boards:  New

                 Orleans's Vieux Carre Commission, Cleveland's Fine Arts Advisory Committee,

                 San Antonio's River Walk Advisory Commission, Washington D.C.'s Fine Arts

                 Commission, and Boston's new Civic Design Commission. Such review bodies   may

                 or may not have specific design review standards or guidelines, and where  they

                 do exist they r@ay vary in how well defined.they are. Portland, Oregon's,  for

                 instance, are generally believed to be some of the more specific, reducing the

                 uncertainty many builders have in responding to design standards. The

                 Portland Standards, adopted in 1980, are intended to implement goals

                 established in its Downtown Plan., Twenty general standards have been adopted

                 and are used by the city addressing a spectrum o f urban design issues,

                 including the ration of open spac e to buildings, protecting existing pathway

                 systems and pedestrian right-of-ways, protecting or reinforcing the special

                 identifier of urban sub-areas, reinforcing the sense of gateway or entrance at

                 bridgeheads, reinforcing intersections at activity areas, the provision of

                                                         8

                   features which connect interior activity of building with the street, and the

                   provision of adequate places for people to stop or slow down, among others.

                   There are also additional standards for special districts in the city (e.g.,

                   Broadway Street, Chinatown). For each standard, a series of examples are

                   provided which illustrate how the standard has been or could be satisfied

                   '(City of Portland, 1983). These standards are included in the Technical

                   Appendix (Volume III).

                       Restrictions on roadside billboards and commercial strip development have

                   become common in -recent years. In North Carolina, for instance, the City ?f

                   Raleigh and the Town of Nags Head have stringent billboard restrictions. The

                   land development codes of the Town of Hilton Head, South Carolina, and Medford

                   Township, New Jersey (communities which are both described fxirther in the case

                   study volume) have stringent sign regulations.

                       B. Pgotecting Historic and Cultural Resourdes

                       Perhaps already evident, much of the rationale behind the protection of

                   visual amenities is based-on local desires to protect historic and cultural

                   .resources. Several of the communities studied and described in the case

                   studies are good examples. The Town of Breckenridge, Colorado, an 1860's gold

                   mining town, exhibits architecture from three different historic periods. Its

                   charm and flavor derive in large degree from its history and clearly this is   a

                   majof reason many tourists and skiers are attracted to the community. As

                   described in Volume II, the town has taken substantial efforts to build upon

                   and enhance these historic resources. Protecting the integrity of the

                   historic district is specifically incorporating into the town's development

                   standards and point system. As well, a separate historic commission has

                   control over construction and renovation within the district, implementing

                                                        9

                 specific design standards. Among other things, the standards prevent modern

                 buildings which attempt to "imitate" historic architecture. These standards

                 have been included in their entirety in Volume III, the Technical Appendix.

                 These provisions to protect the historic resources are not viewed in isolation

                 of the need to protect other visual amenities. The Breckenridge program seeks

                 as well to protect open space and views of the surrounding mountains, also

                 important to the flavor and feel of the town.

                      Another community examined in the case studies is the City of Cannon

                 Beach, Oregon. A coastal community nestled in the midst of incredible scenic

                 beauty,. the town has developed as an artist colony. Its efforts@at protecting

                 the "character" of the community center around maintaining this focus on art

                 as well as maintaining the high quality of the natural environment. For

                 Cannon Beach residents, developing in a-non -commercialize d-way is important.

                 As a consequence, they have also instituted a design review process for all

                 development other than single-family detached units. Proposed developments

                 must be reviewed by a Special Design Review Board, and must be consistent, with

                 .adopted design standards. In an effort to keep the town from becoming

                 commercialized, all "formula-food" restaurants  (fast-food) are prohibited

                 through the town's zoning ordinance.
                      Th'e Town of Manteo, North Carolina, des.cribed in the case study volume,

                 has also attempted to capitalize on its historic heritage. As the site of the

                 first English colony in the New World, the town has much to boast about. Its

                 land use plan and development regulations are intended to respect this history

                 and indeed enhan6e it. Other communities studied, including Ft. Collins

                 (Colorado), Nags Head (North Carolina), Eugene (Oregon), and Austin (Texas),

                 among others, have sought to build upon their historic and cultural heritage.

                 Protecting these elements of community character is usually seen by community

                                                         10

                  leaders as making good economic sense (i.e.,  promoting tourism, sense  of local

                  pride, enhancing community attractiveness).

                       C. Preserving Farmland and Open 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 where land or interests in land are

                  acquired, this acqu isition is intended to serve multiple objectives.

                  Acquisition of rights in farmland may be intended to protect these areas for

                  their agri cultural productivity but also typically because farmland represents

                  an important and valued form of open space. Open space programs may, of

                  course, serve natural and scenic lands that are not being protected for

                  agricultural potential. Moreover many of these open space acquisition

                  programs are, of course, the result of the increasing importance of aesthetic

                  and visual quality (mentioned above). In any   event, for purposes of

                  practicality, we will tend to talk about open space and farmland preservation

                  together.

                       A number of interesting and innovative open space acquisition programs

                  have.been developed in recent years. Increasingly localities appear committed

                  to protecting, in some fashion, the open space and natural amenities so

                  important to local quality of life.' Moreover, localities, as well as states

                  are exploring new and progressive ways to fund and implement such

                  acquisition/preservation programs. Creation.of the Nantucket Land Bank has

                  been one of the more innovative and successful open space acquisition programs

                  in recent years. Created in 1983 through@a special act of the Massachusetts

                  legislature, the land bank acquires land through funds collected 'from a 2%

                  land transfer tax. Given the booming and speculative nature of the land

                 market on Nantucket Island, the amount of money raised through the transfer

                 tax is incredible, now approaching some $80,000 per week. As of July 1986,

                 the Bank had raised over $6 million from about 3,000 real estate transfers

                 (Klein, 1986, p. 12). These monies have then been used-by the Land Bank as

                 leverage to fl oat tax-free bonds. The Bank is governed by a five-member

                 commission elected locally. The Bank.has been given wide-ranging powers,

                 including the power to acquire land through eminent domain. (The

                 Massachusetts legislation creating the Nantucket Land Bank is included in the

                 technical appendix, Volume III.) To many the experience of Nantucket is too

                 unique to be very useful to the rest of the county, however. For one thing it

                 is an island where the physical scarcity of its resources are especially

                 apparent. Moreover, the level of real estate transactions is very high; a

                 necessary feature to make such a transfer tax work. As well, there is the

                 popular image of.Nantucket as an exclusive upper-income resort, with a history

                 of concern about.conservation, historic preservation and architectural

                 standards (Phillips, 1985). Yet, the concern felt by Nantucket residents and

                 visitors about protecting the quality of this environment is, as we have seen,

                 present in many locales, and increasingly common. The Nantucket strategy may

                 well prove effective in other perhaps dissimilar localities.

                      Other communities are similarly using real estate transfer taxes. The

                 Town of Little Compton and New Shoreham, Rhode Island, for instance, are

                 implementing such a program. The 1985 Rhode Island Legisla  tion creating the

                 Little Compton Agricultural Conservancy Trust is included in the Technical

                 Appendix (Volume III).

                      There has been a substantial increase, we believe, in the acceptance of

                 the technique of acquiring less-than-fee-simple interests in open space and

                 resource lands. One of the most successful of these programs has been the

                                                          12

                   King County, Washington, development rights purchase  program. This program

                   has acquired development rights to 12,650 acres of farmland (personal

                   communication with Leroy A. Jones June 5, 1987). The program was funded

                   through a voter-approved $50 million bond package in 1979. King County's

                   farmland ordinance, also enacted in 1979,-established detailed areas-where

                   acquisition of development rights-could take place (in a series of maps

                   serving as an appendix to the ordinance) and a set of priorities for the

                   selection of farmlands. Acquisition occurred in several rounds over the

                   course of an eight-year period. The county has just this year completed     its

                   development rights acquisition. County officials indicate that they feel the

                   program has been a tremendous success, creating critical masses of-preserved

                   farmland and open space, and acquiring a large portion of lands identified as

                   especially critical in early county studies.   (A more detailed case study of

                   the King County program is provided in Volume II, the case study report).

                        There have been other uses of the PDR as well. Perhaps the oldest

                   example is that of-Suffolk County, Long Island. There, again fueled by

                   concerns about-the loss of prime farmland and-open space in the face of    rapid

                   suburbanization, they have acquired several thousand acres of rights.    Several

                   states have initiated statewi de PDR programs, including Maryland, New Jersey

                   and Connecticut (see Kwong, 1987). Forsyth County, North Carolina has

                   recently initiated a PDR program to protect farmland, and has by the first of

                   July completed four purchase transactions (Farmland Notes, 1987).

                        While a number of.localities are moving toward acquisition as an-

                   effective approach to preserving agricultural and open land, regulatory

                   approaches remain common. Under Oregon's Senate Bill 100, for example,     all

                   counties must place farmland of a certain quality (SCS Classes I through IV

                   west of the Cascades, Class  I through VI east of the Cascades) in Exclusive

                                                       13

                 Farm Use (EFU) zones and may not permit parcel sizes in  these zones to fall

                 below what is necessary for a commercially-viable farm unit (Beatley, 1984).

                 This usually means the adoption of minimum lot sizes that may be quite large

                 in.some parts of the states (particularly in the east). Many communities

                 across the country continue to rely on traditional zoning to protect farmland

                 and open space, particularly large lot provisions. A number of Townships in

                 New Jersey use this management technique, for example, including Plainsboro,

                 Cransbury, Colts Neck, Franklin and Bethlehem Townships (personal

                 communication).  Perhaps one of the most suecessful large-lot agricultural

                 programs is that of Napa County, California. It requires minimum lot sizes,

                 for. instance, of 40 acres in its Napa Valley Vineyards. This county has

                 receive'd tremendous growth pressures from the rapidly-growing San Francisco

                 Bay Areas, and county officials feel that its large lot provisions, along with

                 its annual growth caps, have done much to dissuade development in productive

                 agricultural, areas of the county (see the case study description in Volume

                      S me localities have sought to use the incentive of greater development
                 densito to encourage farmland and open space-preservation. Boulder County,
                      y

                 Colorado, for instance, has established special non-urban PUD,(Planned Unit

                 Development) provisions which provide greater density in exchange for a

                 commitmentto keep a certain percentage of the land in open space /farmland use

                 in perpetuity. Specifically,'in most rural zoning districts in the county the

                 maximum permissible density is one dwelling unit per thirty-fiveacres.

                 However, under the non-urban PUD provisions this density can be increased to

                 two units per thirty-five acres (plus one pre-existing homestead unit) where

                 the developer or landowner agrees to place the new structures on 25% of the

                 PUD parcel, and agrees to enter into an easement to maintain the other 75% in

                                                        .14

                  open space and agricultural uses. (See the Boulder City/County Case Study in

                  Volume II.) The use of transferable development rights (TDR) to protect open

                  space and farmland is increasingly common. This technique has been heavily

                  use, for example, in Montgomery County, Maryland. (TDR is increasingly used

                  to accomplish an array of growth management objectives; see case studies of

                  Medford Township  New Jersey and Denver, Colorado contained in Volume II.)

                       One of the aspects of Oregon's farmland preservation program which makes

                  it unique is the way in which it ties regulatory requirements to a specific

                  definition of farmland productivity -- namely the SCS soil classes. In a

                  similar direction, a number of local governments around the county have

                  adopted farmland protection provisions based on the DOA's new LESA system--or,

                  Land Evaluation and Site Assessment. Among these communities are such places

                  as Clarke County, Virginia, and Linn County, Oregon.

                           Growth Management and the Natural Environment: Protecting Sensitive
                       D.
                  Areas and Mitigatinz Natural Hazarcis

                       Growth management programs are increasingly conce rned with protecting the

                  natural environment. The nature of this concern ranges from managing growth

                  to reducing air pollution, to guarding against groundwater contamination, and

                  to protecting sensitive habitat such as wetlands and coastal beaches and

                  dunes. Groundwater, and the ways in which urban development influences its

                  quality, have been receiving substantially greater attention in recent years.

                  Communities such as Duxbury, MassaGhusetts, San Antonio.an.d Austin, Texas and

                  Suffolk County, New York are currently or are considering development

                  regulations designed to restrict groundwater contamination (e.g., Celis, 1987)

                       Several New Jersey localities, including Hillsborough, Montgomery and

                  East Arwell, have downzoned certain portions of their localities to protect

                  groundwater resources. The Town of South Kingstown, Rhode Island, has enacted

                                                       15

                 a special rural low density five-acre minimum zone to protect its groundwater.

                 The New Castle County, Delaware, Water Resources Agency has recently proposed

                 prohibiting future development in certain important recharge areas, including

                 sand and gravel areas (Pummer, 1987). Middletown, Rhode Island uses a

                 special aquifer protection overlay. Nantuckett, Massachusetts, has similarly

                 stringent groundwater protection provisions. As these examples indicate,

                 groundwater protection has clearly been elevated to.a growth management issue
                 of.s.ubstantial concern.

                     A number of localities have placed the protection of natural ecosystems

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

                 Florida, local use plan and land development provisions 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.

                     Development must  increasingly satisfy stringent environmental performance

                 standards. The case studies of Breckenridge and Fort Collins (Colorado),

                 Hilton Head (South Carolina),.Medford Township (New Jersey), Martin County

                 (Florida), and Boulder (Colorado), are illustrative. In Boulder, for

                 instance, all new development must achieve a certain minimum level of resource

                 conservation (e.g., achieved through use of such things as orientation of

                 buildings to take advantage of solar energy, use of water-efficient toilets,

                 etc.). The development point systems used in Breckenridge and Ft. Collins,

                 Colorado (described later in this paper as well as in the case studies

                 volume), strongly incorporate environmental protection. For instance, under

                                                        16

                  the Breckenridge system development designs which incorporate a large,number

                  of fireplaces (e.g., one per unit); and thus contribute to the significant air

                  quality problems of the region, are strongly penalized.  A number of

                  localities have adopted solar access ordinances,.including Eugene, Oregon.

                  (The Eugene Ordinance is discussed in Volume II case studiesand included    in

                  its entirety in the Technical Appendix, Volume 111.)

                       Communities are increasingly aware of the sensitive ecological habitats

                  within their boundaries and are attempting to control growth to minimize

                  impacts on these areas. Beaverton and Cannon-Beach, Oregon, are examples of

                  ,relatively developed areas which have recently taken efforts to protect the

                  remaining wetlands within their boundaries. Beaverton, a suburb of Portland,

                  has conducted an extensive review.of its natural resources, resulting 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 their areas (e.g., acquisition of Cougar

                  Mountain) (see King County, 1987). The Town of Nags Head, North Carolina, has

                  taken special action to minimize the impact of development on a nature

                  preserve -- The Nags Head Woods (these efforts are described in the Nags Head

                  case study).

                       Much progress at the local level is, of course, a response to

                  increasingly stringent @;tate requirements. State coastal management programs,

                  which are themselves largely stimulated by federal legislation (i.e., the

                  Coastal Zone Management Act), have encouraged substantial local efforts at

                  protecting natural resources. Arundel County, Maryland, for example,.has

                  adopted a strong shoreline management plan in response to the requirements of

                  Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas Program. As a further example, king

                                                       17

                 County has developed strong shoreline policies as a result of requirements

                 under Washington States' Shoreline Management Program.

                      Incorporation of natural hazards in the management of land use and growth

                 has been increasingly 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. In coastal communities, development is typically required
                 to'se'.tback a certain distance, often a considerable one, from the ocean. The

                 Town of Nags Head, North Carolina, for instance, has made the mitigation of

                 coastal hazards a major component of its growth management system and a number

                 of implementing actions have either been taken or being consi dered to make

                 future patterns of growth less vulnerable. The Nags Head program is described,

                 ingreater detail in the case studies report (Volume II). The states of North

                 Carolina and Florida now requires.their coastal localities to prepare

                 hurricane mitigationand disaster reconstruction plans as part of their normal

                 land use planning requiremenus (see Brower, Godschalk and Beatley, 1986).

                     Localities which contain mountainous, high-slope areas have increasingly

                 taken efforts to.control growth in these areas to prevent slides and slope

                 failure. Hazard reduction strategies can include reductions in the

                 permissible density of development on high slopes, such as in the case of San

                 Mat eo County, California,-which restricts the density of residential

                 development in high slope - instability zones to one unit per forty acres

                 (Kockelman, 1986). Or, many localities',permit development in these hazardous

                 high-slope areas but impose certain engineering requirements on it. The

                 foothills ordinance in Boise., Idaho, for example, imposes special requirements

                 on all proposed construction on slopes of 15% or greater, including the

                 preparation of detailed grading and drainage plans. Development must adhere

                                                        18

                  to'detailed hillside development st.andards, addressing, among other things,

                  grading and veg etation, drainage controls, and roadways and circulation. (The

                  Boise Ordinance is included in Volume III, the Technical Appendix). Benton

                  County, Washington, developed detailed-hillside development standards which

                  are used to condition the issuance of special use permits in hillside areas

                  (personal communication, June 91,. 1987). Scottsdale, Arizona, has also adopted
                  special regulations for development in its district. Similarly, some

                  California communities have also taken actions to restrict growth in proximity

                  to earthquake fault zones, as well as to require special seismic design

                  standards for new structures in such high hazard areas (Brown and Kockelman,

                  1985)

                       E. Making Growth Pay'its Way

                      While for decades it has been  quite common for localities to require the

                  dedication for land, or fees in lieu of dedication, as a condition of

                  subdivision or development approval, (as well as requirement that certain

                  facilities be installed), the idea that growth and development should pay its

                  own way has become especially popular in recent years. Increasingly,

                  developers are being required to assume a much larger portion of the costs of

                  growth, covering.a wider range of public facilities and services from road

                  construction to police and fire protection to the'provision of.libraries.

                  Increas-ingly, developers are being required to assume a large portion of the

                  "off-site" facility costs associated with their projects.

                       The extent to which this trend of making growth pay its own way is

                  evident varies by state and region, as does the precise technique employed.

                  Perhaps the most popular new technique to accomplish these objectives is the

                  impact fee, used extensively by localities in California and Florida (Kirlin

                                                          19

                  and Kirlin, 1982; McKay, 1986; Snyder and Stegman, 1986). Indeed, Florida's

                  innovative 1985 growth management package explicitly encourages localities to

                  use impact fees (Bosselman and Stroud, 1985). A January 1986 survey of cities

                  and counties in Florida found that fifteen of its sixty-seven counti    es and

                  sixty-two of its ninety-eight counties were currently using impact fees to

                  help pay for growth (Miller and Lines, 1986). The survey indicated,      as well,

                  that some twenty additional localities had impact fee ordinances or were

                  considering the adoption of such fees. While the use of such techniques were

                  pioneered in Florida and California they are becoming increasingly common-,

                  from Colorado to North Carolina. We found impact fees to be used extensively

                  in.Oregon and Washington, for instance, although they tended to be called

                  different names, often "systems development charges."

                       The range of services and facilities for which new growth is expected to

                  pay has been expanding. Martin County, Florida, for example, now has a Beach

                  Impact Fee Ordinance which collects funds to'pay for the acquisition of

                  recreational beachlands (see case studies, Volume II)., Commonly such fees are

                  used to pay for the contribution of water and sewer improvements, the

                  construction of roads, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire

                  protection, and schools. The percentage of the total costs created by new

                  development which are assessed through impact fees, and actual size of the

                  fee, varies across the country, with some approaching 100%. These fees,are

                  increasingly quite large.   The impact fees in Fairfield, California, are as

                  high as $15,000 for example (Vesey, 1987).

                       Special units of local government, such as school districts, can also be
                  given impact fee authority. A relatively new law in California now permi@s

                  school districts there to directly charge new residential and commercial

                  development a square-footage based school impact fee (Billiter, 1987). The

                                                         20

                  fee is not permitted to exceed $1.50 per square foot for new residences and

                  $.25 per square foot  for commerc ial structures. The Los Angeles Unified

                  School District, the  largest system in the state, adopted these new provisions

                  soon after passage of the state law.

                       Partly in response to the legal requirements that a "rational nexus"

                  between growth and the service demands created by it be established,

                  localities are increasingly estimating and predicting the likely impacts of

                  growth through sophisticated,'usually computei-based 'impact models. Broward

                  County, Florida's "TRIPS" (standing for  "Traffic Review and Impact Planning

                  System) system is illustrative. Here the county charges road impact fees

                  which are directly related to the new street and t raffic impacts of a project

                  as predicted by the computer model (see Knack, 1984). Washington County,

                  Oregon and Austin, Texas have been developing similar traffic impact models to

                  use in assessing the effects of new development proposals and in calculating

                  development fees (personal communications).

                       Increasingly larger cities are holding downtown development projects,

                  particularly highrise-office development, more accountable for the social

                  impacts such developments have on the broader community. San Francisco has

                  -perhaps been the leader in this area. For years residents of this city have

                  been concerned with the effects of dramatic increases in the growth of

                  downtown office buildings, and has for sometime required office development to

                  contribute to a housing trust fund used to fund affordable housing units (the

                  San Francisco linkage requirements are included in the Technical Appendix).
                  In July-of 1985 the city adopted its hotly debated "Downtown Plan," which

                  added ne w requirements. The plan seeks to address the negative impacts of

                  rapid office development in a number of ways (as discussed earlier). First,

                  it placed a 950,000 square foot annual cap on new downtown development through

                                                       21

                 1988 (annual office space creation since 1979 has been about 3.5 million

                 square foot), guiding development away from the city's financial district

                 (Rubin, 1985). As mentioned earlier, Proposition "M", passed by voters in.the

                 fall of'1986, further reduces the annual office development permitted in the

                 city. As well, the plan places new height restrictions on downtown buildings.

                      In addition to required contributions to the city's housing fund, new

                 downtown development must also contribute to a transit fund, and perhaps for

                 the first time in any major city, new-employers must provide for child-care

                 facilities. The child care provision applies to all buildings of 50,000

                 square feet or greater. Such development must either contribmte on-site child

                 care facilities or contribute to a city child care fund at the rate of $1 per

                 square foot. Increasingly, new development is being  required to mitigate the

                 broader societal effects of its locational decisions. To many this is an

                 issue.of equity. It is the new office development that indeed creates these

                 problems, it is argued (e.g., traffic congestion, need for housing for new

                 workers, etc.), and thus they should be required to contribute in a major way

                 to their resolution. As San Francisco residents recently noted, "These

                 developers.are getting a lot out of this city, so it's only right that they

                 put something back in." (Myers, 1986). While San Francisco's impact

                 provisions are perhaps the most far-reaching nationally, this may well be the

                 direction that other cities take in the future. (Excerpts from the San

                 Francisco linkage provisions are included in Volume III, the Technical

                 Appendix.) Shortly after San Francisco created its child-care requirements,_

                 for instance, the City of Concord, California, passed similar provisions.

                     The concept of "Linkage" -- that is linking approval of urban development

                 to the provision of certain urban services and facilities -- has increasingly

                 become standard practice. Most other cities with linkage programs  usually

                                                          22

                  address a much narrower scope of issues than in the case of San Francisco.

                  The most common linkage requirement is for affordable housing. The City of

                  Boston has, since 1983, assessed new   commercial development an affordable

                  housing fee imposed at a rate of $5 per square foot for all square footag    e in

                  excess of 100,000. These monies are placed in a Neighborhood Housing Trust

                  Fund to be used in the creation or renovation of low and mo   derate income

                  housing (Metropolitan Area Planning Council, 1986). The city has also

                  considered imposing an additional fee to pay for the provision of job training

                  programs. Other notable linkage programs have been established in Santa

                  Monica and Palo Alto (CA), Chicago, and Washington, D.C. (Keating, 1986).

                       F. Affordable Housina

                       As the preceding discussion of impact fees   and linkage programs

                  indicates, there is a strong concern on the parts of many communities 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

                  developers are asked to satisfy certain low and moderate income housing

                  requirements when they seek zoning changes which would permit higher

                  development densities. -The most common type of requirements is that a     certain

                  number of 'units be "set-aside` for low and moderate income families. In

                  Newton, Massachusetts, for instance, de@7elopers who seek to increase

                  permissible residential density must either agree to set-aside 10% of their

                  dwel ling units for low income or elderly citizens, or provide for these units

                  in some other way (i.e., through a cash payment, or provision on a different

                  site) (Metropolitan Area Plaftning Council, 1986).

                       In Boulder, Colorado, affordable housing was originally a part of its

                  development point system, creating an incentive for the provision of

                                                          23

                  affordable housing. This incentive has since     been replaced by a mandatory

                  performance standard that all new development    must satisfy. These

                  requirements vary depending upon when the particular land in question was

                  annexed to the city. For residential projects proposed for land which was

                  annexed on or after December, 1973, at least 15% of the units must be for

                  moderate-income residents, or 7.5% for low-income residents. For proj      ects

                  proposed on sites which were annexed before December, 1973, the percentage

                  requirement drops to 10% for moderate income units or 5% for low-income units.

                       Other examples of affordable housing provisions are also included in the

                  case studies in Volume 11. The Town of Hilton Head,-South Carolina, for

                  instance, has a special affordable housing overlay zone, These provisions

                  allow for density bonuses for projects which incorporate low and moderate

                  income units. The Fort Collins, Colorado, point system (also described in

                  Volume II) provides additional density bonuses, as well, for the provision of

                  affor dable housing. The Breckenri  dge point system subtracts points for

                  proposed developments which do not provide a sufficient,amount of employee

                  housing (and adds points for greater provision.of such units; see Volume II).,

                  Napa County, California, as a further example, sets aside a certain number of

                  its annual allowable development permits for affordable housing (see

                  Volume II).

                       Some communities have been concerned about the loss of affordable housing

                  through the conversion of rental units to condo   miniums. The City of Eugene,

                  Oregon, has enacted a fairly stringent ordinance placing restrictions on such

                  conversions. A would-be condominium converter is required, among other

                  things, to find the tenant comparable housing elsewhere (or provide a lifetime

                  tenancy), and to provide certain moving expenses. This ordinance is described

                                                         24

                   in the Eugene case study contained in Volume II, and the text of the ordinance

                   is included in the Technical Appendix.

                       G. Sharing in the Profits of Growth and Development

                       While not in wide use,  some localities have sought to tap into the

                   profits of g rowth-rela ted development through equity sharing agreements. This

                   may well be a new fiscal trend in the growth management area. Communities in

                   California, in particular, have been experimenting with this form of growth

                   management. Cities such as Fontana, Fairfield, Monrovia and Duarte have

                   entered into equity agreements with private developers which secure for the

                   communities a certain agreed-upon percentage of the resulting net profits.

                   The City of Monrovia, for instance, has become a partner in the development of

                   a shopping center. Through the Monrovia Redevelopment Agency the city

                   acquired and prepared the land for development. The land on which the

                   shopping site was sold to the developer, and the parking lot land leased to.
                   the developer for a thirty-year period. In exchange the city will receive 17%

                   of the shopping center s.annual net income for the life of the project. The

                   City of Duarte, on the other hand, is involved in the development of a five-

                   story commercial condominium building, while Fairfield is also involved in the

                   development of a.shopping-center.

                   III. New Approaches  to Citizen Involvement in Growth Management/ New Decision
                            Processes

                       John Naisbitt in his book Mep-atrends argues that the U.S. is   experiencing

                   a "massive shift from a representative to a participatory democracy" (1982, p.

                   160).  One indication of this shift is the tremendous increase in the use of

                   "ballot box measures," that is citizen initiatives and public referenda, to

                   decide a wide range of public issues. Growth issues are increasingly being

                                                          25

                 decided at the local level through such approaches. Ormon (1984), for

                 instance, has counted some fifty growth management related ballot box measures

                 in California in the last decade, and predicts their use will increase.       Using

                 such measures,  a host o f growth management objectives have been pursued from

                 the setting of annual rates of growth for a locality, to establishing minimum

                 lot sizes for agricultural lands.

                       Several recent ballot  box measures are illustrative of ways this direct-

                 democracy technique is being used to effect growth management outcomes. In'

                 November 1985, the voters in San Diego passed "Proposition A", placing some

                 52,000 acres of farmland on the city's northern fringe in a "future

                 urbanizing" zone and restricting    for a ten-year period the ability of the city

                 to modify the zoning to allow more extensive development than the low-density

                 permitted. Rezoning of these lands to permit more intensive development will

                 require voter approval (Colburn, 1986; Stein, 1986). One of the most

                 extensive growth management programs created through ballot box measures is

                 Santa Cruz County's (CA), created through "Measure J," approved by voters in

                 1978 (Stein, 1986). It placed a 2% annual cap on population growth and

                 required 1 5% of the new housing in the county to be affordable (see below).

                 As mentioned earlier, "Propositio   n M", passed by San Francisco residents in

                 November, 1986, is another example. Here citizens and slow-growth      advocates

                 found the annual cap placed on office development established in the new

                 downtown plan as too.permissive -- The proposition reduces this cap from

                 950,000 square feet per year to 450,000 square feet per year. Residents of

                 Portland, Maine, passed a referendum restricting the types of development

                 permitted along its shoreline.

                      The recent passage of "Proposition U" in Los Angeles -- the so-called
                 "slow-gr*owth initiative"     is a further example. This proposition, carrying

                                                        26

                  a 2 to 1 margin of victory, places substantial restrictions on the intensity

                  of commercial development permitted in that city. Specifically, the

                  initiative cuts in half the size of buildings on some 70% of the land in the

                  city zoned for commercial or industrial uses. Supporters of the proposition

                  have heralded the victory as an example of citizens' unhappy with the way

                  their city was growing, and the side effects of that growth, wresting control

                  away from the powers that be. As one councilman who co-authored the measure

                  noted following 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 this is a healthy trend, placing

                  many growth-related decisions back in the hands of those that are really

                  affected then, others are more apprehensive about the benefits of such a

                  trend. Some argue that many growth issues are simply too complex to be

                  decided through a direct vote    rather, careful thought and deliberation is

                  required and that these decisions should remain with elected representatives.

                  Others argue that such ballot box measures can result in the expenditure of

                  large sums of money. Itf has been reported, for instance, that supporters of

                  Proposition U in Los Angeles spent some $300,000 in campaigning for the

                  measure. Others fear that the rights and interests of  minorities and the poor

                  will be trampled over in 'this pursuit of popular government.

                       Nevertheless, it appears that ballot-box growth management is a trend

                  that will be with us for some time. While the examples above call for

                  specific actions, some localities have created legislative arrangements where
                                                                                             I -          I
                  virtually all growth issues, or certain categories of growth issues, must be

                  put before the public. The City of Corvallis, Oregon is an example. Here, as

                                                        27

                  a result itself of a referendum, all future annexations. in the city must be

                  approved by popular vote. Because virtually any new growth in   the city must

                  be annexed (i.e., to obtain public facilities) this provides the public with

                  relatively complete popular control over development. The'requirement has

                  amounted to a project-by-project public vote, with relatively small projects

                  gaining easy approval, and larger projects being suspect. This arrangement

                  has not prevented the city's growth, but appears to discourage large

                  increments of growth (personal interview, April, 1987).

                      Another aspect in this trend of citizen involvement involves the creation

                  of new processes by which citizens are actively involved in the preparation of

                  a comprehensive plan or growth management program. Austin, Texas has embarked

                  on a massive community participation program in which citizens and community

                  leaders have actually been given the bulk of the responsibility, aided by

                  planning staff, for developing the city's new plan. The process, called

                  'Austinplan," is overseen by an 87-member steering.committee. In appointing

                  citizens,to.the steering committee, a conscious attempt was made to ensure

                  representation of different interests in the community. Representatives were

                  selected from real estate and land development, environmental groups,

                  different neighborhoods in the city, business and finance, and ethnic
                  minorities,-among others. The intent was both to create a representative   body

                  and one which would impart substantial political credibility to the final  plan

                  and implementing program. In addition to the steerin g committee, fourteen

                  task groups have been formed to address a wide range of substantive planning

                  and growth-related issues from transportation to the environment to health

                  services. Planning for specific geographical.areas in the city is also taking

                  place concurrently through Austinplan@s sectoral plans. Through these

                  participating mechanisms extraordinary dialogue has occurred on growth issues.

                                                         28

                  Consensus is the explicit guiding principle in the process, with volunteer

                  facilitators assisting. Together these citizen units are moving   toward the

                  preparation of a final plan for the city, and a set of development ordinances

                  and other strategies to imp-lement it. A deadline of February 22, 1988 has

                  been established for submittal of Aastinplan to the  ,City Council. Austinplan

                  is described in greater detail in a  case study contained in Volume II.

                       Similar democraticized citizen processes are occurring in other

                  localities, including San Antonio, Texas and Charlotte, North Carolina. In

                  Charlotte (Charlotte-Mecklenberg), a series of.public workshops, and a day-

                  long mini-conference on "Planning  for a Livable Community," were held to

                  promote citizen involvement. A twelve-member citizens task force was also

                  appointed to oversee develop%ent of their new  comprehensive plan and to

                  provide a forum for citizen discussion of planning and growth issues (Crompton

                  and Morris, 1986     Extensive citizen review preceded adoption of Charlotte's
                  2005 plan. The' Charlotte experience is also described in detail in a case

                  study in Volume II.

                       The City of Williamsburg, James  City/County and York County, Virginia, in

                  collaboration with the Williamsburg.Foundation and Bus ch Properties (Anheiser-

                  Busch) have recently completed a similar citizen involvement program. An

                  initial series of  growth forums were held in the fall of 1986, eliciting

                  citizen participation through newspaper advertisements. These forums in turn

                  led to the formation of "idea groups" addressing four different growth-related

                  topic areas: Housing and Balanced Development, Public Service Capacity,

                  Visual Quality and Urban Design, and Environmental and Historic Resources.

                  These citizen groups then met for several months elaborating on and promoting

                  their concerns in these areas. In March of 1987 a conference entitled

                  "Perspectives on Growth" was held at the College of William and Mary in

                                                       29

                 Williamsburg at which time the idea groups presented their conclusions and

                 recommendations.for future actions. Following the conference a 21-member

                 commission has been established to further pursue the recommendations and

                 ideas presented. The Commission is comprised of both public officials and

                 private citizens, an equal number from each of the three local jurisdictions.

                 A major part of the success of this participatory process was the active role

                 played by the Institute of Environmental Negotiation, at the University of

                 Virginia, which both designed and staffed the meetings.

                 IV. Some Important Growth Guidance Strategies

                      A. Controlling the Rate of Growth

                          A number of localities around the country continue to follow the

                 early Petaluma model of regulating the amount of urban growth that can occur

                 in a given year. As already noted., the County of Santa Cruz, California,

                 passed a county referendum which places a one percent annual growth rate cap

                 on.new development. A number of other California communities have adopted

                 similar provisions, including the City of Davis and the County of Napa. The

                 Napa Program is described in greater detail in Volume II,,the case studies

                 report. Also created by c itizen referendum (Measure A), it restricts its

                 annual growth rate.to what the regional growth rate is. Their annual cap

                 limits only residential growth, but allocates permits across four categories

                 of residential including an "affordable" category. Unlike other annual permit

                 caps, such as Petaluma's, there is no elaborate point system for judging

                 between applicants. Rather, permits are issued on a first-come, first-serve

                 basis (and the Board of County Supervisors can shift permits around between

                 the four categories -- except that "affordable" units cannot be reduced).

                 Where demand for development permits exceeds the supply in any given year a

                 lottery system is employed.

                                                         30

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

                  similar annual permit restriction. Article VII of its Land Management

                  Ordinance (LMO) establishes a development permit phasing program, establishing

                                        ive year per
                  permit limits for a f1            iod (through the year 1991). The ordinance

                  sets at 4,250 the total allocation for this five year period, of which 2,050

                  are to be reserved for single family units and 800 for.hotel/motel units. An

                  allocation schedule is established for each year, with priority given to

                  single family units (when the alloca tion for-single family units is exhausted,

                  units from other categories can be used). The Hilton Head LMO clearly states

                  that this allocation scheme is only meant to be temporary, and a direct

                  function of the island's limited infrastructure capacity.

                        Several Colorado localities have for many years operated similar annual

                  caps, the most notable perhaps being the City of Boulder. Boulder adopted in

                  November, 1976, the so-called "Danish.Plan." which placed a maximum two percent

                  per year cap on building permits. It also contained a detailed point system

                  for prioritizing between different development proposals. The Danish system

                  went  out of existence in 1982 because of a sunset clause and has been replaced

                  with  several similar'versions of the annual development cap. Currently, the

                  city  uses a proportional allocation system which seeks to,provide development

                  permits in proportion to the entire number of permits requested during any one

                  allocation period. For instance, if there are only 100 permits available, and

                  200 are requested, then each applicant gets that proportion of the total

                  permit pool which his or her represents with respect to the number requested.
                  If an applicant requests 50 permits (of the 200) then he or*.she is entitled to

                  one-fourth of the total pool available, or 25 development permits. Planning

                  staff.feel this represents a more equitable arrangement. The elaborate point

                                                        31

                  system that existed under the Danish plan has essentially been replaced by a

                  series of performance standards which all projects must satisfy.

                       B. Urban Growth Boundaries and Delineation of Preferred Growth Areas

                      Many localities have taken efforts to identi fy areas where growth is

                  preferred or permitted and areas where the reverse is the case. These efforts

                  vary in their level of sophistication and the specific legal measures to

                  implement these designations. Under the requirements of Senate Bill 100, for

                  instance, all Oregon municipalities must establish Urban Growth Boundaries

                  (ugb). These UGBs have the effect of sharply separating urban and

                  urbanizable" lands (land not yet developed but which could be developed for

                  urban uses) from resource and rural uses. This strategy has had substantial

                  success both in promoting more efficient patterns.of growth and in preserving

                  valuable farm and forestland (Beatley, 1987). While Oregon planning is

                  distinct in that all municipalities must establish these urban growth

                  parameters, there is room as well for.local creativity and innovation. The

                  City of Salem, for example, has established a phasing system within the UGB

                  which encourages growth in those areas where it is less-costly to service it.

                  Land within the UGB has been delineated into two broad zones: a Current

                  Developed Area (CDA) and an Urban Growth Area (UGA). Special development

                  provisions exist in the UGA, including requirements that development construct

                  public facilities (streets, sewers, drainage) to "link" it with the current

                  developed area. Also a part of the growth strategy is the provision of at

                  least a ten-year supply of serviced land in or contiguous to the CDA. This is.

                  obviously an example as well of an attempt to shift some of the costs of

                  growth to new development, particularly where the costs are greater because of

                  inefficient development patterns. (The Salem program is described in the case

                  studies report, Volume II.)

                                                         32

                        Boulder, Colorado, is employing similar growth-phasing techniques (see

                   Volume II). The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, based on a fifteen-year

                   planning period, delineates three broad development zones. These zones are  to

                   indicate whether the city expects adequate public facili ties to exist in the

                   future and thus where urban development can occur. These zones then serve to

                   guide the annexation and capital facilities decisions of the city. The city

                   has defined very precisely what the level of public facilities to be

                   considered "adequate" for urban growth, including such things as fire and

                   police response times, and sewer and water flow standards.

                        Montgomery County, Maryland, a suburb of Washington, D.C., represents

                   another example. Here, the county implements a comprehensive plan which is

                   sometimes referred to as the "wedges and corridors" plan because it seeks to

                   preserve open space wedges between the county's growth corridors (Christeller,

                   1986). A key strategy in Montgomery County is to concentrate growth in the

                   lower part of the county, closest to Washington. Severe development

                   restrictions are placed on farmland and open space with the ability to

                   transfer unused development rights to desi gnated growth areas.. While this

                   strategy has come under recent political and legal attack in the county, it

                   has in the past been relatively effective in protecting the county's open

                   space areas.

                        C. Performance Controls and Point Systems

                        Over the year it has become common for localities to search for new and

                                    atives to conventional Euclidean Zoning. These innovations
                   innovative altern

                   often serve as the center piece of a growth management program, and become

                   important in achieving a range of local objectives. The concept of

                   performance controls is an.increasingly popular alternative to conventional

                                                        33

                 zoning, originally exposed by Lane Kendig (1980). Largo,.Florida, has adopted

                 such a performance based land development system, replacing  many of its

                 traditional use-restrictions. The  focus of,the new system  is largely on

                 intensity, as Easley (1984, p. 25) describes it:

                           Intensity of development is controlled through standards for floor-
                      area ratios and impervious-surface ratios.   Gone 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 Hap, 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.

                      Some localities have developed growth management systems which rely

                 entirely or heavily on point systems to determine whether a proposed

                 development is permissible. Ft. Collins and Breckenridge, Colorado, were two

                 of the first communities to develop and extensively use such a system. The..

                 Ft. Collins Land Development Guidance System was enacted in 1,982, and combines

                 both performance standards and a point system. Development, depending upon

                 the category or type (e.g. residential, industrial uses, neighborhood service

                 center), is subject both to absolute and variable project and performance

                 criteria. Absolute criteria are those by which the development is judged

                 either to have satisfied them or not to have satisfied them. A project will

                 not be approved if these standards are not satisfied. For instance, one yes-

                 no standard applied to all development is whether all vehicular use areas,

                 pedestrian circulation paths and exterior portions of buildings are provided

                 with adequate security lighting (City of Ft. Collins, 1982, p. 7). The point

                 system uses the variable criteria. For each criterion (the criteria are

                 different for different categories of use) one to three points are assigned

                 and then multiplied by a number expressing the local priority of that

                 particular factor. Projects can proceed if they secure a   certain percentage

                                                          34

                  (usually 50%) of the maximum points available. For residential-uses there is

                  a special density chart which establishes, based again on a point system

                  (presented in terms of earned credit), what the permissible density of the

                  project will be. Greater points (earned credits) are provided for projects

                  which are, for instance, contiguous to existing development, are close to a

                  neighborhood shopping center, close to transit stops or schools, and so on.

                  The Fort Collins system is'further described in Volume 11.

                       The Breckenridge, Colorado, guidance system is very similar    to

                  Ft. Collins' (and indeed precedes it). (It is also described in     Volume II.)

                  It, as well, incorporates both absolute.and relative performance     standards.

                  Unlike Ft. Collins, general use zones and density levels are established in

                  advance through the land use plan, although some density bonus provisi'ons do,

                  exist. Under the Breckenridge point system (the relative criteria) minus

                  points can be assigned, as well as positive points, and a proposed development

                  must obtain a  final net positive score (or at least a zero score) to proceed.

                  This allows a developer to compensate for a negative score on one criterion by

                  doing well on other criterion and obtaining positive points ( e.g., by adding

                  certain amenities). The Ft. Collins and Breckenridge systems differ somewhat

                  in the substantive content of the performance standards. The Breckenridge

                  System, for instance, given its location and economy, has provisions which

                  deal with snow removal and employee housing, which Ft. Collins system does     not

                  contain.

                       Hardin County, Kentucky, adopted its point system (called the
                  "Development Guidance System or DGS) in January, 1984 (see Harned, 1984). The

                  system replaces the numerous use categories found in typical zoning ordinances

                  with a unified evaluation scheme. Virtually all proposed development must

                  obtain a special use permit and-is assigned points based on a number of

                                                        35

                  factors pertaining to the site (e.g., productivity of soils, access to roads,

                  types of surrounding development) (Gordon, 1984). Automatic approval of a

                  proposal requires the accumulation of at least 150 out of 325 possible points.

                  Denial is automatic if a project receives fewer than 90 points, and projects

                  receiving between 90 and 150 points are sent to the county planning commission

                  for further review. Following approval under the point system a project must

                  still undergo a compatibility assessment and review of its detailed

                  development plans. The Harden County point system is included in Volume III,

                  the Technical Appendix.

                       D. Functional and Geoaraphic Refinement

                      Many communities are making strong efforts to translate and,implement

                  their city-wide growth management plans and strategies through various forms

                  of,"refinement." This  refinement can occur geographically through

                  neighborhood or sectoral-planning, as well as functionally, through plans and

                  planning activities which deal with particular types of facilities or

                  development activities. Our r eview of local growth management efforts

                  indicates that a number of communities are following similar refinement

                  strategies. It is quite common for communities in Oregon to have active

                  neighborhood planning programs, and for these neighborhood and area plans to

                  be integrated into the larger community planning framework. The City of

                  Eugene, for example, has a very active neighborhood planning program, and the

                  city contains some twenty chartered neighborhood groups. Formal procedures

                  exist in that qity for informing and consulting these groups on planning and

                  development matters. The City of Austin, Texas, also with a strong history of

                  neighborhoods is engaged in a extensive process of area of "sectoral" planning

                  as part of Austinplan. There are currently twenty-two sectoral councils

                                                         36

                   (which may'encompass several neighborhoods) which will all eventually prepare

                   a plan to be integrated into@the larger plan being prepared for the city as a
                  .whole (see Volume II). We have found similar area planning efforts in King

                   County, Washington, and in Snohomish County, Washington, the official county

                   plan is in fact the combination of,all area or sector plans.

                        Functional planning isnot new, but can be of considerable importance to

                   local growth management efforts. Cities.like Eugene have developed a range of

                   functional plani, which have substantial influence on implementation of an

                   overall growth management strategy or plan. Included among them,.for

                   instance, are a bikeways master plan, a culture/leisure master plan, an

                   entrance beautification study (in progress), an airport master plan, a parks

                   and recreation master plan, a fire and emergency services plan, and a downtown

                   housing plan, among others. King County provides similar examples.

                       @A form of refinement planning that we have found a number of examples of

                   are specific resource area plans. Martin County, Florida, for instance has

                   adopted special planning and regulatory provisions for its barrier islands.

                   Even relatively conservative Accomack County, Virginia, has recently enacted a

                   special barrier island ordinance restricting the types of development which

                   can occur on its barrier islands, and which places restrictions on the ways in

                   which the natural environment can be modified (e.g. prohibits the use of snow

                   fences). The City of Boise, Idaho, has adopted special plan and regulatory

                   provisions governing future development along the Boise River. This plan,

                   among other things, calls for the establishment of a continuous public

                   greenbelt along the river (City of Boise, 1985). Similar special regulations

                   have been adopted for Boises' hillside and foothill areas. (City of Boise,

                   1981).

                                                        37

                      E   Regional Approaches

                      In recent years, substantial attempts have been made to bring growth

                 management to the regional level. This is often the case where the primary

                 objective is protecting a sensitive environmental resource--a resource which

                 has natural boundaries which exceed those of individual local jurisdictions.

                 Recent examples are numerous. The State of Florida has implemented, since the

                 passage of the Land and Water Management Act of 1972, it's Areaa of Critical

                 State Concern (ACSC) program. Since its inception, four Areas of Critical

                 State Concern have been established:   Big Cypress, Green Swamp, Florida Keys

                 and Appalachicola Bay. Special management plans and land use regulations must

                 be prepared for these areas. In addition, special r  esource planning and

                 management programs (short of state designation) have been established for
                 other sens*itive regional environmental resources.- Many regiona.I programs have

                 resulted from federal programs or legislation. The Coastal Zone Management

                 Act of 1972, for instance, is largely responsible for North Carolina's Coastal

                 Area Management Act (CARA). Other examples of regional growth management

                 includes 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 N.,J.. Pinelands

                 Commission, the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, the Connecticut River

                 Gateway Conservation Zone, among others.

                                                        38

                       These regional growth 'management efforts vary substantially in their'

                  specific objectives and operational features. Some are formed voluntarily

                  (e.g. CREST) while others are legislatively mandated (e.g. Pinelands

                  Commission). Some have substantial direct regulatory powers (e.g. Tahoe

                  Regional Planning Agency) while others have only advisory or coordinating

                  authorities (e.g. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority); These regional

                  programs vary, as well, in the geographical range of their authority, and the

                  actual management tools explored (e.g. use of transfek of development rights,

                  land acquisition, etc.-).

                                                         39

                  V. References

                  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., David R. Godschalk and Timothy Beatley. 1986. Implementing
                       Coastal Storm Hazard Polic , Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Center for Urban and
                       Regional Studies.

                  Celis, William. 1987. "Building Atop Wate-r Supplies Raising Safety Issue     in
                       Cities," The Wall  Street Journal, Wednesday 24.     --

                  Christeller, Norman L.   1986. "Wresting 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 River Pl   an, 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 ManaZement: Keepinz 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.

                                                         40

                   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 Developmant.to Broader Community
                        Goals: An Analysis of Linkage Policy in Three Cities," Journal of the
                        American Planning Association, Vol. 52, No. 2 (Spring):133-141.

                   Kendig, Lane. 1980. Performance Zan"n . 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:
                        Financinz 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."
                        Planninz. June.

                   Kockelman, William J. 1986. "Some Techniques for Reducing Landslide
                        Hazards," Bulletin of the Association of Engineerinz Geologists, Vol;
                        XXIII, No. 1: pp. 29-52.

                   Kwong,-Jo Ann. 1987. "Farmlan  d 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 Leafl@ts, Bureau of Economic and Business
                        Research, University of Florida, Vol. 45, No. 8, August.

                   Metropolitan Area Planning Council. 1986. Inclusionary   Housing and Linkage
                        Programs in Metropolitan Bosto , 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.

                                                       41

                 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. MeRatrends. 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," Wilmingto
                      News Journal, April 22.

                 Rubin, Saul. 1985. "San Francisco 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
                      Dovelorment Foes to Finance Infrastructure, Washington,, DC:  Urban Land
                      Institute.

                 "Uglification Brings a Headache," Raleigh News and Observer, June 24, 1987.

                 "Update on Local Deve lopment 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.

                                                    Volume II

                           Case Studies of Innovative Local Growth Management Programs

                                       Timothy Beatley and David J. Brower

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

                                                  Au gust, 1987

                                                 Oc Copyright 1987

                                                   Timothy Beatley
                                                    David J. Brower

                                                    Table of Contents

                                                                                              Page

                  A,   Salem, Oregon                                                           1

                  B.   King County, Washington   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       11

                  C.   Eugene, Springfield, Lane County, Oregon       . . . . . . . . . . .    17

                  D.   Martin County, Florida    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     34

                  E.   Hilton Head, South Carolina    . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . .      39

                  F.   Medford Township, New Jersey     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      47

                  G.   Austin, Texas  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     . . . . . . . . . . .    54

                  H.   Napa County, California   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       63

                  I.   Charlotte, North Carolina    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      69

                  J.   Manteo, North Carolina    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       81

                  K.   Nags Head, North Carolina    . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     91

                  L.   Denver, Colorado    . ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .       101

                  M.   Boulder City/County, Colorado    . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . .       112

                  N.   Fort Collins, Colorado    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .       137

                  0*   Breckenridge, Colorado                                      . . . .    150

                  P.   Cannon Beach, Oregon    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        166

                                                 A. Salem, Oregon
                          (urban growth boundary, urban expansion and service policies)

                  Introductio

                     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, gro wth in recent years has

                  been modest. Between 1980 and 1985, for instance,  the city's population grew

                  by only about 6%-, or a littld 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 manageme-nt

                  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.

                                                              2

                    Components of the Growth Man   agement 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 Ibcated.' 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 chose 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.

                                                    3

                    SALEM URIBAN AREA

                                                                     CURRENT
                                                                     DEVELOPED
                                                                     AREABOUNDARY

                                                            @T   s.

                                                          CURRE
                                                                           %
                                                          E-VELO    ED
                                                            AREA               0

                     :01
                                               :dL

                                                     f

                                     @Y
                                                                          X

                        CURRENT
                        DEVELOPED
                        AREABOUNDARY

                                              Diagram A-1

                                      CURRENT DEVELOPED AREA (CDA)
                     As revised and adopted July 23, 1979, by the Salem City Council

                                                        4

                  Current Development 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 Urban 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 ess ential role in separating "urban"

                  (already developed areas) and "unbanizable" (land not yetdeveloped 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 commercial development 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 pro cess 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
                  improvemeints and drainage improvements. The standards for street improvements

                  require a developer to make those street improvements necessary to "link" the

                                                                                        Building
                                                                                        Permit

                                                                 Sector
                                                                 Plan

                                                                                        Rezone
                                                                                        Public
                         Parcel           Annexation            Development             Hearing
                                                                Review
                                                                Permit

                                                                                        Subdiv.
                                                                                        Review
                                                                                        Conf.

                                                         Diagram A-2
                                        DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE URBAN-GROWTH AREA

                                                         6

                  development to the CDA (see Diagram A-3). Street's must be constructed which

                  either conne ct 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 liiiked to the CDA.

                  Temporary sewer facilities, such as lift stations and temporary water pump

                  stations an d 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.

                                                     CURRENT DEVELOPED AREA

                                                             FIGAN GROWTH
                                                             A
                                                             6
                                                             A A
                                                             u

                                                     LINKING
                                                     RESPONSIBILITY

                                                     ON-SITE
                                                     RESPONSIBILITY

                                                        _VV_
                                                      _S_

                                                       Diagram A-3

                                             DEVELOPER RESPONSIBILITIES IN UGA
                                                       S7

                                                         7

                      it is the developer's responsibility to_pay for these 1  inking 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 by the city. The

                 developer is also eligible for reimbursement 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 plans. 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 growth. 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 of the Salem Urban Growth Management Program is

                 to provide at least a ten-year supply 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

                                                           8

                   identified. Specifical  ly, areas in the west and northeast iiere identified as

                   priority expansion areas. An additional priority e   xpansion area.in south

                   Salem has been identified as a result of several subsequent public

                   improvements making facility extension into this area more feasible.'

                   Other Ggowth Management Tools

                        Salem collects funds for capital improvements through the    imposition of a

                   "development tax."                                            ect to the tax,
                                       All development within the city is   subj

                   which has two components: one based on the value of new structures, and a

                   square footage-based tax on land. Forall 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 o-f 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 Co 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

                                                        9

                  and used toward payment ofprincipal and interest on bonds issued for the

                  purpose of financing the extra capacity facilities" (Salem Code 41.060).

                                                                                           ti
                  These funds are placed in a special "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/development 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 neighborhoods.

                                                        10

                   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 Comprehensive Plan, acknowledged by CCDC May
                        20, 1982, revised most recently in January, 1987.

                                    1986. South Salem Sector Plan, adopted February, 10.

                                    1986. Preliminary Capital Improvement Program 1987-88
                        through 1991-92, August.

                                    1979. Urban Growth Manaaement Program Report, August 1978,
                        revised May, 1979; adopted by Salem City Council July 23, 1979.

                                           B. King County, Washington
                  (Farmland and open space preservation through purchase of development rights)

                 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 Throujzh 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

                 businesses, was completed and a final ordinan ce recommended and forwarded to

                                                       12

                 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 the development rights (provis'ions 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

                 ownership was purchased, however, the ordinance requires the county to resell

                                                          13

                  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

                  farmi ng 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 giv  en priority ranking, the

                  following criteria were to be used in deciding which offers to accept:

                                                          14

                             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 of 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.

                        De@elopmentxights 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 acquisktion 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 @eel 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.

                                                              15

                                                          Table B-1.

                                                    Agriculture Progra
                                              Farmlands Preservation Program

                                                     Activities Summary
                                                   (as of January 9,. 1987)

                     AREA                    ACRES 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                 $ 4,27.0.012

                   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                   14,645,911
                     TOTAL                      10,552.73                  144                $35,314,672

                   PROGRAM  TOTALS              12,658.14                  187                $53,848,317

                   Source: King County Agricultural Program

                                                        16

                  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. Saying Farmlands and Open
                       Space, report to the Executive and Council of King County, revised
                       July 9, 1979.

                                                        17

                                  C. Euzene, Springfield and Lane County, Orego
                                           (Regional Growth Management)

                 Introduction

                      The planning approach of the governments 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 boundary, 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 number of people residing within the

                 boundaries of Eugene proper.

                 Focus on a Regional Approach to Planning and Growth Management: The Metro
                 Plan

                      The regional pla nning focus evident in Eugene has a long history, and in

                 fact precedes Senate Bill 100. While regional planning efforts date back to

                 the 1950'.s, 1972 marks an especially important year,when the three

                 jurisdictions joined together to adopt the "1990 regi-onal 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 initi ated which ultimately

                 resulted in the joint adoption in 1982.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.

                                                        18

                       Initially (1980), Eugene and Springfield adopted identical meiropolitan

                  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 '                I

                  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 concepes 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,

                                                        19

                 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, "Fundamental 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 projected urban service area, as defined in
                      the glossary, will occur only when it is proven necessary acc  ording 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 permit  ted 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

                                                         20

                  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 instanc  e, that

                  "Because of the substantial public investments already made in both

                                                                   Xc@l
                                           Urbanizable
                                           Lands                  '@@c

                                    aj

                                                                   Developed Urban
                                                                        Lands

                                       LZ
                                      1977      1980     1985      1990      1995    2000

                                                        Diagram C-1

                                                    URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY

                                                       21

                 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 ser-vices 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

                 and facilities; parks and recreation facilities; historic preservation;

                 energy; and citizen involvement.

                      Incl uded also in the plan are procedures for amending and updating the

                 plan. Any.of the three jurisdictions can initiate a plan amendment, with the

                 process 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 Plan (as amended) contains specific

                 information concerning the procedures to be followed when considerin g the

                 amendments, 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. The"s,e amendments have been made both to the text (e.g.,

                                                         22

                  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,instance, 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 restrictions for rural lands in the region.

                  Refinements to the Metro Plan: Functional and Neizhborhood/Special 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

                  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 communi,ty 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 procedurehas 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

                                                       23

                 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, i--hanges 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.

                 Rep-ional 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 region al 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 be,en prepared

                 f
                 or 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:

                                                          24

                       One of the most  recent and interesting of the functional regional

                  planning  efforts has been the preparation of the Alternative Industrial Growth

                  Areas Spady (1986).   This study grew out of a concern that there were

                  insuffic ient 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,

                  preve nting smaller, less-intensive industrial uses which-could be accommodated

                  on existing industrial sites. No actions have yet been taken on these study

                  recommendations.

                  Refinement in the City of EuRene

                       While both Lane County and the City of Springfield have taken numerous

                  actions to refine and implement the Ketro 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.

                                                        25

                                                   Statewide Goals

                                           Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan
                                                  Area General PI an

                                         Eugene Community Goals and Policies.

                                                                                      Major
                       Functional Plans           Neighborhood-Plans             Implementation
                       and Policies              Special Area StUdies              Activities

                                                    Diagram C-2

                                              EUGENE PLANNING PROGRAM

                                                        26

                       19S4 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).

                       Nei'Shborhood 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 (1987), for example, in its land use

                              es the following policies:
                  element stat'

                       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. Recognize 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).

                                                      27

                     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 ImDlementation 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.

                                                           28

                      -j LI---j I   I     I  -i L---j I                                               L

                                                            F-7

                                   =E F77
                                                                                    E:F.=             E

                                              77-7 1

                        Land Use Diagram

                        1. Central Residential Area   4. VVest 7th Avenue Commercial Area

                        2. Eastern Residential/Mixed Ube Area 5. Chambers Strect Commercial Area

                        3. Northern Residential Area

                                                      Diagram C-3

                                                     WESTSIDE PLAN

                                                          29

                       0 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 Comprehensive 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 Progra . Th    is is a ten-year CIP program revised

                 and adopted on a yearly basis. Two types 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 neighborhdod

                 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)

                       o Historic Preservation Progra . The City is quite concerned with

                 protecting its historic buildings and resources. The City has an Historic

                 Review Board which regulates landmarks and construction within historic

                                                       30.

                 districts. The Board also conducts a public information and involvement

                 program.

                         Economic Diversification Pr6ara . 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 developmen t; 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.

                         Bikes and Bikeways. An immediate impression of visitors to Eugene is

                 the emphasis given to bikes. In Eugene, unlike f.ew other American cities,

                 bicycles truly represent an alternat ive 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 (e.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 certain zoning districts (e.g., orientation of

                 subdivision lots, building sites to minimize shading, solar setback
                 requirement@, etc.).

                                                       31

                         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 (D etzel,,1987).

                                                        32

                  The full text of the Eugene Condominium Conversion Ordinance is included in

                  Volume III, the Technical Appendix.

                  Im2lementation Experiences

                       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 quite 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

                  anne:kation 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 growth 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.

                                                         33

                 References

                 Brody, Susan, Planning Director, City of Eugene, inter-view, April, 1987.

                 Chenkin, Senior Planner, City of Eugene, interview, April, 1987.

                 City of Eugene. 1986. A Guide to Eugene's Planning Program, Department of
                      Planning, July.

                                   1987. Westside Neighborhood Plan. Eugene Planning
                      Department, adopted January 12.-

                                   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 Areas Stugy, Eugene, Springfield, Lane
                      County. 1986. September.

                 Lane Council of Governments. 1982. Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
                      General Plan, February-March, 1982.

                                          1986. Metropolitan Area General Plan Amendments,
                      July.

                                                       34

                                            D. Martin County, Florida
                              (Beach Impact Fee, Special Barrier Island Regulation)

                 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

                 an d 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, develo pment 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 sedimentat ion 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.

                                                        35

                 Beach Impac t 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.

                                                        36

                  (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 ComprehensivePlan 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 preserva tion 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 chose

                  periods where such activities ate 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

                                                       37

                 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.

                                                        38

                  References

                  Dreyer, Noreen, Martin County Attorney, interview, July, 1987.

                  Martin County. 1982. Martin Courity_-Comprehensive Plan, April 1.

                                    1985. "Barrier Island Ordinance -- Ordinance No. 271,"
                       September 24.

                                    1986. "Article III: Landscape Requirements" Sec. 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.

                                                        39

                                          E. 'Hilton Head, South Carolina
                        (annual dwelling unit allocation; roadway corridor and waterfront
                              overlays; density, bonuses and performance standards)

                  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 Manay-ement Ordinance (LMO)

                      .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

                                                         40

                                                     Tible 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                                      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

                   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 z ones, *and

                   employs them in fairly innovative ways. Specifically, the following    special

                   overlay zones are included in the LKO: 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,

                                                       41

                 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 satisf y 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 waterfrontor 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

                                                         42

                  'tmodera-te-11 incomes are specifically defined in the LMO). This overlay zone is

                  not.attached in advance to a specific geographical area of the-island. It

                  provides certain bonus densities in existing zones forlow and moderate income

                  units. These proposals are also reviewed by the Corridor Review Commit    tee.

                  Manazinz 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 LMO 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)

                                                        43

                 Impact Assessment  and Performance Standards

                      Req`uirements 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,

                 stormwater 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 provi de 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.

                                                          44

                                       ARZA TO BE USED FOR BONUS CALCULATION

                                                                         P

                                                                 7-
                                  REQUIRED SETBACK TO BUILDIINGS - 75'

                                  REQUIRED SETBACK    TO STRUCTURES      50'

                            SOUTH CAl"OLINA COASTAL COUNCIL      CRITICAL LINNE

                  DUNE

                                                M.H. WATFR

                                                     Diagram E-1
                             ILLUSTRATION OF BONUS INCENTIVE CALCULATION AS PER 16-7-927

                                                       45

                      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 LMO sets forth

                 several explicit objectives that would justify use of the non-urban PUD

                 provisions.

                                                       46

                 References

                 Bell, Mike, long range planner, Hilton Head Planning Department, interview,
                      July, 1987.

                 Town of Hilton Head. 1986. Land Management 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 on
                      Target? Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.

                                                        '47

                                         F. Medford Township, New Jersey
                            (Ecologically-based Growth Management and Land Regulation;
                                       Environmental Performance Standards)

                 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 16.00s 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 Stu@y

                      The Townships triannual report talks about the town  Is 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" plai@ning

                 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

                 variables examined in the Medford Report were the areas of geology, hydrology,

                                                          48

                   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 Study

                        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 ordina   nce 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 Comprehensi.v-e

                   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

                   Code (Chapter 160). The code specifically requires that officials consider

                                                      49

                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 Med ford 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 Gr owth 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;- resource

                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

                the ordinance identifies zones in the Township where scenic road corridors are

                                                        50

                  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  standa, rds, 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..

                       (c)  An alteration of the water table 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).

                       The Landscape and Clearing Standards (Section 160-54) provide an

                  additional example of the ordinance's performance standards. Clearance of

                                                        51

                  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 Zon e, which includes

                  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 planning study indicates development can occur without serious

                  advance environmental impact." (Sec. 180-87) For example, in the

                  pre-servation zone an individual can build one unit on a 3.2 acre lot, but only

                  under the following conditions:

                       (a) The dwelling will be  the applicants principal place of residence.

                       (b) The applicant has not d eveloped a dwelling unit under this section
                           within the previous five (5) years.

                                                         52

                        (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 Develobment 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 ZPne.

                   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 pet 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

                   credit. This arrangement results in a two-tier schedule of permissible

                   densities in these "receiving" zones -- a normal density lim it and a density

                   limit assuming the use of bonus credits.

                                                      53

                 References

                 Juneja, Narendra. 1974. Medford: Performance Requirements for the
                     Maintenance of Social Values Represented by the Natural Environment of
                     Medford Township, 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 19 83, 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 Jersey. Prepared by Thomas J.
                     Scangarello and Associates, December.

                                                          54

                                                   G. Austin, Texas
                               (Innovative Citizen Participation in Growth Management)

                   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 Austinpl.an, 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):

                        @  Describes one community's vision of the future - where we hope to be
                           in the year 2020;

                        0  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.

                        7he 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

                                                        55

                  the product itself. According to the City Council Mission Statement the

                  process is to be based on the active pa rticipation of all se gments 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

                  2020,11 "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 Austin-plan 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

                  Bea,tley, 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.

                                                            56

                                                         Table G-1

                                        Representation  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 minoriti-es                                 5

                         Human services                                     7

                         Neighborhoods (sectors and neighborhoods)         20

                         Public institutions-      -                        6

                         Re,al estate and development                      10

                         *The number and distribution of steering committee members
                           has changed over time.

                         Source: Austin Department of Planning and Growth Management

                                                       57

                 AustinRlan 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 Growth 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

                                                        58

                                                     Table G-2

                                              Substantive Task Groups

                                           Lind us e

                                           Economic development

                                           Housing.

                                           Environment

                                           Transpbrtation

                                           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

                                                        59

                  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 criter ia

                 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 Plannin

                      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 ess entially 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)

                                                         60

                       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 mdking 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.
                               I

                   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

                                                       61

                 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.

                                                        62

                  References

                  AustinpIan Department of Planning and Growth Management. 1986. The
                       Austinplan Process, February 22.

                  Beatley, Timothy. 1987. Preliminary   Observatioiis on the Augtinplan 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.

                                                        63

                                            H. Napa County. California
                                  (annual development cap, agricultural zoning)

                 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

                 year s, 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 Growth Rate

                       When it looked as though a pro-deveiopment Board of Supervisors was

                 lbout 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

                 county comprehensive plan within nine months of passage to carry out the

                                                             64

                    provisions of the  measure. Specifically, the     Bbard 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. Ironi  cally, 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 allocatiofi 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 un its: 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 apermit holder         (owner-
                             builder or his contractor) who is building only one dw     elling 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 s      cale builder using
                             existing lots.

                                                        65

                      C.  Category 3 is any type @f 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 t@e county. The program has shifted this type of

                                                             66

                                                         Table H-1

                         Residential Building Permit Categories. Shares of Annual Allocation,
                                           Building Permit Availability Dates

                                                                                Building Permit
                                                       Share of Annual          Availability Dates
                         Categoa                        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.

                                                       67

                 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 stdff

                 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 quantit ative 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.

                                                       68

                  Referenc es

                  Napi-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.

                                                         69

                                            I. Charlotte, North Carolina
                         (innovative process-for citizen involvement in growth management)

                  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 patt    ern

                  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

                  estimate rose to 445,479 by 1985, with year 2005 projections of 573,866

                                                         70

                   (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission, November, 198-5, p. 14). The joint

                   planning commission reported that this growth would bring about 136,058.new

                   jobs and require the construction of approximately 68,190 additional homes.

                   These estimates were partially res ponsible 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 in 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 communicy. 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.

                                                         71

                 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, The    Charlotte News claimed that "The issue

                 most crying put 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 planning director and an increase

                 in the level of participation among planning commission members.

                      One of the first priori ties 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

                                                        72

                   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).

                   Planning for Urban Chanze

                       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

                                                      7*3

                (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 characterist*ics. 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 attracte d over 600 registrants-for 'an open

                discussion of growth and development issues in Charlotte-Mecklenburg.

                                                        74

                       In December of 1984, a consultant hired by the City and County released.

                  projections rega rding 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 fo-r future planning efforts (Cramton and Morris, April, 1986).

                      Between March and June of 1985, public meetings were held in each of the

                  seven planni ng 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.

                                                       75

                 Growth Management in Charlotte-Mecklenburz

                      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 houaing 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.

                                                        76

                       In terms of capital budgeting activities, growth management is

                  facilitated through the city-county public investment program, covering five-

                  and ten-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 ofachieving  balanced growth; the ir primary concerns have

                  stemmed from what they perceived to be development disincentives, such as

                  impact fees (Charlotte-Mecklenb.urg Planning Commission, June 4, 1986, p.5.).

                       The use of regulatory provisions is probably the most important aspect of

                  Charlotte-Mecklenburg's grow th management effort. Heavily relied upon'are the

                  recently revised codes for zoning, subdivisions, and sign control. Revision

                  of these regulations be came 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 way's 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

                                                          77.

                  water and sew'er projects are nece .ssary 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

                  21anning Commission, M arch, 1987, p* 25).

                  Conclusion

                       In Charlotte-Kecklenburg 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 poten   tial 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 rings of

                  new development at  the urban edge,-local planners are working to ensure that

                  growth can be adequately 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

                                                        78

                   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.

                                                             79

                  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.

                                          198 7. "South Mecklenburg Interim District Plan," March.

                                          1986. '11986 Annual Report," June.

                                          1986. "Proceedings Report of the Ordinance Revision
                       Workshop for Zoning, Subdivision, ind Sign Ordinances in Charlotte and
                       Mecklenburg County," June 4.

                                          1986. "Zoning,_qign, and Subdivision Ordinances
                       Revisions," January.
                       November.          1985. "Generalized Land Plan 2005 - Final Text,"

                                          1985.  "1985 Annual Report," June.

                                          1984.  "1984 Annual Report," June.

                                          1984.  "Urban Renaissance: Planning for a Livable
                       Community, Proceedings    Document," May 1.
                                                   I
                       December.          1983.  "1990 Transportation and Land Development Policy,"

                                          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.

                                                       80

                  Cramston, Martin R., Jr., and Carol Stealey Morris. 1986. "Managing Growth
                       Through Strategic Planning: Charlotte-Mecklenburg's 2005 Plan," Urba
                       Land, April.

                  RTKL Associates, Inc., Real Estate Research Corporation and Wilbur Smith and
                      Associates.  1980. Charlotte: Central Area Plan.

                                                        81

                                            J. Manteo. N2rth Carolina
                           (focus on protecting image, identity and visual appearance)

                 Introductio

                      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, Manteols 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 mo  st 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.

                 Manteo's Past

                      Offering protected harbors and easy ocean access, 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

                                                         82

                  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, "the Highway 64 corridor, with

                 .its bil lboards 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 400_th 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 casks.. As stated in a working document prepared during the

                  planning process," It seemed fitting that the town develop a plan to celebrate

                                                        83

                 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

                 communitv. According to the university planning team, "To develop a plan for

                 the future that wouid 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

                                                          84

                   peopie who will represent the feelings of the entire town" (NCSU, 1980, p.

                   III). This process established the community goals that served as the basis

                   for the 1981.CAMA land use plan and for planning the quadricentennial

                   celebration.

                   Communi= 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

                                                       85

                 1come 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 ARyearance

                     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

                                                         86

                  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 Cuadricentennial 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

                                                           87

                  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 forlthe 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 d     ocuments, 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 Manteols financial condition

                  i
                  n order to determine whether the town could-afford to hire a consultant to

                  provide technical dssistance 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, Manteols Mayor and other

                  officials had an invitation to visit Rouse's company and discuss Manteo's

                  plans.

                                                        88

                       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 leaderswith

                  planning and implementation strategies. The town's 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 boardwaik-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 shoul d 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 touriam, 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

                                                       89

                 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. T he results of the collective acts involved in

                 this process can now be seen in an improved Manteo.

                                                        90

                  References

                  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 Townspeople, Public Report One

                       Theme for the Euture, Publ ic. 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.

                                                       91

                                          K. Nags Head, North Carolina
                         (carrying capacity-based-comprehensive plan, hurricane hazard
                             mitigation, environmental zoning, water tap ordinance)

                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 be aches, 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 numbe-@ 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.

                                                        92

                       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 1.985 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...

                  (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 Read was provided by

                  projections which indicated that the town would reach a permanent population

                  of 6,000 residents by the year 2000 -- a gr6wth 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 s-teady 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 techniquesinstituted or evaluated for use in Nags

                                                        93

                 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 buildour scenarios under two different density

                 levels.

                      The first scenario involved residential buildout using th e 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.

                                                        94

                       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.

                  Allocatinm the Water Supply

                       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 of 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 dup lex; 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

                                                      95

                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 the.se

                                                         96

                  events. In particular, coastal communities such as Nags Head are required to

                  include storm mitigation and post-disaster recovery and reconstruction

                  components whfch'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 Mitization 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 ou tside 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. Decailed

                 .information was provided regarding tocal.amount and-value of real property

                  located in various hazard zones, value of real property ac-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

                                                        97

                  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 significance 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 were already protected through an Area of

                                                         98

                   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 changes that would increase the

                   minimum acreage for building si tes (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 communiti es petitioned

                   the State General-Assembly to ratify a bill giving them explic it authprity.

                   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.

                                                        99

                  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. '    I

                      In January, 1986, a workshop was held during whic h members of the joint

                  Board of Commissioners and Planning Board evaluated town policies and ranked

                  them as to priority. Through implementatio n 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.

                                                         100

                  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. Carrying Capacity Analysis, Nags Head, North
                        Carolina. Coastal Resources Collaborative, Inc., @hapel H'111,-N.C.

                  Brower, David J.; William E. Collins; and Timothy Beatley. 1984. Hurricane
                        Hazard.Mitigation and Post-Storm Reconstruction Plan for Nay-s 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, NX.

                  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.

                                                      101

                                          L. City of Denver, Colorado
                                      (Mountain View Protection Program)

                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 city's 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 Progra

                     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 protec t 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

                Capitol. Togfither these view protection zones emcompass some fourteen square

                                                        102

                 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, incl   uding 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 vis.itors;

                       (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

                                                                                             103

                                                                                                   3a
                                                                                                                            t
                            ,Z
                                                                                    4k

                                                                                                  .............

                                                                                               (7

                                                                                    ity      Park
                                                                                                               7- -7
                             +              4;@t             ,                     -     -             - - @11 @_
                                                                                               ;,@F-
                                                                                                               7-.-F
                                         S
                                   77,
                                           tate      Capitol
            ;4,j
                                                      ;7.
                                                          L4
                                                                    ft    lcheesman@
                                                               t_.:_ @t-,L@Park

            -T4

                                                                                                          Cranmer@@
                                                                                                           Pa
                                                                                                               Fr k
                   711                                                             7:'
                                                                                                                                     -7
                                                                                                                                               Af

                             1@ t i;A
                   ww

                                                                                                                                                        I  AVE@
                                                              i      hingtull
                                                              Park
                                                                                                            4@4-'
                     r
                                                                                          L1___         r.@    j   'l t ", . -i- k
                                                     7"                                 4
                                                                                                     ITT     4;           74
                                     Ruby :;i-@?
                                                                                                                         -17

                                     P
                                                                                                     7, T11
                                                                                                                                                +
                                                                                                                                                                 _7
                                         r
                                            .4     w
                     .1, Wr
                                                                                       4  C7                                                       I r
                                                                                                                                                 e

                                                                                                               IfI4
                                                                                                                 + r -
                     14@ Fig-
                          Ot
                                                       S                                               �4 4--
                                                                         er@
                                                         tate      Hom
                                                  ii  Park
                           Avi
                                                                                             4    E

                                                                                                                      t

                                                                                                                                                                            7
                                                                                                                                  -4
                                                                                                                                         South
                    vk
                                                                      jHANf'0PE!N:_AVF_                                             r                00
                                                                                                                                         Park
                                                                                                                                                                   r;.4
                                                                                                       4@:)
                                                                                                                                   Arz
                                                                                -41  ::
                                                                                                                                    -!J
                                                                         OOINCY.AVE.

                                                                                      Diagram      L-1
                                                                                             MAP   1
                                                                              MOUNTAIN VIEW            AREAS

                                                        104

                  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 r eference 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 prese nce 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 vie-w protection districts. These

                  criteria were: (1) the major characteristics of the park/public place     in

                  which the reference viewpoint is located, (2) the general qual ity 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

                                                      105

                 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

                 protecti,on program. The case, Landmark Land Company, Inc. v. the City and

                 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

                                                           106

                   substantially lower than the twenty-one stories 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 SPEHA, 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

                   provisi-ons 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 statem    ent 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 SPERA's reason for promoting the amendment was
                        to protect the property values of its members' homes, not to protect the

                                                       107

                      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

                 strategy for 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

                                                        108

                  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

                  Bbb 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 of 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.

                                                       109

                 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 attractiv eness 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 clean

                 up its air, including the mandatory use of oxidated fuels, have also been

                 justified on similar economic grounds.

                 Other Scenic Rezulations

                      Denver is conscious of aesthetics and the' visual implications of its

                 development in other ways. It recently enacted (in Harch, 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 thetransfer 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 res trictions around its capitol building.

                 These restriction s are in addition to those created by the.designation of the

                                                         110

                   Mountain View District. Specifically, three different concentric zones

                   surround the capitol building, with greater height limitations the closer 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.

                 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 7.

                 Reid, T. R. 1986. "Denver Limits High-Rises to Protect Vista," Washington
                      Post, December 5.

                 Werner, Bob, Denver Office of Planning, interview, July, 1987.

                                    M. Citv of Boulder/Boulder County, Colorado
                               (annual development cap and urban growth phasing; Open
                            Space Acquisition Program; farmland protection; requirements
                                   for affordable housing; resource conservation)

                   Introductio

                        The City of Boulder is located approximately twenty-five miles nor   thwest

                   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 7          miles). The county's western border follows the Continental
                          50 square

                   Divide.. Boulder is also the home of the University of Colo-rado, 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 19-87.

                        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

                                                      113

                turned out, the uppers gained control and.the community began as a relatively

                exclusive real estate venture, with lots along Boulder Greek 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 Manazement in Boulder: -The Blue Line, The Boulder Valle-Y
                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

                                                        114

                  a set of development and growth policies for the 58-square mile area c.alled

                  Boulder Valley, including the city of Boulder, and projected a population

                  growth of 140,000 by the year 199.0. 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, 1.986, 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 action's 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 I ayed the

                  groundwork for the city's current program. A maj-or 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

                                                         115

                  certain factors and community objectives (the so-called "merit   system"). In

                  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 Cap

                       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

                  pro visions, 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 o f 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 with-in 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

                                                        116

                  be made until the land for which the Units would be used first meets all land

                  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 H-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 111, 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 1 ocal housing. Paul Danish,

                  looking back on the city's permit allocation system, has questioned this

                  conventional wisdom:

                                                       117

                           That initial growth ordinance had four consequences worth
                      mentioning. First, it had no lasting effect on the average price of a
                      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 system 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 permi ts was aside for constru dtion in

                 Central Boulder. (This is an incentive which, of course, no longer exists in

                 the ordinance.)

                                                            118

                                                         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

                                                       119
                 Conve'rsion 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

                 ofthe 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

                                                         120

                   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 req  uirements also exist for a range of other

                   issues, including floodplain management, landscaping, and bicycle parking,

                   among others.

                   Adequate Public Facilities and Urban Growth Phasine

                       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 physica-l-expansion of the city and which identify those locations

                   where future growth is to be preferred. A centerpiece am   ong 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

                                                        121

                  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

                  "adequate 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

                                                        122

                       effectively be provided facilities and services by the Ci ty. 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 set-vices 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

                                                                                 t
                  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 permit s

                  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.

                                                           123

                        While this meth od 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 fees.

                   For a number of years the city has imposed sewer ana 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.

                   He ight 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

                                                        124

                  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 established 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

                                                      125

                 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 Prozram

                     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 easternslope 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

                 Greek. 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.

                                                          126

                        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 I 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 i    .mprovements

                   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 per-Lod 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 maj    ority 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 ope    .n 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

                                                       127

                 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. Thereis a fear that if these programs were not separate, the

                 open space program would end up getting shortchanged, either because oRen

                 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 t6 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

                                                        128

                  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 cha rter amendment allowing the sale of bands, 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, s-ales tax revenues in recent years have been on the

                  decline meaning that much, if not most, of these revenues must g .o 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 ea  rly 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  approar-h which would

                                                       129

                 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 iands 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!).

                                                          130

                   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

                                 0 C;
                   example. The,lcity continues its effort to create a continuous green corridor
                                 CO
                   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

                                 importance on urban design.
                   consi

                   Planning and Growth Management in Boulder CouBty

                        Th e County of Boulder is comprised of ten other municipalities besides

                   Boulder, although Boulder is the largest. It is difficult to fully understand.

                   @he 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 intergove    rnmental

                   agreement with the City of Boulder in 1978, formalizing the coordination of

                   their planning activities. The county and city have jointly enacted the

                                                      131

                 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 amendments 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

                                                        132

                  county's posture on the provision of urban services has been to squarely pl  ace

                  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. I t 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 in Boulder Count

                       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 makimum 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 flo.odway, and requires certification of floodprbofing for

                  structures in the flood fringe.

                                                       133

                      Perhaps the most interesting and innovative z oning 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 Count3f
                      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 rese archers toured several NUPUD sites and was favorably impressed. Homes

                                                        134

                  do appear to be clustered.and on what appears to be considerably less than 25%

                  of the NUPIUD 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

                  ser-vices, 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.

                  Geologic 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 ac companied 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.

                                                       135

                 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.

                                                                       136

                       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 Comprehensive Pla , adopted
                             March 22, 1978, revised and updated 1986.
                             .29.         1983. Boulder County Subdivision Regulations, adopted November

                                          1986. Boulder Count-y Zoning Resolution, October 30.

                       City of Boulder. 1971. Sign Regulations, Department of Planning and
                             Community Development.

                                          Undated. Title 9: Land Use Regulations, Boulder City Code.

                                          1986. The-Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, 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, interview, 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 Land,
                             .October.

                                          Undated. "Lessons From a Greenbelt Program: Boulder,
                             Colorado.

                       Wheeler, Delani, Assistant Director, Real Estate Services/Open Space, City of
                             Boulder, interview, July, 1987.

                                                       137

                                           N. Fort Collins, Colorado
                        (Development Point System, performance standards; density bonus
                                 provisions for open space, affordable housing)

                 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 Svstem (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 backgr ound 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

                                                         138

                   and Objectives (1977), and the city's Open Space 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 inc.ome 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).

                                                      139

                      The city, with the help of a planning consultant, began reviewing

                 alternatives to conventional zoning in 1979. As the above assumptions
                 indica@e, the develop ment guidance system was seen as a way to overcome the

                 inflexibility of c-onventional 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 vaiiable 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           0

                 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 "0"

                 indicates failure to implement the criterion; "1" 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 I to 5 with "I" of

                                                          140

                   lowest communtty priority and "5" 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 aiso

                   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 an    d H

                   would need to be satisfied. The compl   ete 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

                   proje ct 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 stan dards must be satisfied depending upon the activity

                                                       141

                 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.11 For industrial uses, the two

                 criteria of greatest priority to the community (given 113"s) 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 the case 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 r@en

                 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

                                                             142

                    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 ar     ea 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 overcomet 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 the city, the city agrees to
                          allow urban density development within the area. The county, in turn,
                          limits urban developmenc 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 maj,or 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.

                                                                                                               143

                                                                                                                                                      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . .

                                                                                                                                 C
                                                                                                                  COUNTRY                             ....................
                                                                                                                                   LUB                  ..........
                                                                                                                                                      ...........
                                                                                                                                                        ..........

                                                                                                                                                      ...........

                                                                                                                . . . . . . . .                       . . . . .         . . . . . . . .

                                                                                           7eins
                                                                                                                                                                                   ............ ..................

                                                                                        . . . . . . . . . .

                                                                                         . . . . . . . . .   . . . . . .

                                                                                     Cl . . . . . .                               . . .
                                                       . . . .                       . . . . . . . . .
                                              . . . . . . . . ..
                                                                                                             . . . . . . . . .. . . .
                                                                                                            . . . . . . . . . .

                                              X.:                                       . . . . . . .
                                                                                       . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ...

                                                                                                                           . . . . . . . . . . .

                                                                                                         .. . . ... . . .
                                                                                                         ..........
                                                                 X.X...:
                                                   ......       . .....

                                                                                                    . . . . . . . . . .

                                                                                                                     .. . . . .                  . . . . . .          ul

                                                                                                                                  . . . . . ..                                             cr

                                                                                                                          ..... .. . . . . ... . . . .

                                                                  TRILBY    RO                             CC F;O:,T.C

                                                                                r -=I .
                                                                                                                             �r
                                         __sT L@l

                                                                                                 Diagram N-1
                                                                               FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA

                                                            144

                         Ft. Collins also has an open space acquisition     program, though not nearly

                   as active as Boulder's. The Open 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 bevelopment Guidance System

                         The PUD development guidanc  e 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

                                                    145

                                                 Table N-1

                          Fees Normally Required 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
                cost-S of connection.

                                                        146

                  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 greateromixing 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.tothe 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 UNG 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
                       setting of trees and flower beds wrapped in a stately black fence. The

                                                       147

                      visitors were surpris6d 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,

                  1985, p. 15) For proposed projects which are likely to have "significant

                                                        148

                  neighborhood impacts" the LDGS review criteria, in fact, specifically iequire

                  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.

                                                            149

                  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 Concept, Vols. I and II, Ft.
                        Collins Planning Department, January.

                                          . 1984. Strategic Plan for Solar Access, Planning and
                        Development Department, October.
                                            1987. "Development Feet and Charges.-It 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 Newspaper.

                                                        150

                                            0.  Breckenridge, Colorado
                             .(Pdrformance-based Development Code; Development Point
                                      System; Historic District Guidelines)

                  Introductio

                       The Town of Breckenridge was established in the 1800's as a gold mining

                  town. It has gone through several boom-bust cycles over theyears,

                  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 Ser-vice, and much of the town's

                  planning efforts in recent years have centered on preser-Ving 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.

                                                           151

                                                       Table 0-1

                                            Housinp- Units in Breckenridze
                                           (As of January 1 of year shown)

                         Single              Multi-   Apart-    Employee Mobile      Total
                         Family    Duplex    Family    ment     Housina    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.

                                                          152

                   The Breckenridze 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:

                                                       153

                       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, comprisi.ng 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 recogPizes 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 eithe r 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.

                                                         154

                        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 perfbrmance 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 Breckenridge Development Code: -Per formance Standards and the Point Svstem

                        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 inscan-ce, 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 pplicy is

                                                         155

                  of minimal impo.-rtance, 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 standa   rds 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 j@udgement 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,

                                                           156

                                                        Table 0-2

                                     Density Bonuses for Desired Residential Uses

                              Use                                  Multiplier

                              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

                   ,.social 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 squarefeet 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:

                                                      157

                          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

                                                        158

                       Additiolial 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 satisfy, 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 minimizIe

                  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 standar-ds reflect a general concern with protecting the high

                  quality of the visual envirorunent, 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.

                                                       159

                       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

                  he ld 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.

                                                         160

                   Historic Preservation

                        Protecting the hist oric district is a high priority in Breckenridge. The

                   town's historic heritage, and the physical remn@nts 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 an d 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, 1.984). 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:

                                                       161

                      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.

                      Parkinz

                      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.

                                                        162

                  Other Growth Manazdment 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. knnexation 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 ann exation 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, warer) upon or
                           prior to annexation.

                                                       163

                      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

                                                       164

                 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.

                                                       166

                                             P. Cannon Beach, Oregon
                      (efforts to protect community character; prohibition of "formula food"
                               restaurants; design review procedures and criteria)

                  Introduction

                       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 Urb an Growth

                  Boundary sepa:rating urbanizable and resource land. As already mentioned, the

                  UGB restrictions are very effective both in pro moting 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

                                                         165

                   References

                   Davidson, William. Breckenridge Department of Community Development,
                        interview, July, 1987.

                   Town of Breckenridge, Colorado. 1983. Master Plan, Department of Community
                        Development, July.

                                         Undated. DeMelopment Code, Department of Community
                        Development.

                                         1984. Historic District Guidelines, Department of
                        Community Development.

                                        1986. "Breckenridge Overview," December

                                                        167

                  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 ra ther 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.11

                            This character has, and is, created by having charm in design of
                       buildings, by keeping buildings small in Acale, 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,

                                                         168

                   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 zonin  g 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, a re 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

                                                      169

                strong local sense that any type of fast food dstablishment, 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-.

                Design 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 " ... 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

                                                        170

                  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 o*f*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, ancL 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 st.andards 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

                                                       171

                 effective at.promoting excellence in design, but rather has se-rved 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.

                                                        172

                       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 -- Residential Very 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,

                                                       173

                 providing the city with the opportunity to offer its input and

                 rec,ommendat ions. 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 pr,otect 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 the future. Much of the

                                                       174

                  visual beauty in Cannon Beach derives from the lush mountain backdrop. Most

                  fear, however, that the lumber companies owning most of this land will 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 toler ate seeing a home here and there, but

                  the vegetative canopy would basically remain intac"t. Concern about future

                  forest harvesting has spurred some local discussion about thepossibility 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.

                                                      175

                 References

                 Bartl, Reinmar, Clatsop-Tillamook Intergovernmental Council, interview, April,
                      1987.

                   ty of Cannon Beach, Oregon. 1984a. Cannon Beach Comprehensive 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.

                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                       i
                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                       I

                                                                        ':,            -.     Ll
                                                                        -.111111IMMIN                  I
                                                                        FI( @ @l 1
                                                                           3 6668 14101 7303           1