Managing urban growth volume I and II

[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 [email protected] 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

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.

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

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.

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

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

(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

(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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.)

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

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

(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

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

(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).

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.

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.-).

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

SALEM URIBAN AREA

CURRENT
DEVELOPED
AREABOUNDARY

@T s.

CURRE
%
E-VELO ED
AREA 0

:01
:dL

@Y
X

CURRENT
DEVELOPED
AREABOUNDARY

Diagram A-1

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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:

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.

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

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.

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.

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,

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

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

Developed Urban
Lands

LZ
1977 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Diagram C-1

URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY

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.,

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

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:

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.

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

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).

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.

-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

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.).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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

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.

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.

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

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,

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

'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)

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.

ARZA TO BE USED FOR BONUS CALCULATION

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

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.

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,

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

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

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..

(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

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.

(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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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)

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

(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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

.............

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

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