ad hoc committee on ugb/a policy: progress report
DESCRIPTION
Ad Hoc Committee on UGB/A Policy: Progress Report. Presentation to the Water and Environmental Planning Committee September 22, 2006. Purpose of the Committee. Review recommendation of the Bank Review Panel Review recommendation of the Semi-Urban Committee - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Presentation to the Water and Environmental Planning Committee
September 22, 2006
Ad Hoc Committee on Ad Hoc Committee on UGB/A Policy: Progress ReportUGB/A Policy: Progress Report
Review recommendation of the Bank Review Panel
Review recommendation of the Semi-Urban Committee
Determine if and by how much the UGB/A should be expanded to accommodate growth between 2030-2035
Determine additional UGB/A needed to incorporate new DRCOG planning area in Weld County
Purpose of the CommitteePurpose of the Committee
Bank Review Panel Bank Review Panel RecommendationsRecommendations
Issue 1: UGB/A trackingIssue 1: UGB/A tracking
Should final subdivision plats be used to determine whether land has been committed for development?
Current methodology relies on aerial photography to determine if individual parcels are developed.
The Bank Review Panel believes that final platting is a more consistent and relevant measure.
IssueIssue
Approximately 10-20% of platted lots are vacant (i.e., have not yet been built on).
Implies that total UGB/A allocation would need to increase if plats were used.
Impact on the UGB/AImpact on the UGB/A
Final plats can be used with either gross density or average lot size approach (discussed later).
Will distort calculation of regional density. • Goal: increase residential density by 10 percent.
• May need to continue to use parcel-based approach to calculate density.
• Could also divide platted lots by area platted.
Relationship to densityRelationship to density
Platted area in some, but not all, counties may be less than area mapped from aerial photography.
Problem: • Not all parcels created through formal subdivision process. • Some data may be missing.
Some manual adjustments may be necessary. May need to continue to partially rely on aerial photos.
Historical inconsistenciesHistorical inconsistencies
Would improve consistency in identifying area committed for development.
Incorporating vacant parcels into the UGB provides additional flexibility (i.e., market factor).
Also provides DRCOG with more flexibility in allocating population and employment.
Advantages Advantages (of plat-based approach)
Would increase reported amount of existing urbanized land within the region.
Would also increase forecasted amount of future urban development (i.e., UGB/A).
Considerable time and effort to obtain data, revise allocations, modify maps, etc.
DisadvantagesDisadvantages
Use final plats to track urbanized area.
UGB/A Committee recommendationUGB/A Committee recommendation
Issue 2: MappingIssue 2: Mapping
The Bank Review Panel recommended that the current map-based approach be replaced with a ledger-based approach.
Will still be necessary for regional forecasting and other planning purposes to know where development will occur.
The Bank Review Panel recommended that a larger group explore various mapping options.
Bank Panel recommendationBank Panel recommendation
The UGB/A Policy Committee does not endorse relying solely on a ledger-based approach.
Recommend continuing to define a formally recognized UGB.
Also recommend working with UGA communities to:
• Determine if additional flexibility will make UGB palatable for all, or
• Improve the policies for using the UGA approach.
UGB/A Committee recommendationUGB/A Committee recommendation
Semi-urban Committee Semi-urban Committee RecommendationsRecommendations
Metro Vision currently classifies development based on lot size (1-35 acres = semi-urban).
Semi-Urban Committee recommends new approach based on gross density.
• To address perceived inequities
• Consistent with local practice
DefinitionsDefinitions
Conventional large-lot subdivision
Concept: Clustered Development
Clustered subdivision(either rural or PUD)
Lot Size Approach 16 1-acre lots disregard open space 1.0 ac/du (net) density classified as urban
Concept: Gross Density
Gross Density Approach 16 1-acre lots plus 48 acres open space 4.0 ac/du (gross) density classified as semi-urban
Introduces new variables (open space) into defining and managing the UGB/A.
• Open space, commercial, mixed-use.
Variation in local open space requirements could create inequities in allocation.
Creates disincentive to preserve open space if doing so counts against allocation.
Unintended consequencesUnintended consequences
Semi-Urban
Solves one inequity …
Urban
Semi-Urban
… but creates another
Urban
Do not institute a gross density approach for defining and managing the UGB/A
Use average lot size approach recommended by staff instead.
UGB/A Committee recommendsUGB/A Committee recommends
Average lot size approachAverage lot size approach
Classification based on average size of residential parcels.
Classification applied to open space (< 160 ac.) and other non-residential uses within the plat.
Commercial and industrial subdivision with more than 15,000 s.f. of floor space also considered urban.
Unplatted open space, and platted open space > 160 acres, not considered urban.
Concept: Average lot size
Current approach
Only parcels less than one acre considered urban
Average lot size approach
Entire subdivision considered urban
Gross density “losses” (to semi-urban) somewhat offset by addition of open space (excluded under current parcel-based approach).
Average lot size approach larger because of additional open space with no offsetting losses.
Institute average lot size approach but limit the increase in amount of growth area.
Use some threshold other than 160 acres to determine what open space is excluded.
VariationsVariations
Next StepsNext Steps
Regional semi-urban growth target
Growth outside the region
Density assumptions
Growth allocation
Redistributing surplus UGB/A
UGB/A Bank
Upcoming issuesUpcoming issues
Questions and feedbackQuestions and feedback