Metro Vision 2020 Urban Growth Boundary - History and Process - DRCOG
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Metro Vision 2020
Urban Growth Boundary
History and Process
Updated Report
20042
The Extent of Urban experimented with land consumption and
its effect on air and water pollution, cost
Development Core Element of infrastructure, congestion, and other
variables associated with growth. This
In 1997 DRCOG adopted the regional
alternative development analysis played
development plan Metro Vision 2020.
an important role in the development of
The plan is organized around six core
Metro Vision 2020.
elements, one of which is the „extent of
urban development‟. The original plan
Development Scenarios for
stated, “the extent of urban development
will occur within 700 square miles by Accommodating Growth in the
2020, accommodating expected Denver Metro Region1
population growth and adding 165
square miles to the existing (1995) Four development alternatives -
urbanized area.” This report describes compact, corridor, satellite (freestanding
how the 700 square mile goal was communities), and dispersed (current
determined and the changes that have trend) – were compared looking at a
occurred in the growth area since the range of options for future land use and
plan‟s adoption. transportation scenarios. The
alternatives varied primarily in the shape
The Denver metro area Urban Growth and size of urban pattern, overall land
Boundary (UGB) did not happen consumed by urban and rural
overnight. It has been a collaborative development, and the transportation
process that has occurred over a multi- network needed to serve the
year period of time. It is also an evolving development.
process that continues to be refined,
reviewed, and explored as each Compact Development Alternative
community begins to implement and
interpret this regional growth strategy. The goal of the compact development
alternative was to limit urban sprawl in
In 1995 the DRCOG Board of Directors the region. New population and
adopted the Metro Vision 2020 employment growth would take place on
Framework. The Framework served as a infill or redevelopment sites within the
guiding document for creating the central city and existing suburbs,
regional development plan, Metro Vision including new Urban Centers. There
2020. It defines the major features of the would be high transit investment
regional plan for land use, transportation, including the completion of a light rail
environment and open space. More transit system connecting all of the
specifically, the Framework identifies region‟s major Urban Centers. A
goals and recommendations for the 2020 greenbelt buffer would limit the future
extent of urban development. growth of the urban area and contain the
development within the region.
The intent of the extent of urban
development goal is to set down on Corridor Development Alternative
paper the desired vision for future
development in the region given the The goal of the corridor development
projected population growth of 700,000 alternative was to serve new
people between 1995 and 2020. This
1
process began by studying alternative Complete documentation about each of the
development scenarios for the region. alternatives is available in Metro Vision 2020
The development scenarios Urban Form Alternatives and Evaluation
Criteria, 1995.
3development with transit service and office parks scattered throughout the
close-by regional open space. region. Transit investment would be
Population and employment growth limited and transportation investment
would be located along major would continue to favor building more
transportation routes including transit roads to serve growth.
lines. This would allow for the
preservation of major open space areas Evaluation of Urban Form
as wedges between development Alternatives2
corridors. This alternative would require
a high investment in transit. In order to analyze the cumulative effects
of each alternative, each was evaluated
Satellite Development Alternative against a set of criteria or development
objectives. The criteria measured how
The goal of the satellite development well each alternative met the goals and
alternative was to promote the objectives of the Metro Vision Principles
opportunity for creating a greater sense and Policies. The criteria fall into five
of community in newly developing major categories: land use,
suburban areas. Growth in the region transportation, environment, open space,
would be channeled to existing satellite and implementation.
communities or new planned
communities, physically separated from Evaluation Criteria
the central urban area by open space or
agricultural land. Most new growth Land Use
would shift from the urban fringe to more Limits amount of new urban land
distant locations. Satellite development required
would be planned to contain a balance of Provides housing close to jobs
housing and jobs, to be more self- Maximizes use of existing developed
contained, and reduce commuting to the infrastructure
central urban area. The major Promotes development in areas with
transportation investment would be roadway accessibility
commuter rail to connect the satellites to
Supports redevelopment of CBD,
the core urban area. Satellite
other Urban Centers, and Activity
development would be chosen based on
Centers
the capacity for growth and an existing
Promotes transit accessible
highway or transit connection to the
development
central urban area.
Provides services close to housing
Dispersed Development Alternative
Transportation
The goal of the dispersed development Reduces vehicle travel on highway
alternative was to demonstrate the system
expected land use pattern that would Reduces delay and congestion on
result from implementing current the highway network
development policies and market trends. Encourages the use of alternate
Single-family detached residences would travel modes
be the predominant land use and would
continue to occur at the edge of the 2
existing urban area in low-density Complete documentation of how the
alternatives rated against each of the
developments. Nonresidential evaluation criteria is available in Metro Vision
development would continue to occur in 2020 Urban Form Alternatives and
single purpose shopping districts and Evaluation Criteria, 1995.
4Provides increased access to the to the region creates a gross average
CBD and other Urban Centers density of 3,900 people per square mile3.
Minimizes total travel time
Reduces total regional transportation At $1.3 billion –$1.55 billion, the local
costs cost of infrastructure for the 700 square
Reduces total private transportation miles of developed land area would be
costs considerably less than the dispersed
alternative ($5.4 billion). The compact
Environment alternative, 650 square miles of
Provides for improved air quality development, resulted in lower local
Reduces water quality degradation costs for infrastructure ($1.1 billion) and
from stormwater runoff VMT, however it had higher levels of
Reduces the amount of advanced congestion associated with higher
wastewater treatment required densities. The 750 square-mile
development alternatives indicated
Provides for maximum use of water
higher costs for infrastructure ($1.6
supplies
billion - $2.0 billion) and higher levels of
air and water pollution. The dispersed
Open Space
alternative with 850 square miles of
Amount of different landforms
development substantially increased
converted to urban development,
VMT, air and water pollution, congestion,
preserved, or left undeveloped
costs of infrastructure, and greatly
Relative location of open space in decreased the ability to provide for
relation to the region‟s population alternative modes of travel, opportunities
Amount of open space needed to for open space, and the viability of
make the alternative work activity centers.
Implementation
Costs of infrastructure development
Arriving at a 2020 UGB Map
Consistency with adopted local
With a regional growth area target
governments
determined, the next issue was to
Level of legislative change required
determine where and how that
development would occur.
The Extent of Urban Development
In order to assist jurisdictions in planning
As a result of the evaluation process, it for growth to the year 2020, mapping
was determined that land developed in criteria were established. The criteria
excess of 700 square miles by 2020 reflect the principles and policies of
would create undesirable consequences, Metro Vision 2020 and the elements of
and that, within that target, maximum the Vision Framework in early 1996.
benefits could be achieved without Jurisdictions were asked to follow
constraining growth. In 1995 the urban guidelines in determining the land area to
area was estimated at 535 square miles. be included with their 2020 Urban
The 700 square-mile goal provides 165 Growth Boundary. The guidelines fell
square miles of land for urban into three major categories: the regional
development over a twenty-five year
period. The addition of 700,000 people
3
This density assumes 20 percent of the
projected population and employment growth
will occur as in-fill or re-development, and 3
percent will occur outside of the UGB.
5open space system, the urban growth
area and the urban centers. Communities met by subregion to
discuss an urban growth boundary map
Local Urban Growth Area Planning for their subarea. After an initial round of
Guidelines: meetings, the sum of the areas for the
When possible exclude agricultural total region equaled about 800 square
lands on periphery of current miles.
developed area
Exclude all regional open space, Setting Growth Area Targets4
large parcels of public lands and
national forests (parcels > 160 acres) To make the process easier for each
Do not exceed the area shown as jurisdiction, DRCOG was asked to derive
urban in the local comprehensive a target for each jurisdiction. Building
plans permit and population data from 1990
Current municipal boundaries should and 1995 were compiled by jurisdiction
not be used to define the urban to create a growth projection or target
growth area from past trends. Population growth was
Avoid areas of environmentally reviewed by jurisdiction in order to arrive
sensitive lands at a reasonable projection. In those
Plan for appropriate development communities that had not yet
along regional beltways experienced much population growth, but
Identify infrastructure plan for your had land to develop, the regional
area and discuss consistency average percentage was assumed.
Identify existing or anticipated large- Several communities stated a desire not
lot development to grow at their past rates, and submitted
a projection smaller than what would
have otherwise been forecasted, while
Creating Subregions
others assumed a much higher
percentage of growth than the regional
The mapping effort began with a
average.
composite of local comprehensive plans.
This yielded an urban area of 1,200
The following tables breakdown building
square miles, but was not staged to a
permit, population, and land area
particular forecast year. As a result,
assumptions used to create the growth
DRCOG was asked to come up with a
targets for each member government
growth target for each subregion.
(see Figures 1-5). There were four basic
Population and employment growth was
factors considered in forecasting growth
forecast by subregion yielding a range of
by jurisdiction.
expected growth in land area. To
recognize the differences of each
1. population growth, and dwelling
jurisdiction, the metropolitan area was
units per acre (density)
divided into five subregions, each
2. number of building permit
centered around major transportation
approvals
corridors: North, South, East, West, and
Mountain (see Map 1). Each subregion
is comprised of jurisdictions with similar
market, commuting, and demographic
4
characteristics that share contiguous Building permit and population data was
areas of future development. Each compiled from 1990-1995. During this time
subregion was to collaboratively period the region grew by 2.5 percent per
establish a reasonable growth area. year. This growth rate is expected to
continue to 2020.
63. amount of land area consumed, that it was appropriate to keep the 2020-
in total and as a percentage of 700 sq. mile extent of urban
regional growth development goal. They also
4. employment as a percentage of recommended that the 730 sq. mile map
land area, and in absolute be adopted as the Interim 2020 Urban
numbers Growth Boundary (UGB).
Once the targets were forecasted a The UGB distinguishes between land
second mapping effort was undertaken. that is urban and that which is
Most jurisdictions agreed with the unimproved, protected open space or
targets, however some did not. For rural and defines land that is planned by
those jurisdictions that did not, local governments to urbanize by the
compromises were made to reach goals year 2020. It is intended to encourage
acceptable to each community. contiguous and orderly urban
Longmont for example gained an development and deter leapfrog
additional six square miles of land area development that places a greater
because the other jurisdictions within burden on utility and infrastructure
their subregion, such as Boulder, did not systems.
want further growth. In other
jurisdictions, the local political climate did In December 1997 the DRCOG Board of
not allow for further reductions in land Directors passed a resolution accepting
area. the 2020 Interim Urban Growth Boundary
Map (see Map 2), with the requirement
The second effort to map the 2020 extent that local governments be given the
of urban development yielded a regional ability to change the location of the
map indicating approximately 730 square Boundary through Flexibility Provisions6.
miles of land to be urbanized by 2020.
This result was much better than the The Flexibility Provisions enable both the
initial 1,200 square miles of planned local and regional UGB maps to be
development and just 30 square miles modified in three ways: self-certification,
over the 700 square mile goal. Once regional review and input, and changes
jurisdictions identified where future requiring DRCOG Board action. Self-
growth would occur, planning tools certification enables local governments
began to be developed in order to realize to make small changes that do not have
this vision. a regional impact. Regional review and
input occurs when the proposed change
Regional Acceptance and Adoption does not meet the criteria for self-
certification. Changes that require
After much debate by the Metro Vision DRCOG Board approval are those that
Policy Committee (MVPC)5, they would require amending other regional
recommended to the Board of Directors plans or requests for expansion of the
Urban Growth Boundary.
5
Metro Vision Policy Committee is made up
of DRCOG Board members, leaders from Changes since 1997
business, environmental and other interests.
Responsibilities include, but are not limited
to, ensuring that the basic tenets of Metro
Between 1997 and 2000, only minor
Vision 2020 (MV) are pursued, refinement of changes were made to the Interim 2020
MV implementation strategies, and review Urban Growth Boundary Map. Some
and recommend changes to the urban changes were self-certifications that had
growth boundary.
6
See Appendix
7no impact on the regional total. The committee also asked the DRCOG
However, the Board at the request of communities to review and update their
Adams and Boulder counties made two urban area mapping. Maps of 1995,
amendments that did increase the 2020 2000 and 2020 urban areas were
area. The Adams County change prepared for each county and
reflected some existing urban areas that municipality. This required that the
were not covered by the cities in the committee update the definitions of
county. The Boulder County change urban and non-urban land. Those
provided a mechanism for recognizing updated definitions are included in this
the county‟s transfer of development report for Board consideration. As a
rights program. These changes result of this review, urban area mapping
increased the regional UGB to 735 across all jurisdictions has become more
square miles. uniform and the resulting information
more accurate.
In addition, several communities
implemented the urban growth boundary In some cases, the expected 2020
into their local planning efforts through UGB/A has been reduced due to new
the use of the area total rather than a open space and golf course definitions or
specific local map. To recognize this because growth pressure in that
implementation approach, references to community has lessened. In many
the process were changed to “urban cases, the revisions to the 2020 UGB/A
growth boundary/area (ugb/a).” in a community were minor and resulted
in less than 1 square mile of change. In
During the 1999 Metro Vision Plan four communities, the proposed changes
Assessment, the Board revised the 2020 were more significant and the Extent of
regional forecast from 2.8 to 3.2 million Development Committee asked for a
people and directed the staff to evaluate detailed response to specific questions
the impact of this change on the urban posed by the committee for these four
growth boundary/area. In 2000, the staff proposals. After considering those
recommended that the 735 square mile responses, the committee recommended
map be adopted as the official extent of that these four changes be accepted.
development goal. The Board appointed The minor adjustments and four
as special ad hoc committee to consider community requests resulted in an
this proposal. increase in the regional urban growth
area from 735 square miles to 747
Ad Hoc Committee on the Extent of square miles.
Development
In response to the committee‟s charge,
The Ad Hoc Committee on Extent of the DRCOG Board adopted amendments
Development was given the charge by to the Metro Vision 2020 Plan in January
the DRCOG Board of Directors to 2002. These also included updated
consider several issues related to the language for the Flexibility Provisions.
Extent of Urban Development, including The Board also accepted the
the assessment of the 2020 urban area committee‟s recommendation to review
forecast, Urban Growth Boundary/Area the UGB/A every two years and to
(UGB/A) issues in several individual develop more criteria for considering
jurisdictions and the update of the local area changes in the next review.
flexibility process. The committee
undertook several efforts to address
these topics.
89
Appendix Resolution Accepting the Interim Urban Growth Boundary Map and Flexibility Provisions for Use in the Metro Vision 2020 Plan Process, December 17, 1997. Urban Growth Boundary Flexibility Provisions, December 17, 1997.
You can also read
