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