2015 Growth Policy Update – Lewis & Clark County RGA UGA George Thebarge, AICP Director of...

2015 Growth Policy Update – Lewis & Clark County

RGA

RGA

RGAUGA

UGA

UGA

George Thebarge, AICPDirector of Community Development & PlanningLewis & Clark County

Cole Peebles, PEGreat West Engineering

Chapter 1 – Helena Valley Area Plan

Chapter 2 – Current Planning & Growth Management

Chapter 3 – Policy Options for New Growth

Chapter 4 – Infrastructure Economic Analysis

Chapter 5 – Future Land Use Plan

Presented By:

Chapter 1 – Introduction & Contextof the Helena Valley Area Plan

Draft Future Land Use Plan

RGA

RGA

RGA

TGA

TGAUGA

UGA

UGAHelena

East Helena

Chapter 2 – Current Planning & Growth Management System

• 2004 Growth Policy goal to guide growth with investment in infrastructure improvements.

• Recommendations were never implemented.

• High density growth occurred in rural areas with development constraints (water, wastewater, roads, rural fire protection, & flooding).

URBANGROWTH

SUBURBANGROWTH

• If current planning and growth management system remains in place,

• Rural parts of Helena Valley will continue to develop at densities that will transform those areas into suburban and urban communities

• That will lack the infrastructure needed to support them.

+2000

+2000

+2000+3000


• Subdivision regulations only address impacts of site-specific proposals and are ineffective at addressing comprehensive issues.

• Ever escalating complexity of the subdivision regulations are failing the governing body, subdividers, and the general public.

• The primary factor affecting land use patterns in the Helena Valley is DEQ permitting of water and wastewater systems.

• These regulations ignore any consideration of public infrastructure such as schools, roads, or fire protection.

• The DNRC rules affecting the development of exempt wells are in flux.

• Previous exempt well rule encouraged development of individual wells and septic systems at densities around one unit per acre.

• Large subdivisions are now required to obtain water rights.

• Could lead proliferation of small scattered subdivisions using exempt wells and very large, high-density ones to justify the costs of obtaining water.


• Working with the City of Helena to facilitate development in the Urban Standards Boundary will be essential to accommodating the projected growth of the Helena Valley.

• The County has not fully implemented agreements outlined in the 2009 Memorandum of Understanding.


• Conservative estimate of the build out potential of the Urban Standards Boundary is 8800 units (4000 needed over next 20 years)

Chapter 3 – Policy Options for New Growth Management System

RGA

RGA

RGA

TGA

TGAUGA

UGA

UGAHelena

East Helena


2000-20102/3 Growth Outside Cities1/3 Growth Inside Cities

2015-2030 Goal1/3 Growth Outside Cities2/3 Growth Inside Cities (Annexations in USB)

OR

2015-20301/2 Growth Outside Cities1/2 Growth Inside Cities(Address the development constraints)


2004 GROWTH POLICY

Urban Areas

Transitional (Suburban) Areas

Rural Areas

UAs

TAs

RA

RA

RA


2015 GROWTH POLICY

Urban Growth Areas (+7000 acres)

Transitional (Suburban) Growth Areas

(+5000 acres)

Rural Growth Areas

UGAs

TGAs


Integrated Approach to Growth Management

Infrastructure Investment

Density Controls

Improved

Regulations

Education

2004 ALL GROWTH AREAS

Emphasized improved regulations

Infrastructure Investment Education

PerformanceStandards

DensityControls

10

5

0

2015 ALL GROWTH AREAS


2015 URBAN GROWTH AREAS

Emphasize Public Investment

Infrastructure Improvements

Education


DensityControls

10

5

0

2015 RURALGROWTH AREAS

Emphasize Density Controls



10

5

0

DensityControls

Education

2015 TRANSITIONAL GROWTH AREAS

Emphasize Improved Standards



10

5

0

EducationDensityControls

Policy Option #1: Investment in infrastructure to overcome the development constraintsInfrastructure Investment Strategy #1: Fund Infrastructure Improvements to overcome development constraints throughout Helena Valley.

Infrastructure Investment Strategy #2: Fund infrastructure improvements only in areas of the Valley with the least development constraints.

Infrastructure Investment Strategy #3: Fund infrastructure improvements with a combination of private sources, public sources, and public-private partnerships.

Infrastructure Investment Strategy #4: Consider the cost-effectiveness and the efficiency at serving the public when planning and building infrastructure improvements.

Infrastructure Investment Strategy #5: Target public funding of infrastructure in areas where growth is planned, rather than following growth.

Policy Option #2: Land use controls to establish densities based on development constraintsDensity Control Strategy #1: Adopt a conventional zoning ordinance that limits densities per the constraints and controls all uses.

Density Control Strategy #2: Adopt a non-conventional zoning ordinance that only limits densities.

Density Control Strategy #3: Adopt a hybrid zoning ordinance that limits densities and includes some controls of uses and construction.

Density Control Strategy #4: Adopt overlay zones that are focused on individual development constraints (e.g., limited water availability).

Density Control Strategy #5: Adopt zoning within the Helena Urban Standards Boundary that is compatible with the City of Helena’s zoning.

Density Control Strategy #6: Adopt “urban reserve areas“ for large undeveloped portions of the Urban Standards Boundary to allow limited development in the short term while preserving such areas for future annexations with planned, high density neighborhoods.

Density Control Strategy #7: Adopt zoning models in the Urban, Transitional, and Rural Growth Areas that best address development constraints and opportunities in each growth area (i.e., use the 3 different models in different areas).

THE POLICY OPTIONS & STRATEGIES

Option #3: Improved performance standards to address the development constraints

Improved Performance Strategy #1: Revise existing regulations or adopt new ones to better address the constraints to development.

Improved Performance Strategy #2: Revise existing regulations or adopt new ones to reflect the positive effects of other growth management tools (i.e., lower the performance standards requirements of the Subdivision Regulations if zoning better addresses a development constraint).

Improved Performance Strategy #3: Overhaul the existing Part 1 zoning districts to make them consistent with the Growth Policy and efficient to administer.

Improved Performance Strategy #4: Allow Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) that include master planning, rezoning, and subdivision review as a combined process to provide a streamlined process for plans that address the development constraints.

Improved Performance Strategy #5: Pursue rezoning apart from PUDs if constraints conditions change in an area (i.e., no master plan or subdivision application needed).

Policy Option #4: Education to alert builders and home buyers to the development constraints

Education Strategy #1: Conduct additional research needed to address the constraints to development.

Education Strategy #2: Develop education programs that address the constraints to development.

Education Strategy #3: Focus education programs on individuals and organizations directly involved in the development process and those impacted by the constraints.

American Planning Association Project – Feb. 2015

1. The City and County need Joint Planning Efforts to establish a common vision and plan for the area;

2. In planning for the area we need to avoid letting Perfection be the Enemy of the Good;

3. The City and County need to create a System of Incentives and Disincentives that causes a majority of future growth to occur in the USB;

4. The City and County need Seamless Infrastructure Standards for all development occurring in that area;

URBAN STANDARDS BOUNDARY WORKSHOPKEY POINT #8 — A workshop of stakeholders and regional planning experts identified the pressing need for cooperation between the City and County on facilitating growth in the areas around Helena where public utilities are available.

American Planning Association Project – Feb. 2015

5. Infrastructure Funding is needed and the City and County will need to take some financial risks for a plan to succeed;

6. Affordable Housing needs should be anticipated with the increased infrastructure costs;

7. Public Education and Outreach can help build support for an ambitious plan to steer growth to the USB; and,

8. It is critically important we Act Now to change the pattern of unmanaged growth.

URBAN STANDARDS BOUNDARY WORKSHOPKEY POINT #8 — A workshop of stakeholders and regional planning experts identified the pressing need for cooperation between the City and County on facilitating growth in the areas around Helena where public utilities are available.


UGA Infrastructure Improvement Policy 1.1—Prepare an infrastructure plan meeting the requirements of 76-1-601 (C) (4).(vi) …a description of existing and future public facilities necessary to efficiently serve projected development and densities within infrastructure planning areas…

UGA

UGA

UGA

Helena

East Helena


UGA Infrastructure Improvement Policy 1.1—Prepare an infrastructure plan meeting the requirements of 76-1-601 (C) (4).… include but are not limited to drinking water treatment and distribution facilities, sewer systems, wastewater treatment facilities, solid waste disposal facilities, parks and open space, schools, public access areas, roads, highways, bridges, and facilities for fire protection, law enforcement, and emergency services;

UGA

UGA

UGA

Helena

East Helena


Development Incentive 1

76-3-616Exemption for certain subdivisions. (1) A subdivision that meets the criteria in subsection (2) is exempt from the following requirements:

(a) preparation of an environmental assessment;

(b) a public hearing on the subdivision application; and

(c) review of the subdivision for the criteria listed in 76-3-608(3)(a).

UGA

UGA

UGA

Helena

East Helena



76-3-616Exemption for certain subdivisions. (c) review of the subdivision for the criteria listed in 76-3-608(3)(a).

• Agriculture• Agricultural water user

facilities• Local services• The natural

environment• Wildlife• Wildlife habitat• Public health and safety

UGA

UGA

UGA

Helena

East Helena


UGA

UGA

UGA

Helena

East Helena

UGA Infrastructure Improvement Policy 1.2—Conduct an analysis of potential adverse impacts on resources and services in the Urban Standards Boundary and potential mechanisms to mitigate those impacts.



UGA Infrastructure Improvement Policy 1.4—Create a water and sewer district to serve the Urban Growth Area.

UGA

UGA

UGA

Helena

East Helena



UGA Infrastructure Improvement Policy 1.7—Pursue public-private partnerships between developers, the County, the City, and existing neighborhoods to share the costs of utility extensions.

UGA

UGA

UGA

Helena

East Helena

Chapter 4 – Infrastructure Economic Analysis

Great West Engineering Study

Question 1

What is the net cost difference between building subdivisions to County standards on private utilities, and

Building subdivisions to City standards on public utilities?

Question 2

How can this cost differential be addressed to facilitate development built to City standards on public utilities?

2015 Growth Policy Update – Lewis & Clark County RGA UGA George Thebarge, AICP Director of...

Documents

Transcript of 2015 Growth Policy Update – Lewis & Clark County RGA UGA George Thebarge, AICP Director of...