Ad Hoc Committee on UGB/A Policy: Progress Report

1. Ad Hoc Committee on UGB/A Policy: Progress Report Presentation to the Water and Environmental Planning Committee September 22, 2006

2. Purpose of the Committee • 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

3. Bank Review Panel Recommendations

4. Issue 1: UGB/A tracking

5. Issue • 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.

6. Impact on the UGB/A • 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.

7. Relationship to density • 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.

8. Historical inconsistencies • 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.

11. Advantages (of plat-based approach) • 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.

12. Disadvantages • 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.

13. UGB/A Committee recommendation • Use final plats to track urbanized area.

14. Issue 2: Mapping

15. Bank Panel recommendation • 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.

16. UGB/A Committee 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.

17. Semi-urban Committee Recommendations

18. Definitions • 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

19. Concept: Clustered Development Conventional large-lot subdivision Clustered subdivision (either rural or PUD)

20. Concept: Gross Density Lot Size Approach • 16 1-acre lots • disregard open space • 1.0 ac/du (net) density • classified as urban Gross Density Approach • 16 1-acre lots • plus 48 acres open space • 4.0 ac/du (gross) density • classified as semi-urban

21. Unintended consequences • 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.

22. Solves one inequity … Semi-Urban Urban

23. … but creates another Semi-Urban Urban

24. UGB/A Committee recommends • Do not institute a gross density approach for defining and managing the UGB/A • Use average lot size approach recommended by staff instead.

25. Average lot size approach

26. 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.

27. Concept: Average lot size Current approach Only parcels less than one acre considered urban Average lot size approach Entire subdivision considered urban

29. 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.

31. Variations • 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.

32. Next Steps

33. Upcoming issues • Regional semi-urban growth target • Growth outside the region • Density assumptions • Growth allocation • Redistributing surplus UGB/A • UGB/A Bank

34. Questions and feedback