Transcript Dane County, Wisconsin Drafting And Implementing A Smart

Dane County, Wisconsin
Drafting And Implementing A
Smart Growth Plan
Dr. Robert H. Freilich - Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle
Madison, Wisconsin - September 30, 2003
A.B. University of Chicago, J.D. Yale Law School
M.R.P., LL.M, J.S.D. Columbia University
Chair, Planning and Law Division, American Planning Association
Editor, The Urban Lawyer, American Bar Association
Author, From Sprawl to Smart Growth: Successful Legal, Planning
And Environmental Systems (1999)
1
Seven Major Crises
Decline in existing built-up areas – city and
suburbs
Degradation of the environment
Energy over-utilization
Fiscal strain linked with deficiencies in
inadequate public facilities and
overburdened transportation facilities
Loss of agricultural lands and open space
Housing affordability
Public health crisis
What is Sprawl
Low density development on the edges of
cities and towns that is poorly planned,
land-consumptive, automobile-dependent
and designed without regard to its
surroundings.
Richard Moe, National Trust for Historic Places
Sprawl is a Conservative Fiscal
Issue
Growth has helped fuel … unparalleled
economic and population boom and has
enabled millions … to realize the enduring
dream of home ownership … but sprawl has
created
enormous
costs…
Ironically,
unchecked sprawl has shifted from an engine
of … growth to a force that now threatens to
inhibit growth and degrade the quality of our
life.
Beyond Sprawl, 1995
Bank of America
Understanding the
Impacts of Sprawl
Character/
Compatibility
Fiscal
Levels of Service
Energy Use
Environmental
The Public Infrastructure Gap
In September 2003 the American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
estimated that $1.6 trillion
($1,600,000,000,000) needed to be
invested over a five-year period to
bring infrastructure up to an
acceptable condition; a figure which
has increased by $300 billion since
2001.
Myths
All growth pays for itself
Smart growth means no growth
Smart growth interferes with free market
Smart growth is too expensive
Demanding quality & cost recovery will
shift growth to other areas
Relative Cost of Planned
Development v. Sprawl
Facility Sprawl
Planned Development
Duncan Burchell Frank Synthesis
Roads
100%
40%
76%
73%
75%
Schools
100%
93%
97%
99%
95%
Utilities
100%
60%
92%
66%
85%
Other
100% 102%
NA 100%
NA
Capital Costs Shifted to
Existing Development
Population
A
B
C
D
10,000 $12,000
20,000
6,000
6,000
30,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
40,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
$25,000 $13,000 $7,000
$3,000
Total
Ramapo
San Diego, California
IV
III
I
III
I
II
III
IV
III
III
SO U R CE : P e ggy A Re ic he rt , G ro wt h M a nag eme nt i n the T w in C itie s M etropo lita n A rea : T h e D e vel opme nt F ra me w ork Pl anni ng P roc e ss (1976)
Planning Areas
Metro Center
Fully Developed Area
Areas of Planned Urbanization /
Freestanding Growth Centers
Rural and Agricultural Area
Twin
Cities,
Minnesota
Washington, D.C. Area
Features
1. Radial Corridors
2. Corridor
Centers/Joint
Development
3. Transportation
Congestion
Management
4. Economic
Incentives for Ag.
Land
Baltimore County, MD
Pennsylvania
Legend
Baltimore
County
Existing Communities
New Development Area
Fringe Development Area
New Development Area
Rural & Agricultural
Baltimore
City
Palm Beach County Tiers
CD
IV
Anx.
Area
Pre-existing
Dev.
I
II
Atlantic
IV
III
CD
TND
IV
Ag Land
Ocean
Conceptual Alternative
Analysis
Alternative 1: Current Practices




Alternative 3: Growth Center





 









Alternative 2: Concentrated Growth




Washoe County Alternatives
SO UTH ERN
W A SH O E C O UN TY
C U RR EN T
TREN D S
C O N C EPT
URBA N A REA BO UN D A RY
EX ISTIN G D EV ELO PM EN T
W A TER BO D IES
Washoe County Alternatives
SO UTHERN
WASHO E C O UNTY
C RITIC AL
AREAS
C O NC EPT
URBAN AREA BO UNDARY
EXISTING DEVELO PMENT
WATER BODIES
Washoe County Alternatives
Washoe County Alternatives
SO UTH ERN
W A SH O E C O UN TY
TIERED
G RO W TH
C O N C EPT
C O RE
URBA N
URBA N IZIN G / FUTURE URBA N IZED
URBA N A REA BO UN D A RY
EX ISTIN G D EV ELO PM EN T
W A TER BO D IES
Legal Trends
Golden v. Ramapo (N.Y. 1972) and U.S.
Supreme Court (1972)
– Constitutionality of growth management
established
Montgomery County, MD
– pioneered concept of LOS
Statewide “concurrency” mandates
(Florida, Washington)
Court Rulings
Almquist v. Town of Marshan (Minn 1976)
– Broad construction of standard planning and
zoning enabling acts to act without specific
legislation
Associated Home Builders v. City of
Livermore (Cal.1976)
- Denial of subdivision based on
inadequate public facilities
Development Agreements
Pardee Construction Co. v. City of
Camarillo (Cal. 1985)
– City has right to determine timing/phasing of
growth even though use and density vested
Leroy v. TRPA ( 9th Cir. 1991)
– Development agreement provisions for
exactions are exempt from Dolan, Nollan
rough proportionality constitutional
requirements
Wisconsin Authority
Land Subdivision Act, Chapter 236.45(1)
– lessen congestion in the streets
– secure safety from fire, panic and other
dangers
– promote health and the general welfare
– prevent overcrowding of land
– avoid undue concentration of population
– facilitate adequate provision of
transportation, water, sewerage, schools,
parks, and other public requirements
North Carolina Authority
Ghidorzi Construction, Inc. v. Town of Chapel
Hill, 242 S.E.2d 545, 80 N.C. App. 438 (1986)
– Evidence supported a town council's denial of a
special use permit for construction of 31 dwelling
units on a 15.2 acre tract based on the adverse
effect of the proposed development upon traffic
congestion and safety in the area.
– The town council was not required to approve the
proposed development because of a pending
proposal to improve roads in the area.
North Carolina Authority
Tate Terrace Realty Investors, Inc. v.
Currituck County, 488 S.E.2d 845 (1997)
– denial of subdivision plat due to
inadequate school facilities upheld
Transportation
Corridor Planning ,
Economic
Development & Joint
Public/Private
Development
Local Government Roles in Joint
Development of Transit Centers
assemble property
provide flexible zoning / incentives
secure low cost financing
construct infrastructure
coordinate gov’t agencies
expedite development process
designate transit corridor
establish transit service / centers
Joint Development: Techniques
Excess Condemnation
Long term leasing/value capture
Negotiated private sector investments
Connection fees
Concessions
Joint Development: Regulatory
Incentives
Parking reductions
Impact fee reductions
Concurrency waivers (TCMA)
Density bonuses
TDR
Expedited processing
Joint Planning - Bridging the City/County Gap
Intergovernmental Cooperation
Sections 66.0217 et. seq.
Comprehensive Plan as Constitution
Mutual definition of growth tiers
Targets State funding to priority growth areas
Linkage between CIP, development and
annexation
Adequate public facilities required
Promotes creative, efficient development
around city growth areas and transportation
corridors
Limitations on sprawl help city infill
development
Countywide bond issue to save agricultural
land
Impact Fees
Funding
Facilities
Analysis
Adopt LOS
Standards
Deficiencies
No Deficiencies
Facilities for
Existing Dev.
Facilities for
New Dev.
General Rev.
Transfers
Ad Valorem Tax
Joint Funding
License/Excise Tax Asset Mgmnt.
Utility Rates
Trans.Corps
User Fees
Impact Fees, TDDs,
Mandatory Dedications
Improvement Requirements
Mitigation Fees, CDDs
Dolan/Ehrlich Analysis
of Concurrency
New Growth Related Facilities
Impact Fees
Rough Proportionality
Dolan v. City of Tigard
Florida Rationally
Related Test
Leveraged Negotiation
(Ehrlich v. Culver City)
Concurrency
Deny Approval
Development
Agreement
Good Faith Test
Deficiencies in
public services
CIP will solve deficiencies within
reasonable period of time
Developer gains vested
rights, local gov’t gains
facilities in greater
capacity than rough
proportionality
Golden v. Planning
Board, Town of
Ramapo: applies to
school facilities
Concurrency and
Adequate Public
Facilities Planning
Concurrency
Timing and Sequencing (police powers)
CIP (fiscal powers)
Carrying Capacity
Timing of Development & Public
Facilities
Growth
Capacity
Time
Congestion Management:
Regulatory Alternatives
Zoning
Subdivision Approval
CUP/SUP
Impact Analysis
DRI/Special Review
Exactions/developme
nt agreements
Impact fees
Adequate Public
Facilities Ordinances
(APFO’s)/
Concurrency
Congestion Pricing
Neotraditional/TOD
TDM
Access management
TDR
Development Agreements
Concurrency management
Serve new demand
Solve existing deficiencies
Growth management
Litigation defense
Agricultural
Preservation
Alternative Regulatory Mechanisms
Preferential property tax treatment
Exclusive agricultural zones
Flexible zoning: clustering, bonus density and
planned developments
Agricultural districts by soil, productivity and location
to public facilities
Purchase/Transfer of development rights programs first appellate Florida case (Hollywood)
Capital improvements program and concurrency
system
Conservation easements
Clustering
Agricultural Easements
38 Acre
Ag. Easement
Non-Farm
Dwelling
2
Farm Dwelling
Transfers of Development
Rights
Transfer of
Development Rights
Farm Dwelling
40 Acres
160 Acre
Ag. Easement
Farm Dwelling
Transfer 4 2 2 2 2 2
Non-Farm
Dwellings
Montgomery County, MD
Separating Investment Value From
Agricultural Value And Return
Partial Development
Full Development
Value of Land
$800,000.00
$1,500,000.00
Purchase of Development
Rights
$100,000.00
N/A
Cluster Development
(10 d.u./10 acres)
$437,500.00
N/A
Fed. & State Capital
Gains Tax
-$73,794.00
$162,940.00
Section 170 (h) Deduction
$216,000.00
N/A
$1,479,706.00
$1,337,060.00
N/A
$300,000
$1,479,706.00
$1,037,060
$14,480
$10,037
Subtotal
Replacement Housing
TOTAL
Per Acre Value
Rural/Agricultural Experience
King County (Seattle), WA: Preservation of ag. river
valleys
Lexington-Fayette County, KY: Horse farm
preservation through density limits
Bucks County, PA: Township preservation, TDR
program for agricultural areas
Pershing County, NV: Density-based ag. preservation
plan with cluster bonus
Howard County, MD: TDR-based ag. preservation
Clinton County, IA: Ag. preservation based on soil
capacity
Scottsdale, Arizona: Preservation of environmentally sensitive lands
Miami-Dade County: Ag Land Preservation
“Redlands”
Joint Planning
Growth
Strategies
Commission
Joint
City/County
Plan
City
County
Ancillary Techniques
Urban Growth Boundaries - w/ intergovernmental agreements
Tier Systems
Joint Development
Concurrency
Transfers of Development Rights
Rural vs. Urban Planning
Rural
Urban
Defining LOS
Minimizing facilities
and services
Protecting farms
from residences
Supporting strong
communities
Defining LOS
Providing facilities
and services
Protecting
residences from ...
Forging strong
neighborhoods
Rural Area
Planning Challenges
Ag vs. Non-Ag uses
Resource Protection – LESA
Financing PDRs and TDRs to create farmer
economic benefits
Building Permit Allocation In Lieu of Large Lot
Zoning
Establish Rural LOS with no infrastructure capacity
expansion and no impact fees
Rural Area Tools
Growth rate limits
Rural LOS
Density limits
TDR/PDR
Ag. promotion
Ag. protection
Land acquisition
Cluster
– voluntary
– mandatory
Rural design
standards
Design and New
Urbanism
Design & New Urbanism
Actions:
– Transportation investment in highways
– Land use standards promote auto-oriented
development
Reactions:
– Hastened decline of urban core
– Forced a love-hate reliance on autos
– Fostered call for transit supportive land use policies
Elements
Use
Density
Proximity
Bulk/Setback/Area
Mixed uses
Grid street system
Urban design
Conventional v. Traditional
Neighborhood Development
Separation of uses
Maximum densities
Street standards
designed for cars
Curvilinear streets
Private open space
Large lots
Wide setbacks
Private orientation
Minimum parking
Mixed uses
Minimum densities
Street standards
designed for
pedestrians
Interconnected streets
Public open space
Small lots
Build-to lines
Orientation to public
realm
Maximum parking
Neotraditional Planning Cases
Eide v. Sarasota County
Restigouche, Inc. v. Town of Jupiter
Dallen v. City of Kansas City
Marshall v. Salt Lake City
Summary
Establish Vision
Define Impacts
Implementation
CIP
Land Use
Timing
Development
The Message
Stay involved
Be visionary
Take the long view
Incremental decisions are important
Seek coordinated growth strategies
Be prepared to challenge myths