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

2. 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 Committee

3. Bank Review Panel Recommendations

4. Issue 1: UGB/A tracking

5. 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. Issue

6. 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/A

7. 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 density

8. 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 inconsistencies

11. 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)

12. 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. Disadvantages

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

14. Issue 2: Mapping

15. 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 recommendation

16. 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 recommendation

17. Semi-urban Committee Recommendations

18. 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 Definitions

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

20. 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

21. 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 consequences

22. Semi-Urban Solves one inequity … Urban

23. Semi-Urban … but creates another Urban

24. 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 recommends

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. 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. Variations

32. Next Steps

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

34. Questions and feedback