Chapter 3.4
Transit-Oriented Development

• ALL
• Remove Code Barriers
• Create Incentives
• Fill Regulatory Gaps

Create Urban Growth Area

INTRODUCTION

Urban Growth Areas are designated areas in which development is permitted. Ordinances creating Urban Growth Areas often set legal boundaries separating urban, developable land from rural, conservation, preservation, non-developable land.[1] Any development outside of the Urban Growth Area is typically prohibited or greatly restricted. Urban Growth Area ordinances allow local governments to expand or contract growth areas upon certain findings, such as a finding of public welfare. Urban Growth Area ordinances may also contain provisions related to which entity has the power to modify the Urban Growth Area boundary, the procedure for reviewing the boundary, and how a developer may apply to build outside of the boundary. The local government may also set forth additional requirements for expanding the boundary based on the existing adjacent district. For instance, if a developer wants to build outside of the boundary and next to a district that is specifically designated for scenic views, the municipality may require a higher showing of necessity to develop than if the district was an agricultural zone. Finally, some ordinances have a sunset provision, by which the Urban Growth Area boundary will cease to exist unless the provisions are renewed.

EFFECTS

By creating an Urban Growth Area a local government is able to increase density and preserve natural resources, while not slowing growth. This prevents or limits urban sprawl and the issues associated with sprawl, including loss of support for public amenities, increased time spent travelling, degradation of water quality, and loss of habitat.[2]

Creating Urban Growth Areas helps lower public infrastructure costs by limiting expensive, underused infrastructure in low-density areas.[3]  Providing public services such as water, sanitation, and transit services to larger geographic areas tends to be more expensive for the municipality.[4] Less dense areas also have higher public and individual transportation costs, as more fuel and roads (and associated maintenance) is required to move vehicles over the larger areas.[5] This has a direct economic cost and increases the amount of greenhouse gases produced by the cars and trucks dedicated to transportation.[6] Sprawl also contributes to increasingly expensive storm water management. As more land is developed and covered with impervious surfaces, the municipality must treat more polluted water runoff.[7]

Urban sprawl consumes vast areas of greenspace (land that is wholly or partially covered by vegetation) that were formally outside of the municipal area.[8] Greenspace is valuable for both recreational uses and ecological uses and purposes. Vegetation found in greenspaces consumes carbon dioxide thereby reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that causes the greenhouse effect.[9] Removing greenspace reduces numerous ecosystem services that were being provided by the greenspace. Those services may include air and water purification, climate regulation, soil retention, habitat protection, and pollination.[10]

EXAMPLES

Pitkin County, CO

Pitkin County is home to the City of Aspen, and includes the rural, largely undeveloped areas surrounding Aspen. In response to neighboring rural counties being urbanized, the County promulgated comprehensive plans for each of the areas it serves and consolidated them into a single County comprehensive plan.[11] The common theme of the comprehensive plan is that it is intended to “sustain the existing rural character of Pitkin County.”[12] The County achieved this goal by creating an Urban Growth Boundary, outside of which development is highly restricted, if not altogether prohibited.[13]

The County’s Land Use Code codifies this requirement, providing that development will occur within the Urban Growth Boundary.[14] The Code does allow developers to propose building outside the boundary, but proposals are subject to a number of factors the Country must consider, most of which are averse to allowing such development.[15] Factors include requiring the new development to extend water and sewer utility lines and those lines will not be supported by the County; new development must show that its scale is such that development in the boundary is impractical; and new planned unit developments must minimize impacts to the environment.[16] Developers must also contend with the County’s policy of favoring preservation of agriculture.[17] Generally, the County discourages the fragmentation of agricultural land into smaller parcels, which is how most developers would acquire land beyond the boundary.[18] Further, the County generally does not expand municipal water and sewage systems outside of the Urban Growth Boundary, which places an additional burden of providing private systems on developers (see Establish Urban Service Area for more ordinances limiting utility services).[19]

To view the Comprehensive Plan, see Pitkin Cty., Colo., Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan (2003).

To view the Land Use Code provisions, see Pitkin Cty., Colo., Land Use Code tit. 8, ch. 1, § 1-50-30 (2016).

San Jose, CA

After experiencing rapid growth from 1950-1970, San Jose implemented an urban growth boundary (UGB) to contain urban sprawl.[20] The City had found that residential developments near the edge of city limits were not cost effective due to the substantial cost of expanding public services to new areas.[21] The City’s general plan indicates that the City’s goal is to use the UGB to minimize environmental impacts while insuring fiscal sustainability.[22]

The UGB is codified in the City’s local planning ordinances. These ordinances generally require new development to occur within the existing UGB.[23] However, developers may build outside of the UGB if the City grants a modification to the boundary line location.[24] Modifications are classified as either “minor” or “significant.” If a modification is minor, the application to change the UGB will be considered along with the annual review of the city’s general plan.[25] Criteria for minor modifications include that the development is no larger than five acres (or twenty acres if the development creates a buffer that limits further development in the area), the development is immediately contiguous to existing developments in the UGB, and the development would provide an environmental benefit.[26] Notably, if a proposed development is contiguous to land that has already been granted a minor modification, then the proposal is automatically deemed significant.[27]

On the other hand, a significant modification is simply one that does not qualify as a minor modification.[28] Significant modifications are only considered when the city council finds that a review of the general plan is being scheduled for independent reasons, or that the applicant would be denied economically viable use of their land if the modification were not considered.[29] However, even if the city council makes one of these findings the modification would likely still be denied because the city code explicitly states that significant modifications are “strongly discouraged.”[30]

To view the provisions, see San Jose, Cal., Code of Ordinances § 18.30 – 18.30.270 (current through 2018).

ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70a (2017) (requiring cities and counties with populations over 50,000 to create urban growth areas as part of a comprehensive plan).

Novato, Cal. Ordinance No. 1635 (2017) (continuing the existing urban growth boundary until 2042 and preventing non-agricultural uses outside the boundary).

TN Code §6-58-104 (2017) (Tennessee state law requiring every county in the state to promulgate a growth plan that includes urban growth boundaries).