1 / 64

Dane County, Wisconsin Drafting And Implementing A Smart Growth Plan

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

heidi
Download Presentation

Dane County, Wisconsin Drafting And Implementing A Smart Growth Plan

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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)

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Character/ Compatibility Fiscal Levels of Service Energy Use Environmental Understanding the Impacts of Sprawl

  6. 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.

  7. 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

  8. Relative Cost of Planned Development v. Sprawl

  9. Capital Costs Shifted to Existing Development

  10. Ramapo

  11. San Diego, California

  12. Twin Cities, Minnesota

  13. Washington, D.C. Area Features 1. Radial Corridors 2. Corridor Centers/Joint Development 3. Transportation Congestion Management 4. Economic Incentives for Ag. Land

  14. Baltimore County, MD

  15. Palm Beach County Tiers C D I V A n x . A r e a I B P r e - e x i s t i n g G D e v . I I U A t l a n t i c O c e a n I V I I I C D T N D I V A g L a n d

  16. Conceptual Alternative Analysis

  17. Washoe County Alternatives

  18. Washoe County Alternatives

  19. Washoe County Alternatives

  20. Washoe County Alternatives

  21. 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)

  22. 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

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. 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.

  26. 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

  27. Transportation Corridor Planning , Economic Development & Joint Public/PrivateDevelopment

  28. 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

  29. Joint Development: Techniques • Excess Condemnation • Long term leasing/value capture • Negotiated private sector investments • Connection fees • Concessions

  30. Joint Development: Regulatory Incentives • Parking reductions • Impact fee reductions • Concurrency waivers (TCMA) • Density bonuses • TDR • Expedited processing

  31. Joint Planning - Bridging the City/County GapIntergovernmental CooperationSections 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

  32. Impact Fees

  33. FundingFacilities 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

  34. Dolan/Ehrlich Analysisof Concurrency New Growth Related Facilities Impact Fees Concurrency Good Faith Test Rough Proportionality Dolan v. City of Tigard Deficiencies in public services Deny Approval Florida Rationally Related Test Development Agreement CIP will solve deficiencies within reasonable period of time Leveraged Negotiation (Ehrlich v. Culver City) 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

  35. Concurrency and Adequate Public Facilities Planning

  36. Concurrency • Timing and Sequencing (police powers) • CIP (fiscal powers) • Carrying Capacity

  37. Timing of Development & Public Facilities Growth Capacity Time

  38. Zoning Subdivision Approval CUP/SUP Impact Analysis DRI/Special Review Exactions/development agreements Impact fees Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances (APFO’s)/ Concurrency Congestion Pricing Neotraditional/TOD TDM Access management TDR Congestion Management: Regulatory Alternatives

  39. Development Agreements • Concurrency management • Serve new demand • Solve existing deficiencies • Growth management • Litigation defense

  40. Agricultural Preservation

  41. 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

  42. Clustering

  43. Agricultural Easements 38 Acre Ag. Easement Non-Farm Dwelling 2 Farm Dwelling

  44. Transfers of Development Rights

  45. Transfer ofDevelopment Rights Farm Dwelling 160 Acre Ag. Easement 40 Acres 2 2 2 2 2 Transfer 4 Non-Farm Dwellings Farm Dwelling

  46. Montgomery County, MD

  47. Separating Investment Value From Agricultural Value And Return

  48. 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”

  49. Joint City/County Plan Joint Planning Growth Strategies Commission City County

More Related