Urban Containment – American Style(s)

1. Urban Containment – American Style(s) Dr. Arthur C. Nelson, FAICP Professor & Director, Urban Affairs & Planning Virginia Tech – Alexandria Center Regional Leadership Institute

3. Urban Containment – God’s Will? “The Lord said to Moses . . . Command the people of Israel, that they give to the Levites . . . cities to dwell in; and pasture lands round about the cities . . . The pasture lands of the cities . . . shall reach from the wall of the city outward . . . all around. “The city shall be in the middle…” Numbers 35: 1-5.

4. Goals of Urban Containment • Preserve public goods. • Minimize adverse land use interactions and maximize positive ones. • Minimize taxpayer exposure. • Distribute benefits & burdens equitably. • Improve overall quality of life.

5. “Best” Containment Practices • Urban Growth Containment Boundary • Resource land preservation • Infill, redevelopment, aka “refill” • Inclusionary housing • Regional asset sharing • Multi-modal accessibility • Responsiveness to change

6. Emerging Empirical Evidence • Containment/growth management improves economic development. • Containment prevents beltways & increases retail/service trade. • Containment increases farming. • Containment reduces racial segregation. • Containment makes jobs more accessible to low/mod-incomes. • Containment eliminates blight.

7. Downsides • Threatens existing neighborhoods. • Raises housing prices by making area more attractive & economically efficient. • Can decrease homeownership (though just the opposite can also happen). • Increases infrastructure costs in near-term. • Pushes some economic activities out. • Reduces opportunity to live on large lots.

8. Different Flavors of Urban Containment • Urban Services & Facilities • Urban Growth Phasing • Rural Growth Management • Rural/Open Space Preservation • Intergovernmental Agreements

9. Urban Services & Facilities • Urban Service Area • Infrastructure Phasing • Municipal Boundary • Level of Service Standards • Spatial Capital Investment • Special Service Districts • State Priority Funding Areas

10. Urban Service Area • Limits geographic extent of service. • Rural areas denied urban services. • Typical of water and wastewater.

12. InfrastructurePhasing • Plans for location and timing of future urban service extensions. • Plan is basis for capital improvement investments. • Example: Sioux Falls, SD, 2015 Growth Management Plan.

14. Municipal Boundary • Key facilities and services provided only by municipality. • Access to key facilities and services attained only through annexation. • Example is Lincoln, Nebraska.

16. Level of Service Standards • Performance standards for urban services vary spatially between “urban” and “rural” land uses. • Example: Palm Beach County, Florida, where rural areas are not allowed to have public/community water and sewer.

18. Spatial Capital Investment • Focuses new infrastructure investments in existing or planned urban areas. • Example: Maryland’s “priority” investment areas. • Example: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission.

20. Special Service Districts • Sole provider of key public facilities and services. • Adopts policy of limiting infrastructure extensions to areas targeted for urban development. • De factor urban service limits. • Example: Baltimore County, Maryland.

22. State Priority Funding Areas • State infrastructure investments targeted to urban and urbanizing areas based on state criteria. • Local governments may invest in other areas but at their own expense. • Maryland statewide for roads, water, sewer and schools. • Colorado in metropolitan areas for transportation.

24. Urban Growth Phasing • Tiered Growth Strategy • Urban Reserve District • Public Land Management

25. Tiered Growth Strategy • “Rings” of development intensity and infrastructure provision. • Pricing strategies often used. • Example: Tucson’s “central core”, “mid-city”, “evolving city” and “future city” tiers each with different planning and design standards.

27. Urban Reserve District • Special areas reserved for future urban-scale development at the urban fringe. • Usually reserved through large lot zoning, nonurban infrastructure, and “shadow” platting. • At appropriate time, urban infrastructure installed and urban scale development allowed. • Example: San Luis Obispo.

29. Public Land Management • Preserve publicly-owned land from development. • Potentially “trading” some publicly-owned land where development should occur with owners of rural land where development should not. • Example: Pima County, Arizona.

31. Rural Growth Management • Agriculture/Open Space District • Urban Fringe Resource Management • Rural Growth Monitoring

32. Agriculture/Open Space District • Exclusive farm, forest, and other open space uses allowed. • Very large minimum lot sizes. • No or few “urban” residences allowed. • Example: Wicomico County, Maryland.

34. Urban Fringe Resource Management • Overlay district in rural areas where new development reviewed under stringent standards to protect habitat, sensitive landscapes, etc. • Resource management plans required. • Example: Chico, California.

36. Rural Growth Monitoring • Projected demand for legitimate development of rural lands undertaken. • Selected rural lands allocated for low density urban development not using key urban facilities and services. • Example: King County, Washington.

38. Rural/Open Space Preservation • Transfer of Development Rights • Purchase of Development Rights • Urban Fringe Land Acquisition • Urban/Rural Buffer • Community Separator

39. Transfer of Development Rights • Development rights are assigned to rural “sending” areas but cannot be exercised unless purchased by developer and transferred to urban “receiving” areas. • Example: Pinelands, New Jersey.

41. Purchase of Development Rights • Development rights assigned through a planning process based on reasonable factors are purchased by local government through a voluntary purchase program. • Can also include privately donated conservation easements. • Example: King County, Washington.

43. Urban Fringe Land Acquisition • Urban fringe land identified and targeted for acquisition in conscientious effort to contain urban development. • Special state and regional funds typically used, but sometimes done by local government. • Examples: Boulder, Colorado; Maryland.

46. Urban/Rural Buffer • Small scale greenbelt edge around city. • Land acquired through combination of acquisition and donation with conservation easement. • Privately owned land not provided with key urban services and limited to open space uses. • Example: Davis, California.

48. Community Separator • Narrow band of open space separating one community from another. • Land uses restricted to nonurban activities; no urban services allowed. Essentially large lot residential zoning but with some land acquisition. • Example: Sonoma County, California.

50. Intergovernmental Agreements • Joint Planning Areas • Spheres of Influence • Extraterritorial Jurisdiction