[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.One is the type of growth that occurs within the boundary.Mostcommunities that have adopted some type of growth boundary have notsucceeded in promoting truly compact development within it.The ex-ample of Sarasota County previously discussed, where continued low-density development within the boundary generates constant pressuresto expand it, is typical rather than unusual.Planners at the MetropolitanCouncil in Minneapolis/St.Paul acknowledge that development in mostof the area within the regional boundary established decades ago couldbe characterized as urban sprawl.Only the extensive amount of landwithin the original boundary and the relatively moderate pace of re-gional growth has limited needs for expanding the boundary.For most communities, it appears that boundaries have been fairly ef-fective in reducing scattered development in rural areas but not suc-cessful at curbing sprawl in urbanizing areas.Portland s Metro organiza-tion addressed the problem of sprawl within the boundary by legislating 68 3.MANAGING COMMUNITY EXPANSION: WHERE TO GROW minimum density targets for all communities in the region.Normally,zoning establishes maximum densities that proposed developmentshould not exceed.Portland-area communities, in addition, are assignedthreshold densities that development should reach or exceed, as a meansof ensuring compact development and producing affordable housing.(More discussion of this program can be found in Chapter 8.)The second issue of concern in using growth boundaries is the leak-ing of development outside the boundary line.A 1991 study of Oregoncommunities experience with growth boundaries found that a consider-able amount of development is occurring outside the mandated bound-aries.8 In one small town, more development had taken place outsidethan inside its boundary.Such development was taking place on lotsrecorded prior to the establishment of the boundary or on exception lands determined to have low value for agricultural or forestry use.Aboutone million acres of Oregon land are now in the exception category; ap-plications for designation of other lots average about 4000 a year.9In the Portland area, thousands of lots have been developed outsidethe official urban growth boundary about 9 percent of all new housingunits in the region.Local residents call many of them hobby or mar-tini farms because their owners purchased large lots and declared theirintention of using most of the lot for raising horses or planting gardens.(These are the low-density developments that plague planners attempt-ing to expand the Portland boundary.) But Portland has another problemas well Vancouver and Clark County across the state border in Wash-ington, an area not controlled by Portland s boundary.Portland-area ob-servers believe that a substantial amount of regional development hastaken place there rather than within the boundary.Other growth-boundary jurisdictions have experienced similar leak-age or leapfrogging.Developers and builders kept out of San Diego surban reserve are building instead in the booming towns and cities in thenorthern part of the county.Lexington/Fayette County s urban-limit linehas protected the horse farms outside its boundary but a considerableamount of development has occurred north and west of the city in otherjurisdictions.This experience emphasizes the reality that a growthboundary is fully effective only if it controls most of the region s highlydesirable, developable land.Urban limit lines have their limitations.Like other growth manage-ment tools they can lead to unintended consequences.They tend to be-come political pawns, symbols of broader community conflicts.Theymay curb urban sprawl but in themselves will not provide a cure-all forurban development ills.They cannot control all external development.Critics also claim that limiting growth to certain areas reduces the sup-ply of land available for development and therefore drives up housing MANAGING DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION 69prices; this issue is fully discussed in Chapter 9.In fact, Randall Arendtand James Constantine argue in a recent article that urban growthboundaries are not necessarily the best approach to preserving ruralareas and open space.They propose use of alternative methods such asfocusing development in corridors, nodes, and clustered developments,preserving green wedges and rural edges through the use of conservationplans tied to clustering, development exactions, and the purchase ofopen lands.10Communities evaluating the concept of boundaries might consider thefollowing guidelines:" Growth boundaries should build on and logically link to comprehensiveplanning policies, zoning requirements, and infrastructure programs,rather than substitute for adequate planning." Growth boundaries should be based on realistic projections of growth andtypes of activities to be accommodated." Calculations of future land requirements should consider not onlyamounts and densities of various land uses but also conditions of landownership, site development, geographic constraints, and other potentialrestrictions on the supply of land for development." Boundary proposals should include procedures for periodic review andadjustment of boundaries, with specific provisions for maintaining an ad-equate supply of developable land within the boundaries
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]