|
Dace), has appealed
<br />Appeals, and the town
<br />removal" of his home.
<br />
<br />iis case to the New York Court of
<br />if Perry has decided not to "actively seek
<br /> Laura Thompson
<br />
<br />Bluffs Trigger o~orado
<br />Planning Debcjte
<br />
<br /> Planned development a .finid beautiful bluffs in a rural area in
<br /> Douglas County, Colorldo, has triggered an intense debate
<br /> about the tradeoffs Inherent in many planning processes
<br /> between local and com~unitywide interests. Residents of the
<br /> affected area are upset, l:}.ut the planning department has given
<br /> the developer the green light.
<br /> Douglas County ha~i an adopted master plan that
<br /> delia, rates a primary urbanization area (PUA). One of the
<br /> plan s major goals is toldirect development within the PUA.
<br /> Another is to maintainlthe integrity of thc bluffs as a part of
<br /> the area's unique chara[gter. In considering a development
<br /> proposal, the Departm,~nt of Planning and Community
<br /> Development (DPCD)!must abide by the master plan and
<br /> direct development to~kard appropriate areas in balance with
<br /> the larger communtty.4demand for cost-efficient services and
<br /> a high quality of life. ! .
<br /> U.S. Home, a major ~ational housing developer, proposed a
<br /> 396-unit development o~n 395 acres of gently rolling slopes and
<br /> bluffs zoned for agriculture but surrounded by,existing and
<br /> approved residential de~lopment. The county s PUA line ran
<br /> through the property. Ir{ order to achieve the maximum number
<br /> of units allowed, U.S. ~ome would have to develop some bluffs
<br /> that lie within the PUA.sAfter its initial proposal was rejected,
<br /> U.S. Home returned to Ihe DPCD with a revised proposal that
<br /> addressed the early objections. U.S. Home's new proposal
<br /> requested that the PUAline be moved so that 51 acres of bluffs
<br /> were exchanged for a m~re appropriate 30-acre buildable area.
<br /> The proposal also reduced the density almost 20 percent to 321
<br /> units. In addition, the v{sual and traffic impacts to neighboring
<br /> subdivisions were addreised~ by increasing buffer areas and
<br /> eliminating direct road ~ccess between them. This second
<br /> proposal was approved.
<br /> Although approval r~ight have come anyway, U.S. Home
<br /> sweetened the deal by 4ffering to transfer its land holdings to
<br /> the state in Southdown}; at Roxborough, a 1,000-unit
<br /> approved subdivision ai the entrance to Roxborough State
<br /> Park. For more than t~o years, statewide efforts have been
<br /> underway to preserve t~is area. U.S. Home, which has been
<br />
<br /> Zoning Newt is a monthly new$1~:tter published by the American Planning
<br /> Association. Subscriptions are a}ailable for $45 (U.S.) and $54 (foreign).
<br /> Frank S. So, Acting Executive ~irector; William R. Klein, Director of Research.
<br /> Zoning Newt i* produced at AP~. Jim Schwab, Editor; Fay Dolnlck, Scott Dvorak,
<br /> Michelle Gregory, Sanjay Jeer, ~egan Lewis. Doug Martin, Marya Morri~, M~rty
<br /> Roupc, Laura Thompson, Repo{ler~; Cynthia Cheski, A~$i~tanr Editor; Lisa Barton,
<br /> Design and Production·
<br /> Copyright ©1996 by Ametlcan ~Planning A.~ociatlon, 122 $. Michigan Ave., Suite
<br /> 1600, Chicago, IL 60603. The ~me~'ican Planning A~sociation ha~ headquarter:t
<br />· offices at 1776 Massachusetts A~e., N.W., Washington, DC 20036.
<br /> All rights reserved· No pail off,is publication may be reproduced or utilized in any
<br /> form or l~y any mean~, electroniC: or mechanical, including photocop~,,ing, recording,
<br /> ot by any information storage arid retrieval system, wilhout perrni~sion in writing
<br /> from the American Planning As{ociation.
<br /> Printed on recycled paper, mdudmg 50-70% recycled fiber
<br /> and 10% postconsumct wastc.
<br />
<br />4
<br />
<br />instrumental in those efforts, will donate its Southdowns
<br />holdings if it can secure approval of an economically viable
<br />project elsewhere in the county.
<br /> The DPCD also considered the land's existing use and
<br />ownership. It was zoned for agriculture but was not in
<br />agricultural use. The land was not likely to become viable for
<br />farming because of weak demand and the fact that the
<br />surrounding property had already been developed as residential.
<br />The State Land Board owned part of the property in question.
<br />When the state was chartered, section 16 of every township was
<br />given to the board as a means to generate funds for the public
<br />schools. The board's sole mission is to generate the maximum
<br />return possible, not to preserve open space for park purposes.
<br />The board wanted to sell its land to U.S. Home.
<br /> The DPCD saw compelling reasons to amend the master
<br />plan and approve the proposed development. The proposal
<br />addressed visual and traffic impacts on surrounding
<br />development. Its density was lower than required and lower
<br />than surrounding developments. It preserved the bluffs and
<br />transferred them into county ownership, and it adjusted the
<br />PUA and brought the line into conformance with master plan
<br />goals. Finally, the proposed use was compatible with
<br />surrounding uses, and it allowed U.5. Home to complete the
<br />transfer of its development rights at Southdowns at Roxborough
<br />to the state park system.
<br /> Residents of nearby subdivisions were understandably less
<br />happy. They saw the development ora valued piece of nearby
<br />open space and increased area population with its associated
<br />impacts on roads and schools. They also had believed the
<br />property to be relatively protected because it was zoned for
<br />agriculture and lay outside the PUA. Believing it would be
<br />difficult to change the master plan, they did not foresee the
<br />circumstances that would make development of this grassy area
<br />so compelling for the benefit of the rest of the county.
<br /> Scott Dvorak
<br />
<br /> Reports
<br />
<br />Managing Cha.n.~e in
<br />Rural Commun,t,es:
<br />
<br />The R~le of Planning
<br />and Design
<br />National Endowment for the Arts, Design Program, and U.S.
<br />Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
<br />Service. Available j%m the Soil and Water Conservation Society by
<br />calling 800-THE-SOIL. 1995. 48p?. Free.
<br /> In 1992, the two agencies producing this booklet undertook
<br />jointly the Rural Design Demonstration Project, seeking to test
<br />ways in which design professionals could help local people in
<br />rural communities take advantage of local resource
<br />opportunities with professional assistance. Three landscape
<br />architects worked for two years each with resource and
<br />conservation districts in Iowa, Georgia, and Utah on land-use
<br />and resource management plans, tackling water problems and
<br />the impact of proposed new highways. In Iowa, they worked on
<br />the creation ora scenic byway in the unique Loess Hills. This
<br />booklet summarizes those efforts and the use of visualization
<br />technology to help citizens and town leaders develop effective
<br />local plans.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|