1 / 134

Session #3: Growth Management & The Vision Element

Session #3: Growth Management & The Vision Element. Jeff Ulma, Planning Director Tim Bailey, Engineering Director Susan Moran, Public Information Officer. Session Topics. #1 Growth & Development Trends Population Development #2 The Growth Management Plan Background Elements of Growth

jacie
Télécharger la présentation

Session #3: Growth Management & The Vision Element

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. Session #3:Growth Management &The Vision Element Jeff Ulma, Planning Director Tim Bailey, Engineering Director Susan Moran, Public Information Officer

  2. Session Topics #1 Growth & Development Trends • Population • Development #2 The Growth Management Plan • Background • Elements of Growth • Principles & Tools Used

  3. Session Topics (cont.) #3 Assessment of Growth Management Requirements • APF Ordinances • Development Fees • Environmental Regulations #4 The Vision Element • Status Report • Adoption Process

  4. Topic #1: Growth Trends • Population • Permit Activity • Development Approvals & Potential Growth Rate

  5. Cary Population1974-2003

  6. Cary Population1994-2003

  7. Cary Population Growth Rate: % Annual Change (1974-2003)

  8. Cary Population Growth Rate: % Annual Change (1994-2003)

  9. Cary Population As A % of Wake County Population: 1994-2003

  10. Cary SF Residential Building Permits1994-2003

  11. Cary MF Residential Building Permits1994-2003

  12. Cary Nonresidential Construction Cost1994-2003

  13. Comparison of SF Permits: Other NC Communities

  14. Future Development & Growth Updated Analysis: • Recently approved PDDs, rezonings & development plans • PDDs & rezonings now under consideration • Potential population • Potential population growth rate

  15. Potential Units, Population Totals, & Growth Rates

  16. Units, Population Totals, & Rates from Approved Projects

  17. Units, Population Totals, & Rates from Approved + Pending Projects

  18. Projected PopulationGrowth Rate

  19. Growth & Development Trends: Conclusions • Town’s rate of population growth has slowed • % of County total leveling off • Nonresidential development also declining • Most major NC communities at least “holding steady” in terms of SF residential permits

  20. Growth & Development Trends: Conclusions • Considerable development potential exists “in the pipeline” • Probably no single cause of decline (general economic conditions, growth management & development requirements)

  21. Topic #2: Growth Management Plan • History • Five Components of Growth • Guiding Principles • Implementation • Outcomes/Findings

  22. Growth Management • Aspects of managing growth discussed at Retreats in 1998, 1999, 2001, & 2002 • Consultants reviewed various tools & techniques, shared examples, provided advice

  23. Growth Management:In General • Complex • Sophisticated growth management systems hard to understand & administer • Best system will utilize several tools • Many techniques still being tested • Hard to do alone - especially in a metro area • Could be expensive (land acquisition)

  24. Growth Management:In General • Unintended consequences may occur • May cause “leapfrog” development & sprawl • May increase housing costs • Might affect other economic development objectives • Market may not respond as expected • Results should be reassessed

  25. Cary’sGrowth Management Plan • Adopted January 2000 • Assessed existing situation regarding schools, water, sewer, roads • Intent  Establish guiding principles, strategies, & tasks for 5 aspects of growth…

  26. Growth Factors Addressed by GMP  Priority Order • Rate/Timing • Location • Amount/Density • Cost • Quality

  27. Rate/Timing: How Fast Development Occurs • Time element (“when”) not addressed by traditional planning & zoning techniques • Nationwide movement to tie future development to availability of adequate infrastructure/services

  28. Rate/Timing: Guiding Principle(s) • Ensure that adequate infrastructure and services are available concurrently with new development.

  29. Location: Where Development Occurs • Is handled by typical planning & zoning • Communities can actively stimulate or influence location of growth through other means

  30. Location: Guiding Principle(s) • Concentrate growth near existing and planned employment centers and available and planned infrastructure to minimize costly service-area extensions. • Ensure that future growth protects sensitive natural and cultural resources and preserves open space.

  31. Amount/Density: The Intensity of Development • Usually covered by more traditional planning & zoning approaches • More innovative techniques available

  32. Amount/Density: Guiding Principle(s) • Increase permitted densities in preferred growth areas to encourage desired forms of development. • Ensure that the overall amount of development in Cary is consistent with the town’s growth management goals.

  33. Cost: Who Pays for Development? • Infrastructure is expensive • Popular belief that new growth should “pay for itself”

  34. Cost: Guiding Principle(s) • Identify sustainable funding sources for community infrastructure, services, and amenities. • Ensure public investment decisions are consistent with the town’s growth management goals.

  35. Quality: What Does New Development Look Like? • Still an important issue • Other planning & zoning tools address & becoming more sophisticated • May serve as the measure of how well growth is being managed

  36. Quality: Guiding Principle(s) • Continue Cary’s leadership role in quality growth and development.

  37. Primary Tools Used/Changed by Cary Over Past 5 Years

  38. Cary Growth Management Plan Implementation: Conclusions • Several years of experience with adopted tools & techniques • Some approaches studied and discarded (Residential Point Rating/Allocation System) • Side effects and unintended consequences often identified • Time to “take stock” of direction being followed/tools being used

  39. Topic #3: Assessment of Techniques • Rate/Timing: • Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance for Schools • Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance for Roads • Location: • Open Space/Environmental Requirements • Cost: • Impact Fees

  40. Cary’s Practice: Schools APF Ordinance • Adopted July 1999 • Relies on MOU with Wake County Board of Education (not adopted by Wake County Commissioners) • Applies only at residential site plan/subdivision plan stage, but general schools impact also identified at rezoning step

  41. Cary’s Practice: Schools APF Ordinance • Ordinance amended to allow payment of schools fee in advance for PDD’s to meet future APF requirements • Requires Wake County school system to issue a Certificate of Adequate Educational Facilities (CAEF)

  42. Cary’s Practice: Schools APF Ordinance • Some developments exempt: • Low-density subdivisions • Affordable housing projects that use public subsidies or other arrangements to ensure affordability • Amendments to approved plans that do not increase the number of units by more than 5%

  43. Cary’s Practice: Schools APF Ordinance • LOS standards (“overcrowding level”) established: • First 3 years: • 148% for elementary schools • 132% for middle schools • 141% for high schools • Since July 2002, no INDIVIDUAL school can exceed 130% of its permanent seat capacity

  44. Cary’s Practice: Schools APF Ordinance • 26 subdivision plans + 13 apartment/townhome projects tested over the past 4 1/2 years • = 1124 lots and 964 MF units since 1999 • All have received OK to proceed • School system continues to reduce overcrowding through capital program…

  45. Schools Overcrowding - Area CBy Level, 1997 vs. 2003

  46. Schools Overcrowding - Area CBy Individual School, 2003

  47. Cary’s Practice: Schools APF Ordinance • Limited applicability due to numerous other Town initiatives  difficult to assess outcomes • Limits due to water supply • Roads APF Ordinance • Increased development fees enacted • Residential annexations limited • General slowdown in residential development

  48. Cary’s Practice: Schools APF Ordinance • Several PDD projects approved with requirement to pay a “schools fee” when building permits are secured. This will total ~$11.2 million. • Amberly  5400 units = $7.2M • Stonewater  1390 units = $2.8M • Village @ The Park  689 units = $1.0M • Huggins Glen  65 units = $130K

  49. Cary’s Practice: Schools APF Ordinance • Conclusions: • Results cannot be directly attributed to Ordinance • Still questionable whether Town can regulate local development vis-à-vis school capacity • School system has a responsibility to serve students • Ability to shift students makes schools adequacy a “moving target”

  50. Cary’s Practice: Schools APF Ordinance • Conclusions: • Complexity of school system also makes evaluation of schools adequacy a “moving target” • Public given false impression that ordinance really does make a difference • Overcrowding being addressed “naturally” as WCPSS continues to implement capital programs

More Related