Download
session 3 growth management the vision element n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Session #3: Growth Management & The Vision Element PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Session #3: Growth Management & The Vision Element

Session #3: Growth Management & The Vision Element

174 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Session #3: Growth Management & The Vision Element

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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