growth management legislative discussion march 20, 2012

30
Growth Management Legislative Discussion March 20, 2012 Board of County Commissioners

Upload: barrie-chambers

Post on 31-Dec-2015

217 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Growth Management Legislative Discussion March 20, 2012

Growth Management Legislative Discussion

March 20, 2012

Board of County Commissioners

Page 2: Growth Management Legislative Discussion March 20, 2012

Discussion Topics1. Planning Overview / Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review

2. Concurrent Plan Amendment / Rezoning and Small Scale Amendments

3. Urban Service Area Expansions, Urban Sprawl, Needs Analysis

4. Financial Feasibility: Funding Infrastructure and Services

5. Concurrency: Transportation

6. Concurrency: Schools and Parks

7. Developments of Regional Impact

8. Sector Plans and New Towns

Growth Management SeriesGrowth Management Series

Page 3: Growth Management Legislative Discussion March 20, 2012

Discussion Topics1. Planning Overview / Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review

2. Concurrent Plan Amendment / Rezoning and Small Scale Amendments

3. Urban Service Area Expansions, Urban Sprawl, Needs Analysis

4. Financial Feasibility: Funding Infrastructure and Services

5. Concurrency: Transportation

6. Concurrency: Schools and Parks

7. Developments of Regional Impact

8. Sector Plans and New Towns

Growth Management SeriesGrowth Management Series

Page 4: Growth Management Legislative Discussion March 20, 2012

Provide background / history – Urban Service Area in the Comprehensive Plan

Discuss how the Plan addresses urban sprawl and determination of need

Ask for Board direction to amend applicable Comprehensive Plan policies to address legislative changes

Purpose of Today’s DiscussionPurpose of Today’s Discussion

Page 5: Growth Management Legislative Discussion March 20, 2012

Urban Service Area

Determination of Need

Urban Sprawl

Evaluating Development Impacts

Staff Recommendation

Presentation OutlinePresentation Outline

Page 6: Growth Management Legislative Discussion March 20, 2012

Urban Service Area

Determination of Need

Urban Sprawl

Evaluating Development Impacts

Staff Recommendation

Presentation OutlinePresentation Outline

Page 7: Growth Management Legislative Discussion March 20, 2012

1991 – Urban Service Area as a Growth Management Tool Direct growth to USA

Ensure provision of services

Protect the environment

Plan recognized inefficient growth pattern, even within the USA

Adopted a development framework to address inefficiency

Urban Service AreaUrban Service Area

1980 GMP

1991 CPP

2009 CP

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

2009 – Plan updated; focus was on infill and redevelopment1980 – Urban Service Area adopted

into the Growth Management Plan Area where County provides full range of

services

Services existed or were planned to be available by the year 2000

Policy: Replacement and maintenance of facilities/services in the USA should have priority over infrastructure investments in new growth areas Central water and sewer

Transportation Drainage Fire protection

Schools Libraries Recreation

Development Framework

Urban Service Area Activity Centers Rural Settlements Growth Centers Rural Service Area

Plan Goals Provide services more efficiently Increase transit viability Preserve and revitalize existing neighborhoods Take advantage of existing, underutilized

infrastructure Protect the environment

USA multiplier: 2.25

USA multiplier: 2.4

USA multiplier: 1.5

Page 8: Growth Management Legislative Discussion March 20, 2012

Comprehensive Plan Goals / Policies

Goal – Establish an urban framework: Provide services in a cost effective manner Create the desired development pattern

Policies County is responsible for providing infrastructure

and services in the Urban Service Area (USA) Direct growth to the USA

Guide how County sets the size of the USA Set criteria and process for expansion

Urban Service AreaUrban Service Area

Page 9: Growth Management Legislative Discussion March 20, 2012

1991 Urban Service Area

Page 10: Growth Management Legislative Discussion March 20, 2012

1991 Urban Service AreaHorizon West

Page 11: Growth Management Legislative Discussion March 20, 2012

Urban Service AreaUrban Service Area1991 Urban Service AreaHorizon West

City Expansion

Page 12: Growth Management Legislative Discussion March 20, 2012

Urban Service AreaUrban Service Area2011 Urban Service Area

Page 13: Growth Management Legislative Discussion March 20, 2012

Urban Service Area

Determination of Need

Urban Sprawl

Evaluating Development Impacts

Staff Recommendation

Presentation OutlinePresentation Outline

Page 14: Growth Management Legislative Discussion March 20, 2012

Currently Plan includes land needed to accommodate

growth through 2030

Need based on population growth and Plan goals

Includes a surplus of land to allow real estate market to operate

Determination of NeedDetermination of Need

Page 15: Growth Management Legislative Discussion March 20, 2012

New Legislation Requires:

USA must have “at least the minimum amount of land required” to accommodate growth based on state projections “for at least a 10-year planning period”

Provide a mix of land uses with allowance for real estate markets

Sector plans, new towns, and rural land stewardship areas not required to demonstrate need

.

.

?

Determination of NeedDetermination of Need

Page 16: Growth Management Legislative Discussion March 20, 2012

Urban Service Area

Determination of Need

Urban Sprawl

Evaluating Development Impacts

Staff Recommendation

Presentation OutlinePresentation Outline

Page 17: Growth Management Legislative Discussion March 20, 2012

Urban SprawlUrban Sprawl

What sprawl is How the law changed Effect on Orange County

Page 18: Growth Management Legislative Discussion March 20, 2012

Urban SprawlUrban Sprawl

What is Sprawl? Before HB 7207 No single definition

Criteria in law describing development characteristics that negatively impact the community

HB 7207 – Definition: A development pattern

characterized by low density, automobile-dependent

development with either a single use or multiple uses

that are not functionally related, requiring the

extension of public facilities and services in an inefficient

manner, and failing to provide a clear separation between

urban and rural uses.

Page 19: Growth Management Legislative Discussion March 20, 2012

Before HB 7207 13 criteria in state law Criteria included in Comprehensive Plan

Legislative changes Added definition 13 criteria remained 8 new criteria added

Urban SprawlUrban Sprawl

Page 20: Growth Management Legislative Discussion March 20, 2012

Before HB 7207 – 13 indicators Low-density/intensity, single-use Poor connectivity Isolated, ribbon-like or strip

development Development in rural areas far

from urban areas Results in inefficient provision of

facilities and services Discourages infill development

and redevelopment Fails to protect natural resources

and agricultural areas Results in loss of open space

Urban SprawlUrban Sprawl

“The primary indicators that a plan or plan amendment does not discourage the proliferation of

urban sprawl...”

Page 21: Growth Management Legislative Discussion March 20, 2012

Urban SprawlUrban Sprawl

New Criteria in Legislation1. Does not adversely impact

natural resources

2. Efficient provision of public infrastructure and services

3. Compact mixed use development

4. Promotes conservation

5. Preserves agricultural areas

6. Preserves open space and natural lands

7. Creates a balance of land uses

8. Innovative development

“The future land use element or plan

amendment shall be determined to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl if it incorporates a

development pattern or urban form that achieves

four or more of the following…”

Page 22: Growth Management Legislative Discussion March 20, 2012

Urban SprawlUrban Sprawl

New Criteria in Legislation1. Does not adversely impact

natural resources

2. Efficient provision of public infrastructure and services

3. Compact mixed use development

4. Promotes conservation

5. Preserves agricultural areas

6. Preserves open space and natural lands

7. Creates a balance of land uses

8. Innovative development

Page 23: Growth Management Legislative Discussion March 20, 2012

Urban Service Area

Determination of Need

Urban Sprawl

Evaluating Development Impacts

Staff Recommendation

Presentation OutlinePresentation Outline

Page 24: Growth Management Legislative Discussion March 20, 2012

Evaluating DevelopmentEvaluating Development

How do we evaluate development proposals?

1. Impacts on providing services

2. Financial feasibility (short-term and long-term)

3. Impacts on County’s ability to meet Plan goals

Page 25: Growth Management Legislative Discussion March 20, 2012

Evaluating DevelopmentEvaluating Development

Page 26: Growth Management Legislative Discussion March 20, 2012

Evaluating DevelopmentEvaluating Development

Transit

Page 27: Growth Management Legislative Discussion March 20, 2012

Evaluating DevelopmentEvaluating Development

Impact on County’s ability to meet Plan goals Preserve existing neighborhoods Maximize use of existing, underutilized

infrastructure Provide services efficiently Protect natural resources

Choices and opportunity costs – how to best use limited resources

Page 28: Growth Management Legislative Discussion March 20, 2012

Urban Service Area

Determination of Need

Urban Sprawl

Evaluating Development Impacts

Staff Recommendation

Presentation OutlinePresentation Outline

Page 29: Growth Management Legislative Discussion March 20, 2012

Draft Policy Amendments Focus on impacts, not sprawl

Strategies to maintain existing communities Contribution to economic and environmental

sustainability Furthering Comprehensive Plan goals Impacts on public infrastructure and adopted levels

of service Develop review criteria for Sector Plans, New Towns, and

Rural Land Stewardship Areas Financial feasibility (short-term and long-term)

Staff RecommendationStaff Recommendation

Page 30: Growth Management Legislative Discussion March 20, 2012

Growth Management Legislative Discussion

March 20, 2012

Board of County Commissioners