Session 3 growth management the vision element
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 134

Session #3: Growth Management & The Vision Element PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 93 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

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

Download Presentation

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


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

Session Topics

#1 Growth & Development Trends

  • Population

  • Development

    #2 The Growth Management Plan

  • Background

  • Elements of Growth

  • Principles & Tools Used


Session topics cont

Session Topics (cont.)

#3 Assessment of Growth Management Requirements

  • APF Ordinances

  • Development Fees

  • Environmental Regulations

    #4 The Vision Element

  • Status Report

  • Adoption Process


Topic 1 growth trends

Topic #1: Growth Trends

  • Population

  • Permit Activity

  • Development Approvals & Potential Growth Rate


Cary population 1974 2003

Cary Population1974-2003


Cary population 1994 2003

Cary Population1994-2003


Session 3 growth management the vision element

Cary Population Growth Rate:

% Annual Change (1974-2003)


Session 3 growth management the vision element

Cary Population Growth Rate:

% Annual Change (1994-2003)


Cary population as a of wake county population 1994 2003

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


Cary sf residential building permits 1994 2003

Cary SF Residential Building Permits1994-2003


Cary mf residential building permits 1994 2003

Cary MF Residential Building Permits1994-2003


Cary nonresidential construction cost 1994 2003

Cary Nonresidential Construction Cost1994-2003


Comparison of sf permits other nc communities

Comparison of SF Permits: Other NC Communities


Future development growth

Future Development & Growth

Updated Analysis:

  • Recently approved PDDs, rezonings & development plans

  • PDDs & rezonings now under consideration

  • Potential population

  • Potential population growth rate


Potential units population totals growth rates

Potential Units, Population Totals, & Growth Rates


Units population totals rates from approved projects

Units, Population Totals, & Rates from Approved Projects


Units population totals rates from approved pending projects

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


Projected population growth rate

Projected PopulationGrowth Rate


Growth development trends conclusions

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


Growth development trends conclusions1

Growth & Development Trends: Conclusions

  • Considerable development potential exists “in the pipeline”

  • Probably no single cause of decline (general economic conditions, growth management & development requirements)


Topic 2 growth management plan

Topic #2: Growth Management Plan

  • History

  • Five Components of Growth

  • Guiding Principles

  • Implementation

  • Outcomes/Findings


Growth management

Growth Management

  • Aspects of managing growth discussed at Retreats in 1998, 1999, 2001, & 2002

  • Consultants reviewed various tools & techniques, shared examples, provided advice


Growth management in general

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)


Growth management in general1

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


Cary s growth management plan

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…


Growth factors addressed by gmp priority order

Growth Factors Addressed by GMP  Priority Order

  • Rate/Timing

  • Location

  • Amount/Density

  • Cost

  • Quality


Rate timing how fast development occurs

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


Rate timing guiding principle s

Rate/Timing: Guiding Principle(s)

  • Ensure that adequate infrastructure and services are available concurrently with new development.


Location where development occurs

Location: Where Development Occurs

  • Is handled by typical planning & zoning

  • Communities can actively stimulate or influence location of growth through other means


Location guiding principle s

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.


Amount density the intensity of development

Amount/Density: The Intensity of Development

  • Usually covered by more traditional planning & zoning approaches

  • More innovative techniques available


Amount density guiding principle s

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.


Cost who pays for development

Cost: Who Pays for Development?

  • Infrastructure is expensive

  • Popular belief that new growth should “pay for itself”


Cost guiding principle s

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.


Quality what does new development look like

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


Quality guiding principle s

Quality: Guiding Principle(s)

  • Continue Cary’s leadership role in quality growth and development.


Primary tools used changed by cary over past 5 years

Primary Tools Used/Changed by Cary Over Past 5 Years


Cary growth management plan implementation conclusions

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


Topic 3 assessment of techniques

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


Cary s practice schools apf ordinance

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


Cary s practice schools apf ordinance1

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)


Cary s practice schools apf ordinance2

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%


Cary s practice schools apf ordinance3

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


Cary s practice schools apf ordinance4

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…


Schools overcrowding area c by level 1997 vs 2003

Schools Overcrowding - Area CBy Level, 1997 vs. 2003


Schools overcrowding area c by individual school 2003

Schools Overcrowding - Area CBy Individual School, 2003


Cary s practice schools apf ordinance5

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


Cary s practice schools apf ordinance6

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


Cary s practice schools apf ordinance7

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”


Cary s practice schools apf ordinance8

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


Schools apfo questions for council

Schools APFO:Questions for Council

  • What should the Town do with the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance?

    • Retain?

    • Modify?

    • Repeal?

  • What process should be used to further evaluate?


Cary practice roads apf ordinance

Cary Practice: Roads APF Ordinance

History:

  • 1989 Ordinance

  • 1000 ADT

  • ¼ mile

  • LOS D

  • Did not apply to residential


Cary s practice roads apf ordinance

Cary’s Practice: Roads APF Ordinance

History:

  • 1998 revision of existing ordinance

  • “Interim” ordinance adopted; permanent version still being worked on

  • Requires Town’s consultant (Town oversees preparation of study & pays 10% of cost; developer pays remainder)

  • 100 peak, 1000 ADT all developments

  • Over 150 trips, ½ mile plus 7% of each approach volume


Cary s practice roads apf ordinance1

Cary’s Practice: Roads APF Ordinance

History:

  • 2001 Current Ordinance

  • Added Zones, most at LOS D

  • Changed to a 1 mile plus 7% of approach volume

  • Defined life of study

  • Added processes like issuing CATA


Cary s practice roads apf ordinance2

Cary’s Practice: Roads APF Ordinance

Experience:

  • No project rejected, but several did not move forward after traffic study

  • A few legal issues raised, but never to a formal level

  • Projects delayed

  • Projects entered into agreements

  • Projects used new policy for the Town to build offsite improvements

  • Projects reduced traffic generation


Cary s practice roads apf ordinance3

Cary’s Practice: Roads APF Ordinance

Experience:

  • Recognition that “last one in” may face unreasonable improvements

  • Also realize some areas/roadways may need different treatment (e.g., downtown, regional roadways)

  • Many projects rely on upcoming CIB/CIP projects to meet requirements

  • Offsite road improvements are difficult


Cary s practice roads apf ordinance4

Cary’s Practice: Roads APF Ordinance

Conclusions:

  • Developers have complained that traffic studies cost more and take longer

  • Peak Hour LOS, road system is under-utilized 23 hours per day

  • Sprawl – Improves Cary’s roads so other can easily pass through


Cary s practice roads apf ordinance5

Cary’s Practice: Roads APF Ordinance

Conclusions:

  • Results in negotiation/agreements

  • Reduces burden on NCDOT

  • If CIB/CIP funding is limited, many future projects will be affected

  • Cumulative affect of small project just under traffic study requirements

  • May increase cost to development while we are trying to lower fees


Cary s practice roads apf ordinance6

Cary’s Practice: Roads APF Ordinance

Direction:

  • Modify Ordinance?

    • Change LOS

    • Change influence area

    • Developer’s perform TIA

    • Require all development above R-30 to perform a study

  • Terminate Agreements?


Topic 3 assessment of techniques1

Topic #3: Assessment of Techniques

  • Open Space/Buffer Requirements

  • Focus on stream buffer requirements


Cary s practice stream buffers

Cary’s Practice: Stream Buffers


Cary s practice stream buffers1

Cary’s Practice: Stream Buffers

Two Growth Factors

  • Quality of development

    • Water quality

    • One way to protect open space

  • Location of development

    • Clusters density away from streams


History

History

  • 1989 Reservoir Watershed Protection - 30’/100’

  • 1997 Neuse River Buffers - 50’

  • 2000 Cary’s Buffers – 50’/100’


How do buffers work

How do buffers work?


Stream buffer benefits

Stream Buffer Benefits

  • Water Quality

    • Nitrogen

    • Phosphorus

    • Sediment

    • Shade Stream

    • Stream Erosion

    • More Pervious Area

    • Others Nutrients


Stream buffer benefits1

Stream Buffer Benefits

  • Flood Protection

  • Saves Open Space

  • Wildlife/Aquatic Habitat

  • Visual Diversity

  • Allows Space for Future Restoration


Stream buffer data

Stream Buffer Data

  • Still Developing as a WQ technology

  • Results vary considerably (slope, soil type)

  • Few results from NC, but some research is underway

  • Data from TCAP model by Tetra Tech that was accepted by DWQ


Buffer efficiency

Buffer Efficiency


Conclusions reasons to modify 100 buffers

Conclusions - Reasons to Modify 100’ Buffers

  • 30% credit for nitrogen removal for outer 50 feet when research indicates 5%

  • Developer concerns over land cost and being competitive

  • Difficult to develop activity centers (including TCAP)

  • Connectivity is more difficult

  • Tax Base reduction for open space


Conclusions reasons to keep 100 buffers

Conclusions - Reasons to Keep 100’ Buffers

  • While water quality has a diminishing rate of return with width, still a benefit

  • Many other benefits not related to WQ

  • All basins except Walnut and Crabtree require 100’ buffers under high density for reservoir protection

  • IBT requires Neuse Rules apply to Jordan Lake Watershed

  • Viewed as Mitigation for EAs or EISs

  • Positive feedback


100 stream buffers

100’ Stream Buffers

  • Staff recommends keeping current stream buffer requirements until either more information is obtained on effectiveness or alternative ways to improve water quality are found and endorsed by the State


Town council direction on 100 stream buffers

Town Council Direction on 100’ Stream Buffers

  • Does Council wish to change our current policies and ordinances?

  • If yes, in what ways?


Topic 3 assessment of techniques2

Topic #3: Assessment of Techniques

  • Impact Fees


Cost techniques

Cost: Techniques

  • Impact Fees

    • #1 growth management tool

    • Charged to cover a project’s proportionate share of capital costs for water, sewer, roads, park land etc.

    • Must conduct a thorough study to establish “nexus” & set fees

    • Must have a CIP & plan to spend collected funds


Impact fees

ImpactFees

  • Cary’s Impact Fees

    • Transportation (TDF)

    • Water

    • Sewer

    • Park land dedication

  • Focus on TDF for further reduction


Cary s practice tdf

Cary’s Practice: TDF

  • Original ordinance 1989 after authorized by Local Legislation – demand driven

  • 1998 Update to rates, system remained the same

  • 2001 New ordinance – zones –improvements driven

  • 2004 Rate Reduction


Tdf revenue

TDF - Revenue


Tdf conclusions

TDF - Conclusions

  • Cary’s TDF was slowing growth compared to adjacent communities

  • LOS standard increased fee

  • Complicated system is hard to understand and manage

  • NCDOT funding is decreasing

  • TDF revenue has decreased


Discussion options

Discussion/Options

  • Eliminate

  • Copy Raleigh’s system

  • Revert to 1989 system

  • Observe 30% reduction impact

  • Create a new system with new LOS standards


Topic 4 the vision element of the comprehensive plan

Topic #4: The Vision Element of the Comprehensive Plan


History of vision element

History of Vision Element

  • Goal: Confirm/establish overall, long-term direction for Town

  • Subject of entire 2003 Retreat

  • Based on previous work  no need to “reinvent the wheel”

  • Preparation involved extensive review of previous efforts:


History of vision element1

History of Vision Element

  • Hundreds of policies from prior plans – land use, transportation, open space, housing, parks, and utilities – reviewed

  • Town Council decisions & discussions about growth issues over past 5 years revisited


History of vision element2

History of Vision Element

  • Consultants interviewed individual Town Council members

  • Growth and development trends studied

  • Special citizen surveys and focus group meetings conducted


History of vision element3

History of Vision Element

  • Town Council, consultants, & staff drafted Principles & Policies in 4 key areas:

    • Transportation

    • Growth & Development

    • Schools

    • Public Involvement in Planning & Development


Envision cary process

enVision Cary Process

  • “enVision Cary” public involvement approach:

    • Summer 2003: Website and “illustrated” Principles & Policies created

    • November 2003 Web poll/survey (~200 respondents)

    • January 2004  On-line Discussion (~70 registered participants)

    • February 2004  “Traditional” Community Meeting (< 10 participants)


Draft principles policies and public comment

Draft Principles & PoliciesandPublic Comment


Transportation principle

Transportation Principle

“The Town of Cary will provide multi-modal transportation choices that meet the mobility needs of residents, enhance the aesthetic quality of the public realm, and promote improved air quality.”


Transportation policies

Transportation Policies

  • T-1: Improve the Roads APF to recognize that there should be a reasonable limit on the number of through lanes on roadways, emphasizing quality of roads in addition to quantity.

  • T-2: Develop a street network with appropriate connectivity …, … a wide range of bold traffic calming measures, and …high-quality streets and connections at destinations.

  • T-3: Create arterial street design guidelines and/or standards that address street width, on-street parking, superior level of quality, traffic calming, and high-performance two-lane streets.


Transportation policies1

Transportation Policies

  • T-4: … require well-designed streets for commercial and institutional development; mandatory urban design guidelines …; and major urban street features concurrent with commercial development.

  • T-5: Support multi-mode travel by …planning for the two station areas on the Triangle Transit Authority light rail line – focusing development at nodes …

  • T-6: Encourage development that supports pedestrians and bicyclists …


Transportation policies2

Transportation Policies

  • T-7: Support … transit efforts to ensure effective integration of regional mass transit, feeder buses, rail, and other transportation modes.

  • T-8: Require strong integration of mass transit features in developments (e.g., connections, sidewalks, and shelters).

  • T-9: Pursue methods to implement a range of transportation demand management strategies (e.g., car pools, van pools, transit, exit ramp meters, non-peak work hours, HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lanes and telecommuting).


Transportation

Transportation

  • Poll Results:

    • Majority of respondents supported every transportation policy, with at least 50 percent recording a rating of 7 or higher for each of the 9


Transportation1

Transportation

  • On-line Discussion Comments:

    • 1/3 of messages dealt with TTA regional rail project  support for and skepticism about the system, station locations, and potential ridership

    • Town bike program to create striped bike lanes and wider outside lanes for bike traffic:

      • Small majority agreed for aesthetic reasons and promotion of bike riding for people not comfortable riding in a travel lane

      • Advanced cyclists  safer for people to ride in travel lanes


Transportation2

Transportation

  • On-line Discussion Comments:

    • Additional topics included:

      • lack of a left turn signal on Waldo Rood Road heading toward the Davis Drive Elementary School

      • lack of permissive left turns at intersections in Cary,

      • need for an east/west artery through town, and

      • discussion of “form versus function” for design guidelines.


Transportation3

Transportation

  • Community Meeting Comments:

    • Provide different transportation options

    • Incorporate multi-modal designs in future and existing development

    • Proceed with synchronization of traffic signals; better-coordinated signals can reduce air pollution that occurs as cars idle

    • Provide real-time communications on the Town website for emergency situations


Growth development principle

Growth & Development Principle

“The Town of Cary will be distinguished by a high quality physical environment that is achieved through strong design appearance requirements, time-honored town-making principles, protection of natural areas, carefully managed infrastructure improvements, and sound fiscal practices.”


Growth development policies

Growth & Development Policies

  • G-1: Pursue implementation of adopted plans for downtown and the northwest area to create mixed-use environments featuring increased densities.

  • G-2: Prepare plans in the southwest and south that focus on lower density development, and emphasize protection of open space and natural areas …

  • G-3: Ensure that future development creates a unique sense of place and provides areas – town-wide and in neighborhoods – for formal and informal public gatherings.


Growth development policies1

Growth & Development Policies

  • G-4: Ensure … strengthened urban design regulations that create a both high quality public realm and private development that promotes human-scale, pedestrian-friendly places.

  • G-5: Permit future development with evidence of adequate infrastructure, determination of fiscal impact, and compliance with demanding design quality standards while monitoring an expected annual average growth rate of 3 - 4 percent over a rolling 5-year period.


Growth development policies2

Growth & Development Policies

  • G-6: Ensure that future growth protects sensitive natural, historical, and cultural resources and preserves open space and the Town’s rural heritage …

  • G-7: Continue to create an inter-connected system of greenways, parks, and open space.

  • G-8: Develop large, community-wide parks and smaller neighborhood parks.

  • G-9: Pursue opportunities to develop mini-parks in "in-fill" areas of town.


Growth development policies3

Growth & Development Policies

  • G-10: Support the development of special purpose recreational facilities that are regional and national attractions while providing a balance between development of general and specific use parks.

  • G-11: Concentrate growth in areas already served by existing or planned infrastructure to minimize costly service area extensions.

  • G-12: Integrate a full range of housing choices for all income groups, families of various sizes, seniors, and persons with special challenges … throughout the town.


Growth development policies4

Growth & Development Policies

  • G-13: Identify sustainable funding sources for community infrastructure, services, and amenities, including impact fees for recreation needs, open space acquisition, and general community facility needs.

  • G-14: Maintain a reasonable tax rate while balancing individual burden and community service and facility needs.

  • G-15: Emphasize high quality, "clean and green" businesses to expand and locate in Cary through a specific recruitment and/or incentive program.


Growth development

Growth & Development

  • Poll Results:

    • With one exception, majority of respondents supported every policy, with at least 50 percent recording a rating of 7 or higher

    • For item 21, “Support … special purpose recreational facilities that are regional and national attractions while providing a balance between development of general and specific-use parks,” at least 50 percent recorded a rating of 6 or higher


Growth development1

Growth & Development

  • On-line Discussion Comments:

    • Participants like Cary’s open space, transit programs (bike, pedestrian, and mass transit), stream buffers, historic preservation, greenways, and traditional neighborhood development in some new subdivisions

    • Dislikes included trivial design guidelines, “build-forward” design, gaps in sidewalks, and road designs that encourage high-speed traffic


Growth development2

Growth & Development

  • On-line Discussion Comments:

    • More control on growth so that schools have an adequate number of seats

    • Better coordination with WCPSS

    • Another debate focused around mixed-use development that encourages higher densities.

      • Some  Cary should be allowing only single-family developments at lower densities

      • Others  supportive of mixed-use development and a variety of housing types


Growth development3

Growth & Development

  • Community Meeting Comments:

    • Supported a strong downtown with shopping and entertainment choices

      • Existing downtown has few amenities to draw residents to the downtown at night

      • A greater range of services and stores would encourage people to live in the downtown


Schools principle

Schools Principle

“The Town of Cary will continue to help improve schools that serve Cary residents.”


Schools policies

Schools Policies

  • S-1: Continue to make financial resources available … to support capital needs (land acquisition and water, sewer, and road improvements) that facilitate the creation of permanent school seats in Cary, which will be allocated on a project-by-project basis as determined by council.

  • S-2: Encourage more school seats/school capacity regardless of whether the schools are public or private.


Schools policies1

Schools Policies

  • S-3: Improve the relationship between Wake County School Board representative(s) and the Town's elected officials.

  • S-4: Support lobbying of state legislators to separate the governance structure of school boards from boards of county commissioners.

  • S-5: Work with other local governments to lobby the General Assembly for legislation to allow municipalities and/or counties to impose schools impact fees.


Schools

Schools

  • Poll Results:

    • With one exception, majority supported every policy, with at least 50 percent recording a rating of 7 or higher

    • For item 31, “Work with other local governments to lobby the General Assembly for legislation to allow municipalities and/or counties to impose schools impact fees,” at least 50 percent recorded a rating of 6 or higher.


Schools1

Schools

  • On-line Discussion Comments:

    • Majority felt that the Town should have a more active role in the decision-making process with the public school system, including school assignments

    • Lack of school facilities in western Wake County area  more political support to encourage the WCPSS to locate facilities in Cary


Schools2

Schools

  • On-line Discussion Comments:

    • A group of participants suggested that the Town should start its own public school system like Chapel Hill and other local communities to assure future quality education


Schools3

Schools

  • Community Meeting Results:

    • Like the on-line thread, the main question was whether or not Cary could have its own school district


Public involvement in planning principle

Public Involvement in Planning Principle

“The Town of Cary will ensure that all sides in an issue and all interested and affected citizens have equal and effective access to the planning and development process.”


Public involvement in planning policies

Public Involvement in Planning Policies

  • I-1: Improve communication tools for proposed planning and development activities through use of:

    • A. Notice letters that include a pamphlet summarizing the processes, including citizen involvement opportunities

    • B. Notice letters that contain staff and developer contact information and links to the Web site

    • C. Attention to the qualitative aspects of communication materials, making sure they are “user-friendly” and written in plain English—not professional jargon or “legalese”

    • D. A Web page with general process information, a dictionary of terms, and calendars


Public involvement in planning policies1

Public Involvement in Planning Policies

  • I-1: Improve communication tools for proposed planning and development activities through use of:

    • E. A Web page for each project with conceptual drawings, statistical data and the like submitted by the developer as well as contact information

    • F. Videos for Cary TV 11 outlining processes for citizen input

    • G. An informative map with hot links that provide information on engineering projects, redevelopment efforts, rezoning, site plans, land use/zoning categories (with linked explanations), park planning, public works projects, and similar activities.


Public involvement in planning policies2

Public Involvement in Planning Policies

  • I-2: Have Town Council and staff conduct annual Q&A meetings …

  • I-3: Have staff offer to conduct meetings with affected neighborhoods to talk about planning or development projects when they are proposed.

  • I-4: Strongly recommend that developers meet with affected property owners … prior to initiating a planning or development activity.

  • I-5: Conduct follow-up research to assess changes in citizen perception.


Public involvement in planning

Public Involvement in Planning

  • Poll Results:

    • With one exception, the majority of respondents supported every policy, with at least 50 percent recording a rating of 7 or higher for each of the 9

    • For “Videos for Cary TV 11 outlining processes for citizen input,” at least 50 percent recorded a rating of 6 or higher


Public involvement in planning1

Public Involvement in Planning

  • On-line Discussion Comments:

    • Most participants agreed that the Town has done a good job setting up public forums for input on specific projects

    • One proposal  a staff liaison to work closely with citizens/educate the public on planning processes, procedures, and current events


Public involvement in planning2

Public Involvement in Planning

  • On-line Discussion Comments:

    • Include Home Owner Associations in planning and development issues

    • Form small focus groups or citizen advisory committees for specific projects or planning efforts


Public involvement in planning3

Public Involvement in Planning

  • Community Meeting Results:

    • Citizens didn’t feel that regular neighborhood meetings are necessary or that they would be well attended

    • Offering opportunities for public input as needed for specific projects is desired

    • Concern expressed for areas of Town that do not have associations and that, even in areas with associations, not all residents’ viewpoints would be represented


Public involvement in planning4

Public Involvement in Planning

  • Community Meeting Results:

    • E-mail communications with neighborhood residents considered a very effective method of communication

    • Provide any Channel 11 videos about development processes on the Town’s web site


Envision cary conclusions

enVision Cary: Conclusions

  • Overall, the Vision Principles and Policies “make sense”  we’re on the right track

  • No major changes/issues identified

  • Many policies already being implemented

  • A few “Hot Topics” & staff responses…


Envision cary conclusions1

enVision Cary: Conclusions

  • Transportation:

    • Multimodal system  Pursue

    • Multifaceted approach to address bicycling  OK


Envision cary conclusions2

enVision Cary: Conclusions

  • Growth & Development:

    • Plans to redevelop & improve Downtown  Continue to pursue

    • Mixed use development in identified areas  OK

    • Provide a variety/range of recreational opportunities  OK


Envision cary conclusions3

enVision Cary: Conclusions

  • Schools:

    • Leverage school sites through assistance with utilities, land acquisition  OK

    • Build relationships with school providers  Continue


Envision cary conclusions4

enVision Cary: Conclusions

  • Public Involvement:

    • Add other ideas to options list:

      • Staff liaison

      • Improved linkages to neighborhood groups

      • Focus groups/advisory committees for specific projects/activities

      • Increased opportunities for e-mail communications


Envision cary conclusions5

enVision Cary: Conclusions

  • Process:

    • An assessment of web polls, on-line threaded discussions needed

    • A discussion about citizen involvement when developing public policy needed


Vision element of the comprehensive plan so what s next

Vision Element of theComprehensive PlanSo, What’s Next?


Vision element process

Vision Element Process

  • The Final Draft of the Vision Element of the Comprehensive Plan should be considered for adoption on the following schedule:


Vision element process1

Vision Element Process

  • April 8: Public Hearing

  • May 17: P&Z Board hearing, review and recommendation

  • June 24: Town Council Adoption


Session 3 growth management the vision element1

Session #3:Growth Management &The Vision Element

The End


  • Login