Phase 3 preferred scenario review meeting presentation


Published on

Published in: Technology, Real Estate
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Our region is faced with greater challenges ahead of us. The government sector will have harder time due to reduced resources coming from the state and federal partners such as Local government fund from the State is proposed to be cut by 49% over the next 2 years and resources from the Federal, such as CDBG is proposed to be reduced) Further, our region will continue to struggle to maintain good quality of life due to thinning tax base resulted from shrinking population and continued outmigration of population and jobs.   All of these poses greater challenge for us to be remain sustainable, but at the same time, this is our opportunity to better cooperatie and collaborate.   Going Places provides a structure for thinking regionally. Phase III will work to build a preferred scenario and the shared future land development vision that reflects common values, principles, and characteristics that the region shares   If we can agree on a shared vision, the region could choose to better focus its limited resources on high priority regional investments and developing policies and strategies that addresses new reality.
  • The successful engagement of regional stakeholders is one of the key ingredients of the entire Going Places planning process. During Phase III, efforts to engage regional stakeholders will continue. In addition, strong leadership and support from government and non-government entities during the consensus-building process will be imperative so that the outcome of this last phase reflects a collective and shared vision of the Miami Valley Region.
  • We scheduled 5 open houses in the 4 counties. We tried to disperse the open houses so that the entire population of the region would be reasonably close to at least one open house.
  • Once we scheduled the open houses, we created posters and flyers to advertise the workshops and mailed them out to local government offices and libraries. We posted them at RTA. We sent posters by e-mail or postal mail to a wide variety of organizations. All participants of previous Going Places events who gave us an email address were notified.
  • We placed ads in the Dayton Daily News, in local papers, in community newsletters, and on community websites. There were inserts in the DDN. We added the workshops to various community calendars and sent information to bloggers who write about local issues.
  • Our website has information about all the open houses.
  • The open houses have been posted as events on Facebook.
  • Phase 3 preferred scenario review meeting presentation

    1. 1. Phase III Preferred Scenario Review Meeting Steering Committee andPlanning Advisory Committee August 9, 2011
    2. 2. Agenda Preferred Scenario Development and Assessment Draft 2040 Regional Growth Framework Public Open Houses Preparation and Preview
    3. 3. Planning Process and Scope February 2011 – December 2011
    4. 4. Phase III Work Tasks Identify, develop, and evaluate a preferred scenario Develop and build consensus around the 2040 Regional Growth Framework Seek approval from the MVRPC Board of Directors
    5. 5. Seven Alternative Scenarios
    6. 6. Identifying a Preferred Scenario
    7. 7. How People Voted Three ways to vote: At the Open Houses – October and November, 2010 Online – Between November, 2010 and April, 2011 Via mail survey – April, 2011 Other input Phone survey – February through March, 2011
    8. 8. Total Votes – 1,226 Votes Multiple Scenarios Jobs & Destinations 2% Development Asset-Based 8% Development 22% Business-As-UsualMixed-Themes DevelopmentDevelopment 3% 30% Unrestricted Development Infill/Conservation Development 4% Radial Corridor 30% Development 1%
    9. 9. Asset-Based Development – 273 Votes People chose the Asset-Based Development scenario because…  They liked the positive notion of building on the Region’s existing assets  They liked the results of the performance indicator analysis  Below-average score for traffic congestion  Above-average score for open space accessibility  They saw the potential for increased accessibility to parks and jobs, resulting in decreased commute times  They saw the potential for increasing the number of jobs in the Region  They like the concentration of new development in areas with existing infrastructure  They liked the potential for open space preservation
    10. 10. Infill/Conservation Development – 362 Votes People chose the Infill/Conservation Development scenario because…  They liked the emphasis on redevelopment  They liked the emphasis on the preservation of open space – particularly the preservation of agricultural land  They liked that some of the highest concentrations of new population and jobs would be centered on the City of Dayton  They saw the concentration of development efforts in areas with existing infrastructure as more cost-effective  They saw the potential for increased public transit options  They liked the increase in accessibility – especially to parks and employment centers  They liked the results of the performance indicator analysis
    11. 11. Mixed-Themes Development – 365 Votes People chose the Mixed-Themes Development scenario because…  They liked having an option that mixed aspects from several different scenarios  They wanted to see more preservation of open space – particularly agricultural land  They saw an increased potential for the redevelopment of already developed and underused areas  They liked the scenario’s future development pattern – which spreads concentrations of people and jobs throughout the Region and mainly along major transportation corridors  They saw the potential for an increase in alternative transportation methods  They saw the concentration of development efforts in areas with existing infrastructure as more cost-effective
    12. 12. Phone Survey To identify the values of the residents of the Miami Valley Region as they relate to the future of land development in the region 401 citizens were surveyed via a telephone survey of residents in Montgomery, Greene, Miami and northern Warren Counties.  Random digit dial (RDD) sampling and Quota sampling method used to closely approximate sample with demographics of area  95 % confidence, +/- 5 % margin of error region-wide Survey conducted from February 10, 2011 through March 30, 2011 53 question survey developed by CUPA in partnership with MVRPC
    13. 13. Scenario Priority Selection Respondents were presented with 12 paired statements and asked to indicate which was closer to their views Results showed:  Support for strategies that reused/revitalized existing structures for business/residential  Support for development around regional assets  Living in areas with established infrastructure more important than parks/green space  Easy access to roads more important than ability to walk, bike or take transit
    14. 14. Conclusions The Infill/Conservation Development scenario has the highest degree of support.  Supportive of maintaining farmland, reusing existing space, promoting urban development Next highest level was for Asset-Based, though not nearly as high as Infill/Conservation. The Business-As-Usual and Jobs and Destination Development scenarios have little support among residents.
    15. 15. Preferred Scenario:Concentrated Development
    16. 16. Methodology Land Holding Capacity Assessment: The level of land capacity (theoretical) to accommodate land use activities, expressed indwelling units, households, or number of employees Land Development Suitability Assessment: Locations within the planning area that are best suited to accommodate land development
    17. 17. 2007 Existing Land Use PatternD-Zone 1: Areas with the leastdense development and theleast amount of developmentdiversityD-Zone 2: Areas with amoderate density level andsmall-to-moderate levels ofdevelopment densityD-Zone 3: Areas that may beeither less dense with a higherdiversity or more dense with alower development diversityD-Zone 4: Areas with higherdensity levels and higherlevels of development diversityD-Zone 5: Areas that are bothdense and diverse, containingleast two types of development
    18. 18. Change in PopulationPopulation in the Regionis expected to grow by3%, from 834,717 in 2000to 859,063 in 2040
    19. 19. Change in JobsPopulation in the Regionis expected to grow by3%, from 834,717 in 2000to 859,063 in 2040The number of jobs in theRegion is expected togrow by 5%, from 436,929in 2000 to 458,384 in 2040
    20. 20. Change in Population and JobsPopulation in the Regionis expected to grow by3%, from 834,717 in 2000to 859,063 in 2040The number of jobs in theRegion is expected togrow by 5%, from 436,929in 2000 to 458,384 in 2040The increase inpopulation and jobs alongwith an increase of thedensity and diversity ofland uses will occur in theRegion’s more urbanareas, in existingcommunities
    21. 21. Preferred Scenario: Concentrated DevelopmentDevelopment will beconcentrated around regionalassets and in areas that alreadyhave the infrastructure tosupport it.The rehabilitation and/orrepurposing of vacant andunderused structures would beencouraged, along with a morebroad commitment to infilldevelopment – whether itmakes use of existingstructures or vacant lots.The preservation of agricultureland and other open spacewould be a priority as well asencouraging more connectionand cooperation between theRegion’s communities
    22. 22. Concentrated Development Scenario vs. Local 2040 PlansNew Population New Jobs
    23. 23. A Living Region: 2040 RegionalGrowth Framework for the Miami Valley Region
    24. 24. The 2040 Regional Growth Framework is more than a map. It is the MiamiValley Region’s land development vision that represents our core values, principles, and characteristics in the Miami Valley
    25. 25. 2040 Regional Growth Framework Overview Not to assign traditional land use designations such as residential, commercial, or industrial areas Define areas according to what is “appropriate” (Phase I Land Development Suitability Assessment and Land Use Demand Assessment) and/or “preferred” (Phase II Future Land Use Scenarios) for future development, redevelopment, and preservation Serve as a resource, providing a regional perspective on land use issues for local communities in their future land use policy and plan development efforts
    26. 26. 2040 Regional Growth Framework Development Based on 5 dimensions of land classification – land development and protection status, development suitability, zoning status and land development preference PRESERVED RESERVED LIMITED CONTROLLED INTENDED INFILL SPECIAL OPEN OPEN GROWTH GROWTH GROWTH GROWTH DISTRICTS SECTOR SECTOR SECTOR SECTOR SECTOR SECTOR DEVELOPED NA No No No No Yes NA PROTECTED Yes No No No No No NA SUITABLE NA Yes No Yes Yes Yes NA ZONED FOR Yes (zoned) /DEVELOPMENT NA No Yes Yes Yes NA No (not zoned) Yes Yes (context or PREFERRED NA No (preferred) No Yes NA compact) / / No No
    27. 27. Typologies for the 2040 Growth Framework PRESERVED OPEN SECTOR - This sector represents open spaces under environmental protection by law or regulation as well as land acquired for conservation through purchase or by easement (Protected). This sector also represents areas that are not currently zoned for development and have land development constraints identified in the land suitability analysis from Phase I. RESERVED OPEN SECTOR - This sector includes open spaces that do not have land development constraints and are therefore suited for future development. However, the areas in this sector are currently not zoned for development nor are they considered to be preferred locations for development. This area could be developed, however, beyond the year 2040. LIMITED GROWTH SECTOR - This sector represents areas that are not currently developed and have limitations for future development but are zoned for development. There are areas in this sector that are more preferable for future development than others (Preferred).
    28. 28.  CONTROLLED GROWTH SECTOR - This sector represents areas that are not currently developed and are not considered to be preferable locations for development. However, the areas in this sector are suitable for future development and are already zoned for development. INTENDED GROWTH SECTOR - This sector represents areas that are currently undeveloped but suitable and preferable for future development by virtue of their proximity to existing infrastructure or existing regional assets. Some areas in this sector are already zoned for development (Zoned), while others are not (Not Zoned). INFILL GROWTH SECTOR - This sector represents currently developed areas – including areas that are partially developed. Areas that are adjacent to regional assets are considered to be preferable for future redevelopment at a current level of density and intensity (Urban Context), or at a higher level of density and intensity with more diverse mix of land uses (Urban Compact). Infill areas are designated “Urban” or “Rural” depending upon if they within either of the 2000 Census Urbanized Area and the 2000 Federal Highway Administration transportation urbanized areas. SPECIAL DISTRICTS - Special Districts represents areas that serve special function and are not subject to local or regional policy.
    29. 29. Phase III Policy Roundtable Workshop Workshop was to gather the opinions of a variety of local public officials, planning professionals, and other interested parties about the priorities of the implementation concepts for the Going Places initiative A total of 12 potential implementation concepts were organized into three – High, Moderate, and Low Importance – categories
    30. 30. Priority Ranking Potential Implementation Concepts ResultEncourage development around the Region’s assets. HFocus on the maintenance of existing infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, etc.). HFoster a sense of connection and cooperation between the Region’s communities. HRevive the Region’s older communities. HRevive the Region’s core city – the City of Dayton. HEncourage the rehabilitation and/or repurposing of existing structures. MPreserve prime farmland and support agricultural enterprise. MIncrease the number and quality of transportation options (walking, driving, biking,rail, bus service, etc.). MLocate any new development in areas with existing infrastructure (roads, water, sewer,etc.). MEncourage the rehabilitation/reuse of vacant industrial sites. MUse land in a way that builds a sense of community. MMaintain and expand the Region’s parks, natural areas, and recreation amenities(recreation centers, bikeways, rivers, etc.). MDiscourage greenfield development. LEncourage the development of quality, realistic affordable housing throughout theRegion. LImprove the quality of educational opportunities throughout the Region. LEncourage energy-efficient building practices and the retrofitting of older structuresfor energy efficiency. L
    31. 31. A Living Region: 2040 RegionalGrowth FrameworkEncourage developmentaround the Region’s assetsFocus on the maintenanceof existing infrastructure(roads, water, sewer, etc.)Foster a sense ofconnection andcooperation between theRegion’s communitiesRevive the Region’s oldercommunitiesRevive the Region’s corecity – the City of Dayton
    32. 32. Public Open HousesPreparation Briefing
    33. 33. Public Outreach 5 open houses in 4 counties
    34. 34. Getting theword out…
    35. 35. Public Outreach
    36. 36. The Going Places Website
    37. 37. Facebook
    38. 38. The Open HousesTroy Rec Center for Regional CooperationWednesday, Aug 10, 4-6 PM Thursday, August 18, 4-6 PM11 N Main, Troy 45373 1100 W Third, Dayton 45402Friendship Village Greene Co. J&FS BuildingTuesday, August 16, 4-6 PM Tuesday, August 23, 4-6 PM5790 Denlinger, Dayton 45426 541 Ledbetter, Xenia 45385Centerville Police DepartmentWednesday, August 17, 4-6 PM155 W Spring Valley, C’ville 45458
    39. 39. Current Efforts and Next Steps Consensus Building Identify, develop, and evaluate a preferred scenario (completed  Public open houses (Aug 2011) in July 2011)  Presentations and input Develop 2040 Regional solicitations (Aug – Nov 2011) Growth Framework (Draft version developed)  Endorsement and formal review from local jurisdictions (Aug – Nov 2011) Compile, evaluate and make recommendation on 2040  Approval from MVRPC Board Regional Growth Framework of Directors (Dec 2011) implementation policies (currently underway)
    40. 40. Questions?Comments?
    41. 41. Next Committee MeetingGoing Places Wrap Up meeting November 2011 Formal Invitation will be mailed to you
    42. 42. Thank You!