Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

2015 Information Forum - Ken Bowers

66 views

Published on

Topic: Innovative Comprehensive Planning

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

2015 Information Forum - Ken Bowers

  1. 1. Outline • Raleigh’s outlook in 2006 • Setting the stage • Creating a vision & plan • Plan overview • Implementation & results • What’s next • Lessons learned
  2. 2. Urban Growth (SE US) Housing Units Per Square Kilometer, 1960
  3. 3. Source: USDA Forest Service; Volker Radeloff (University of Wisconsin) and Ann Ingerson (The Wilderness Society). More info available at the Catawba Lands Conservancy website, www.catawbalands.org) Urban Growth (SE US) Housing Units Per Square Kilometer, 2010
  4. 4. Raleigh is a Post-War City 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 Population 1945 51,000 432,000 Over 85 percent of Raleigh’s population is post-1945 growth Over 65 percent occurred since 1980
  5. 5. Projected Population Growth Source: Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
  6. 6. Growth in the Triangle’s Urban Population & Land Area, 1950 - 2000 0% 500% 1000% 1500% 2000% Urban Population Urban Land Area 480% 1,670% 3.5X
  7. 7. Triangle Sprawl Raleigh-Durham MSA In a study of 83 Metropolitan Areas, the Triangle was judged the third most sprawling based on measures of density, mixed use, centeredness and road connectivity.
  8. 8. Housing Units by Type Single Family 47% Multi-family 36% Townhouse 14% Duplex 2% Mobile Home 1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey, 1-year Estimate
  9. 9. Commute Mode 68.5% 76.1% 79.3% 73.3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Atlanta, GA Charlotte, NC Raleigh, NC Austin, TX Car, truck, or van -- drove alone Car, truck, or van -- carpooled Public transportation (excluding taxicab) Walked Other means Worked at home
  10. 10. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Raleigh Charlotte Austin Atlanta Denver-Aurora Portland Miles Driven Per Person Per Day Per Capita VMT Source: Federal Highway Administration
  11. 11. 2005 Vehicles/Capacity Source: Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
  12. 12. 2035 Vehicles/Capacity Source: Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
  13. 13. The Drought of 2006/2007
  14. 14. Per Capita Water Consumption 116 98 100 107 106 98 97 94 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 DailyGallonsperCapita(gpcd) Year
  15. 15. 2030 Comprehensive Plan
  16. 16. 21st Century Lecture Series
  17. 17. A Two-Track Planning Process Technical Track • Policy Audit • Community Inventory Report • Departmental in-reach • Plan Impact Analysis Civic Engagement Track • Formal public workshops • Small-scale workshops • Special events • Online commenting
  18. 18. Technical Track • Policy audit of 5,000 adopted policies • 500-page Community Inventory of demographic and economic trends, physical infrastructure, and community facilities 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Persons(000s) Year Raleigh Population Projections, 2005 - 2030 CAMPO 100 yr Trend Land Capacity
  19. 19. The Formal Process • Kick-off event • Three rounds of public workshops – Vision and values – Policy options – Draft Plan • Downtown Element workshops • Public Review Draft (1,200 comments) • Public Hearing • Planning Commission & City Council deliberations • Adoption vote
  20. 20. The Informal Process • 21st Century Lecture Series • Small scale workshops • Stakeholder briefings • Big Ideas Week • Kids City
  21. 21. Big Ideas Week
  22. 22. Kid’s City
  23. 23. 57 Meetings Prior to the Public Hearing • 9 citywide meetings • 2 downtown focused meetings • 24 community meetings and roundtables • 20 briefings • 2 special events – Kids City – Big Ideas Week
  24. 24. Workshop Reporting • Transcription of all table notes and written comments • Publication of both condensed and raw input • Extensive use of quoting to support conclusions • Highlighting of “Implications for the Comprehensive Plan”
  25. 25. Comments on the Public Review Draft Number Percent Support 381 32% Support with Conditions 356 31% Observations 181 15% Other 168 15% Object 86 7% Total 1,172 100%
  26. 26. Public Review Comment Handling Public Comment I wonder if “promote interconnectivity” should be included in this policy. Staff Response Interconnectivity is addressed in more detail in Sections B.2.1 and B.2.2 of the Transportation Element. Resolution Add "and well-connected" after "compact" Policy LU 8 New development and redevelopment should use a more compact land use pattern to support the efficient provision of public services, improve the performance of transportation networks, preserve open space, and reduce the negative impacts of low intensity and non-contiguous development.
  27. 27. Support, 33% Support with Conditions, 34% Observations, 15% Object, 4% Other, 14% Nature of comments after resolution
  28. 28. Contents of the Comprehensive Plan • Introduction and Framework • Thirteen specific elements – Each element contains policy statements and action items – Each policy statement implements one or more vision themes, and each action item implements one or more policies • 21 Area Plans adapted from existing, adopted plans • Implementation – Implementation element – Action Plan/Capital Improvement Link
  29. 29. Raleigh’s Vision for 2030 Raleigh will be a city that cultivates innovation and creativity that expands the City’s competitive advantages and reputation. Raleigh will embody environmental conservation, energy efficiency, and sustainable development. Raleigh will be a great place to live with distinctive and attractive neighborhoods, plentiful parks and green spaces, outstanding educational opportunities, and a vibrant downtown.
  30. 30. The Vision Is Reinforced with Six Themes Economic Prosperity & Equity Expanding Housing Choices Managing Our Growth Coordinating Land Use & Transportation Greenprint Raleigh—Sustainable Development Growing Successful Neighborhoods & Communities
  31. 31. Vision >> Policy >> Action • Six Vision Themes Represent Plan Goals • Each Policy references one or more Vision Themes • Each Action implements one or more Policies
  32. 32. “The Growth Framework Map seeks to redirect a full 60 percent of this future growth into downtown and a series of seven city growth centers, 12 transit-oriented centers, and over 40 mixed-use community centers, connected via a network of parkways, multimodal corridors, and urban streets.”
  33. 33. 15 Land Use Categories • 5 residential categories • 5 mixed-use categories • 3 non-residential “employment” categories • 2 public and institutional categories • 2 park and open space categories • 1 “special study area” category
  34. 34. Four Vectors of Implementation Development Regulations Capital Improvements Discretionary Decisions Organizational Alignment • Zoning • Subdivision • Environmental • Roadways • Transit • Parks • Schools • Utilities • Rezonings • Ordinance amendments • Special Use Permits • Departmental work plans • Departmental collaboration UDO CIP Public Officials City Manager
  35. 35. “Codes are just that: the DNA of our cities.” —Andres Duany, Duany Plater-Zyberk “If the Comprehensive Plan embodies the vision of what Raleigh can become, the UDO constitutes the city's DNA.” —Mack Paul, News & Observer, March 4, 2010
  36. 36. Why a New Development Code? The UDO fixes three major problems with the prior code: 1. A “context free,” one-size-fits-all approach to a diverse landscape 2. Discretionary review substituting for adequate standards 3. Incompatibility between the zoning districts and adopted land use plans
  37. 37. Standards Specific to Building Type
  38. 38. Residential Mixed-Use Special Overlay R-1 R-2 R-4 R-6 R-10 RX Residential NX Neighborhood OP Office Park OX Office CX Commercial DX Downtown IX Industrial AP Agriculture CM Conservation R-MP Manuf. Hsg. CMP Campus IH Heavy Industry PD Planned Dev. AOD SHOD HOD-G HOD-S NCOD MPOD WPOD TOD  Different heights can be assigned in mixed-use districts  Density and floor area are unregulated in mixed-use districts
  39. 39. Mixed Use Districts Use Height Frontage RX NX OP OX CX DX IX -3 -4 -5 -7 -12 -20 -40 -P Parkway -D Detached -PL Parking Limited -G Green -UL Urban Limited -UG Urban General -S Shopfront Sample District: CX-5-PL
  40. 40. Frontages to Frame the Public Realm SUBURBAN TYPES Parkway Detached Parking Limited URBAN TYPES Green Urban Limited Urban General Shop front
  41. 41. Controls for Height and Massing • Minimum heights in downtown and TODs • Stepbacks for tall buildings to mitigate wind and shadow impacts
  42. 42. Street Standards for Different Contexts
  43. 43. Maximum Block Perimeter for Connected Grids
  44. 44. Administrative Development Approvals
  45. 45. UDO Remapping
  46. 46. Remapping Process 1. Staff prepare a draft map based on guidance document, guiding principles 2. Mailed notice and public review 3. Map brought to Planning Commission with outstanding issues 4. Planning Commission recommendations 5. Mailed notice & Public Hearing 6. City Council review and adoption
  47. 47. Three Pronged Engagement Strategy • A reassuring postcard sent to 34,000 property owners and their 15,000 neighbors • A great website with a special remapping viewer and comment engine, as well as detailed project information • A dedicated call center to ensure that every phone call connects with a person
  48. 48. Don’t Panic!
  49. 49. Great Web Site
  50. 50. On-line commenting engine
  51. 51. Remapping Status • Planning Commission completed its review of the draft rezoning map on April 7, 2015 – 311 public requests for map changes reviewed – Over 100 discreet changes to the draft map • City Council begins review in May • Based on process to date, anticipate adoption in July/August
  52. 52. Where is Growth Occurring? 79% with ¼-mile of growth areas (22 of 28 rezoning cases)
  53. 53. Permits Since November 2009 Permit Activity Citywide Growth Areas Percent Dwelling Units 20,885 14,078 67% Value $4.06 billion $2,59 billion 64% Since the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, development patterns have met the growth goal of 60 percent occurring in designated growth areas.
  54. 54. Residential Building Permits - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 UnitsPermitted Year Single Family Townhouse Condominium 2-4 Attached Units Apartment
  55. 55. The Urban Apartment Boom
  56. 56. 3D TAX VALUE MAP
  57. 57. Research Triangle Park
  58. 58. PROXIMITY | INTERACTION, CONNECTIONS CREATIVE MORNINGS AIGA CONFERENCE
  59. 59. Implemented 33% In Progress 45% Not Started 17% Other/No Reporting 5% Total Action Items Remaining in Plan = 362 Action Item Progress, 2010 – 2014
  60. 60. Over 9,000 acres of park land 722 added since 2009 Over 100 miles of greenway trails 54 added since 2009
  61. 61. Planning Functions 2009 City Manager Inspections Planning Urban Design Center Public Works Transportation Planning ACM Community Development Development Services
  62. 62. Planning Functions 2015 City Manager ACM Housing & Neighborhoods ACM Planning Long Range Urban Design Transportation Development Services Plan Review Inspections Records Economic Development
  63. 63. Wake County Transit Plan
  64. 64. 5-Year Update
  65. 65. Comprehensive Plan Best Practices Principles 1. Livable Built Environment 2. Harmony with Nature 3. Resilient Economy 4. Healthy Community 5. Responsible Regionalism Processes 1. Authentic Participation 2. Accountable Implementation Attributes 1. Consistent Content 2. Coordinated Characteristics Source: APA (2015), Sustaining Places: Best Practices for Comprehensive Plans
  66. 66. Lessons Learned • Taking public input seriously is an enormous amount of work, but worth it • Set clear expectations for process and content, and meet them • Work forward from vision, and backwards from implementation • Track progress annually • Put the Plan in binder
  67. 67. Capital Boulevard
  68. 68. Blue Ridge Road
  69. 69. Raleigh Union Station
  70. 70. 3 42 1 Stakeholder Matrix Lack awareness of the Comp Plan and its impact Would like to be engaged if they were more informed Language barrier Already involved, know how to participate Current users of the Comp Plan Don’t know what the Comp Plan is or that it exists Not aware of impact of the Comp Plan on their community and lives Not engaged in the process Aware of the Comp Plan and it’s impact Don’t know how or whether to be engaged Cynical about process Awareness Engagement Source: Justice & Sustainability Associates, LLC
  71. 71. Communication Styles “Core Participants” Kept informed, input is ongoing, two- way communication is common “In the Loop” Kept informed, but not regularly asked for input and feedback “Public Process” Engaged in workshop settings, expected to follow progress on Web, through media “Reaching Out” Actively recruited to participate
  72. 72. 3 42 1 Communication Styles “Public Process” “Core Participants” “In the loop” “Public Process” “Reaching Out” “Reaching Out” Awareness Engagement

×