Phase III Preferred Scenario Review Meeting

Steering Committee and

Planning Advisory Committee

August 9, 2011

Agenda

Preferred Scenario Development and Assessment

Draft 2040 Regional Growth Framework

Public Open Houses Preparation and Preview

Planning Process and Scope

February 2011 – December 2011

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

Seven Alternative Scenarios

Identifying a Preferred Scenario

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 inputPhone survey – February through March, 2011

Total Votes – 1,226 Votes

Asset-Based Development

22%

Business-As-Usual Development

3%

Infill/Conservation Development

30%Radial Corridor Development

1%

Unrestricted Development

4%

Mixed-Themes Development

30%

Jobs & Destinations Development

8%

Multiple Scenarios

2%

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

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

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

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

Phone Survey

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

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.

Conclusions

Preferred Scenario: Concentrated Development

Methodology

Land Holding Capacity Assessment: The level of land capacity (theoretical) to

accommodate land use activities, expressed in dwelling units, households, or number of employees

Land Development Suitability Assessment: Locations within the planning area that are

best suited to accommodate land development

2007 Existing Land Use Pattern

D-Zone 1: Areas with the least dense development and the least amount of development diversity

D-Zone 2: Areas with a moderate density level and small-to-moderate levels of development density

D-Zone 3: Areas that may be either less dense with a higher diversity or more dense with a lower development diversity

D-Zone 4: Areas with higher density levels and higher levels of development diversity

D-Zone 5: Areas that are both dense and diverse, containing least two types of development

Change in Population

Population in the Region is expected to grow by 3%, from 834,717 in 2000 to 859,063 in 2040

Change in Jobs

Population in the Region is expected to grow by 3%, from 834,717 in 2000 to 859,063 in 2040

The number of jobs in the Region is expected to grow by 5%, from 436,929 in 2000 to 458,384 in 2040

Change in Population and Jobs

Population in the Region is expected to grow by 3%, from 834,717 in 2000 to 859,063 in 2040

The number of jobs in the Region is expected to grow by 5%, from 436,929 in 2000 to 458,384 in 2040

The increase in population and jobs along with an increase of the density and diversity of land uses will occur in the Region’s more urban areas, in existing communities

Preferred Scenario: Concentrated Development

Development will be concentrated around regional assets and in areas that already have the infrastructure to support it.

The rehabilitation and/or repurposing of vacant and underused structures would be encouraged, along with a more broad commitment to infill development – whether it makes use of existing structures or vacant lots.

The preservation of agriculture land and other open space would be a priority as well as encouraging more connection and cooperation between the Region’s communities

Concentrated Development Scenario vs. Local 2040 Plans

New Population New Jobs

A Living Region: 2040 Regional Growth Framework for the Miami

Valley Region

The 2040 Regional Growth Framework is more than a map. It is the Miami

Valley Region’s land development vision that represents our core values,

principles, and characteristics in the Miami Valley

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

2040 Regional Growth Framework Development

PRESERVED OPEN

SECTOR

RESERVED OPEN

SECTOR

LIMITED GROWTH SECTOR

CONTROLLED GROWTH SECTOR

INTENDED GROWTH SECTOR

INFILL GROWTH SECTOR

SPECIAL DISTRICTS

DEVELOPED NA No No No No Yes NAPROTECTED Yes No No No No No NA

SUITABLE NA Yes No Yes Yes Yes NA

ZONED FOR DEVELOPMENT NA No Yes Yes

Yes (zoned) / No (not zoned)

Yes NA

PREFERRED NA NoYes

(preferred) / No

No Yes

Yes (context or compact) /

No

NA

Based on 5 dimensions of land classification – land development and protection status, development suitability, zoning status and land development preference

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).

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.

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

Potential Implementation ConceptsPriority Ranking

Result

Encourage development around the Region’s assets. H

Focus on the maintenance of existing infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, etc.). H

Foster 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. H

Encourage 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.). M

Discourage greenfield development. LEncourage the development of quality, realistic affordable housing throughout the Region. L

Improve the quality of educational opportunities throughout the Region. LEncourage energy-efficient building practices and the retrofitting of older structures for energy efficiency. L

A Living Region: 2040 Regional

Growth Framework

Encourage development around the Region’s assets

Focus on the maintenance of existing infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, etc.)

Foster a sense of connection and cooperation between the Region’s communities

Revive the Region’s older communities

Revive the Region’s core city – the City of Dayton

Public Open Houses Preparation Briefing

Public Outreach

5 open houses in 4 counties

Getting the word out…

Public Outreach

The Going Places Website

Facebook

The Open Houses

Troy RecWednesday, Aug 10, 4-6 PM11 N Main, Troy 45373

Friendship VillageTuesday, August 16, 4-6 PM5790 Denlinger, Dayton 45426

Centerville Police DepartmentWednesday, August 17, 4-6 PM155 W Spring Valley, C’ville 45458

Center for Regional CooperationThursday, August 18, 4-6 PM1100 W Third, Dayton 45402

Greene Co. J&FS BuildingTuesday, August 23, 4-6 PM541 Ledbetter, Xenia 45385

Current Efforts and Next Steps

Identify, develop, and evaluate a preferred scenario (completed in July 2011)

Develop 2040 Regional Growth Framework (Draft version developed)

Compile, evaluate and make recommendation on 2040 Regional Growth Framework implementation policies(currently underway)

Consensus Building

Public open houses (Aug 2011)

Presentations and input solicitations (Aug – Nov 2011)

Endorsement and formal review from local jurisdictions (Aug – Nov 2011)

Approval from MVRPC Board of Directors (Dec 2011)

Questions?

Comments?

Next Committee Meeting

Going Places Wrap Up meeting

November 2011Formal Invitation will be mailed to you

Thank You!