Planning Committee

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA SPECIAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MARCH 19, 2018 MINUTES Municipal Complex, Committee Meeting Room Present: Joe Bustos, Chair, Bob Brimmer, Guang Ming Whitley, Tom O'Rourke. Staff: Eric DeMoura, Christiane Farrell, Jeff Ulma, David Pagliarini Mr. Bustos called the meeting to order at 10:00 am. 1. Public Comments There being no comments, Mr. Bustos continued with the agenda. 2. Urban Corridor Overlay District (UC-OD) Mr. Bustos stated that due to the anticipated length of discussion on these issues, a special meeting was scheduled. Ms. Farrell reviewed urban corridors and overlay districts with the Committee (attachment 1). Mr. Ulma reviewed current conditions of the UC-OD with the Committee (attachment 1) and considerations going forward. Mr. O’Rourke asked for a copy of the PowerPoint presentation, particularly the history. He stated that there has been significant development since this issue was first approached in 1991. He asked if it would be more prudent to amend the UC- OD rather than eliminating it in its entirety. He asked when the Comprehensive Plan would be completed. Ms. Farrell answered that it would presented to Town Council in the fall with adoption scheduled for October 2018. Mr. Brimmer suggested that “urban” is a very emotional word and stated that it basically means requirements or a set of development standards for the area. He suggested that focusing on the different requirements should be the crux of the discussion. He stated that there is approximately 3 ½ miles of UC-OD compared to 1 ½ miles of King street in downtown Charleston and suggested that the amount of urban development is “too much”. He suggested that the current development  Special Planning Committee March 19, 2018 Page 2 of 7 would make it difficult to determine nodes as outlined in the current Comprehensive Plan. He stated that there are three distinct areas and suggested that Chuck Dawley and Ben Sawyer should be handled as different areas with different requirements. He suggested that there is opportunity to accomplish something unique and different that would be cohesive. Ms. Whitley agreed with Mr. Brimmer that each street or section is unique and should be addressed as such. Mr. Bustos suggested that the walkability of the UC-OD has not been accomplished as initially desired as well as establishing affordable housing along Coleman Blvd. He suggested that some of the single-family development is out of character of the Town. He suggested that the rooflines along Coleman seem out of character as well. He suggested that the initial idea was for new development to mimic the Brookgreen development. He agreed that there are three separate areas, but that Coleman Blvd. should especially be reviewed and possible changes made. He agreed with Mr. Brimmer that the Ben Sawyer Blvd area should be considered a separate area as well. Mr. O’Rourke asked about county properties that are in the UC-OD and expressed concern with these properties potentially being developed in a manner that would not be in keeping with the character of those neighborhoods or the Town. He expressed concern with beach traffic and access to the beaches that causes significant traffic for Mount Pleasant. Mr. Bustos asked if the county should be contacted to discuss and coordinate on these issues. Ms. Farrell answered that there are a few properties that are in the county and the UC-OD. She stated that staff has coordinated with the county in the past regarding these properties and would continue to do so. Mr. O’Rourke suggested that Mount Pleasant Waterworks should be included in the discussions as well. Mr. Brimmer stated that there is a perceived disconnect with different plans in place that conflict with other plans and suggested that this should be reviewed. He stated that another consideration is to review the properties that are adjacent to the UC-OD so that there is transition from the higher density of the UC-OD to more residential and lower density uses. He agreed that nodes should be considered and  Special Planning Committee March 19, 2018 Page 3 of 7 determined. He suggested that the UC-OD should be reviewed and amended in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan update. Ms. Whitley suggested that discussion should continue through the Comprehensive Plan process and recommendations provided to the forum to be incorporated. Ms. Farrell stated that these issues of concern are also a concern of the forum and stated that the forum is working on these issues to be included in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bustos stated that there have been significant changes and development over the years and an increase in traffic. He suggested that affordable housing has not been accomplished as initially desired. He stated that the Coleman Blvd. area is a gateway and entrance into the Town. Ms. Farrell stated that the Comprehensive Plan changes would take time to complete and implement. After adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning ordinances would need to be completed with the possibility of hiring a consultant to help accomplish this. She asked if some changes are desired to be completed before the Comprehensive Plan update is completed. Mr. Bustos answered that he does not want to rush the discussion, but recognizes that there are potentially some amendments that could be accomplished before the completion of the Comprehensive Plan update. Ms. Farrell stated that the UC-OD could be eliminated entirely with the notion that significant changes would be done through the Comprehensive Plan update or portions of the UC-OD could be amended as well, if desired. Mr. O’Rourke expressed concern with the message that would be sent if Town Council dictates to the forum issues that should be reviewed. He suggested that there would be time once the forum completes their review of the Comprehensive Plan update for Town Council to make recommendations. Mr. Brimmer suggested that entirely eliminating the UC-OD would not be the best option. He suggested that this would have a significant impact to economic development and business recruitment. He stated that the Patriots Point area should be reviewed as well. He suggested that there should be a thoughtful review of any changes so that there is cohesiveness.  Special Planning Committee March 19, 2018 Page 4 of 7 Mr. Bustos agreed and suggested that areas such as Ben Sawyer, Patriots Point, Bayview, etc. should be reviewed with separation of Johnnie Dodds Blvd, Chuck Dawley Blvd., and Coleman Blvd into separate distinct areas. Mr. Brimmer asked if the UC-OD could be suspended for a period of time. Ms. Farrell answered that she is not sure how this could be accomplished. She suggested that it would need to be eliminated or repealed and then reinstated. Mr. Bustos asked if Ben Sawyer could be eliminated from the UC-OD and asked if this could be done before the completion of Comprehensive Plan update. He suggested that there might be some other issues that could be accomplished by Town Council in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan update. Mr. Brimmer suggested that putting the ordinances in place would take a few months, so there would be time to make some of these changes. Mr. Ulma suggested that the implementation steps of the Comprehensive Plan update could be prioritized to accomplish these desired aspects. He stated that the issues of concern could be relayed and emphasized to the forum as well for continued discussion and in prioritizing the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan update. Mr. Bustos suggested that additional special meetings could be scheduled as needed to provide an update. Ms. Farrell asked if the removal of Ben Sawyer from the UC-OD should be reviewed and discussed at the April regular meeting. Mr. Bustos answered in the affirmative. Ms. Whitley asked that the UC-OD restrictions and allowances should be provided at the next meeting as well. Mr. Ulma answered that this could be accomplished. Mr. DeMoura agreed and stated that any unintended consequences could be addressed at the next meeting as well. 3. Growth management  Special Planning Committee March 19, 2018 Page 5 of 7 Mr. O’Rourke asked if there is a period of time that the development must occur. Ms. Farrell answered that the units are based on approved developments so based on actual construction, some of those units would not be utilized or built. Mr. Brimmer asked if a trend line has been considered. Ms. Farrell answered that it has not been accomplished, but is the reason that the permits are tracked. Mr. Ulma continued with the discussion on potential development with the Committee (attachment 1). Mr. Brimmer asked how much of the available acreage is currently in the county. Mr. Ulma answered that there is quite a bit still in the county. Mr. Brimmer asked what the rationale is with including the county property. Ms. Farrell answered that it is based on the recommended zoning and density. Mr. Brimmer asked if the default zoning could be changed for property that is annexed. Ms. Farrell answered in the affirmative. Mr. O’Rourke expressed caution in having a different zoning for annexed property. Mr. DeMoura stated that those properties not in the Town still impact development, traffic, etc. Mr. Brimmer agreed and suggested that the Town should have the right to determine if the property should be annexed and how the property would be developed. He stated that those properties in the county are not only an opportunity, but can also be a concern if developed in the county converse to what the Town requires. Mr. O’Rourke suggested that the property owners of those properties in the county should be contacted and have a dialogue regarding annexation. Ms. Whitley agreed with Mr. Brimmer and asked if a more “nuanced” recommendation for annexed properties should be considered. She suggested that a different default zoning for certain areas could be considered. Mr. Bustos suggested that some incentives could be considered to encourage more annexation.  Special Planning Committee March 19, 2018 Page 6 of 7 Mr. O’Rourke asked if the Annexation Committee should be re-established. Mr. DeMoura answered that it was dissolved with the thought that this would be addressed by the Planning Committee. Mr. Bustos suggested that this should be further reviewed to determine how annexation could be more encouraged. Mr. Ulma stated that management of growth should be done through a comprehensive process and address all components. He suggested that the foundation for growth management is already in place such as how much development should be allowed and quality of development through the design review process, etc. He stated that staff also looked at other municipalities to see how they handle growth management and reviewed this with the Committee (attachment 1). He stated that the Comprehensive Plan Forum is looking at growth management as well and how development occurs in relation to services and infrastructure. He stated that the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) is being updated concurrently with the Comprehensive Plan update. He suggested that staff continue to work on this issue utilizing the current tools in place and ensuring that growth management is a key component of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that as with the recommendation regarding the UC-OD, the implementation of growth management could be prioritized within the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bustos suggested that if the population at buildout is going to be approximately 105,000, then a plan should be determined sooner on how to provide services for that population capacity. He suggested that the infrastructure should be accomplished and suggested that a growth rate should be established as a goal. He suggested that the completion of infrastructure should be expedited ahead of construction growth as much as possible. He suggested that a growth rate should be determined that would allow infrastructure to be completed. He also suggested that the suspension of multi-family unit construction could be extended as one way of managing growth as well. Mr. O’Rourke agreed that infrastructure should be in place, but suggested that it should be determined when the infrastructure would be completed and in place in order to move forward with development. He suggested that it should be determined when the infrastructure and services would be in place and then determine how growth should be managed. Mr. Bustos agreed and stated that infrastructure includes fire, police, and public services as well. Mr. DeMoura stated that there is a financial aspect that must be  Special Planning Committee March 19, 2018 Page 7 of 7 considered and this would affect the general fund revenue for the Town and the funding available to complete the infrastructure necessary for the growth. Mr. Bustos agreed. Mr. Brimmer suggested that another consideration is requiring a construction schedule that would put the infrastructure for new developments in place prior to construction of units being started as was voluntarily done with Liberty Farms. He suggested that this might be another growth management strategy that could be implemented. Mr. Bustos expressed concern with exactions. Mr. Pagliarini answered that exactions can be of concern when not tied to the development or included with the policy and procedures, but the Town would be in its right to stipulate certain requirements. Mr. O’Rourke stated that these are important issues that need to be discussed and addressed and thanked staff and his fellow Committee members for having this discussion. He stated that the citizens are concerned with making sure that infrastructure is in place and paid for to handle the new construction. He suggested that with a concrete plan in place would provide better justification of funding these projects and in identifying funding sources for accomplishing the necessary infrastructure and services needed to handle the future growth. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:38 am. Submitted by, L. Lynes SpPlanComm03192018  Attachment 1: March 19, 2018 Special Planning Committee Meeting Minutes Planning Committee URBAN CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT Special Meeting 19 March 2018  WHAT IS AN OVERLAY DISTRICT? As provided in State Code: A zoning technique with the purpose of expanding or limiting land uses and development standards beyond those addressed by the underlying zoning district in order to achieve community goals or address special issues in a particular geographic area. Other Examples: Sweetgrass Basket, Old Village Historic, Commercial Design Review, Shem Creek Waterfront Urban Corridor Overlay District (UCOD)  UCOD OVERVIEW AND CHARACTERISTICS ▪ Range of permitted uses to create mixed-use areas ▪ “Activity zone” at the street ▪ 2-story height requirement on boulevards ▪ “Build-to” lines vs. setbacks ▪ Street trees and landscaping ▪ Reduced parking requirements OVERVIEW AND CHARACTERISTICS Ex: Activity Zone/Street Trees Ex: Activity Zone/Street Trees HISTORY 1982: Town of Mount Pleasant Master Plan: Recommended Action: Encourage the development of a “center” on Coleman Boulevard allowing higher rise development, reducing strip development, improving traffic movement with mixed use and infill development. 1991: Town Council creates the Commercial Design Review Board 1993: First Coleman Boulevard Revitalization Plan 2006: Coleman Boulevard Advisory Board established. 2006: Coleman-Ben Sawyer Boulevard Overlay District established (Lays groundwork for workforce housing in district, activity zones, outdoor dining, heights and other development regulations within the CBS-OD) 2007: CRAB presents recommendations to the Town Council on March 13, 2007 (led to subsequent amendments). From 2007 to 2010: There were four amendments to the CB-BS Overlay pertaining to expansion of parameters, renaming of districts and height increases. Coleman Blvd Johnnie Dodds Blvd 2008: Johnnie Dodds Boulevard Master Plan 2011: 2009-2019 Comprehensive Plan is adopted – this lays the groundwork for the UC-OD. 2011: Urban Corridor Overlay District is adopted, which includes Coleman, Ben Sawyer, Johnnie Dodds, and Chuck Dawley (UC-OD as we know it today) UC-JDB has 3 sections: -Hospitality/Economic Development (hotels/higher density office) -Neighborhood Office and Commercial District (retail that benefits office uses: coffee shops, printing companies..) -Health and Wellness/Economic Development District (research, medical office, etc.) 2011: Urban Corridor Overlay District is adopted, which includes Coleman, Ben Sawyer, Johnnie Dodds, and Chuck Dawley (UC-OD as we know it today) Chuck Dawley Blvd Ben Sawyer Blvd  HISTORY Between 2011 & 2016 there have been Nine Amendments to the UC-OD ordinance Key Amendments include: 2011 and 2013: Changes to incentives and density, development of single-family uses, activity zones, parking garages, and pervious surface materials. 2014: Changes pertaining to shared parking & reduced height on certain properties. 2015: Growth Management Plan and changes which removes density bonuses and incentives, establishes requirements for percentage of commercial to qualify for mixed use, requirements for percentage for nonresidential building frontage along boulevards streets, & requirements for open space. 2016: UC-OD Amendment reducing height along the Coleman-Ben Sawyer Overlay and changing how height is measured.  CURRENT REGULATIONS ▪ Base/underlying zoning determines permitted uses (residential vs. commercial/mixed use): ▪ Residentially-zoned properties –can utilize UC-OD density for detached single-family, duplexes, townhouses, & multi-family; public institutional/ civic uses are permitted ▪ Commercially-zoned properties – greatest flexibility; permitted to have any residential use listed above AND all permitted uses provided in the OP, NC, AB (residential is a conditional use, ground floor residential not permitted), and PI-1 Districts. Any combination of the above on same site, in same building, and/or on same floor; no special exception required for outdoor or streetside dining.  CURRENT REGULATIONS ▪ Base density throughout the UC-OD (2015 Amendment): 16 units per acre for single use residential 20 units per acre for mixed use No bonus incentives for density ▪ Height: 40 feet along Chuck Dawley Blvd (maximum height measured from top of curb, or edge of paving if curb is absent, to the roof ridge or the highest point on structure) 45 feet along most areas of Coleman-Ben Sawyer Blvd / few at 55 feet (2016 Amendment) (maximum height measured from top of curb, or edge of paving if curb is absent, to ridge of the building or the highest point on structure Ranges from 55 feet to 80 feet along Johnnie Dodds Blvd. (maximum height measured from top of curb, or edge of paving if curb is absent, to the building eave  UC-CBS UC-JDB UC-JDB UC-JDB UC-CDB Neighborhood Health & Hospitality/ED Comm. & Office Wellness/ED 45'/55’ 80’ 55’ 80’ 40’ Max. Height (ridge) (eave) (eave) (eave) (ridge) Max. # Floors 3 n/a n/a n/a 3 Min. Floors on 2 2 2 2 n/a Main Road  CURRENT REGULATIONS ▪ Buildings on boulevard streets or frontage roads (2015 Amendment): -must have a minimum 60% ground floor street frontage -must be utilized for retail, restaurant, commercial including office, or entertainment use -should create a functional, usable commercial space that addresses the activity zone -should create interest and activity in the public realm ▪ To qualify for mixed use, a development must include a minimum of 33% nonresidential building floor area (2015 Amendment) ▪ For developments with residential dwellings in the Urban Corridor, not less than 8% of the development acreage shall be designated for open space and/or parks (2015 Amendment). SOME OUTCOMES: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SOME OUTCOMES: NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT  CONSIDERATIONS MOVING FORWARD ▪ What are we trying to accomplish? ▪ What aspects of the overlay do we like? ▪ What aspects of the overlay do we not like? ▪ Some options to consider: 1. Retain UC-OD “as is” 2. Modify/eliminate portions of the UC-OD now 3. Continue review of the UC-OD approach by the Plan Forum through the Comprehensive Plan Update Process, and then modify after plan adoption  CONSIDERATIONS MOVING FORWARD Comprehensive Plan Forum: Goal: A community where the built environment honors the town’s coastal village heritage, while recognizing that different parts of Town have their own unique character. Objective: Identify and develop the unique characteristics of each residential, commercial and mixed-use area of the town. Draft strategies: 1. Revise the urban corridor concept to focus instead on the mixed-use development of specific designated nodes in a manner in keeping with the unique characteristics of the specific area. -Revise zoning ordinances to define and facilitate the development of nodes. Nodes should be designated throughout the town, with development standards appropriate for their character areas. -Refine zoning district requirements to allow nodes in different parts of town to have different standards/requirements, based upon their location and the character of the area. 2. Refine commercial development standards to ensure that new buildings are compatible with a coastal lowcountry vernacular, and that mature vegetation is maintained wherever possible. -Develop area master plans to clearly define the development criteria for the various sections of Town. -Modify town ordinances as needed to implement the recommendations of these area master plans.  CONSIDERATIONS MOVING FORWARD 4. Eliminate entire UC-OD? End result…. • Underlying zoning would control – expanded/restricted uses afforded by UC-OD would be eliminated (see map on next slide) • Most properties are zoned AB & allows multifamily residential density of 12 units per acre • Mixed-use development eliminated except in certain circumstances • Density may need to be addressed separately through the Future Land Use Map • Building height may need to be addressed separately through the Building Height Map • Reduced parking would be eliminated • Activity Zone and requirements for wider sidewalks would be removed • Changes to buffer front yard requirements UNDERLYING ZONING MAP COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ▪Questions? ▪Comments & Observations? ▪What’s Next?  Planning Committee URBAN CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT Special Meeting 19 March 2018  Planning Committee GROWTH MANAGEMENT Special Meeting 19 March 2018 Five Aspects of Growth • Location (Where?) • Amount (How Much?) • Type (What Kind?) • Rate (How Fast?) • Quality (What’s It Look Like?) Review of Mount Pleasant’s Growth • Dwelling Units Total: 38,026 dwelling units • Estimated Population: 85,000+ • Growth Rate 2017: 3.26%  Historical Growth Data End of Year Annual Increase In • Average Growth Rate 2000 through 2017= 3.85% Year Total Dwellings Dwellings Growth Rate • (very high growth in 2000 and 2001) 2000 2001 21,674 23,198 2,618 1,524 13.74% 7.03% • Average Growth Rate 2010 through 2017= 2.75% 2002 2003 24,456 25,384 1,258 928 5.42% 3.79% • (recession period with very low growth in 2008- 2011) 2004 26,173 789 3.11% 2005 27,186 1,013 3.87% • Average Growth Rate during Building Permit Allocation= 4.31% 2006 28,365 1,179 4.34% 2007 29,108 743 2.62% • (Building Permit Allocation was December 2000 through 2008 29,618 510 1.75% March 2008; percentage calculated from January 2001 2009 30,100 482 1.63% through December 2007) 2010* 30,882 250 0.82% 2011 31,169 287 0.93% • Average Growth Rate last 5 years= 3.47% 2012 32,072 903 2.90% 2013 33,304 1,232 3.84% 2014 34,446 1,142 3.43% 2015 35,449 1,003 2.91% 2016 36,826 1,377 3.88% 2017 38,026 1,200 3.26% January 1, 2000= 19,056 dwellings January 1, 2010= 30,632 dwellings December 31, 2017= 38,026 dwellings Potential Future Residential Development 1,299 Residential Units Currently Permitted and Under Construction (as of 01/22/2018) • 845 Multifamily • 454 Single Family Attached and Detached 5,516 Residential Units Approved, not built (as of 12/31/2017) • 3,616 Single Family • 698 Town Homes • 1,202 Multifamily Some approved units may not be built. For example, it appears that the Retreat at Charleston National, Watermark, Park West, and Dunes West may not build the maximum number of multifamily units approved. Future Multifamily Development Approved Projects • Boulevard Phase 2: 105 approved units (Status: Permitted for 100 units) • Carolina Park: 280 approved units remain (Status: Submitted for permitting) • Atlantic: 224 approved units (Status: May not proceed with construction until after moratorium*) • Bridgeside: 249 approved units remain (Status: No building plans submitted, certain conditions apply) Total Remaining Approved Units with approved development plans: 858 Some developments such as Watermark, Central Mount Pleasant, Dunes West, and Park West may allow for additional multifamily. Currently there are no approved projects in these areas. *Moratorium • Two year moratorium adopted March of 2017, expires March 2019 • Applies to apartments only • Does not apply to any projects that are vested or to any projects containing senior housing as defined within the moratorium ordinance Growth Rate Projections Assumptions • Total Current Dwellings= 38,026 • Permitted Dwellings= 1,299 (includes single family and multifamily) • Average Number of Single Family Dwellings Issued Annually Last Five Years= 806 (67/month) • Includes Average Number of Dwellings in Development Agreements Anticipated to be Permitted= 200 • Based on average number of dwellings permitted annually, assume minimum 6 month construction time so only those permits issued between January and June 2018 will receive a CO and count towards 2018 growth rate= 403 • Carolina Park Apartments to be permitted= 280 (anticipate 2019 CO) 2018 • 38,026 + (1,299+403)= 39,728 at 4.5% Growth Rate 2019 • 39,728 + (806+280)= 40,814 at 2.7% Growth Rate  2017 Residential Dwellings: Permits Issued Hot Spots • Carolina Park: 387 • Park West/ Dunes West: 178 • Oyster Point: 106 • The Boulevard Phase 2: 100 Most Recent Trends Quarterly SF Building Permits (Q1 2018 is estimate) REMAINING “UNCOMMITTED” LAND WITHIN URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY 33 REMAINING “UNCOMMITTED” LAND WITHIN URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY • There are 1,621 acres of land that do not have an approved plan of development • The existing future land use plan 1,532 ACRES is applied to each area to determine the capacity for FOR RESIDENTIAL development USES • Wetlands and other constrained land is removed • Densities are applied based on future land use recommendations and zoning regulations 34 “POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREAS (PDA’S)” WITH FUTURE LAND USE 35 ESTIMATED TOTAL CAPACITY OF THE TOWN AT BUILDOUT • Existing ~38,000 homes TOTAL • Estimated Pipeline Capacity ~6,800 new homes CAPACITY • 50,400 HOMES • Estimated Capacity in Potential Development • ~105,000-117,000 Areas PEOPLE • 93% Occupancy rate ~5,600 new homes • 2.24-2.50 people per household 36 Growth Management Tools & Techniques “There is no one-size-fits-all growth management strategy, and typically, a blend of strategies will be necessary. For example, strategies such as urban growth boundaries can help direct the location of future land and infrastructure development. This strategy should be complemented with land conservation strategies... Desired outcomes of growth management may include more efficient provision of public infrastructure and services, preservation of rural or environmentally sensitive lands, economic development, or the provision of affordable housing. Growth management strategies may be implemented in the form of state or local regulations, local growth policies (comprehensive plans), fees, or incentives.” Source: Montana Department of Transportation Growth Management Tools & Techniques According to a 1992 study by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, the following components are typically part of a growth management framework today: • Strategies to discourage sprawl and encourage compact urban development, in-fill, and revitalization • The provision of infrastructure (roads, schools, water, parks, etc.) at the time of development • Economic development strategies including efforts to promote economic development in troubled or blighted areas • Urban design requirements that aim at aesthetically pleasant urban areas that combine moderate densities with people- and environment-friendly places • Policies and programs that protect rural areas, sensitive lands, and open spaces • Policies and programs to assure that affordable housing is a defined and major component of new development • Source: Morrison Institute for Public Policy, Arizona State Univ. • Source: City of Albuquerque Study  Growth Management Tools & Techniques • Urban Service Areas • Urban Growth Boundaries • Transit & Infrastructure Planning • Purchase Open Space • Concurrency/Adequate Public Facilities Requirement • Focused Public Investment Plans • Infill & Redevelopment • Building Permit/Utility Hook-up Quotas • Growth Plan • Impact Fee Incentives • … • Source: City of Albuquerque Study Comprehensive Plan Forum: Applicable Draft Goals & Objectives • Goal 4: A sustainable and resilient community that adapts to evolving conditions while enhancing and maintaining high standards and quality of life that residents expect. • Ensure adequate long-term revenue and the financial health of the Town through fiscally sustainable practices. • Balance the rate of development with the provision of infrastructure, so that the demands of growth are met in as timely a manner as possible. Comprehensive Plan Forum: Applicable Goals & Objectives (cont’d) • Identify and develop the unique characteristics of each residential, commercial and mixed-use area of the town. • Provide a variety of housing types to meet the needs of the Town’s changing demographics. • Provide a connected road network designed to respond to changing demand and utilize innovative technology. • Coordinate transportation and land use planning by aligning the Long Range Transportation Plan recommendations with Comprehensive Plan goals to proactively manage congestion and demand. Recommended Approach • Pursue An Overall Strategy That It is Comprehensive & Coordinated • Use A Combination of Techniques • Maintain & Improve Existing Tools • Integrate Growth Management Policy In The New Comprehensive Plan • Prioritize Implementation Actions Related to Growth Management Higher Than Others • Follow The Adopted Plan & Strategically Implement The New Plan’s Actions Utilize the Comprehensive Plan as an effective growth management approach Committee Discussion • Questions • Comments • Observations • Guidance • Next Steps?  Planning Committee GROWTH MANAGEMENT Special Meeting 19 March 2018 Housing Considerations Current Statistics • Dwelling Units Total: 38,026 dwelling units • Estimated Population: 85,000+ • Growth Rate 2017: 3.26% 2017 Dwelling Unit Data 2017 Residential Permits Issued by Type • Growth Rate: 3.26% • (based on Certificate of Occupancy) • Dwelling Units Added: 1200 • Ratio of Buildings CO’d by Type: • 797 SF: 403 MF • 67% SF: 33% MF • Dwellings Units Permitted: 1218 • Ratio of Permits Issued by Type: • 728 SF : 490 MF • 60% SF: 40% MF Potential Future Residential Development 1,299 Residential Units Currently Permitted and Under Construction (as of 01/22/2018) • 845 Multifamily • 454 Single Family Attached and Detached 5,516 Residential Units Approved, not built (as of 12/31/2017) • 3,616 Single Family • 698 Town Homes • 1,202 Multifamily Some approved units may not be built. For example, it appears that the Retreat at Charleston National, Watermark, Park West, and Dunes West may not build the maximum number of multifamily units approved. Transportation Considerations ORIGIN-DESTINATION PATTERNS BIKE & PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS & TOWN INFRASTRUCTURE LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN TOPICS • Auto [Traditional capacity needs, connectivity analysis] • Bike/Pedestrian [Reflect feedback, connectivity analysis, safety review] • Transit [Local and regional connectivity and demand] • Freight • Policy [Reflect feedback, reflect local and regional needs] • Coordinated Planning • CHATS LRTP • Land Use Planning Scenarios • Modal Analysis Water/Sewer Infrastructure Schools & Municipal Services Public Schools Lucy G. Beckham High School opening Fall 2020: 1,500 Student capacity 2,492 increase in student population in 7 years Calls For Service Five Year Review: 2013 through 2017 Public Services Police Garbage Cans Tipped Per Week Calls For Service 30,100 to 33,732 (12% Increase) 82,974 to 118,880 (43% Increase) Tons of Garbage and Trash Collected Violent Crimes Average 43,359/ Year Average 151/ Year Calls For Service Nonviolent Crimes 5,655 to 17,592 (211% Increase) Average 1,496/ Year * Crime down in 2017 3.4% Fire Recreation Emergency Medical Calls Youth Athletic Participants 4,233 to 5,419 (28% Increase) 7,638 to 8800 (15% Increase) Fires Programs Participants- All Ages Average 209/ Year 59,789 to 64,109 (7% Increase) Service Calls Senior Center Memberships 418 to 620 (48% Increase) Average 2,582/ Year (Average Growth Rate for same timeframe= 3.5%)