71 / 73
E-2
Appendices
E
Future Land Use Mapping
portation projects, including those scheduled to receive state funding through
the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Together, these maps provide
the basis for discussion of what future land uses may be appropriate for differ-
ent locations. Following the initial presentation of these maps, PAC members
divided into two groups to write in future land uses on large printed maps of the
town.
January 31, 2008 Public Workshop.
As discussed in Appendix C, the group exer-
cise at this workshop focused on brainstorming future land uses for areas of town.
Similar to the exercise done by the PAC members on January 15th, each group
was given large maps of Morrisville showing the land that is vacant and has re-
development potential, as well as transparent circles showing ¼-mile and ½-mile
walking distance, colored sticky dots, markers, and a notepad. They were asked
to place the circles on the map where activity “nodes” should be, write and use
dots to mark desirable future land uses, and draw transportation connections
that are needed to improve circulation in Morrisville. These results were com-
piled, along with the PAC exercise results, into one map that the staff relied upon
throughout the rest of the future land use mapping process.
February 19, 2008 PAC Meeting.
The focus of this meeting was to create a draft
land use plan map. This was accomplished interactively, using CommunityViz
software, which allows participants to compare alternative scenarios visually (maps on
the screen) and numerically (number of schoolchildren, square footage of commercial
space, etc.). Only parcels identified as vacant or “redevelopment potential” were con-
sidered in this exercise, and the area covered by the Town Center Plan was not included.
The photo to the right shows the PAC participating in the CommunityViz exercise.
The exercise started with three initial scenarios, which were created using the input from
the January PAC meeting and the January public workshop. The three scenarios were
baseline (essentially the current zoning), Scenario 1 (lower density) and Scenario 2 (mixed
use emphasis). When the PAC members suggested changes to these initial scenarios, they
can be made in real time on the screen to see immediate results.
Graphs accompanying the scenarios estimated population, schoolchildren, vehicle trips,
tax revenue and wastewater quantity generated from each development. While these
graphs were a convenient way to make judgments about relative impacts between land
uses, they should not be considered precise predictions. Rather, they are reasonable ap-
proximations that can assist in understanding tradeoffs in land use types. The estimated
impacts are based on generalized factors.
While the exercise was generally a success, the PAC ran out of time to fully address all
areas of town. In response, the PAC was given additional materials by email following the
meeting to solicit input on the areas that were not covered.
March 18, 2008 PAC Meeting.
At this meeting, the PAC saw the combined results of the
previous future land use mapping exercise and the “homework” followup they had been
given. They were still presented as two separate scenarios. These scenario maps were
shown in a more simplified format, to focus on the “big picture” land use is-
sues rather than specific parcels. The discussion at this meeting focused on
these larger land use issues, trying to gain consensus on how the two scenar-
ios could be combined as a compromise. PAC members had additional op-
portunities to submit their likes and dislikes on each of the two scenarios pre-
sented. These comments were then incorporated into the two scenarios.
March 27, 2008 Public Workshop.
While the main focus of this workshop was
transportation improvement priorities, attendees had the opportunity to view
the two alternative scenario maps, as well as a “trend” map that represented
the future land use map that is currently in effect, and the graphs compar-
ing them in terms of their impacts. Handouts provided each attendee the
opportunity to provide comments on the scenarios, as well as draw directly
on the scenario maps to indicate the areas they liked and didn’t like. Over
thirty attendees at the meeting turned in the scenario handouts with their
comments.
The Final Future Land Use Map.
Following the third public workshop, staff and
consultants gathered all of the available input on the future land uses: com-
bined map showing ideas from the January PAC meeting and public work-
shop, the two scenario maps that had been updated several times through
discussion with the PAC, and the public comments on the two scenarios pre-
sented at the third public workshop. Staff considered these inputs, as well as the general
development restrictions (noise overlay, floodplains and wetlands) and accepted plan-
ning principles in creating the Future Land Use Map shown as Figure 5.1. Inevitably, com-
promise between the two earlier scenarios was necessary, and the final map incorporates
some aspects of each. There was also a shift from the very specific land use types used
in the early scenario exercise to more general but flexible categories. Flexibility in a future
land use map is critical, since we can never accurately predict the many changes that
will happen in the Town. It is important that the Future Land Use Map reflect the
kinds
of
development that the staff and public feel would be compatible in specific areas, rather
than very specific land uses.
A
ppendix
E. T
he
F
uture
L
and
U
se
M
apping
P
rocess
,
cont
’
d
Attendees of the March public workshop study
the two future land use scenario alternatives.
Detail of land use mapping exercise at the
January 31st public workshop.
PAC members participate in computerized scenario
exercise at the February PAC meeting.