Morrisville Land Use Plan 2009

Appendices

A ppendix E. T he F uture L and U se M apping P rocess , cont ’ d

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.

Detail of land use mapping exercise at the January 31st public workshop.

PAC members participate in computerized scenario exercise at the February PAC meeting.

Attendees of the March public workshop study the two future land use scenario alternatives.

E-2

E Future Land Use Mapping