nsdi community demonstration project shaping dane’s future planning for sensible growth in the...
Post on 27-Dec-2015
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
NSDI Community Demonstration Project
Shaping Dane’s Future
Planning for Sensible Growth in the City and Town of Verona, Wisconsin
City and Town of Verona, Wisconsin
United States of America
State of Wisconsin
City and Town of Verona, Wisconsin
Dane County
Community Partners
Town of Verona Land-Use Planning Task ForceCity of VeronaDane County Executive OfficeDane County Planning and DevelopmentDane County Land Information OfficeLand Information and Computer Graphics FacilityFederal Geographic Data CommitteeNatural Resource Conservation ServiceEnvironmental Systems Research Institute
Background
“Dane County citizens are smart, hard-working, and committed to having better communities. The better information they can have about their communities’ future, the better choices they’ll make.”
Action Plan “DESIGN Dane”
Falk calls for:“Join with the UW-Madison to offer local communities a citizen-based, technology- linked land use decision-making approach (to) evaluate the impacts of proposed development, visualize alternative developments, and combine with county ordinances.”
(Falk et al, DESIGN Dane, p. 53)
Our Task
Prototype a Land Use Planning Toolkit which facilitates citizen-based involvement.
Describe toolkit elements and functions.
Provide context.
Describe some lessons learned.
Objectives of this Presentation
Context
The Local Context Land use planning is value laden and inherently political process.
Access to information, including spatial information, is not sufficient in itself to result in sound land use decisions.
The GIS learning curve is steep. Citizen planners, at this point in time, appear to be more comfortable directing technicians to
conduct specific GIS analyses.
Local residents are most familiar with public meetings and expressing their views in these forums, but new internet technologies hold the promise of expanding the scope of citizen involvement.
Local units of government face significant financial and technical challenges to acquire hardware, software, data and maintenance,
and hire professional staffing.
Toolkit Functions
Explore
Analyze
Allocate
Evaluate
P L A N N I N G A N A L Y S T Planning Functions:
C I T I Z E N E N G A G E M E N T
P R O F E S S I O N A L S U P P O R T
EVALUATEALLOCATEANALYZEEXPLORE
$ $
$ $$
$ $
$ $Less More
Planning Process:Determine Goals/Values
Inventory Current ConditionsAnalyze Trends/Projections
Form Planning OptionsAssess Impacts
Develop Final PlanImplement Plan
Evaluate/MonitorUpdate Plan
$ $
$ $
$ $
$$
$$
$$
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $ $
$$
$ $ $ $$$
$$
$$
$$
$$$$
$ $ $ $
$ $
$ $ $ $
$ $
ArcImsArcExplorer
ArcViewArcInfo
Spatial AnalystModel Builder
What If?Place It!
CommunityViz3D Analyst
World Construction SetTerrex
ES Rapid Site
Cyber Civic $
$ $
Planning Tools:
$
$ $
EXPLORE
P L A N N I N G A N A L Y S T Planning Functions:
C I T I Z E N E N G A G E M E N T
P R O F E S S I O N A L S U P P O R T
EVALUATEALLOCATEANALYZEEXPLORE
$ $
$ $ $$
$ $
$ $Less More
Example questions with policy implications
How much land has been urbanized?
Where is urbanization occurring?
How has urban density changed over time?
ANALYZE
Town Chair of the Land Use Planning Task Force Asks:
Where are important natural features located?
P L A N N I N G A N A L Y S T Planning Functions:
C I T I Z E N E N G A G E M E N T
P R O F E S S I O N A L S U P P O R T
EVALUATEALLOCATEANALYZEEXPLORE
$ $
$ $ $$
$ $
$ $Less More
Applying Phil Lewis’ Environmental Corridor Model
ALLOCATE
Using “Place It,” citizen planners determine where growth should occur:
P L A N N I N G A N A L Y S T Planning Functions:
C I T I Z E N E N G A G E M E N T
P R O F E S S I O N A L S U P P O R T
EVALUATEALLOCATEANALYZEEXPLORE
$ $
$ $ $$
$ $
$ $Less More
“Place It” Allocation and Feedback
Rural LowDensity
Rural High Density
Urban LowDensity
Growth Allocation Scenario
%U%U%U
%U
%U
%U
%U
%U
%U
%U
%U
%U%U
%U%U
%U%U
Four, 40 acre allocations5 people per 40 acres160 total acres consumed20 people allocated140 acres of non-priority farmland impacted10 acres of priority farmland impacted
Six, 40 acre allocations50 people per 40 acres240 total acres consumed300 people allocated10 acres of steep slopes impacted5 acres of wetlands225 acres of non-priority farmland impacted
Seven, 40 acre allocations500 people per 40 acres280 total acres consumed3,500 people allocated10 acres of steep slopes impacted12.5 acres of current residential impacted255 acres of non-priority farmland impacted
“On-the-fly” GIS and planning work session
EVALUATE
P L A N N I N G A N A L Y S T Planning Functions:
C I T I Z E N E N G A G E M E N T
P R O F E S S I O N A L S U P P O R T
EVALUATEALLOCATEANALYZEEXPLORE
$ $
$ $ $$
$ $
$ $Less More
EVALUATE
8 Citizen-generated residential questions1. How many residential lots do not have any improvement values?
How many acres? What is their average size? 2. How many residential lots > 0.25 acres but < 2 acres do not have
any improvement values? How many acres?3. How many residential lots are located on slopes > 12.5%?4. Which residential lots are located on sites greater than 1000feet in
elevation. 5. Which residential lots are sited on woodands?6. How many woodlands do not have a residential parcel on it?7. Where are homes located in wetlands or floodplains?8. Where are the floodplains and wetlands? (Places that you can not or
should not build on?)
P L A N N I N G A N A L Y S T Planning Functions:
C I T I Z E N E N G A G E M E N T
P R O F E S S I O N A L S U P P O R T
EVALUATEALLOCATEANALYZEEXPLORE
$ $
$ $ $$
$ $
$ $Less More
EVALUATE10 Citizen-generated agricultural questions
1. What is the difference between the two soil models? Where do they differ?
2. Where are single ag-land owners located in contiguous tracts?3. Where are parcels farmed by a single operator including rented lands?4. What parcels are currently assessed in agriculture? 5. What parcels receive tax credits for agriculture?6. Where are the dairy farms located?7. What agricultural parcels intersect with good quality soils?8. Two FPZ scenarios were constructed. Where do these FPZs differ? How many acres do they differ? 9. What agricultural lands include forested cover?10. What agricultural lands include environmental corridors?
P L A N N I N G A N A L Y S T Planning Functions:
C I T I Z E N E N G A G E M E N T
P R O F E S S I O N A L S U P P O R T
EVALUATEALLOCATEANALYZEEXPLORE
$ $
$ $ $$
$ $
$ $Less More
EVALUATE
Response to question 8:
How much difference is there, in acres and location, between the farmland protection scenarios of different taskforce groups within the town?
P L A N N I N G A N A L Y S T Planning Functions:
C I T I Z E N E N G A G E M E N T
P R O F E S S I O N A L S U P P O R T
EVALUATEALLOCATEANALYZEEXPLORE
$ $
$ $ $$
$ $
$ $Less More
Only 70 Acres Difference!
Some Lessons Learned
Lesson #1: Usefulness of NSDI In respect to “Smart Growth” in Wisconsin and the role of the NSDI
A comparison between the NSDI Framework Data and the actual data used in the Verona case study resulted in the following findings.
NSDI Useful but Limited
NSDI Framework:
45 data sets would have been applicable, of which18 (40%) are from the cadastral (ownership) dataset.
Wisconsin Land Information Program and locally produced data:
87 data sets were applicable and incorporated intothe database, of which 32 (37%) are from the parcel(ownership/tax parcel) data set.
For the NSDI Framework to be useful for land use planning, significant local attribution of the Framework Data will be necessary (e.g. local tax assessors data with property parcel boundary data).
Lesson #2: Attribution Requirements
Lesson #3: Resolution Limitations
Resolution of Federally derived orthoimageryand resultant elevation data limits usefulness(e.g. local units of government area independently developing orthoimages of higher resolution).
Lesson #4: Unfunded FederalPriorities
Need to provide local units of government with funding support for the development of more accurate, up to date data. (e.g. FEMA and the Cooperative Technical Communities Program – provide the appropriate level of funding and not just more responsibility).
The absence of essential Federal data sets from the NSDI Framework remains a major impediment for “Smart Growth” planning in Wisconsin (e.g. Department of Commerce Census data; Department of Housing & Urban Development Housing Stock data; U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Wetland Data; Federal Emergency Management Agency Floodway and Flood Fringe Data; U.S. Department of Agriculture Ag Census, “Swampbuster” data; National Resource Inventory Data and SSURGO Certified modern soils data).
Lesson #5: Missing Data Sets
Lesson #6: Citizen-planner response:Usefulness of GIS
Question 1: How useful are the computer-based information technologies you have seen demonstrated for your task of updating the town plan?
“Very useful. They enable us as citizen-planners to visualize a number of geographic and other database attributes simultaneously. Using selected criteria in “what-if” scenarios, we are able to better understand and appreciate our Town resources as we view maps and tables. Land use policy and implementation are more easily accomplished with this interactive GIS support.”
Professor Emeritus, Ted Peterson
Lesson #6: Citizen-planner response:Role of GIS
Question 2: What role(s) do you see GIS and the ability to visualize options have as your task force defines its land use policies for the Town?
“Mostly as a “what-if” answer to 2 potential choices.”
Farmer, Laura Dreger
Lesson #6: Citizen-planner response:GIS and Planning Process
Question 3: Now that you know about some of the capacities and limitations of GIS, visualization, and impact analysis – If you you were to start the planning process over from the beginning, would you do anything differently? What specifically?
“I would start with a GIS blitz. Look at all of its potentials and shortfalls to better guide us through the discussions.”
Town Chair, Steve Sheets
To Learn More about the Project
Visit our booth in the Map Gallery
LICGF web site – www.lic.wisc.edu
Shaping Dane’s Future Website – www.lic.wisc.edu/shapingdane
All of us want to thank the Federal Geographic Data Committee for sponsoring
this opportunity!
Majid Allan - Dane County Planning
Math Heinzel - GIS Functionality
Fred Iausly - Database developmentand maintenance
Phil Lewis - Environmental CorridorPlanner
Tom McClintock - Planning AnalystTraining
Doug Miskowiak - Farmland Preservation & Environmental Corridor Applications
Sue Niemann - Parcel DatabaseDevelopment
Ted Peterson – Citizen Planner
top related