technical report # 6 land use data developmentnorthfloridatpo.com › images › uploads › docs...

Technical Report # 6

Land Use Data Development

March 2010

Technical Report # 6 Land Use Data Development

Envision 2035 Long Range Plan Update

Prepared for North Florida Transportation Planning Organization 1022 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Prepared by

7406 Fullerton Street, Suite 350 Jacksonville, Florida (904) 363.6100 In Association with Renaissance Planning Group The Corradino Group, Inc. M. Victoria Pennington, Marketing & Public Affairs March 2010


March 2010 i

Table of Contents

Introduction to the Scenario Planning Process ............................................................................................. 1

Phase I -Trend Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 2

General Approach ..................................................................................................................................... 2

Parcel Data Evaluation (DOR) ................................................................................................................... 3

Evaluating Developable, Re-developable or Unbuildable Areas .............................................................. 9

Population and Employment Projections ................................................................................................. 9

Policy Analysis: Future Land Use ............................................................................................................. 12

Development of Regional Impact ........................................................................................................... 16

1000 Friends of Florida “Florida 2060” Report ....................................................................................... 16

Developing a Trend Scenario .................................................................................................................. 19

Trend Analysis Refinement ..................................................................................................................... 22

Phase II -Scenario Development ................................................................................................................. 25

Community Values and Community Type Preferences .......................................................................... 25

Trend Conditions and Alternative Scenario Development ..................................................................... 28

Phase III - Scenario Comparisons, Transportation Strategies and Preferences .......................................... 34

Final Recommendations and Next Steps .................................................................................................... 40

Appendix A – Community Elements ........................................................................................................... 42


March 2010 ii

List of Maps

Map 1 Generalized Existing Land Uses ........................................................................................................ 6

Map 2 Existing Developable Areas ................................................................................................................ 7

Map 3 Existing Built/Un-developable and Developable Areas ..................................................................... 8

Map 4 Generalized Future Land Use........................................................................................................... 13

Map 5 Developments of Regional Impact................................................................................................... 17

Map 6 2060 Trend Scenario, 1000 Friends of Florida ................................................................................. 18

Map 7 Trend Scenario Future Land Use Allocation .................................................................................... 23

Map 8 Trend Scenario 2035 GIS Base ......................................................................................................... 24

Map 9 Scenario A ........................................................................................................................................ 30

Map 10 Scenario B ...................................................................................................................................... 31

Map 11 Scenario C ...................................................................................................................................... 32

Map 12 Scenario D ...................................................................................................................................... 33

Map 13 Scenario D - Refined ...................................................................................................................... 35

Map 14 Trend Scenario Corridor Mobility Strategies ................................................................................. 37

Map 15 Scenario D Corridor Mobility Strategies ........................................................................................ 38

List of Tables

Table 1- Sample Department of Revenue Code Analysis for Existing Land Use ........................................... 4

Table 2 Population Projections ................................................................................................................... 10

Table 3 Dwelling Unit Projections ............................................................................................................... 11

Table 4 Employment Projections ................................................................................................................ 11

Table 5 Generalized Future Land Use (CorPlan Community Elements) ...................................................... 14

Table 6 Trend Scenario Generalized Future Land Use Allocations and Zdata ............................................ 20

Table 7 Trend Scenario Allocation by DRI and Generalized Future Land Use ............................................ 21

Table 8 Community Value Survey Preferences ........................................................................................... 28

Table 9 Scenario Comparisons .................................................................................................................... 36

Table 10 Final Scenario Comparisons ......................................................................................................... 39


March 2010 1

Introduction to the Scenario Planning Process

Following national trends and guidance from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the North

Florida Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) undertook a scenario planning process in

conjunction with the development of its 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The purpose of

this effort was to explore alternative land use concepts and the associated long term transportation

impacts and opportunities.

Land use and transportation are inextricably linked. How communities develop over time greatly

influences transportation choices as well as the efficiency and the livability of the transportation

systems. Where and how the region grows sets the foundation for the type and location of future

transportation investments. By evaluating alternative transportation and land use scenarios for the

region, stakeholders, citizens and policy-makers can consider how different transportation investment

strategies can be optimized by different land use and urban design configurations.

As a TPO led exercise, this process involved a community stakeholder driven process to develop

alternative land use scenarios. By design, these alternatives differed from locally adopted

comprehensive plans. The purpose of doing so was to demonstrate how changes to locally adopted

comprehensive plans and local land use policies could influence the range and type of long term

transportation investments for the region. While the TPO has no land use policy authority, the TPO does

make policy decisions regarding the investment of federal and state transportation dollars. As such, this

process was implemented to create more informed decision-making on these investments in light of the

opportunities and tradeoffs associated with different land use and transportation scenarios. The

following pages highlight the major steps of the process, as well as the final process outcomes.


March 2010 2

Phase I -Trend Analysis

General Approach

The first step in the scenario process involves the development of a Trend Scenario. The Trend Scenario

is intended to illustrate the buildout potential of the region by 2035 based on existing land use policies

and current development patterns. The study area for the 2035 LRTP comprises the four counties of

Clay, Duval, Nassau and St. Johns, totaling 1,838 square miles. The trend analysis estimated future

population, household and employment data for all study area Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) through

2035. The trend scenario served as the base condition from which alternative land use and

transportation scenarios were developed and compared.

The trend analysis was performed by the consultant team of Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc.

(PBS&J) and Renaissance Planning Group. The primary role of Renaissance was to assist PBS&J with the

land use scenario planning, including the trend analysis and alternative land use scenario development.

The trend analysis utilized four guiding inputs to estimate future development; 1) potential buildout of

known Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs) by 2035, 2) future land use polices, 3) the growth

patterns predicted by the 1000 Friends of Florida 2060 population scenario, and 4) population and

employment estimates by county. With the population projections held constant for each county based

on the BEBR projections, growth for the Trend scenario was allocated to TAZs as follows:

Existing land use was mapped based on parcel and existing tax assessment data available for the

region.

Developable, Re-developable or Unbuildable Areas were mapped to determine which lands

could be considered vacant or unprotected agricultural/rural open to development.

Future Land Use policies for each locality were evaluated and generalized into development

categories to determine how vacant lands might grow and build-out (land use & densities)

within each community.

Additional agricultural lands were identified as potential development areas as necessary and

sequentially to best match the 2020 and 2040 development areas footprints designated by the

1000 Friends of Florida 2060 Population scenario study.

DRI development programs were translated into population, dwelling units and employment

data and scaled to an estimated percentage of development bailout likely to occur by the

forecast planning horizon of 2035.

Both the DRIs and the Generalized Future Land Use area allocations were created by using the CorPlan

scenario planning tool, a land use and transportation analysis application in ArcGIS developed by

Renaissance. Each DRI and generalized land use was converted into a community element prototype

which makes assumptions about land use composition, and socio-economic make up. Thus, each acre of

a ‘community element’ was applied to vacant or developable parcels, resulting in a net allocation of

single family, multi-family dwelling units, population, and employment by different categories

(commercial, service, or industrial). Community element allocations were then summarized and their


March 2010 3

acreage calculated to reach the desired control totals of population, dwelling units and jobs for the

study area.

Scenario planning requires an analysis of existing conditions to determine the current natural and built

environment. This analysis informs where future development can, cannot, or is less likely to occur. It

creates the ‘canvas’ upon which future land use types can be ‘applied.’ The primary level of analysis was

conducted at a parcel level for the entire four county area.

Parcel Data Evaluation (DOR)

The Florida Department of Revenue (DOR) classifies property into land use codes. The coding system is

fairly standardized for the state with some individual changes made to allow counties to insert some

local land use classifications. The DOR property use classification for every parcel in the four county

study area was aggregated into more generalized existing land use categories. Table 1 illustrates how

some DOR codes were assessed and aggregated into broader categories for existing land use, and future

potential land use. Map 1 shows generalized existing land uses, using parcel level information from the

DOR records. Map 2 shows existing developable areas and Map 3 is the final existing land use map that

is simplified to show developable and already built/unbuildable areas.


March 2010 4

Table 1- Sample Department of Revenue Code Analysis for Existing Land Use

Florida Department of Revenue Property Use Code

Existing Land Use

Future Use Potential for 2035 Trend and Alt. Scenarios

0000 VACANT RES Vacant Vacant

0100 SINGLE FAMILY Single Family Unbuildable/Not likely to develop

0400 CONDOMINIUM Multi Family Unbuildable/Not likely to develop

1100 STORES, ONE STORY (RETAIL) Commercial Re-developable

1193 STORE,RETAIL/CONVERTED Commercial Re-developable

1700 OFFICE BLDG Service Re-developable

2000 AIRPORTS; TRANSIT TERMINALS Service Unbuildable/Not likely to develop

2191 RESTAURANT CLASS 1 Service Re-developable

2592 LAUNDROMAT Service Re-developable

4000 VACANT INDUSTRIAL Vacant Vacant

4001 IND COMMON AREA Vacant Vacant

4070 INDUSTRIAL MISC Vacant Vacant

4100 LIGHT MANUFACTURING Industrial Re-developable

4101 MEDIUM MANUFACTURING Industrial Re-developable

5005 IMP AGRI. Agricultural Agricultural

5134 ROW CROP 3 Agricultural Agricultural

7101 EDUCATIONAL/RELIGIOUS Civic Unbuildable/Not likely to develop

7900 CULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS Civic Unbuildable/Not likely to develop


March 2010 5

Florida Department of Revenue Property Use Code

Existing Land Use

Future Use Potential for 2035 Trend and Alt. Scenarios

8000 WATER MANAGEMENT DIST Government Unbuildable/Not likely to develop

8100 MILITARY Government Unbuildable/Not likely to develop

8200 FOREST, PARKS, REC AREAS Open Space or Recreation Unbuildable/Not likely to develop

8400 COLLEGES; Public Government Unbuildable/Not likely to develop

9100 UTILITIES Industrial Unbuildable/Not likely to develop

9101 TOWER SITE Industrial Unbuildable/Not likely to develop

9120 WATER WRKS Industrial Unbuildable/Not likely to develop

9550 BAY Unbuildable Unbuildable/Not likely to develop

9600 SEWAGE DISPOSAL,SOLID WASTE,BORROW PITS,ETC.; SWAMP March, Waste Unbuildable Unbuildable/Not likely to develop


March 2010 6

Map 1 Generalized Existing Land Uses


March 2010 7

Map 2 Existing Developable Areas


March 2010 8

Map 3 Existing Built/Un-developable and Developable Areas


March 2010 9

Evaluating Developable, Re-developable or Unbuildable Areas

Based on parcel level DOR classification, every parcel in the study area was evaluated and marked as

developable, re-developable, or undevelopable. Areas considered undevelopable included both areas

which were off-limits to future development as well as areas which were already built-out and likely not

to be redeveloped within this 2035 planning horizon. These areas included:

Florida Natural Areas Inventory

Open Water

Roads and Utilities Right of Ways

State, Federal or Local Government Facilities including Military Bases

Public Facilities, Institutions, Public Recreation and Open Space

Intensive Industrial, Extractive Mining, or Contaminated Land

Established Residential Areas

Re-developable lands were areas that already had some existing development, but were likely to

experience redevelopment or infill by 2035. It should be noted that when a future year land use

allocation was assigned to a re-developable piece of land it did not assume an entire demolition and re-

building on that property, but rather it assumes a percentage of net new growth. For the trend analysis,

re-developable areas were assumed at 30% redevelopment, with the exception of the downtown

Jacksonville DRI which included higher redevelopment assumptions (up to 65% of the DRI was assumed

to be in place by 2035). Areas considered the most prime for redevelopment primarily fall into two

broad categories:

Commercial, Service, Retail

Light to Heavy Industrial

Vacant or agricultural properties that did not fall into any of the classifications listed above were

considered to be the parcels prime for development. Vacant lands are usually characterized by low or no

improvement values, and are not in active agricultural use. In developing the Trend Scenario, growth

allocations were made first to vacant, and then agricultural land, because of their lack of constraints to

development. The trend analysis only allocated future growth to properties that were either vacant or

agricultural. The previous pages showed Map 2, developable areas, and Map 3 both existing

urban/undevelopable lands and lands that are available for development in the study area.

Population and Employment Projections

To develop the future year development conditions based on the analysis described herein, a 2035

population and employment control total was established for the four county study area. These

projections were summarized by population, households (dwelling units) and employment so that they

could easily be utilized as inputs to the travel demand model. A land use scenario is an allocation of

different community types, all of which have an assumed proportion of population, households and jobs

per acre. Developing future land use scenarios involves the allocation of future employment and

population incrementally until the future year control totals for the study area are met. The following


March 2010 10

describes the sources and methods used to calculate future year population and employment control

totals by county for the entire study area.

Population Projections (BEBR)

The base year, 2005, population estimates were derived from the most updated traffic zonal data sets

validated by PBS&J as of April 2008. The future year population totals were adopted from the Florida

Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) medium estimates for 2035. 1 BEBR population

projections are commonly used by many localities in Florida for long range planning efforts. The BEBR

medium projections were also used in the “Florida 2060” 2 report prepared by the 1000 Friends of

Florida. Table 2 below contains the base year 2005 ZDATA, the 2035 BEBR medium projections and

shows the growth increment totals adopted for this LRTP 2035 update. The BEBR projections have St.

Johns (2.45%) and Clay (1.84%) Counties with the highest annual growth rates, while Nassau (1.52%)

slightly less, and Duval the lowest (1.18%).

Table 2 Population Projections

Population Projections ZDATA 2005 BEBR 2035 (medium)

Increment 2005-2035 (control totals)

Growth Rate

Clay 181,624 313,800 132,176 1.84%

Nassau 67,681 106,500 38,819 1.52%

St. Johns 157,918 326,300 168,382 2.45%

Duval 855,572 1,218,000 362,428 1.18%

Study Area Totals 1,262,795 1,964,600 701,805 Area Avg 1.48%

Dwelling Units Projections

Future year dwelling units were calculated by applying 2005 base year ratios of population to dwelling

units to the BEBR 2035 population projections. Table 3 below shows the growth increment control

totals for new dwelling units. A ratio around 2.0-2.5 persons per household is considered fairly

standard. Clay County’s ratio of 2.98 is the highest in the study area.

1 Smith, S.K., and Rayer, S., “Projections of Florida Population by County, 2007-2035”, Bureau of

Economic and Business Research (BEBR), Volume, 41, Bulletin 150, March 2008.

2 Zwick,P.D, and Carr, M., “Florida 2060: A Population Distribution Scenario for the State of Florida,”

GeoPlan Center, University of Florida, August 15, 2006.


March 2010 11

Table 3 Dwelling Unit Projections

Dwelling Units 2035 Calculations

(ZDATA/BEBR)

2005 Population

(ZDATA)

2005 Dwelling Units (ZDATA)

2005 Persons Per/DU Ratio

Estimated New Dwelling Units by 2035 (2035 new pop/ppdu ratio)

Total Projected Dwelling Units by

2035

Clay 181,624 60,996 2.98 44,390 105,386

Nassau 67,681 32,975 2.05 18,913 51,888

St. Johns 157,918 71,643 2.20 76,390 148,033

Duval 855,572 392,265 2.18 166,167 558,432

Study Area Totals 1,262,795 557,879 2.26 305,860 863,739

Employment

For base year, 2005, employment counts were derived from the most updated traffic zonal data sets

validated by PBS&J as of April 2008. To determine a future year projection, an annual growth rate of

1.44% was applied to each county to reach a 2035 employment projection. The source of the 1.44%

growth rate was workforce projections obtained from the State of Florida Agency for Workforce

Innovation (FAWI) data for Workforce Region 8 which includes Baker, Clay, Duval, Nassau, Putnam, and

St. Johns Counties. FAWI data for the region showed employment increases for the period 2007 to

2015 to have an estimated growth rate of 1.44%. FAWI only provides regional data, and individual data

by county was not available, thus the average growth rate was applied to each county’s base year (2005)

employment to project estimated employment by county through 2035, as shown in Table 4 below.

Table 4 Employment Projections

Employment ZDATA 2005 Projected Employment (Region 8) by 2035

Increment 2005-2035 (control totals)

Clay 47,374 72,644 25,270

Nassau 20,213 30,995 10,782

St. Johns 65,666 100,693 35,027

Duval 509,112 780,676 271,564

Study Area Totals 642,365 985,007 342,642

With the population and employment control totals determined and the vacant and buildable parcels

identified, the next step in the Trend Analysis involved allocating future growth. The process of creating

a trend scenario is one of allocating prototypical CorPlan community elements across the region based

on selecting vacant land within equivalent future land use areas, that also were within the 1000 Friends

of Florida “Florida 2060” urbanized footprint. Growth was allocated to vacant lands until the


March 2010 12

population, dwelling units and employment control totals for each county were reached. Efforts were

made to keep the base year single family and multi family dwelling unit ratios for each county the same

as future year ratios, so the dwelling unit balance held steady in the 2035 Trend.

Policy Analysis: Future Land Use

Generalized future land uses were created and translated into CorPlan community elements by

analyzing each locale’s comprehensive plan and determining general intensity and use of the future land

use. A generalized future land use map was created for the study area (see Map 4). These generalized

land uses were then applied to each jurisdiction based on the relative likeness between the generalized

land uses and the adopted land use policies as well as current patterns of development. The future land

use policies of each county were generally higher than existing densities and intensities, so the

population, dwelling units, and employment values per future land use category were adjusted slightly

to reflect a middle ground between existing densities and the local jurisdiction’s policy intent. Table 5

shows the socioeconomic composition of each generalized future land use per acre. These are net

figures by use category and accounts for the removal of roads, parks, and civic needs associated with

each development type. The density and intensity of generalized land uses are not intended to exactly

match every policy type for each future land use designation for each jurisdiction. The generalized

future land use is a simplification that approximates regional scale land use assessment, and is tailored

in CorPlan (the GIS based scenario planning tool) to provide the necessary socioeconomic inputs for the

travel demand model.


March 2010 13

Map 4 Generalized Future Land Use


March 2010 14

Table 5 Generalized Future Land Use (CorPlan Community Elements)

Generalized Future Land Use (CorPlan Community Elements)

Single Family DU

Single Family Pop

Multi Family DU

Multi Family Pop

Commercial Emp

Service Emp

Industrial Emp

Total Net Pop/acre

Total Net DU/acre

Total Net Emp/acre

Business Park Hi 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.96 53.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 55.17

Business Park Lo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 26.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.58

Commercial, Community 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.51 4.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.18

Commercial, Neighborhood 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.99 13.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.06

Commercial, Regional 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.06 9.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.59

Commercial, Rural 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.87 2.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.86

Industrial, Heavy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.71 0.00 0.00 8.71

Industrial, Intensive 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.04 0.00 0.00 29.04

Industrial, Light 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.42 0.00 0.00 17.42

Mixed Use A 1.99 4.84 4.48 7.62 2.61 3.20 0.00 12.46 6.47 5.81

Mixed Use B 1.97 4.78 4.36 7.40 3.12 2.06 0.00 12.18 6.32 5.18

Mixed Use C 2.55 6.20 1.22 2.08 1.53 2.32 0.00 8.28 3.78 3.86

Mixed Use D 1.84 4.47 2.82 4.79 2.47 2.97 0.00 9.26 4.65 5.44

Mixed Use E 2.09 5.06 2.19 3.73 2.53 5.45 0.00 8.78 4.28 7.98

Mixed Use, Town Center 3.08 7.49 6.78 11.53 5.98 7.95 0.00 19.01 9.86 13.93

Residential, High Density 12 0.00 0.00 7.15 12.16 0.58 0.00 0.00 12.16 7.15 0.58


March 2010 15

Generalized Future Land Use (CorPlan Community Elements)

Single Family DU

Single Family Pop

Multi Family DU

Multi Family Pop

Commercial Emp

Service Emp

Industrial Emp

Total Net Pop/acre

Total Net DU/acre

Total Net Emp/acre



Residential, Low Density 2 1.57 3.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.84 1.57 0.00



Residential, Medium Density 6 4.56 10.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.94 4.56 0.00

Residential, Rural 0.93 2.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.27 0.93 0.00


March 2010 16

Development of Regional Impact

Another major element of the trend analysis was to determine the proportion of growth that the

regions’ approved DRIs would constitute by 2035. Working closely with county and Northeast Florida

Regional Council (NEFRC) staff, the consultant team determined the extent to which approved DRIs

were already built out, or already included in the base year 2005 ZDATA. The generalized land use

categories were then allocated to the DRIs to mirror the remaining development programs and

associated buildout schedules. Map 5 is a map showing DRIs’ already included in the 2005 model

ZDATA sets, as well as DRI’s with additional buildout capacity through the 2035 planning horizon.

1000 Friends of Florida “Florida 2060” Report

The 2035 Trend scenario was not only guided by future land use plans, but also by the “Florida 2060”

scenario developed by the University of Florida for the 1000 Friends of Florida. 1000 Friends of Florida is

a not-for-profit organization that acts as a “watchdog” for growth management in Florida. The 2060

report is a statewide development distribution scenario developed using Geographic Information

System technology, and has been widely used to project future development patterns. This report finds

that “the pattern of predicted land use derived from this population distribution model is such that the

central Florida region from Marion County southward through Osceola County will be almost entirely

urbanized....Jacksonville will spill over into Nassau, Clay, St. Johns and Baker Counties forever changing

their rural character.” The LRTP trend analysis similarly finds an urbanizing trend outward from

Jacksonville/Duval into the surrounding counties. The methodology employed by the “Florida 2060”

study weights non-urbanized land with development potential based on a number of criteria such a

proximity to roads, proximity to current development, and absence of constraints such as wetlands. For

the 2035 Trend analysis, the 2020 and 2040 new development footprints developed from the “Florida

2060” report (see Map 6 for “Florida 2060” future year development footprint) served as a guide in

allocating future growth in the region. Where the LRTP methodology differs from the “Florida 2060”

report is in the assumption about land use densities and intensities. “Florida 2060” holds the base year

county population densities constant for the future year allocation, while the LRTP 2035 Trend future

year density and intensities (see Table 5) are guided by a locality’s future land use policy designation,

with some scaling back to more realistically reflect current patterns. The LRTP 2035 also has a shorter

horizon year than the state-wide “Florida 2060” study. However, by adopting the “Florida 2060”

development footprint locations for 2020 and 2040, this trend analysis, by proxy, follows very similar

land use and development potential assumptions as “Florida 2060.”


March 2010 17

Map 5 Developments of Regional Impact


March 2010 18

Map 6 2060 Trend Scenario, 1000 Friends of Florida


March 2010 19

Developing a Trend Scenario

The 2035 Trend scenario was created using ArcGIS and CorPlan to first assign community elements for

the generalized land uses and DRIs. The DRI’s were assigned first then the generalized future land uses

were allocated to developable vacant lands. The allocation is an iterative process, working to add new

population, households and jobs to each county until their control totals are closely met. Table 6 is a

summary of the Trend generalized future land use allocations by county and proportionate

contributions to the overall future year ZDATA in terms of new population, households and jobs. Table 7

is a summary of the trend allocation by DRI and generalized future land use.


March 2010 20

Table 6 Trend Scenario Generalized Future Land Use Allocations and Zdata

Acres of Generalized Future Land Use Allocated ZDATA Per Generalized FLU

Generalized Future Land Use Clay Duval Nassau St. Johns Total Acres Total Pop Total DU Total Emp

Business Park Hi 4 793 0 0 796 0 0 43,930

Business Park Lo 235 0 59 252 547 0 0 15,075

Commercial, Community 344 3,086 94 199 3,723 0 0 86,302

Commercial, Neighborhood 0 259 0 37 296 0 0 8,890

Commercial, Regional 0 70 0 45 115 0 0 3,288

Commercial, Rural 0 0 224 0 224 0 0 2,884

Industrial, Heavy 806 2,557 0 0 3,363 0 0 29,301

Industrial, Light 96 3,282 194 374 3,945 0 0 68,744

Mixed Use A 0 1,947 0 66 2,012 25,084 13,029 11,690

Mixed Use B 244 0 0 15 258 3,143 1,632 1,336

Mixed Use C 0 284 14 240 537 4,445 2,029 2,071

Mixed Use D 0 0 13 108 121 1,116 561 656

Mixed Use E 0 2,654 0 0 2,654 23,312 11,360 21,187

Mixed Use, Town Center 0 0 21 34 55 1,046 543 766

Residential, High Density 12 368 114 132 746 1,359 16,521 9,718 793

Residential, High Density 15 223 2,867 19 133 3,241 52,521 30,895 1,892

Residential, High Density 45 0 40 0 68 108 5,615 3,303 1,101

Residential, Low Density 2 1,097 1,684 3,670 8,684 15,135 58,148 23,734 0


March 2010 21

Acres of Generalized Future Land Use Allocated ZDATA Per Generalized FLU

Generalized Future Land Use Clay Duval Nassau St. Johns Total Acres Total Pop Total DU Total Emp



Residential, Medium Density 0 1,040 205 629 1,873 20,489 8,537 0

Residential, Rural 6,359 4,914 354 1,713 13,340 30,254 12,348 0

Total Acres 20,466 55,611 8,403 25,357 109,837 623,301 273,447 299,905

Table 7 Trend Scenario Allocation by DRI and Generalized Future Land Use

County Forecasted DRI build out by 2035 Allocation by Generalized FLU “Trend Allocation (DRI+FLU) Increment 2005-2035”

New Pop 2035

New DU 2035

New Emp 2035

New Pop 2035

New DU 2035

New Emp 2035

New Pop 2035

New DU 2035 New EMP 2035

Clay 7,859 3,562 525 91,063 38,954 24,957 98,922 42,516 25,482

Duval 19,516 10,567 31,465 348,195 155,866 240,242 367,711 166,433 271,707

Nassau 2,531 1,120 473 42,546 17,788 10,571 45,077 18,908 11,043

St. Johns 36,832 16,298 10,173 141,497 60,840 24,135 178,330 77,137 34,308

Study Area 66,739 31,547 42,636 623,301 273,447 299,905 690,041 304,994 342,541


March 2010 22

Table 7 shows the 2035 Trend allocation, with the far right column showing the increment of growth

added to the 2005 base year assumptions. Map 7 illustrates the location of this growth based on

assignments to DRIs and future land use designation of vacant lands, and Map 8 represents the final

trend scenario allocation based on generalized future land use.

The trend allocation was calibrated so that the single family and multi-family ratios remained constant,

and there would be minimal variation in the number of dwelling units. The travel demand model is

more sensitive to dwelling unit counts than population as well as the split between multi-family and

single family households. The trend was calibrated so that future year population/dwelling unit ratios

were closer to the base year regional average. For the entire region, there was less than an average 1%

variance between projected control totals and the trend allocation.

Trend Analysis Refinement

Based on the above described approach, the Trend Scenario 2035 ZDATA sets were produced and

presented to the project Steering Committee and staff of local area jurisdictions. From these

discussions, the ZDATA sets were further refined to best reflect the desired growth patterns for each

county. As such, the final ZDATA sets varied slightly from what is described herein.


March 2010 23

Map 7 Trend Scenario Future Land Use Allocation


March 2010 24

Map 8 Trend Scenario 2035 GIS Base


March 2010 25

Phase II -Scenario Development

With the trend analysis complete, the consultant team began the scenario development phase. The

scenario development phase was broken into three major elements which involved a series of

interactive workshops with the stakeholders committee as follows:

1. Community Values and Community Type Preferences

2. Trend Conditions and Alternative Scenario Development

3. Scenario Refinement, Evaluations and Preferences

The following highlights these key steps in the process and the resulting recommendations for the 2035

LRTP. For additional information, please refer to the LRTP Public Involvement Technical Report.

Community Values and Community Type Preferences

In June 2008, the first of four stakeholder workshops was held. This two-hour workshop involved

facilitated group discussions aimed at identifying key community values and preference for different

development patterns and community types. Each group was given a list of prototypical community

development type and community values and asked to rank them in order of preference and/or identify

additional values for consideration. The introduction of community values spurred discussions between

the participants on issues related to growth and quality of life.

The following summarizes the key points from each breakout group:

Group 1 – Values: The community values that this group found most important were Transportation

Choices, Economic Development, and the Natural Environment. With regards to Transportation Choices,

the group felt that people should have more route options within modes, and mode options within the

city, including rail, walking, bus, and bike. Economic Development was also an area of great concern and

discussion. Group participants felt that ensuring a future with high quality, high paying jobs should be a

priority for the Jacksonville community. In particular, they saw a need for more regional job

opportunities and targeted industries. As for Natural Environment concerns, the group believed that

preserving areas of the natural environment was just as important as practicing more environmentally

conscious building and development techniques for new growth in the existing urbanized areas. This

included the provision of more aesthetically pleasing development or environmentally sensitive building

practices. Community Development Patterns: This group felt Jacksonville could benefit most from urban

areas similar to the existing Central Business District. As more growth comes to the region, this group

felt that these high densities, mixed-use development areas would provide an opportunity to locate more

jobs and housing closer together. Overall, this group believed that Jacksonville’s greatest need was more

Diversity of Uses. They felt a strong need for areas where the people could live, work, play, and

experience that natural environment.

Group 2 – Values: The community values most important to this group included Community Structure,

Economic Development, Natural Environment, Cultural Amenities, and Transportation Choices.

Community Structure, or community design was important to this group because they felt that the


March 2010 26

location of work and home (and the associated travel times) can affect how much time people have to

enjoy other aspects of life. Essentially, they were concerned with decreasing the overall commuting

times. They believed that the community would benefit from a design that put jobs closer to homes.

Economic Development concerns were linked to community design concerns in the same way. They felt

that new jobs in the area should be located closer to where people live and not necessarily in the

traditional existing urban centers. For the Natural Environment, they also worried that too much growth

could diminish or fragment existing ecosystems and wildlife habitats. This group also placed a high value

on access to Cultural Amenities, especially in the downtown area. Transportation Choices was also

highlighted because they saw a strong need for alternative transportation options (bike, bus, and

pedestrian). They also felt that the new port facilities needed attention. Community Development

Patterns: This group liked the Beach Town Areas (but to limit development in these areas based on

available land) Town Centers and Central Business Districts. Single use areas were disliked by the group;

they preferred mixed-use, denser areas. Placing shopping and recreation closer to homes was also

important. Lastly, they believed that removing streetcars was a great mistake and that Jacksonville

would benefit most from upward rather than outward growth patterns.

Group 3 – Values: The most important community values noted by this group included Green

Development, Livable Communities, Policy Changes, and Economic Development. Their Green

Development concerns were not only the need for more green, environmentally conscious development,

but for the creation of affordable green developments that could be used and accessed by a range of

lifestyles and income levels. A desire for more Livable Communities was also highlighted by Group 3.

Livable communities were described as those areas that offer something for everyone, connecting the

different facets and uses of the community together to reduce the sense of isolation and promote a

strong, cohesive community feel. This group believed that Policy Change was of great value to the

Jacksonville area. They believed that form based codes (e.g. form based codes allow localities to focus

more on design features of development such as density, intensity and form versus simply focusing on

land uses) would be a step in the right direction. As far as Economic Development, the group thought

that new growth and job creation was good, but that it came with a lot of additional demands that

would need to be better planned for when mapping out future needs.

Group 4 – Values: This group felt that Affordable Housing, Agricultural Preservation, Environmental

Preservation, Economic Development, and Transportation Choices were the most important community

values. Affordable Housing was seen as important to this group because the future of the community’s

economic development and long term sustainability is based on whether people can afford to live and

raise families in the region. Affordable housing has to be located nearest existing job centers, not just in

the farthest outskirts of the region. Agricultural Preservation and Environmental Preservation were very

important to the group because they felt that too much growth could compromise open space and

agricultural land preservation. They felt the need to actively protect these areas that are likely be

threatened by development. This group also supported the value of Economic Development. They saw

many benefits to bringing in new jobs and developing new business centers. The group felt that all the

new development should be designed under the principles of Smart Growth. The main point emphasized

by this group was that growth was not bad as long as it was designed in a manner sensitive to the


March 2010 27

existing surroundings and environment; impacts were planned for ahead of time and multimodal

transportation options were factored in. Community Development Patterns: this group felt that an even

split of Single-Family/Multifamily-Townhomes, new Town Centers, and Central Business Districts were

good community prototypes. They felt that the majority of development should occur in Town Centers

and Central Business Districts. These highly dense areas are more likely to encourage the preservation of

Greenfield sites or agricultural lands because it will reduce the need for the more land consumptive

suburban patterns of growth.

Group 5 – Values: This group felt that Transportation Choices, Affordable Housing, and Economic

Development were the most important community values. Like many of the other groups, they believed

that there should be more mode options for traveling. They noted that there were little or no bike lanes

and no rail options in the Jacksonville area. Improving these options was exceedingly important to this

group. Also, they felt that Affordable Housing was lacking in the Downtown area and this issue should

be addressed. Economic Development was also a concern of this group. They felt that new growth was

good, but feared that it could be bad if it didn’t take into consideration environmental impacts.

Community Development Patterns: This group supported the development of more Town Center and

Lifestyle Centers across the region. These areas are densely developed, but still maintain a more open

feel than the more densely developed central business districts. These areas also allow for more multi-

modal transportation options such as biking and transit.

As a result of this first workshop, the study team developed scenario performance measures and

prototypical community elements for use in developing the alternative scenarios in subsequent

workshops. Once the group discussions and value surveys were tallied, the resulting four key

community values were carried forward in the scenario development:

Economic Development

Transportation Choices

Affordable Housing

Natural Environment


March 2010 28

Table 8 Community Value Survey Preferences

Trend Conditions and Alternative Scenario Development

The next phase of the process involved engaging the stakeholders group in an interactive scenario

development exercise. In October, 2008 the second of four stakeholder workshops was held to create

alternative land use visions based on community values. This two and a half hour workshop resulted in

participants creating conceptual alternative land use scenarios for the LRTP. The workshop was designed

to be both informative and interactive. The primary activity of the workshop was a ‘dot map’ game

where participants were asked to design a future growth scenario for 2035 that advances community

goals and values. To accomplish this, participants were presented with a set of dots scaled to a base

map that represented community types representative of the community values and prototypical of

existing patterns in the four county region. Each community type (dot) had an associated value of jobs,

houses and population. Each breakout group was given a set of dots, and a handout that described the

prototypical places. The handouts describing the community types in included in the Appendix A of this

report. To link the ‘dot map’ exercise with community values, the consultant team began the meeting

with an overview presentation summarizing the community values exercise from the first project

workshop in June 2008 as follows:

Economic Development In the future, would new jobs be concentrated in existing centers or in

new places? Would workers have good access to their jobs and choices about how they would

get to work? Would the economy allow for a diversity of job types?

Transportation Choices. Can future scenarios be built that create places with more access to

walking and transit as a viable option to the car?

Affordable Housing. Can future scenarios be created to provide alternatives to single-family,

higher land value homes, allow for housing options closer to public transit, jobs and shopping,

and be planned for all stages of life?

Natural Environment. Can future scenarios be built that would preserve habitat, reduce land

consumption, reduce the carbon footprint, and embrace energy efficient site and building

design?


March 2010 29

In addition to the review of community values, the workshop also involved a detailed presentation of

the Trend Scenario to give participants a better understanding of the potential baseline scenario from

which alternatives were to be developed and compared.

The ‘dot map’ game was designed to address these core values and questions, as participants thought

about where and how to allocate the anticipated regional growth of approximately 700,000 new people

and 340,000 new jobs by 2035. Participants spent a majority of the workshop in small break-out groups,

each envisioning a future growth scenario. They were encouraged to sketch in desired transportation

enhancements, such as new roads, new connections, transit, or other improvements. Each group was

also provided with a reference atlas of existing conditions, future land use maps, and maps of planned

transportation improvements.

This workshop resulted in the creation of multiple alternatives that were further condensed into four

alternatives to carry forward for more detailed assessments. These scenarios were translated from the

‘dot maps’ into CorPlan/GIS to create the digitized version of the alternatives. The scenarios included:

SCENARIO A - CONCENTRIC OUTER GROWTH: The general theme for this scenario is one of

outer growth into vacant and undeveloped lands outside the existing urbanized areas. New

towns and commercial areas were envisioned along an outer western beltway. New towns also

appear to the north along the I-95 corridor and to the east. Limited redevelopment was

proposed, primarily in downtown Jacksonville. This concept likely supports an expanded

highway network for the region with limited transit options.

SCENARIO B – NORTH-SOUTH CENTERS GROWTH: This scenario allocates future growth in an

outward direction away from existing urbanized areas and into the region’s north and southeast

quadrants. This growth is concentrated into compact centers of new towns and villages located

near the existing I-95 corridor and along the proposed southern beltway. Minimal

redevelopment is anticipated in this scenario. This scenario would likely support north-south

commuter rail transit and continued highway investment.

SCENARIO C – CLUSTERED SATELLITE CENTERS GROWTH: This scenario envisions both outer

growth and redevelopment. The outer growth areas are clustered along key transportation

corridors, forming an outer ring of satellite towns. The scenario also envisions an equally strong

redevelopment strategy in older urban areas. Increased growth is also expected along the

beach towns. This scenario likely supports moderate levels of transit for the region and

continued highway investments.

SCENARIO D – COMPACT REDEVELOPMENT GROWTH: This scenario focuses on redevelopment

as the major growth strategy, with concentrations in downtown Jacksonville, Jacksonville Beach,

St. Augustine and Orange Park. Development is concentrated along existing transportation

corridors that are likely candidates for future commuter rail or other transit. Minimal outer

suburban growth is envisioned. This concept likely supports the most robust transit network for

the region.


March 2010 30

Map 9 Scenario A


March 2010 31

Map 10 Scenario B


March 2010 32

Map 11 Scenario C


March 2010 33

Map 12 Scenario D


March 2010 34

Phase III - Scenario Comparisons, Transportation Strategies and

Preferences

The final phase of the scenario planning process entailed evaluating the four scenarios against the trend

scenario based on a range of performance measures that tied back to the community values as shown in

Table 10. A third stakeholder workshop was held in February 2009 to present the four scenarios against

the Trend Scenario and gather stakeholder input on a single preferred scenario to carry forward for

more detailed analysis and development of alternative transportation strategies. As a result of the third

workshop, Scenario D emerged as the preferred scenario with some minor refinements (see Map 11

Scenario D Refined). In addition, the study team utilized the travel demand model to analyze future

transportation impacts. The travel demand analysis allowed for the study team to develop some broad

transportation strategies for each scenario to illustrate differing mobility strategies on key corridors as

shown in Maps 12 and 13. This broad transportation analysis illustrated the point that Scenario D would

support more transportation choices over time, likely result in more efficient performance of the

transportation network in terms of reductions in Vehicle Miles Travel (VMT), Vehicle Hours Traveled

(VHT) and hours of congestion. Alternative D also resulted in the reduction of pollutants associated with

greenhouse gas emissions. These comparisons are illustrated in Table 11.

The fourth and final workshop with the stakeholders posited the question as to which scenario best

represented community goals and a desired growth and transportation vision for the region. Scenario D

emerged as the preferred option. However, at this stage some stakeholders raised concerns about

advancing an alternative land use scenario that differed from locally adopted comprehensive plans.

While there seemed to be support for the overall intent and guiding principles of Scenario D, there was

no consensus on utilizing this scenario for the development of the 2035 Cost Feasible Plan. While the

majority of stakeholders wanted to advance the alternative, a minority of stakeholders felt strongly that

the TPO should not move the alternative scenario any further in the LRTP process. Rather, the TPO

should simply endorse the alternative as a desired vision and ‘hand-off’ the vision to the local land use

agencies and the regional Reality Check visioning process to further vet the land use concepts at the

local level.


March 2010 35

Map 13 Scenario D - Refined


March 2010 36

Table 9 Scenario Comparisons


March 2010 37

Map 14 Trend Scenario Corridor Mobility Strategies


March 2010 38

Map 15 Scenario D Corridor Mobility Strategies


March 2010 39

Table 10 Final Scenario Comparisons


March 2010 40

Final Recommendations and Next Steps

In April of 2009, the results of the scenario planning process and recommendations of the stakeholders

committee were presented to the TPO’s Project Steering Committee, Technical Coordinating Committee

and Citizens Advisory Committee. Each group was asked to make a recommendation to the TPO on next

steps based on considerations of the alternative scenarios. Based on these recommendations, the TPO

Board was presented with an overview of the scenario process and given the following options as well as

some pros and cons to guide ‘next steps’ in developing the project priorities and cost feasible elements

of the 2035 LRTP:

OPTION 1 – Develop the Needs Plan based on the 2035 Trend Scenario

This option would result in the TPO continuing with current transportation policies and projects, basing

the needs plan and the 2035 Cost Feasible Plan development on the Trend Scenario socioeconomic and

land use data.

PROS: Advances a long range transportation plan based on adopted comprehensive plans. Best reflects

transportation needs in the future based on current land use policies and patterns of growth and

development.

CONS: Does not advance the alternative scenario in any formal or informal way. Leaves the TPO in a

‘reactive’ mode in developing transportation policy. Goes against stakeholder and steering committee

majority recommendations.

OPTION 2 – Develop the Needs Plan based on the 2035 Alternative D Scenario

This option would shift transportation policies and projects to support the land use concepts presented

in Scenario D. The Needs Plan would reflect socioeconomic and land use shifts illustrated by the

alternative created by the stakeholders.

PROS: Advances an alternative scenario that demonstrates higher transportation efficiencies,

greenhouse gas reductions and greater transportation choices. Puts the TPO in a leadership position to

advance transportation policy for the region and influence future land use policy changes.

CONS: Will create a short-term gap between local land use policies and transportation investment

strategies. It will require significant consensus building around land use changes at the local level to

close this gap. Land use scenario based on ‘aspirations’ of a stakeholders group and has not received

local level technical review of detailed socio-economic data and land use assumptions.


March 2010 41

OPTION 3 – Develop the Needs Plan based on the 2035 Trend Scenario AND

1. Advance the concepts of the 2035 Scenario D through the Reality Check

2. Adopt a resolution binding the TPO to continue pursuing the alternative vision by partnering

with local communities to advance land use changes

3. Create funding incentives or project prioritization criteria that would reward communities for

advancing transportation projects supporting Scenario D

This option would result in the TPO adopting the Needs Plan based on the Trend socioeconomic data,

but it also provides some guidance to advance Scenario D through a series of other initiatives.

PROS: Advances the alternative vision without getting the TPO too far ahead of local land use policy.

Empowers the TPO to lead the discussion of alternatives through Reality Check and other initiatives.

Produces a sound set of technical data for use in reflecting transportation trends and needs based on

current conditions.

CONS: Continues the status quo of transportation policy and investments missing the opportunity to

develop more robust transportation strategies in support of more modal choices. Requires TPO

champion(s) to continue the Scenario D vision outside of the normal TPO planning process.

After a lively discussion of the issues, the TPO chose Option 1, but some members also stated for the

record the desire to continue pursuing the key principles presented in Scenario D. As such, the

development of the 2035 LRTP Cost Feasible Plan will be based on the Trend Scenario.


March 2010 42

Appendix A – Community Elements

Town

Village

City

Commercial Center

Suburban Neighborhood

City Neighborhood

Industrial Center

700,000 people + 340,000 jobs = 113 Chips

COMMUNITY TYPES

1 Town 1 Commercial Center

1 Suburban 2 City

EXCHANGE RATES

1 City 2 Towns

1 Town 8 Villages

Neighborhood Neighborhoods

=

=

=

=

TOW

N/T

OD

8,200 people

3,500 households

5,500 jobs 1 Chip =

Proximity

Speed

Accessibility

10%

10%

15%

55%

10%

Office

Residential High 15 du/acre


Office/Retail Mix

Neighborhood Commercial

Town/Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Community Element

Vertical mixture of uses –office, retail and residentialBuilding Heights 1-4 stories 15-30 du/acre

Similar Places: Riverside/Five Points, Fernandina Beach, Green Cove Springs, San Marco

CIT

Y N

EIG

HBO

RHO

OD

Proximity Speed

Accessibility

5,300 people

2,300 households

250 jobs 1 Chip =

City Neighborhood Community Element

Primarily residential - single family, townhomes, apartments/condosBuilding Heights 1-3 stories 3-30 du/acre

Similar Places: Neighborhoods of Springfield, Riverside, Arlington and San Marco

20%

10%

5%

10%

55%




Residential Low 1-2 du/acre


SUBU

RBA

N N

EIG

HBO

RHO

OD

Proximity

Speed

Accessibility

10,000 people

4,400 households

0 jobs 1 Chip =

Suburban NeighborhoodCommunity Element

Primarily residential - single family, townhomes, garden style apartments/condosBuilding Heights 1-2 stories 1-6 du/acre

Similar Places: Neighborhoods of Mandarin, Orange Park, Julington Creek and Lakeside

25%

75%



CIT

YProximity

Speed

Accessibility

9,500 people

4,300 households

7,500 jobs 1 Chip =

City Community Element

Vertical mixture of uses - office, retail and residentialBuilding Heights 2-6 stories 15-30 du/acre

Similar Places: St. Augustine, Parts of Downtown Jacksonville

25%

10%

25%

40% Office



Office/Retail Mix

IND

UST

RIA

L C

ENTE

R

Proximity

Speed

Accessibility

0 people

0 households

4,700 jobs 1 Chip =

Industrial CenterCommunity Element

Mixture of light and heavy industrial Building Heights 1- 2 stories

Similar Places: Industrial developments near ports, airports and office parks

50%50%Heavy Industrial

Light Industrial

VIL

LAG

E

Proximity

Speed

Accessibility

1,500 people

650 households

400 jobs 1 Chip =

15%

15%

10%

60%




Office/Retail Mix

VillageCommunity Element

Vertical mixture of uses –office, retail and residentialBuilding Heights 1-4 stories 3-15 du/acre

Similar Places: Avondale, San Jose, Callahan

CO

MM

ERC

IAL

CEN

TER

Proximity

Speed

Accessibility

8,300 people

3,600 households

6,000 jobs 1 Chip =

15%

25%

25%

35%Office Park



Regional Commercial

Commercial CenterCommunity Element

Horizontal mixture of uses –office parks, regional malls, lifestyle centers, garden style apartments/condosBuilding Heights 1-3 stories 15-30 du/acre

Similar Places: Baymeadows, Southpoint, River City

technical report # 6 land use data developmentnorthfloridatpo.com › images › uploads › docs...

Documents