Community Choices: Clermont County, OH

Community Choices: Clermont County, OH

Today s s Topics Why OKI has to consider land use in transportation planning OKI s Strategic Regional Policy Plan Regional and County Trends Community Choices: Altering the Trend Tools and Techniques Questions

On the Horizon Transportation Costs vs. Revenues Transportation Needs Shortfall Billion $ 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 2010 2020 2030 Long Range Plan Year

Federal Transportation Law ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

Land Use Commission s Mission Statement Through open dialogue and communication with decision makers and the public, the OKI Commission on Land Use shall develop a strategic regional plan which encourages land use patterns that promote multimodal travel and the efficient use of land, natural resources, and public facilities and services. 2010 Transportation Plan, OKI

Land Use Commission Research Existing Land Use Existing Zoning

Transportation and Land Use Making the connection

Strategic Regional Policy Plan Purpose To bring about more consistency between local land use planning and regional transportation planning, so that scarce tax dollars can be used for maximum benefit.

Two Recurring Themes The importance of effective local comprehensive plans. We can t t continue to afford the current trends.

Trends

Population Change OKI Region,1970-2000 Percent Population Change Between 1970 and 2000 162.1 86.6 85.2 OKI Counties 47.1 56.7 17.0-0.1-8.7-20.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 180.0 Hamilton County, OH Percent

Projected Projected Population Percent Change, Between OKI 2000 Region, and 2030 2000-2030 2030 Boone County, KY 119.4 Warren County, OH 113.6 Clermont County, OH 37.7 Butler County, OH 32.1 Campbell County, KY 21.9 Dearborn County, IN 17.8 Kenton County, KY 11.8 Hamilton County, OH -13.6-30.0-10.0 10.0 30.0 50.0 70.0 90.0 110.0 130.0 Percent

Suburban Population vs. Total Population Percent Population Increase 1970-2000 Percentage 40 30 17% 20 10 0 Total Population Increase Source: U.S. Census Bureau 30% Suburban Population Increase Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Population & Population Projections Clermont County 1970-2030 Population Clermont County, OH 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 128,483 95,372 150,167 177,977 190,589 202,830 225,340 245,000 50,000 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2010 2020 2030 Total Population

Population Change 2000-2005 2005 Clermont County Cities/Villages -4% Loveland city Clermont Ohio -2% -2% -1% -1% Moscow village Clermont Ohio Bethel village Clermont Ohio Williamsburg village Clermont Ohio Felicity village Clermont Ohio Milford city Clermont Ohio Population 1 1% 2% 3% Owensville village Clermont Ohio Batavia village Clermont Ohio Chilo village Clermont Ohio Newtonsville village Clermont Ohio 5% Neville village Clermont Ohio 7% 8% New Richmond village Clermont Ohio Amelia village Clermont Ohio 11% 26% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Percent Change

Population Pyramid Population OKI Pyramid- Region 1980-2000 & 2000 Age Cohort 85 years and over 75 to 84 years 65 to 74 years 60 to 64 years 55 to 59 years 45 to 54 years 35 to 44 years 25 to 34 years 20 to 24 years 15 to 19 years 10 to 14 years 5 to 9 years Under 5 years 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 Population Census 2000 Census 1980

Population Pyramid Clermont County 1980 & 2000 Population Pyramid Clermont County 1980-2000 Age Cohort 85 years and over 75 to 84 years 65 to 74 years 60 to 64 years 55 to 59 years 45 to 54 years 35 to 44 years 25 to 34 years 20 to 24 years 15 to 19 years 35,000 25,000 15,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 25,000 35,000 Population 10 to 14 years 5 to 9 years Under 5 years Census 2000 Census 1980

Regional Development Trend Single-Family Detached Homes Preferred Trend has resulted in a 27% decrease in population density

Residential Density OKI Counties Dwelling Unit per Acre Dwelling Residential Density Unit - OKI per Counties Acre Dwelling per Acre 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 Per Acre 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 - Hamilton County Kenton County Butler County Campbell County County Clermont County Warren County Boone County Dearborn County

Average Travel Time to Work By County Average Travel Time to Work 60.0 50.0 40.0 Percent 30.0 24.4 23.9 30.5 22.9 23.0 28.2 23.0 24.1 20.0 10.0 - Boone County, Kentucky Campbell County, Kentucky Kenton County, Kentucky Dearborn County, Indiana Butler County, Ohio Clermont County, Ohio Hamilton County, Ohio Warren County, Ohio County Minutes per Person

Work Counties of Clermont County Residents, 1970-2000

OKI Residence Counties of Clermont County Workers, 1970-2000

Means of Transportation Means of Transportation to Work Clermont County, OH 1990 Means of Transportation to Work Clermont County 2000 1% 1% 1% 0% 2% 10% 1% 1% 3% 13% Drove alone Carpooled Public transportation: Bicycled or Walked Other means Worked at home Drove alone Carpooled Public Transportation Walked or Bicycled Other means Worked at home 83% 84%

Public Facilities and Services The construction of public facilities can facilitate premature or poorly planned development Are public facilities necessary to maintain adequate levels of service available when the impacts of development occur? The timing, location and cost of water, sewer and road facilities have a significant impact on land use patterns The density and intensity of land development is influenced by the availability and adequacy of these services. It costs more to retrofit or expand infrastructure than to provide it for well planned neighborhoods as they develop.

Employment by Industry 25000 Clermont County 1970-2000 20000 15000 Employment 10000 5000 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year Finance, insurance, and real estate Government and government enterprises Manufacturing Retail trade Services

The Big Picture(s) Existing Land Use Existing Zoning

Community Choices helping communities decide

Altering the Trend Tools and Techniques

Recent Planning Activities A Coordinated Planning Process Recommendation for Clermont County, 2006 2006 Access Clermont Thoroughfare Plan All Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Community Housing Improvement Strategy Wastewater Master Plan Business Investment Guide/Annual Report Stormwater Management Plan SR 32 Corridor Vision Plan The Eastern Corridor Study

Planning Issues Long Range Planning Linking plans to capital budgeting funding for infrastructure Increasing the tax base while keeping the rural character Economic Development The role of government in development Living at the scale of the region

Successful Comprehensive Plans If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else. ~Yogi Berra

Value of a Comprehensive Plan: Provides for residential densities & commercial intensities. Provides for timing and location of development & redevelopment - Timing matters! Helps avoid lawsuits by providing a basis for zoning. Vehicle for intergovernmental coordination. Helps determine local infrastructure deficiencies & future needs is a vehicle to track various levels of service. Ties planning to capital budgeting. Can save money for jurisdiction and region. Potential for five points in OKI transportation prioritization process.

Comprehensive Plan Contents Transportation Element Housing Element Public Facilities and Services Element Natural Systems Element Economic Development Element Intergovernmental Coordination Element Capital Improvements Element Future Land Use Element

Process Design Data Collection/Inventory Nothing is particularly hard if you divide it into small jobs. ~Henry Ford Analysis of Trends Level of Service, as approp. Goals, Objectives, Policies Public Input Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation

Level of Service Standards Vital component of different elements Establishes a mechanism to ensure that public facilities are in place when impact of future development occurs Conditions development orders or permits upon the availability of public facilities Phase developments or phase construction of public facilities

Goals, Objectives and Policies Goals: long term vision Objectives: intermediate qualitative direction Policies: measurable short-term term actions

Intergovernmental Coordination Element Identifies adjacent governments, school boards, independent special districts, regional planning agencies, state agencies and others and methods for coordination. Identifies incompatibilities with adjacent governments or regional and state agency plans. Strengthen coordination efforts with neighboring governments and agencies.

Capital Improvements Element Links planning to capital budgeting Identifies future capital projects based on identified needs of other comprehensive plan elements Addresses what, where, when, and cost

Land Use Element Identifies the trends, deficiencies, and future needs Brings together the goals, objectives and policies of the other plan elements Depicts them on a map

Model Plan Guidelines Elements of an Effective Local Comprehensive Plan Minimum Elements of a Local Comprehensive Plan (Summary) Making the Most of Limited Taxpayer Dollars

OKI s s Transportation Prioritization Process The Transportation Improvement Program is the short-range range portion of the region s s Long Range Transportation Plan. The TIP is a program of publicly funded transportation improvements for the OKI region. OKI produces the TIP on a biennial basis, each edition covers a period of four years.

Evaluation Process Projects separated Highway & transit Projects scored for Transportation Factors (separate highway & transit factors) Projects scored for Planning Factors Transportation Factors & Planning Factors totaled; rudimentary Benefit/Cost Analysis completed. Considered factors also include safety, LOS, environmental justice, matching local funds, travel modes and now

OKI s s Transportation Prioritization Process A New Land Use Conformance Factor Is the project consistent with (further and implement) the jurisdictions comprehensive plan? 5 points - Land Use Consistent--comprehensive plan complete & current 3 points - Conformance Consistent-- comprehensive plan needs improvement 0 points - Inconsistent--no comprehensive plan

Sample Ordinances & Resource Documents Access Management Concurrency Conservation Subdivisions Design Standards Floodplains Fiscal Impacts Forestry Green Building Live-Work Development Low Impact Development Traditional Neighborhood Development Mixed Income Housing Transit Workforce Housing Freight First Suburbs Farmland Stormwater Management and more

Community Choices: Example Ordinances Adequate Public Facilities Infill Connectivity Transit Friendly Development Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections Corridor Redevelopment Mixed Use Development Large Scale Retail

Fiscal Impact Analysis Model Measure the fiscal impact of a development or a land use scenario on the costs and revenues of the governmental unit(s) serving the development. Useful for analyzing the financial implications of alternative land use plans, small area plans, large annexations, build- out scenarios, large rezoning and planned unit developments.

Fiscal Impact Analysis Model Florida s s model Compares fiscal implications of alternative land use scenarios. Estimates cost/revenue associated with land use decisions. Focuses on a variety of public facilities and services. Is location-sensitive. Provides linkage between land use decision making and local budgets.

Summary of Tools Transportation Prioritization Process Land Use Conformance Factor Model Plan Guidelines Sample Ordinances & Resource Documents Example Ordinances Fiscal Impact Analysis Model

Analysis Models Other Scenario Models CITYgreen itree CommunityViz INDEX ArcGIS Network Analyst

OKI GIS-Based Visualization Tools GIS/3D Fly Through 3D Visualization Traffic Simulation

Contact Info Bill Miller Regional Planning Manager bmiller@oki.org Jane Wittke Senior Planner jwittke@oki.org Larisa Sims Senior Planner lsims@oki.org OKI Regional Council of Governments 720 East Pete Rose Way Suite 420 Cincinnati, OH 45202 513-621-6300 www.oki.org