Land Use Committee - Illinois · Based on Land Value Ratio analysis to identify ... Priority...

“Knowing there is a world that will outlive you, there are people whose well-being depends on how you live your life, affects the way you live your life, whether or not you directly experience those effects. You want to be the kind of person who has the larger view, who takes other people’s interests into account, who’s dedicated to the principles that you can justify, like justice, knowledge, truth, beauty and morality.”

– Steven Pinker, cognitive scientist

Land Use CommitteeMEETING THREE

JULY 21, 2014

3LAND USE COMMITTEEJULY 21, 2014

Welcome

LAND USE COMMITTEEJULY 21, 2014 4

◦Meeting Minutes◦Existing Conditions Assessment –

Preliminary Key Findings◦Cool Spots – Discussion◦Hot Spots – Discussion◦Next Steps◦Questions/Public Comment

Agenda


ECAPreliminary Key Findings


Corridor Perspective


Livability


Mobility


• Increased road congestion over the last 10-15 years has impacted the area’s quality of life and economy.

• This increased road congestion is due to the growth in population and longer commuting distances.

• Transit ridership has also grown at this time, but not at the rate to relieve the roadway network due to infrastructure, services, and land use characteristics.

• The 53/120 project will help reduce existing congestion.• However, without proper land use and transportation

planning decisions and investments, it is likely that the County will face the same transportation problems in the future.

Mobility


MobilityNo one can simply build their way out of congestion.

It must be addressed from all aspects, including improved transit, smarter land use patterns, transportation demand management strategies, in addition to increased roadway capacity.


Market


• Lake County is expected to grow but at a slower pace than historical trends

• Historical development patterns show the Corridor is already capturing a significant share of new County Development

• Communities will not achieve the full build-out depicted in their municipal Future Land Use Plans within the next 30 Years

• Future development patterns are likely to differ from the past

Market


Lake County is expected to grow but at a slower pace than historical trends

Notes: CMAP projections were based on estimated 2010employment, in addition to the actual 2013 employment figure.CMAP 2010 population estimate used here is based on actualApril 1 census figures, 2013 is based on ACS estimates. Moody’semployment figures have been adjusted to remove military jobs.

July 21, 2014

Compound Annual Growth Rate

1980-2010 2010-2040

Population 1.6% 1.08 - 1.15%

Employment 2.0% 1.0 - 1.3%

Source: US Census Bureau, Moody’s, Woods and Poole, CMAP, SB Friedman

Moody’s Employment Estimates

CMAP Employment Estimates

Woods and Poole Population Estimates

CMAP Population Estimates


Historical development patterns show the Corridor is already capturing a significant share of new County development

July 21, 2014

Source: CoStar, US Census Bureau, SB Friedman

Share of New County Development Captured in Corridor

Non-ResidentialPast 15 Years

ResidentialPast 10 Years

19

Communities will not achieve the full build-out depicted in their municipal Future Land Use Plans within the next 30 Years

Planned Development Estimate

Land UseFuture Added Acres by Land

Use

Planned Development

Estimate

Residential 7,278 12,000 Units [1]

Retail/ Commercial 3,296 35 M SF [1]

Industrial 2,679 48 M SF

Office 1,064 18 M SF [1]

Government & Institutional 224 3 M SF

Open Space 1,387 1,400 Acres

[1] Includes mixed use planned development

20

12,000

34,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

Planned Development Estimate Potential Development Based on PastTrends

Resi

dent

ial U

nits

Residential

Communities will not achieve the full build-out depicted in their municipal Future Land Use Plans within the next 30 Years

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Planned Development Estimate Potential Development Based onPast Trends

Squa

re F

eet (

mill

ions

)

Office Industrial Retail

Planned Corridor development estimates

MOREthan historical trends

5 M

13 M

35 M

48 M

18 M4 M

Planned Corridor development estimates

LESSthan historical trends


Land Use


• Municipal Future Land Use Plans target “greenfield” sites that would cause a significant loss of natural areas and agricultural land

• Additionally, these plans do not identify underutilized or infill sites that could accommodate part of the development demand

• Current zoning in the Corridor does not permit population or employment density necessary to support transit

• The Corridor’s livability goals are not supported by existing plans and policies

Land Use


Future Land Use ChangeFuture Land Use Plans show an increase in developed land and a loss of open space and agricultural land

2 2

22

14

34

31 0

3 2

10

52

6

1

35

5

22

3 3 2

6

2

11

4

00

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Percentage of Corridor per Land Use – 2005 to Future

2005 Land Use Future Land Use


Agricultural & Open SpaceLand

If the Corridor is developed based on Municipal Plans, almost 7,000 acres of agricultural land and over 9,000 acres of open space would be lost

14

34

5

22

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Agricultural Open Space

6,868 acres

9,160 acres


PotentialInfillSites

Based on Land Value Ratio analysis to identify “underutilized” sites

28

Infill has the potential to meet a portion of market demand and reduce the demand for development on agricultural and open space land

892 103 605 2278

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

Potential Acres of Infill Development within the Corridor

Industrial

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

3,878 Acres of Agricultural & Open Space Land

Retail/ Commercial ResidentialOffice


Transit Supportive Zoning


Environmental


Environmental

• Natural Resources cover 53% of land area in the corridor

• Almost 50% of those Natural Resources are outside protected boundaries

• Natural resources in the Corridor are already impaired

• There are significant future threats to the natural resources in the Corridor

• Current zoning ordinances have minimal requirements to balance development and environmental protection


The Natural Resources in the corridor cover 53% of land area, which include:

• Parks/Forest Preserves

• Woodlands

• Prairies

• Wetlands

• Rivers/Streams/Ponds

• Agricultural Lands

• Hydric Soils

• Floodplains

• T+E Locations


Almost 50% of those resources are NOT in protected areas and thus are susceptible to direct development impacts.

All of the resources are susceptible to indirect impacts and adjacent land use changes.


Natural resources within the Corridor are already impaired

There are NO Biologically Significant streams or water bodies in the corridor.


There are significant future threats to natural resources in the Corridor:

• Impacts of land development

• Fragmentation/ degradation of natural resources

• Impermeable surfaces and impacts of run-off


Current Zoning Ordinances do not address many of the impacts future development will bring to the corridor.


Conclusions


Conclusion• The 53/120 parkway will ease congestion and bring

economic development to the Corridor• For those benefits to last, and for the people of Lake County

to retain the quality of life they value, a new mindset must be adopted.

• Policies and plans that guided the area through the decades of explosive growth must be re-imagined.

• With thoughtful planning, a willingness to carefully balance mobility, market, land use and environmental issues, and courage to acknowledge and embrace changing realities, the residents of Lake County can confidently look forward to a bright future.


Cool & Hot Spots


Objectives• Hot & Cool Spot analyses is just one tool to help focus attention on

important areas.

• Cool Spots• Identify important or valuable natural resource areas that will be given special

consideration as plans and policy recommendations are developed.

• Hot Spots• Identify areas likely to undergo significant land use change as a result of the

new facility, which will receive additional, detailed planning attention.


Role of LUC• LUC Meeting Three (July)

• Review methodology and provide input• Review draft maps identify areas problem areas

• LUC Meeting Four (September / October)• Review refined scoring and maps• Approve final cool and hot spots to be used in future

phases of the project


Priority Sensitive Lands identified by BRAC 5

ADID wetlands 3-5 Threatened & Endangered Species Locations 5 Illinois Natural Area Inventory Sites 5 Illinois Nature Preserves 5 Corps Wetland Mitigation Sites 5 Biologically Significant Streams 5 Sites with wetland bank potential 5Lake County Forest Preserves 5Dedicated/Protected Open Space 4

◦ Includes the following lands: The Conservation Fund, Conserve Lake County, Deed Restricted Land, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Libertyville Township Open Space, Prairie Crossing HOA, The Nature Conservancy, Openlands, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Local Parks

Lake County Wetland Inventory 4 (20 acres and larger)

Floodway (FEMA and SMC) 3 SMC Floodplain Buyout Properties 3 Streams 3 303-D Streams 3 Lake County Wetland Inventory (5-20 acres) 3Lake County Wetland Inventory (0-5 acres) 2USGS Flood of Record 2 SMC Flood Hazard Inventory 2 Green Infrastructure Vision - Connectivity Areas 2Forest/Woodland 2Prairie/Savanna 2Lake County Farm Land 2Hydric Soils 1 Erodible Soils 1WDO Buffer Areas 1 Very Highly Permeable Soils 1

Cool Spots Methodology


Draft Cool Spots Map


Objective/Market FactorsAreas within 1/4 mile of proposed interchange 4 Areas that front roadway with ADT >30,000 3Areas within 1/2 mile of proposed interchange 3Areas within 1/4 mile of arterial intersections 3Vacant parcels greater than 20 acres in size 3Parcels under common ownership 2Areas within 1/4 mile of arterial intersections 2Areas within 1/2 mile of I-94 interchange 2Areas that front roadway with ADT 2 between 20,000 and 30,000

Municipal Plans/Entitled Sites Areas of Overlapping Planning Jurisdictions 5Entitled/Permitted Projects 3Priority Projects Identified by Municipalities 3

Hot Spots Methodology

Policy FactorsUnderutilized sites from Infill analysis 4Areas within a 1/8 mile of Metra Station 4Areas within a 1/4 mile of Metra Station 3Sites identified as Mixed-Use 2 in the Future Land UseAreas within 200’ of high volume bus stop 1Parcels immediately adjacent to trails 1

Three sets of factors used/mapped


Draft Hot Spots Map –Market Factors


Draft Hot Spots Map –Municipal Factors


Draft Hot Spots Map –Policy Factors


Draft Hot Spots Map –All Factors Combine


Cool/Hot Spots• Next Steps

• Use today’s input to refine methodology and maps• Identify high ranking sites• Bring to LUC in September / October for approval


Questions?


Thank You

Land Use Committee - Illinois · Based on Land Value Ratio analysis to identify ... Priority...

Documents

Transcript of Land Use Committee - Illinois · Based on Land Value Ratio analysis to identify ... Priority...