Impact Fee Advisory Committee September 6, 2011 Public He a ring - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶

Mar 01, 2023 539 likes •741 views

Impact Fee Advisory Committee September 6, 2011 Public He a ring Summa ry Comme nts Re c e ive d During a nd Afte r the He a ring Propose d Re sponse s to Public Input Re c omme nda tion for Adoption of the L a nd Use Upda

SLIDE 1

Impact Fee Advisory Committee September 6, 2011

SLIDE 2

Public He a ring Summa ry Comme nts Re c e ive d During a nd Afte r the

He a ring

Propose d Re sponse s to Public Input Re c omme nda tion for Adoption of the

L a nd Use Upda te

SLIDE 3

Re quire d by sta tute for la nd use a nd for

CRIP

He ld on We dne sda y, Aug ust 31 from 7:00

until 8:30

16 a tte nde e s, re pre se nting County Boa rd,

munic ipa litie s, de ve lope rs, a nd g e ne ra l c itize ns

SLIDE 4

Boa rds e xpla ining the proc e ss T

a ble s showing popula tion, e mployme nt, a nd house holds by township

Ma ps showing de nsity by T

AZ

Sc he dule a nd ne xt ste ps

SLIDE 5

City of Ba ta via – Re que st tha t the

la nd use a ssumptions be upda te d to show KDOT ’s ne w popula tion proje c tions a nd the 2010 Ce nsus numbe rs

De ve lope r – Que stions a bout

de nsitie s shown in vic inity of 6 de ve lopme nts in Ka ne County a nd a re que st to re a na lyze disc ount prog ra m

Villa g e of Burling ton – Hope tha t

in re c og nition of e c onomic re a litie s the impa c t fe e s sta y the sa me or be slig htly re duc e d

City of St. Cha rle s - Que stion

some of the fore c a st popula tion a nd e mployme nt g rowth

City of St. Cha rle s – Conside ra tion of

a djusting fore c a st g rowth ba se d on c urre nt e c onomic c onditions

Villa g e of Sug a r Grove – Conc e rns

a bout popula tion numbe rs a t township le ve l

Villa g e of Montg ome ry – Que stions

re g a rding the a c c ura c y of the 2009 & 2011 e stima te s

Villa g e of Burling ton – Conc e rn tha t

e quity be c onside re d a mong the c ommunitie s within the County a nd with othe r Countie s in the Sta te

SLIDE 6

Ma ps show ove ra ll de nsitie s for house holds,

popula tion a nd e mployme nt by T ra ffic Ana lysis Zone s (T AZs) a nd do not re pre se nt la nd use or de nsity polic y.

T

AZs a re a spa tia l unit use d for a ssig ning tra ffic in a tra ve l de ma nd mode l a nd a re not e quiva le nt to munic ipa l, surve ye d, or politic a l bounda rie s or spe c ific de ve lopme nts.

SLIDE 7

F

re c a ste d g rowth within a T

AZ sug g e sts g rowth within the ove ra ll T AZ bounda ry a nd doe s not re pre se nt de nsitie s of spe c ific a re a s or pa rc e ls.

In a re a s whe re the roa dwa ys a re le ss de nse ly

spa c e d, the T AZs will g e ne ra lly te nd to be la rg e r in size a nd the re fore the de nsity will be lowe r tha n in a sma lle r T AZ with the sa me a bsolute popula tion, e mployme nt, or house hold pr

je c tions.

SLIDE 8

De ve lope r que stione d fore c a ste d g rowth a long the E

lburn Me tra Sta tion

Re a lloc a te d house holds a nd popula tion from a dja c e nt

T AZs pre se rve d for ope n spa c e a nd re vise d 2040 fore c a st

2040 Population Density 2040 Revised Population Density

SLIDE 9

2040 Revised Population Density 2040 Population Density

Are a in que stion a lre a dy built out Re vise d 2040 fore c a st to re fle c t no- furthe r

g rowth for spe c ific T AZs

SLIDE 10

T

he popula tion e stima te s a t the c ounty le ve l a re c onsiste nt be twe e n KDOT , CMAP a nd Ce nsus.

T

he g rowth tre nds a re c onsiste nt be twe e n County, CMAP a nd Ce nsus e stima te s

Va ria tions a t the township le ve l a re due

to proc e sse s be twe e n na tiona l a nd re g iona l fore c a sting

SLIDE 11

Curre nt popula tion e stima te for 2021 is within 1% of the popula tion tota l

using 2010 Ce nsus Popula tion a s ba se line

Both showing popula tion inc re a se s a t slowe r ra te tha n

in pa st

Less than 1% difference between KDOT and Census Population Estimates for Impact Fee Forecast Year (2021)

SLIDE 12

Popula tion, House holds & E

mployme nt se rve a s la nd use inputs to the mode l

Mode l output se rve s to ide ntify ne twork

de fic ie nc ie s

L

a nd use inputs a re not dire c tly re la te d to the fe e a sse sse d

SLIDE 13

Sourc Source: (1) Political Township - Kane County GIS Department (2) 2009 and 2040 Household - Kane County 2040 Transportation Plan (3) 2011 and 2021 Household - Extrapolated based on 2009 and 2040 data (Kane County 2040 Transportation Plan)

Recommended Land Use Assumptions Political Township (1) Household 2009 (2) Household 2011 (3) Household 2021 (3) Household 2040 (2) Big Rock 965 982 1,065 1,223 Kaneville 627 633 660 712 Virgil 1,004 1,040 1,220 1,562 Burlington 838 890 1,151 1,647 Hampshire 3,009 3,190 4,092 5,807 Sugar Grove 6,019 6,487 8,827 13,273 Blackberry 3,209 3,511 5,021 7,891 Campton 5,099 5,228 5,872 7,096

St. Charles

18,481 19,113 22,271 28,272 Plato 2,003 2,299 3,778 6,590 Rutland 5,937 6,836 11,327 19,861 Aurora 46,261 47,717 54,999 68,834 Batavia 12,846 13,141 14,613 17,411 Geneva 10,005 10,282 11,669 14,303 Elgin 35,371 36,239 40,583 48,835 Dundee 21,180 21,782 24,790 30,506 Total 172,855 179,369 211,940 273,823

SLIDE 14

Sourc Source: (1) Political Township - Kane County GIS Department (2) 2009 and 2040 Population - Kane County 2040 Transportation Plan (3) 2011 and 2021 Population - Extrapolated based on 2009 and 2040 data (Kane County 2040 Transportation Plan)

Recommended Land Use Assumptions Political Township (1) Population 2009 (2) Population 2011 (3) Population 2021 (3) Population 2040 (2) Big Rock 2,770 2,816 3,045 3,481 Kaneville 1,795 1,809 1,882 2,020 Virgil 2,825 2,925 3,424 4,372 Burlington 2,390 2,540 3,289 4,711 Hampshire 8,868 9,444 12,321 17,787 Sugar Grove 17,285 18,571 24,997 37,208 Blackberry 9,575 10,465 14,917 23,376 Campton 16,485 16,860 18,734 22,295

St. Charles

50,898 52,553 60,833 76,564 Plato 6,177 6,860 10,271 16,754 Rutland 16,251 18,984 32,649 58,613 Aurora 141,967 146,336 168,180 209,682 Batavia 36,265 36,979 40,549 47,332 Geneva 28,227 28,927 32,423 39,065 Elgin 103,749 106,268 118,861 142,788 Dundee 67,070 68,889 77,982 95,259 Total 512,599 531,225 624,357 801,307

SLIDE 15

Recommended Land Use Assumptions Political Township (1) Employment 2009 (2) Employment 2011 (3) Employment 2021 (3) Employment 2040 (2) Big Rock 388 415 552 812 Kaneville 270 273 289 319 Virgil 162 166 186 223 Burlington 440 450 497 586 Hampshire 1,627 1,681 1,954 2,473 Sugar Grove 3,182 3,327 4,050 5,425 Blackberry 1,923 1,979 2,262 2,800 Campton 504 528 646 871

St. Charles

31,543 32,535 37,493 46,914 Plato 459 473 541 671 Rutland 3,094 3,253 4,050 5,563 Aurora 79,910 81,939 92,084 111,359 Batavia 15,701 16,159 18,448 22,798 Geneva 23,834 24,455 27,556 33,449 Elgin 62,503 63,555 68,815 78,809 Dundee 36,230 37,465 43,637 55,364 Total 261,770 268,652 303,060 368,436

Sourc Source: (1) Political Township - Kane County GIS Department (2) 2009 and 2040 Employment - Kane County 2040 Transportation Plan (3) 2011 and 2021 Employment - Extrapolated based on 2009 and 2040 data (Kane County 2040 Transportation Plan)

SLIDE 16

SLIDE 17

2011 2011

June July Aug Sept Oct

T ra nsporta tion Committe e Re c omme nda tion

June 21

County Boa rd Re solution

July 12

Public Notic e Advisory Committe e Kic k- off/ Re c omme nda tion

Aug 24

Public He a ring - L a nd Use Assumptions

Aug 31

Advisory Committe e Approva l

Se pt 6

T ra nsporta tion Committe e Re c omme nda tion

Se pt 20

County Boa rd Re solution

Oc t 11 7/ 15, 7/ 22 & 7/ 29

SLIDE 18

2011 2011 2012 2012

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April

T ra nsporta tion Committe e Re c omme nda tion

Nov 15

County Boa rd Re solution

De c 13

Public Notic e Advisory Committe e Re c omme nda tion

Ja n (T BD)

Public He a ring – 2011- 2021 CRIP

Ja n (T BD)

Advisory Committe e Approva l

F e b (T BD)

T ra nsporta tion Committe e Re c omme nda tion

Ma r 20

County Boa rd Approva l

April 10 12/ 16, 12/ 23, 12/ 30

SLIDE 19