JLUS Technical Committee Public Input and Development Scenario - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

JLUS Technical Committee Public Input and Development Scenario Presentation Fort Jackson / McEntire Joint Land Use Study Implementation

JLUS IMPLEMENTATION

• 2009 JLUS

–SEVERAL KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

• DEVLEOP MORE DETAILED PLANS FOR:

– LEESBURG ROAD / SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF FORT JACKSON – AREAS AROUND McENTIRE

• DEVELOP OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS TO

IMPLEMENT JLUS AND SMALL AREA PLANS

• EXPLORE A REGIONAL ORGANIZATION TO

HELP FACILITATE COMPATIBLE GROWTH

PROCESS

• PROJECT INITIATION
• STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
• EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY
• PUBLIC INPUT
• PLANNING SCENARIOS
• PUBLIC REVIEW
• PRESENTATION OF PLANS &

RECOMMENDATIONS

ACTIVITY TO DATE

• LITERATURE REVIEW – ORDINANCES,

PLANS AND POLICIES

• CONDUCTED STAKEHOLDER

INTERVIEWS

• EXAMINED FACTORS INFLUENCING

GROWTH

• INITIAL COMPATIBILITY ASSESSMENT
• PRESENTATION TO JLUS TECHNICAL

COMMITTEE

ACTIVITY TO DATE

• PRESENTATION TO JLUS POLICY

COMMITTEE

• HELD PUBLIC INPUT MEETING
• DEVELOPED INITIAL DEVELOPMENT

SCENARIOS

• PRESENTATION OF DEVELOPMENT

SCENARIOS TO TECHNICAL COMMITTEE

PUBLIC INPUT MEETING

• HELD MEETING ON AUGUST 23
• MET AT REGION 1 SHERIFF’S OFFICE
• OVER 150 IN ATTENDANCE
• PRESENTED BACKGROUND

INFORMATION

• MET IN SMALL GROUPS AFTER MEETING
• DISTRIBUTED AND COLLECTED

WRITTEN SURVEY

PUBLIC INPUT MEETING

PUBLIC INPUT MEETING

PUBLIC INPUT MEETING

PUBLIC INPUT RESULTS

• GENERALLY POSITIVE COMMENTS

FROM PROPERTY OWNERS / RESIDENTS

• APPEARED THAT MAIN INTEREST WAS

WHETHER BASES WERE EXPANDING

• GENERALLY VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE

MILITARY AND ACCOMMODATING OF MILITARY IMPACTS

• 50 ATTENDEES FILLED OUT SURVEY

SURVEY RESULTS

• 1. What is your connection to the study area?
• 80% live in study area
• 82% own property in study area
• 12% work in study area
• 2. If you live or own property in the study area,

what is the address of your home or property?

ADDRESS MAP

SURVEY RESULTS

• 3. What are the top three issues related to

growth and development in the study area?

– Traffic and Noise were the top issues – Others included:

• Desire to stay rural – No sprawl
• Concerns about taxes
• Concerns about water and sewer coming to area
• General safety concerns (primarily aircraft related)

SURVEY RESULTS

• 4. How do you think the proposed widening of

Leesburg Road will impact the are?

– 76% view road widening as a positive impact – 18% view it as a negative impact

• 5. How do you think the proposed sewer line to

Eastover will impact the area?

– 57% positive impact – 11% negative impact – 26% no opinion

SURVEY RESULTS

• 6. What is your vision for how the area will

grow over next 10 years?

– Remain rural (top answer) – Increase in growth and jobs – Balanced and directed growth (cited areas in vicinity of Lower Richland Blvd)

SURVEY RESULTS

• 7. Rate your impact with noise from military

aircraft

– 29% HIGH – 8% MODERATE-HIGH – 27% MODERATE – 20% LOW – 16% NONE

• Both airplanes and helicopters causing

impacts

• Most knew of impacts before buying

SURVEY RESULTS

• 8. Rate your impact with noise from artillery at

Fort Jackson

– 16% HIGH – 8% MODERATE-HIGH – 28% MODERATE – 24% LOW – 28% NONE

• Most impacts related to vibration (more

pronounced in MH).

• Early morning / late evening biggest impact.

SURVEY RESULTS

• 9. Have you ever experienced any negative

impacts from controlled burns at Fort Jackson?

– 12.5% YES – 87.5% NO

• 10. What other military impacts have you

experienced in the area?

• Most answers focus on aircraft and convoys.

SURVEY RESULTS

• 11. Please share any additional information

that you feel will help us with the plan.

• Several answers expressed support for the

military.

• Some mentioned utility and transportation

issues.

• No apparent opposition to the process with

information provided to date – many said they’d be willing to do whatever it takes.

DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS

• Prepared draft future development scenarios

for each planning area (McEntire + Leesburg Corridor).

• Three scenarios prepared for each area.
• Scenarios based on a combination of

background research, stakeholder and citizen input, 2009 JLUS recommendations and experience in other communities.

McEntire Scenarios

• The Current Situation

– Few regulations in place to prevent incompatible development in sensitive areas. – Lack of utility infrastructure provides general protection from large scale incompatibility. – Development pattern is primarily rural with agriculture and low density residential as primary

• uses. Some scattered business / industrial uses.

– Civilian safety and the integrity of the military mission are in the hands of the market.

McEntire Scenarios

• Development Opportunities

– Large amount of available vacant land – Lower land prices – Large parcels available for development – More favorable regulatory climate – Desirability of rural setting

McEntire Scenarios

• Development Constraints

– Lack of utility infrastructure – Environmental conditions – floodplains/wetlands – Distance to urban areas (economic opportunity) – Military noise and safety impacts – Negative perception of local schools

McEntire Scenarios

• Major Factors Influencing Future

Development

– Priority Investment Area – Lower Richlands Blvd. and Garners Ferry Rd. – Extension of sewer line from Lower Richlands

• Blvd. / Garners Ferry Rd. to Eastover.

– Designation of western areas for suburban growth in Comprehensive Plan. – Taken together, they can bring major changes to what is perceived as appropriate land use.

McEntire Scenarios

• Alternative 1 – Status Quo
• Alternative 2 – Enhanced Safety
• Alternative 3 – Broad Regulation

Alternative 1

Maintain the Status Quo

• 2009 Comprehensive Plan governs general

land use pattern.

• RU (Rural) zoning district is primary growth

management mechanism to achieve plan goals.

• Market forces, carrying capacity and Council

resolve serve as primary restraints on changes in planned growth.

Alternative 1

• Potential Impacts and Consequences

– Lack of AICUZ compatible use restrictions increases chance for incompatible development. – Potential for new vertical obstructions in

• verflight areas.

– Establishment of incompatible uses / development pattern may cause:

• Degraded training / operational capacity
• Operational restrictions
• Large expenditures to remove encroachments
• Higher accident potential and increased chance of

catastrophic loss from accidents

Alternative 1

• Potential Impacts and Consequences

– Greater potential for conflicts between property

• wners and the military

– Greater potential for degraded quality of life. – Increased likelihood of loss of missions or units if

• perations are negatively affected.

– Any reductions would have a negative economic impact on Richland County.

Alternative 2

Enhance Safety

• Richland County moves to adopt new zoning

to enhance safety around the base.

• Overlay districts adopted for CZ, APZ 1 and

APZ 2 based on AICUZ.

• Overlay district adopted to constrain vertical
• bstructions within ½ mile of McEntire to

protect helicopter operations.

Alternative 2

• Potential Impacts and Consequences

– Reduction in the likelihood of incompatible uses/structures being established in the most sensitive areas. – Ability to focus on working to resolve current compatibility issues rather than fighting new

• nes.

– Potential for a negative backlash from property

• wners – may reduce cooperation on future

issues of mutual importance.

Alternative 2

• Potential Impacts and Consequences

– New compatibility issues may still come up with regard to uses in high noise areas.

• Density of development will determine extent of

impact.

• Noise complaints may alter training / operational

capacity.

• Continued concern for quality of life for residents in

high noise areas.

– With fewer compatibility issues, more opportunity to maintain operational levels and gain units / missions.

Alternative 3

Broad Regulation

• Richland County adopts safety oriented
• verlay districts outlined in Alternative 2.
• Helicopter overflight protections extended

throughout the general area.

• An additional overlay district is adopted

dealing with noise impacts.

– Requires sound attenuation. – Restricts manufactured housing – Restricts residential density and some uses

Alternative 3

• Potential Impacts and Consequences

– Greater reduction in the likelihood of incompatible uses/structures being established in safety and noise sensitive areas. – Ability to focus on working to resolve current compatibility issues rather than fighting new

• nes.

– Greater potential for a negative backlash from property owners – may reduce cooperation on future issues of mutual importance.

Alternative 3

• Potential Impacts and Consequences

– Higher costs for new construction in noise impact areas. – Elimination of manufactured housing as an affordable housing option in noise impact areas. – Greater opportunity to maintain operational levels and gain units / missions.

• Alt. 1 – Status Quo

Existing Development Intensity

• Alt. 2 – Enhanced Safety

• Alt. 2 – Enhanced Safety

• Alt. 2 – Enhanced Safety

• Alt. 3 – Broad Regulation

• Alt. 3 – Broad Regulation

Leesburg Corridor Scenarios

• The Current Situation

– No regulation of land use for compatibility with peak noise impacts of Ft. Jackson / McCrady – Lack of regulation in the past has led to the exposure of a large population to high noise impacts. – High degree of land subdivision and development - particularly in western areas. – Lack of utilities has limited density, but has caused low density development to spread through area.

Leesburg Corridor Scenarios

• Development Opportunities

– Some large parcels still available – Transportation links to Fort Jackson / Columbia in western area. – More affordable land prices – More favorable regulatory climate – Desirability of rural setting

Leesburg Corridor Scenarios

• Development Constraints

– Lack of utility infrastructure – Environmental conditions – some floodplain impacts – Distance to urban areas / economic opportunity in eastern areas – Military noise and safety impacts – Negative perception of local schools

Leesburg Corridor Scenarios

• Major Factors Influencing Future

Development

– Planned improvements to Leesburg Road up to Wildcat Rd. / Lower Richland Boulevard. – Comprehensive Plan designation for suburban land use along western edge of corridor. – Potential for greater economic opportunity in the general area with:

• Garners Ferry-Lower Richland Priority Investment Area
• Potential sewer service at Garners Ferry – Lower

Richland

Leesburg Corridor Scenarios

• Alternative 1 – Status Quo
• Alternative 2 – Balanced Regulation
• Alternative 3 – Restricted Growth

Alternative 1

Maintain the Status Quo

• 2009 Comprehensive Plan governs general

land use pattern.

• RU (Rural) zoning district is primary growth

management mechanism to achieve plan goals.

• Market forces, carrying capacity and Council

resolve serve as primary restraints on changes in planned growth.

Alternative 1

• Potential Impacts and Consequences

– Low density residential development pattern continues along corridor, infilling vacant tracts. – Population affected by noise impact grows as development occurs. – No restriction on vertical obstructions in

• verflight areas.

– Incompatible growth may lead to:

• Degraded training / operational capacity
• Operational restrictions
• Safety hazards in helicopter overflight areas

Alternative 1

• Potential Impacts and Consequences

– Greater potential for conflicts between property

• wners and the military

– Greater potential for degraded quality of life. – Increased likelihood of loss of missions or units if

• perations are negatively affected.

– Any reductions would have a negative economic impact on Richland County.

Alternative 2

Balanced Regulation

• 2009 Comprehensive Plan governs general

land use pattern.

• RU (Rural) zoning district is primary growth

management mechanism to achieve plan goals.

• Market forces, carrying capacity and Council

resolve serve as primary restraints on changes in planned growth.

Alternative 2

• Richland County adopts noise impact overlay

district to increase compatiblity of new development by:

– Requiring sound attenuation on new construction – Restricting manufactured housing – Potential for restricting some noise sensitive uses

• Richland County adopts overlay district to

constrain vertical obstructions in overflight areas.

Alternative 2

• Potential Impacts and Consequences

– Low density residential development pattern continues along corridor, infilling vacant tracts. – Moderate impact on growth potential due to higher construction costs. – Increased compatibility of new construction – Potential negative reaction from property owners due to new restrictions. – Legacy development remains less compatible.

Alternative 2

• Potential Impacts and Consequences

– Manufactured housing no longer available as an affordable housing option. – Lower potential for impacts to training mission from new incompatible growth off-post. – Greater potential to retain / expand mission.

Alternative 3

Restricted Growth

• Development regulations outlined in

Alternative 2 are implemented.

• Additional regulations are added in noise

impact overlay to restrict development density with the goal of limiting the exposed population

• General recommendations from 2009

Comprehensive Plan guide overall pattern.

Alternative 3

• Potential Impacts and Consequences

– Larger decrease in growth potential as a result of density restrictions. – Higher construction costs for new residences. – Elimination of manufactured housing as an affordable housing option. – Increased compatibility of new construction with noise impacts. – Continued impacts for legacy development. – Greater chance for negative public reaction. – Greater opportunity to retain / expand mission.

• Alt. 1 – Status Quo

Existing Development Intensity

• Alt. 2 – Balance

Mitigation / Growth

• Alt. 2 – Balance

Mitigation / Growth

• Alt. 2 – Balance

Mitigation / Growth

• Alt. 3 – Restricted Growth

NEXT STEPS

• October 30 – Presentation to Military Affairs

Committee

• November 5 – Receive Comments from

Technical Committee

• November 14 – 2nd Public Input Meeting
• November to January – Develop Plan and

Ordinance Recommendations

• Late January – Present to Technical Committee
• February / March – Present to Policy Committee
• March – Present to County Council