NSDI Community Demonstration Project Shaping Dane’s Future Planning for Sensible Growth in the City and Town of Verona, Wisconsin

NSDI Community Demonstration Project

Shaping Dane’s Future

Planning for Sensible Growth in the City and Town of Verona, Wisconsin

City and Town of Verona, Wisconsin

United States of America

State of Wisconsin

City and Town of Verona, Wisconsin

Dane County

Community Partners

Town of Verona Land-Use Planning Task ForceCity of VeronaDane County Executive OfficeDane County Planning and DevelopmentDane County Land Information OfficeLand Information and Computer Graphics FacilityFederal Geographic Data CommitteeNatural Resource Conservation ServiceEnvironmental Systems Research Institute

Background

“Dane County citizens are smart, hard-working, and committed to having better communities. The better information they can have about their communities’ future, the better choices they’ll make.”

Action Plan “DESIGN Dane”

Falk calls for:“Join with the UW-Madison to offer local communities a citizen-based, technology- linked land use decision-making approach (to) evaluate the impacts of proposed development, visualize alternative developments, and combine with county ordinances.”

(Falk et al, DESIGN Dane, p. 53)

Our Task

Prototype a Land Use Planning Toolkit which facilitates citizen-based involvement.

Describe toolkit elements and functions.

Provide context.

Describe some lessons learned.

Objectives of this Presentation

Context

The Local Context Land use planning is value laden and inherently political process.

Access to information, including spatial information, is not sufficient in itself to result in sound land use decisions.

The GIS learning curve is steep. Citizen planners, at this point in time, appear to be more comfortable directing technicians to

conduct specific GIS analyses.

Local residents are most familiar with public meetings and expressing their views in these forums, but new internet technologies hold the promise of expanding the scope of citizen involvement.

Local units of government face significant financial and technical challenges to acquire hardware, software, data and maintenance,

and hire professional staffing.

Toolkit Functions

Explore

Analyze

Allocate

Evaluate

P L A N N I N G A N A L Y S T Planning Functions:

C I T I Z E N E N G A G E M E N T

P R O F E S S I O N A L S U P P O R T

EVALUATEALLOCATEANALYZEEXPLORE

$ $

$ $$

$ $

$ $Less More

Planning Process:Determine Goals/Values

Inventory Current ConditionsAnalyze Trends/Projections

Form Planning OptionsAssess Impacts

Develop Final PlanImplement Plan

Evaluate/MonitorUpdate Plan

$ $

$ $

$ $

$$

$$

$$

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $ $

$$

$ $ $ $$$

$$

$$

$$

$$$$

$ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $

$ $

ArcImsArcExplorer

ArcViewArcInfo

Spatial AnalystModel Builder

What If?Place It!

CommunityViz3D Analyst

World Construction SetTerrex

ES Rapid Site

Cyber Civic $

$ $

Planning Tools:

$

$ $

EXPLORE





$ $

$ $ $$

$ $

$ $Less More

Example questions with policy implications

How much land has been urbanized?

Where is urbanization occurring?

How has urban density changed over time?

ANALYZE

Town Chair of the Land Use Planning Task Force Asks:

Where are important natural features located?





$ $

$ $ $$

$ $

$ $Less More

Applying Phil Lewis’ Environmental Corridor Model

ALLOCATE

Using “Place It,” citizen planners determine where growth should occur:





$ $

$ $ $$

$ $

$ $Less More

“Place It” Allocation and Feedback

Rural LowDensity

Rural High Density

Urban LowDensity

Growth Allocation Scenario

%U%U%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U%U

%U%U

%U%U

Four, 40 acre allocations5 people per 40 acres160 total acres consumed20 people allocated140 acres of non-priority farmland impacted10 acres of priority farmland impacted

Six, 40 acre allocations50 people per 40 acres240 total acres consumed300 people allocated10 acres of steep slopes impacted5 acres of wetlands225 acres of non-priority farmland impacted

Seven, 40 acre allocations500 people per 40 acres280 total acres consumed3,500 people allocated10 acres of steep slopes impacted12.5 acres of current residential impacted255 acres of non-priority farmland impacted

“On-the-fly” GIS and planning work session

EVALUATE





$ $

$ $ $$

$ $

$ $Less More

EVALUATE

8 Citizen-generated residential questions1. How many residential lots do not have any improvement values?

How many acres? What is their average size? 2. How many residential lots > 0.25 acres but < 2 acres do not have

any improvement values? How many acres?3. How many residential lots are located on slopes > 12.5%?4. Which residential lots are located on sites greater than 1000feet in

elevation. 5. Which residential lots are sited on woodands?6. How many woodlands do not have a residential parcel on it?7. Where are homes located in wetlands or floodplains?8. Where are the floodplains and wetlands? (Places that you can not or

should not build on?)





$ $

$ $ $$

$ $

$ $Less More

EVALUATE10 Citizen-generated agricultural questions

1. What is the difference between the two soil models? Where do they differ?

2. Where are single ag-land owners located in contiguous tracts?3. Where are parcels farmed by a single operator including rented lands?4. What parcels are currently assessed in agriculture? 5. What parcels receive tax credits for agriculture?6. Where are the dairy farms located?7. What agricultural parcels intersect with good quality soils?8. Two FPZ scenarios were constructed. Where do these FPZs differ? How many acres do they differ? 9. What agricultural lands include forested cover?10. What agricultural lands include environmental corridors?





$ $

$ $ $$

$ $

$ $Less More

EVALUATE

Response to question 8:

How much difference is there, in acres and location, between the farmland protection scenarios of different taskforce groups within the town?





$ $

$ $ $$

$ $

$ $Less More

Only 70 Acres Difference!

Some Lessons Learned

Lesson #1: Usefulness of NSDI In respect to “Smart Growth” in Wisconsin and the role of the NSDI

A comparison between the NSDI Framework Data and the actual data used in the Verona case study resulted in the following findings.

NSDI Useful but Limited

NSDI Framework:

45 data sets would have been applicable, of which18 (40%) are from the cadastral (ownership) dataset.

Wisconsin Land Information Program and locally produced data:

87 data sets were applicable and incorporated intothe database, of which 32 (37%) are from the parcel(ownership/tax parcel) data set.

For the NSDI Framework to be useful for land use planning, significant local attribution of the Framework Data will be necessary (e.g. local tax assessors data with property parcel boundary data).

Lesson #2: Attribution Requirements

Lesson #3: Resolution Limitations

Resolution of Federally derived orthoimageryand resultant elevation data limits usefulness(e.g. local units of government area independently developing orthoimages of higher resolution).

Lesson #4: Unfunded FederalPriorities

Need to provide local units of government with funding support for the development of more accurate, up to date data. (e.g. FEMA and the Cooperative Technical Communities Program – provide the appropriate level of funding and not just more responsibility).

The absence of essential Federal data sets from the NSDI Framework remains a major impediment for “Smart Growth” planning in Wisconsin (e.g. Department of Commerce Census data; Department of Housing & Urban Development Housing Stock data; U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Wetland Data; Federal Emergency Management Agency Floodway and Flood Fringe Data; U.S. Department of Agriculture Ag Census, “Swampbuster” data; National Resource Inventory Data and SSURGO Certified modern soils data).

Lesson #5: Missing Data Sets

Lesson #6: Citizen-planner response:Usefulness of GIS

Question 1: How useful are the computer-based information technologies you have seen demonstrated for your task of updating the town plan?

“Very useful. They enable us as citizen-planners to visualize a number of geographic and other database attributes simultaneously. Using selected criteria in “what-if” scenarios, we are able to better understand and appreciate our Town resources as we view maps and tables. Land use policy and implementation are more easily accomplished with this interactive GIS support.”

Professor Emeritus, Ted Peterson

Lesson #6: Citizen-planner response:Role of GIS

Question 2: What role(s) do you see GIS and the ability to visualize options have as your task force defines its land use policies for the Town?

“Mostly as a “what-if” answer to 2 potential choices.”

Farmer, Laura Dreger

Lesson #6: Citizen-planner response:GIS and Planning Process

Question 3: Now that you know about some of the capacities and limitations of GIS, visualization, and impact analysis – If you you were to start the planning process over from the beginning, would you do anything differently? What specifically?

“I would start with a GIS blitz. Look at all of its potentials and shortfalls to better guide us through the discussions.”

Town Chair, Steve Sheets

To Learn More about the Project

Visit our booth in the Map Gallery

LICGF web site – www.lic.wisc.edu

Shaping Dane’s Future Website – www.lic.wisc.edu/shapingdane

All of us want to thank the Federal Geographic Data Committee for sponsoring

this opportunity!

Majid Allan - Dane County Planning

Math Heinzel - GIS Functionality

Fred Iausly - Database developmentand maintenance

Phil Lewis - Environmental CorridorPlanner

Tom McClintock - Planning AnalystTraining

Doug Miskowiak - Farmland Preservation & Environmental Corridor Applications

Sue Niemann - Parcel DatabaseDevelopment

Ted Peterson – Citizen Planner

Documents

NSDI Community Demonstration Project Shaping Dane’s Future Planning for Sensible Growth in the City and Town of Verona, Wisconsin