ImplementationImplementation
Introduction
Implementation is an integral part of the planning process. One key measure of a Plan's success is the degree to which it is implemented. This section seeks to provide guidance on strategies for successful implementation and identify implementation priorities.
Strategies
This section includes recommended steps in the Plan implementation process.
A. Maximize involvement and implementors. Work to maximize the number of different parties actively addressing at least one recommendation. In this way more people have a stake in Plan implementation and numerous groups working in parallel on different recommendations can speed up implementation.
B. Work on multiple fronts. Through a coordinated approach is needed to address at least one recommendation from each of the Plan's elements.
C. Prepare an annual action agenda of recommendations to be implemented that year. Annually, the Planning Commission should develop and adopt an Action Agenda. This Action Agenda should contain a list of actions that should be undertaken to implement the Comprehensive Plan. The Action Agenda should include a timeframe for when the items are to be achieved: priority one immediate action (before 2000), priority two (2000-2005), or priority three (2005+). Action items can include major capital projects such as streetscape improvements as well as the development of new planning and zoning procedures, and tools and guidelines to foster high-quality development. The priority assignments for both physical improvements and policy and regulatory enhancements are listed below. These listings should be used as guides for implementation. (This listing to be developed as part of the Plan adoption process to occur during the fall of 1998).
D. Prepare an annual status report. Each year at the time of the preparation of the new annual agenda outlined above, the Planning Commission should prepare and adopt and then submit to City Council for review a status report on action item implementation from the previous year. The status report will:
E. Update the Plan every five to eight years. The Morgantown Comprehensive Plan policies and recommendations focus on the long-term but also have an important short-term focus and provide guidance for the public and private sectors for development decisions. The Plan can be amended as new information is available, or to address a change in circumstances, without straying from the basic vision of the Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan should be updated every five to eight years by the Planning Department with recommendations being submitted to the Planning Commission for approval and then the City Council for adoption. The Planning Department should call for proposed amendments from the public as part of this update process. These proposals for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan should be evaluated by the Planning Department before being forward to the Planning Commission along with the Planning Department's recommended amendments.
F. Ensure Coordination between Planning and Capital Improvement Programming. It is recommended that the Planning Commission be included in the process of reviewing the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget and make recommendations to the City Council on priorities.
An effective CIP process can ensure that plans for community facilities are carried out; provide an opportunity for long-range financial planning and management; and can provide an opportunity for citizens and interest groups to participate in decision making.
G. Update Ordinances. The City should review and update development and planning related ordinances to ensure compatibility with the Plan and to facilitate Plan implementation. Specific comments on issues and suggested changes to the existing elements of the Zoning Ordinance are included below.
The following is a review of the City's existing zoning regulations and includes some recommendations to improve the effectiveness of these regulations. It is important to strengthen the implementation role of the zoning ordinance as part of the Plan's implementation.
General Observations about the Zoning Ordinance
The following comments are addressed in the order that they appear in the ordinance. For each section discussed, an issue is stated and a solution is proffered. Please keep in mind that these are potential solutions and that the City should evaluate the situation and alternatives carefully before making changes to the ordinance.
Section 5 - Definitions
Issue: After a cursory glance, the definition section appears to be sufficient. It is important, however, that this section be continuously monitored and updated to stay current ("recent" new uses: satellite dishes, "brew pubs," etc.) and to ensure consistency with other changes in the text.
Section 6.1 - Home Occupations
Issue: This section is out of place in this location because it bears no relationship to the topic of Section 6, which is the determination and interpretation of district boundaries.
Solution: Because home occupations require conditional use permits, this information should be located in Section 19 Conditional Uses and Procedure, Subsection C Requirements and Standards.
Section 12 - Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations
Issue: To facilitate development in the Wharf District, it might be beneficial to revise the parking regulations because the joint usage, off-site parking, and definitions (Section 12 B. (5), (6), (7), and (8) may not be flexible enough. Requiring a conditional use permit from the BZA is potentially a disincentive, and for joint usage one still must have the same number of parking spaces as one would if one had separate parking.
Solution: The City might investigate shared parking opportunities that recognize the overlap in use and time related to parking for mixed uses.
Issue: Parking Space Dimensions. The dimensions for parking spaces are large-9x20; current industry standard is 9x18 or 9x18.5. The 9x20 size in the definitions conflicts with the 9x19 feet in Section C Parking Lot Design.
Issue: Required Site plan under the parking regulations (Section 12C(3)). Is this for parking lots only? Or is this for uses? It is unclear what the application of this section should be.
Solution: Create one section just for site plans regardless of what the situation is, and cross-reference it.
Section 13.1 - Buffer Zones
Issue: The purpose, function, and implementation of the buffer zones is unclear, and potentially arbitrary. It can either be a zone of transitional uses or a physical barrier.
Solution: It should be made clear how the buffer zones function. If it is as a physical barrier, then that should be built into buffer requirements within zoning districts. If land uses are truly conflicting, in most cases their adjacency should be discouraged through the long-range plan.
Section 14 - Residential Uses and Requirements
Issue: Tables for uses and standards located at the back of the ordinance make the ordinance very unfriendly to users because of all the page turning. Section 14 Residential Uses and Requirements, refers you to a defunct Table 1 and Table 2 located at the back of the document.
Solution: Tables should be incorporated into the text where they are referenced. On a good note, Table 2 is clear and helpful; however, the reference to Table 1 should be deleted.
Issue: There are sub-categories with varying levels of detail within the overall residential categories. For example, part of Section 14 is a more detailed discussion of the PRO district (which happens to have its own site planning requirements) and the I-O district than the discussion of the other residential districts. The style is inconsistent, which is typical of ordinances that are adopted piece-meal and over time.
Solution: As indicated in the general comments, the City needs to reconsider the organizational structure of the ordinance and to re-write the ordinance in a clear and consistent matter.
Issue: There are no open space requirements for development in the residential districts.
Solution: The City should investigate establishing minimum open space dedications. However, issues such as safety, maintenance and ownership must also be considered when establishing open space requirements.
Section 14.2 - Office and Institutional
Issue: The O-I district does not direct land use in one direction or another; it simply accommodates often incompatible uses.
Solution: The O-I zoning district probably should be deleted. From a comprehensive planning standpoint, land currently zoned O-I should be evaluated, and if it is truly more commercial than residential, it should be designated as such on the future land use map and allowed/guided to develop/redevelop in that direction.
Issue: The ordinance needs a section on landscaping regulations. Currently, the only regulations are located in Section 12C(3), the section on required site plan contents for parking lots.
Solution: Adopt landscape regulations.
Issue: Development review regulations should be located in one place in the ordinance. For example, there is a section titled Required Site Plan Contents located under Section 12 Off-Street Parking and Design, which is a subsection of Section C Parking Lot Design Requirements. The PRO district also has a section on site development plans as does the mixed use residence/services district (Section 14.3).
Solution: The ordinance should be revised so that all the information on development review is consolidated in one place.
Issue: Regulations for signs are scattered throughout the ordinance. For example, there are regulations specifically for signs in the B-4 district, but there are no sign regulations for any other "B" district; there are sign regulations for residential uses in Section 14 and Section 14.2 but not Section 14.1.
Solution: The sign regulations should be consolidated in one place and cross-referenced throughout.
Issue: It is unclear whether billboards are permitted or not. As indicated above, there are sign regulations only for certain residential districts and the B-4, the rest of the business districts and the industrial district do not appear to have sign regulations. Signs over 100 S.F. in the B-4 district, and freestanding signs, require conditional use permits.
Solution: Clarify whether or not signs are currently subject to regulation in all districts, and if not, draft new regulations to govern signs in all districts and to prohibit billboards.
Section 15 - Business Uses and Requirements
Issue: There are too many business districts (5), and the distinctions between the districts are too fine. The structure of the ordinance is based on a "pyramid" of uses and therefore there is too little separation of uses and many overlapping ones.
Solution: The City needs to re-evaluate the purpose and function of each district and consider consolidating districts or eliminating unnecessary districts depending on what type of land use patterns it wants to achieve.
Issue: Residential uses are permitted in nearly all the business districts, which may be the source of complaints about conflicting uses.
Solution: Residential uses should be restricted in most business districts, except where a mixed-use environment, such as in the downtown or along the waterfront, is desired.
Section 17 - Industrial Uses and Requirements
Issue: A one-size-fits-all industrial district might not address the changing nature of industrial activities, especially the diminishing role of heavy industry and the growth in light- or flex-industrial uses. Also a light-industry or mixed-use district might be more complimentary to the Wharf District.
Solution: Investigate adopting industrial districts that more closely reflect the character of industry and manufacturing today and in the future.
Section 18 - Permitted Contingent Uses
Issue: Permitted contingent uses are not defined in the definition section and although defined in the text, it is unclear how they differ from special uses/exceptions or conditional uses.
Solution: Re-evaluate the purpose of contingent uses and consider grouping them with the conditional uses or the accessory uses, whichever they most closely resemble.