DOCSLIB.ORG

Salem Area Comprehensive Policies Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Salem Area Comprehensive Policies Plan Salem Comprehensive Policies Plan November 2015 SALEM COMPREHENSIVE POLICIES PLAN Adopted October 1992 Amended: March 1997, November 2000, July 2002, November 2003, April 2004, January 2005, February 2009, May 2009, May 2013, June 2013, November 2015 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT: SALEM PLANNING DIVISION 555 LIBERTY STREET SE/ROOM 305 SALEM, OREGON 97301-3503 TELEPHONE: (503) 588-6173 MARION COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION 5155 SILVERTON ROAD NE SALEM, OREGON 97305 TELEPHONE: (503) 588-5038 POLK COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION 850 MAIN STREET DALLAS, OREGON 97338 TELEPHONE: (503) 623-9237 i TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER/TITLE PAGE I. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………..1 A. PLAN HISTORY........................................................................................................ 1 B. OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................... 1 C. STRUCTURE OF THE PLAN.................................................................................... 2 D. BACKGROUND INFORMATION .............................................................................. 2 II. DEFINITIONS AND INTENT STATEMENTS ........................................................................ 3 A. LAND USE PLAN MAP (Comprehensive Plan Map) ................................................. 3 1. Intent ............................................................................................................. 3 2. Plan Map Interpretation ................................................................................. 4 3. Plan Map Designations .................................................................................. 4 B. SPECIAL RESOURCE INFORMATION .................................................................. 12 1. Floodplains .................................................................................................. 12 2. Geologic Conditions .................................................................................... 12 3. Soils ............................................................................................................ 12 4. Aggregate Resources .................................................................................. 12 5. Fish and Wildlife .......................................................................................... 12 6. Willamette River Greenway Boundary ......................................................... 13 7. Historic Resources ...................................................................................... 13 8. Airspace Obstruction Limitations ................................................................. 13 C. URBAN GROWTH POLICIES ................................................................................. 13 D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM .................................................................. 13 E. ACTIVITY NODES AND CORRIDORS………………………………………………… 14 F. GENERAL DEFINITIONS ....................................................................................... 14 1. Neighborhood Plans .................................................................................... 14 2. Support Documents ..................................................................................... 14 3. Public Facilities Plan ................................................................................... 14 4. Urban Land ................................................................................................. 14 5. Urbanizable Land ........................................................................................ 14 6. Urban Use ................................................................................................... 15 7. Should ......................................................................................................... 15 8. Shall ............................................................................................................ 15 9. May ............................................................................................................. 15 10. Wetland ....................................................................................................... 15 G. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ........................................ 15 1. Zoning Code ................................................................................................ 16 2. Land Division ............................................................................................... 16 3. Capital Improvements Program ................................................................... 17 4. Advice and Consultation .............................................................................. 17 5. Incentives .................................................................................................... 17 6. Annexation .................................................................................................. 17 7. Urban Growth Management Program .......................................................... 17 ii III. SALEM/KEIZER URBAN AREA (REGIONAL) PROCEDURES AND POLICIES ................ 18 A. DEFINITIONS ......................................................................................................... 18 1. Salem/Keizer Urban Area ............................................................................ 18 2. Salem Urban Area ....................................................................................... 18 3. Keizer Urban Area ....................................................................................... 18 4. Dual Interest Areas ...................................................................................... 18 5. Regional Policy............................................................................................ 18 6. Regional Planning Action ............................................................................ 18 7. Non-Regional Planning Action ..................................................................... 18 B. JURISDICTION ....................................................................................................... 19 1. Salem's Jurisdiction ..................................................................................... 19 2. Keizer's Jurisdiction ..................................................................................... 19 3. Polk County's Jurisdiction ............................................................................ 19 4. Marion County's Jurisdiction ........................................................................ 19 C. PROCEDURES FOR AMENDMENT ...................................................................... 19 1. Regional Planning Actions Procedures ........................................................ 19 2. Non-Regional Planning Actions Procedures ................................................ 20 D. RULES OF PROCEDURE ...................................................................................... 20 E. REVIEW AND REVISION ....................................................................................... 20 F. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SALEM AND KEIZER COMPREHENSIVE PLANS… 20 G. URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY ............................................................................. 21 H. TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................... 22 I. WILLOW LAKE TREATMENT PLANT .................................................................... 22 J. SOLID WASTE ....................................................................................................... 22 K. STORM DRAINAGE POLICY ................................................................................. 22 L. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ........................................................................................ 22 IV. SALEM URBAN AREA GOALS AND POLICIES ................................................................ 23 GENERAL A. COORDINATION POLICIES ................................................................................... 23 B. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................... 23 C. URBAN GROWTH POLICIES ................................................................................. 26 D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................... 27 HOUSING E. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 30 ECONOMY AND EMPLOYMENT F. MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................ 33 G. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................ 34 H. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................ 36 I. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................... 37 iii PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES J. TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................... 40 K. OPEN SPACE, PARKS AND RECREATION .......................................................... 44 L. SCHOOL LOCATION AND DEVELOPMENT ......................................................... 44 M. PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND LANDS.......................................... 46 NATURAL RESOURCES N. SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS, NATURAL RESOURCES AND HAZARDS ....... 46 O. WILLAMETTE RIVER GREENWAY.......................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Urban Growth Boundaries and Lafco
    Urban Development Boundaries aka Urban Growth Boundary aka Urban Limit Line aka Urban Rural Boundary aka Fill in the Blank Boundary ANNUAL CALAFCO CONFERENCE SEPTEMBER 2015 Purpose of Discussion Compare and contrast Spheres of Influence with different types of Urban Development Boundaries Describe methods of Urban Development Boundary establishment and maintenance LAFCOs role concerning UDBs and how it could impact decision making Urban Growth Boundaries in the USA Source: Wikipedia The U.S. states of Oregon, Washington, and Tennessee require cities to establish urban growth boundaries. California requires each county to have a Local Agency Formation Commission, which sets urban growth boundaries for each city and town in the county. Urban Growth Boundaries in the USA Source: Wikipedia The U.S. states of Oregon, Washington, and Tennessee require cities to establish urban growth boundaries. California requires each county to have a Local Agency Formation Commission, which sets SOIs which act as urban growth boundaries for each city and town in the county. UDB vs SOI Are they the same ? If a City adopts a UDB, should the LAFCo always adopt an SOI that is coterminous to the UDB? Which one should get adopted first? Why should LAFCos care about where UDBs are drawn? Considerations for SOIs (1) The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands. (2) The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. (3) The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. (4) The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency.
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Metropolitan Growth: Reflections on the Twin Cities Experience
    _____________________________________________________________________________________________ MANAGING METROPOLITAN GROWTH: REFLECTIONS ON THE TWIN CITIES EXPERIENCE Ted Mondale and William Fulton A Case Study Prepared for: The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy © September 2003 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ MANAGING METROPOLITAN GROWTH: REFLECTIONS ON THE TWIN CITIES EXPERIENCE BY TED MONDALE AND WILLIAM FULTON1 I. INTRODUCTION: MANAGING METROPOLITAN GROWTH PRAGMATICALLY Many debates about whether and how to manage urban growth on a metropolitan or regional level focus on the extremes of laissez-faire capitalism and command-and-control government regulation. This paper proposes an alternative, or "third way," of managing metropolitan growth, one that seeks to steer in between the two extremes, focusing on a pragmatic approach that acknowledges both the market and government policy. Laissez-faire advocates argue that we should leave growth to the markets. If the core cities fail, it is because people don’t want to live, shop, or work there anymore. If the first ring suburbs decline, it is because their day has passed. If exurban areas begin to choke on large-lot, septic- driven subdivisions, it is because that is the lifestyle that people individually prefer. Government policy should be used to accommodate these preferences rather than seek to shape any particular regional growth pattern. Advocates on the other side call for a strong regulatory approach. Their view is that regional and state governments should use their power to engineer precisely where and how local communities should grow for the common good. Among other things, this approach calls for the creation of a strong—even heavy-handed—regional boundary that restricts urban growth to particular geographical areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Thriving Communities Coalition Proposal for Comprehensive Planning
    Thriving Communities Coalition Proposal for Comprehensive Planning I. Principles & Comprehensive Planning Mandate ......................................... 2 II. Needs Assessment .................................................................................. 3 A. Community-Level Assessment of Current Local Needs, Access to Opportunity, and Displacement Risk 3 B. Borough-Level 8 C. Citywide Assessment of Projected Future Needs 8 III. Goal-Setting Based on Need .................................................................... 9 1. Growth & Investment Goals By Place ........................................................................... 9 2. Addressing the Needs of Disadvantaged Populations ................................................ 11 IV. Creation of Comprehensive Plan ........................................................... 11 A. Land Use & Infrastructure Framework 12 B. Strategic Policy Statement 12 C. Budgeting 13 1. Ten-Year Capital Plan ................................................................................................. 13 2. Four-Year Expense Plan .............................................................................................. 13 V. Implement, Track, Report & Enforce ..................................................... 13 A. Implementation 13 1. Community Land Use & Infrastructure Planning ........................................................ 13 2. Policy ........................................................................................................................... 15 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Conservation in Buildings and Community Systems Community and Buildings in Conservation Energy
    International Energy Agency Technical Synthesis Report Annexes 22 & 33 Energy Efficient Communities & Advanced Local Energy Planning (ALEP) Energy Conservation in Buildings and Community Systems Community and Buildings in Conservation Energy Technical Synthesis Report Annexes 22 & 33 Energy Efficient Communities & Advanced Local Energy Planning (ALEP) Edited by Richard Barton Annex 22 information based on the final reports of the project. Contributing authors: R.Jank, J.Johnsson, S Rath-Nagel Annex 33 information based on the final reports of the project. Contributing authors: R Jank, Th Steidle, B Ryden, H Skoldberg, S Rath-Nagel, V Cuomo, M Macchiato, D Scaramuccia, Th Kilthau, W Grevers, M Salvia, Ch Schlenzig, C Cosmi Published by Faber Maunsell Ltd on behalf of the International Energy Agency Energy Conservation in Buildings and Community Systems Programme © Copyright FaberMaunsell Ltd 2005 All property rights, including copyright, are vested in the ECBCS ExCo Support Services Unit - ESSU (FaberMaunsell Ltd) on behalf of the International Energy Agency Energy Conservation in Buildings and Community Systems Programme. In particular, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of FaberMaunsell Ltd. Published by FaberMaunsell Ltd, Marlborough House, Upper Marlborough Rd, St Albans, Hertford- shire, AL1 3UT, United Kingdom Disclaimer Notice: This publication has been compiled with reasonable skill and care. However, neither FaberMaunsell Ltd nor the ECBCS Contracting Parties (of the International Energy Agency Implementing Agreement for a Programme of Research and Development on Energy Conservation in Buildings and Community Systems) make any representation as to the adequacy or accuracy of the information contained herein, or as to its suitability for any particular application, and accept no responsibility or liability arising out of the use of this publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Early 'Urban America'
    CCAPA AICP Exam Presentation Planning History, Theory, and Other Stuff Donald J. Poland, PhD, AICP Senior VP & Managing Director, Urban Planning Goman+York Property Advisors, LLC www.gomanyork.com East Hartford, CT 06108 860-655-6897 [email protected] A Few Words of Advice • Repetitive study over key items is best. • Test yourself. • Know when to stop. • Learn how to think like the test writers (and APA). • Know the code of ethics. • Scout out the test location before hand. What is Planning? A Painless Intro to Planning Theory • Rational Method = comprehensive planning – Myerson and Banfield • Incremental (muddling through) = win little battles that hopefully add up to something – Charles Lindblom • Transactive = social development/constituency building • Advocacy = applying social justice – Sherry Arnstein’s Ladder of Public Participation – Paul Davidoff – advocacy planning American Planning before 1800 • European Traditions – New England, New Amsterdam, & the village tradition – Tidewater and the ‘Town Acts’ – The Carolinas/Georgia and the Renaissance Style – L’Enfant, Washington D.C., & Baroque Style (1791) • Planning was Architectural • Planning was plotting street layouts • There wasn’t much of it… The 1800’s and Planning Issues • The ‘frontier’ is more distant & less appealing • Massive immigration • Industrialization & Urbanization • Problems of the Industrial City – Poverty, pollution, overcrowding, disease, unrest • Planning comes to the rescue – NYC as epicenter – Central Park 1853 – 1857 (Olmsted & Vaux) – Tenement Laws Planning Prior to WWI • Public Awareness of the Problems – Jacob Riis • ‘How the Other Half Lives’ (1890) • Exposed the deplorable conditions of tenement house life in New York City – Upton Sinclair • ‘The Jungle’ (1905) – William Booth • The Salvation Army (1891) • Solutions – Zoning and the Public Health Movement – New Towns, Garden Cities, and Streetcar Suburbs – The City Beautiful and City Planning Public Health Movement • Cities as unhealthy places – ‘The Great Stink’, Cholera, Tuberculosis, Alcoholism….
    [Show full text]
  • Land-Use Planning Methodology and Middle-Ground Planning Theories
    Article Land-Use Planning Methodology and Middle-Ground Planning Theories Alexandros Ph. Lagopoulos 1,2 1 Department of Urban and Regional Planning and Development, School of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece; [email protected]; Tel.: (+30)-2310-995-484 2 Academy of Athens, Panepistimiou 28, 10679 Athens, Greece Received: 27 August 2018; Accepted: 17 September 2018; Published: 19 September 2018 Abstract: This paper argues that a monolithic land-use planning “grand narrative” is not sufficiently flexible, but that the fragmentation into innumerable “small narratives” goes against any sense of the existence of an established domain of knowledge. Its aim is to explore the epistemological possibility for “middle ground” theories. The methodology adopted for this purpose is to take as a standard reference the methodological components of comprehensive/procedural planning and to measure against them the methodologies proposed by a corpus of other major land-use planning approaches. The outcome of this comparison is that for more than half a century, planning theories in the field of urban and regional planning have been revolving incessantly around the methodological components of the comprehensive model, which seem, at least at the present stage of our knowledge, to be the universal nucleus of the land-use planning enterprise. This paper indicates on this basis the prerequisites for the construction of middle-ground land-use planning theories and how we can pass from the formal contextual variants to real life contexts through the original articulation of planning theory with input from the findings of the actual planning systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2: the Goals & Objectives Comprehensive Plan 2025
    CChhaapptteerr 22:: TThhee GGooaallss && OObbjjeeccttiivveess CCoommpprreehheennssiivvee PPllaann 22002255 Goals & Objectives A Community Vision The City of Greenville has taken an important step in guiding its future with the decision to undertake this comprehensive planning process. The purpose of the Goals & Objectives chapter of the Comprehensive Plan is to state clear goals for the City and to identify clear directions that should be taken to achieve such goals. It is the goals and objectives established herein that will determine the focus of the Comprehensive Plan recommendations contained within subsequent chapters. In essence, Greenville’s Comprehensive Plan should reflect: …public decision-making, which emphasizes explicit goal-choice and rational goals-means determination, so that decisions can be based on the goals people are seeking and on the most effective programs to achieve them. People and Plans: Essays on Urban Problems and Solutions, Herbert J. Gans, Preface, pg. vii Identifying and establishing a community vision are important parts of the process of identifying goals and objectives. The following vision statement was devised during the comprehensive planning process. This vision statement has been used as a guide in establishing the goals and objectives within this chapter and in determining Plan recommendations. The City of Greenville should be a community that is safe, friendly, and family-oriented where residents enjoy affordable homes, quiet, safe neighborhoods, and a positive community spirit; the City should attract and promote thriving businesses which provide goods and services for our community and the surrounding area. Illustration 2-1 A Clear Vision Is Important for the Future of Greenville Comprehensive Plan 2025 2-1 Chapter 2 Goals & Objectives Chapter 2 2-2 Comprehensive Plan 2025 Goals & Objectives Issue Identification At the February 4th, 2003 Steering Committee meeting, Committee members were asked to identify major issues that they thought Greenville was currently facing or would face in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrating Infill Planning in California's General
    Integrating Infill Planning in California’s General Plans: A Policy Roadmap Based on Best-Practice Communities September 2014 Center for Law, Energy & the Environment (CLEE)1 University of California Berkeley School of Law 1 This report was researched and authored by Christopher Williams, Research Fellow at the Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE) at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. Ethan Elkind, Associate Director of Climate Change and Business Program at CLEE, served as project director. Additional contributions came from Terry Watt, AICP, of Terrell Watt Planning Consultant, and Chris Calfee, Senior Counsel; Seth Litchney, General Plan Guidelines Project Manager; and Holly Roberson, Land Use Council at the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), among other stakeholder reviewers. 1 Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4 1 Land Use Element ................................................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Find and prioritize infill types most appropriate to your community .......................................... 5 1.2 Make an inclusive list of potential infill parcels, including brownfields ....................................... 9 1.3 Apply simplified mixed-use zoning designations in infill priority areas ...................................... 10 1.4 Influence design choices to
    [Show full text]
  • Austin, Texas Marie Le Guen
    Special Issue Urbanities, Vol. 7 · No 2 · November 2017 The Dreams and Nightmares of City Development © 2017 Urbanities Urban Transformations, Ideologies of Planning and Actors’ Interplay in a Booming City — Austin, Texas Marie Le Guen (University Lumière Lyon 2) [email protected] The city of Austin, state capital of Texas, has been experiencing an impressive process of metropolization, while growing very quickly, since the end of the twentieth century. Its successful adaptation to the economy’s global trends and the growth it brings about are destabilizing Austin’s planning system, which is already very constrained in Texas’ most conservative political framework. Increasing tensions between established groups of actors and the emergence of newer ones prompt several changes in the professional and civic culture of the various actors involved in the urban planning field. These changes arise from the fact that these groups of actors are confronted with urban mutations never seen before. The ideology of planning, its meanings and its practices, are also evolving in this economic and social context, allowing for a larger citizens’ participation and putting sustainability on the political agenda. Keywords: Urban planning, public participation, democracy, sustainable development. Introduction Since the end of the twentieth century, Austin, the state capital of Texas, has experienced tremendous population and economic growth, as well as a diversification of its urban functions, which can be condensed into the process called metropolization. Exhibited as a ‘creative city’ (Florida 2002), Austin embodies a successful adaptation to the global trends. The quick growth, partly resulting from this adaptation, is fuelling urban sprawl, causing environmental degradation, and destabilizing its planning system.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview to the Comprehensive Plan I. History of Planning
    Overview to the Comprehensive Plan I. History of Planning When North America was settled by the Europeans, many of the new cities were laid out according to a plan. Some plans stressed a grid pattern for efficient movement of citizens and troops (like Santa Fe, Mobile and Savannah). Other plans, like that of New York, with hundreds of rectangular blocks and no alleys, were based on a plan to get the most money for land speculators. Another city, Washington, D.C., was planned with long radiating avenues and grand plazas to show the World, through its capital city, how great America was and how great America would become. Modern planning, with its emphasis on zoning, housing and transportation, grew out of the efforts of nineteenth century reformers seeking to improve conditions in America's cities. These poor conditions were largely a result of the waves of immigrants coming from Europe. New York, strained by its swelling population, implemented housing reform known as tenement laws. Soon, other major cities around the country then began more elaborate urban improvement projects in what was known as the City Beautiful Movement. Later, in the first part of the twentieth century, cities across the country began to enact zoning and subdivision regulations in an attempt to improve urban conditions through the control of land. With the popularity of the automobile and the end of World War II, cities expanded outward and municipal governments turned to planning as an attempt to contend with the sprawling city. Today, planning continues to focus on the improvement of the urban environment through urban design, planning for housing, historic preservation, environmental planning and transportation planning Planning in Mobile has developed in a similar manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Models, Frameworks and Decision Support Tools to Guide Management and Planning in Northern Australia Final Report
    Integrated models, frameworks and decision support tools to guide management and planning in Northern Australia Final report Natalie Stoeckl, Daniel Grainger, Michelle Esparon, Marina Farr, Silva Larson, Mark Kennard, Jorge G Álvarez-Romero, Lorenzo Cattarino, Vanessa Adams, Michael Douglas, Bob Pressey and David Pannell © James Cook University, 2016 Integrated models, frameworks and decision support tools to guide management and planning in northern Australia is licensed by James Cook University for use under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Australia licence. For licence conditions see: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This report should be cited as: Stoeckl, N., Grainger, D., Esparon, M., Farr, M., Larson, S., Kennard, M., Álvarez-Romero, J., Cattarino, L., Adams, V., Douglas, M., Pressey, B. and Pannell, D. 2016. Integrated models, frameworks and decision support tools to guide management and planning in Northern Australia. James Cook University, Townsville. Cover images: Front cover: Irrigated agriculture in northern Australia (photo Michael Douglas). Back cover: Part of the decision tree created from this project. This report is available for download from the NESP Northern Australia Environmental Resources Hub website: www.nespnorthern.edu.au The Northern Australia Environmental Resources Hub is supported through funding from the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Programme. The NESP NAER Hub is hosted by Charles Darwin University. ISBN 978–1-925167-77-1 December 2016 Printed by Uniprint Executive Summary There is a lot of interest in developing northern Australia while also caring for the unique Australian landscape (Commonwealth of Australia 2015). However, trying to decide how to develop and protect at the same time can be a challenge.
    [Show full text]
  • From Urban Sprawl to Compact City – an Analysis of Urban Growth Management in Auckland
    From Urban Sprawl to Compact City – An analysis of urban growth management in Auckland Joshua Arbury For my daughter Amalia - 1 - Acknowledgements: I would like to thank everyone who participated in the questionnaires and interviews, my supervisor Ward Friesen for providing useful insights and helpful suggestions, and particularly my mother, Jacquelyn Arbury, for her priceless help with proof-reading and editing. - 2 - Contents Title 1 Acknowledgements 2 Contents 3 List of Figures 5 Chapter One – Introduction 7 Chapter Two – Urban Sprawl versus the Compact City 14 2.1 Introduction 15 2.2 The rise of Urban Sprawl 18 2.3 Sustainability and Sprawl 29 2.4 The Compact City 44 2.5 Critiques of the Compact City 54 2.6 New Approaches and a Focus on Urban Design 58 2.7 Conclusions 63 Chapter Three – The Auckland Region: Problems and Responses 66 3.1 Introduction 67 3.2 A History of Auckland’s Growth 69 3.3 The Auckland Regional Growth Strategy 74 3.4 Implementing the Strategy 89 3.5 Critiquing the Regional Growth Strategy 96 3.6 Conclusions 101 Chapter Four – Implementing the Regional Growth Strategy in Auckland City: creating ‘Transit-Oriented Developments’ 104 4.1 Introduction 105 4.2 A ‘Growth Management Strategy’ for Auckland City 107 4.3 Transit-Oriented Developments 118 4.4 Conclusions 125 Chapter Five – Avondale’s Future 127 5.1 Introduction 128 - 3 - 5.2 A Brief History of Avondale 129 5.3 A ‘Liveable Community Plan’ for ‘Avondale’s Future’ 135 5.4 Visual Interpretation of Avondale’s Capacity for Growth 143 5.5 Questionnaire and Interview Results 149 5.6 Conclusions 157 Chapter Six – Conclusions 159 References 165 - 4 - List of Figures Figure 2.1: The effect of evolving transportation technologies on city form Figure 2.2: The evolving distance of a one hour commute Photo 2.1: The spatially extensive and automobile dependent urban sprawl Table 3.1: Desired regional outcomes to be achieved in a Regional Growth Strategy Table 3.2: Principles that will need to be applied to achieve desired outcomes Photo 3.1: An example of Residential 8b zone.
    [Show full text]