Travis Scott and Avinash Shrivastava PLAN 626, Spring 2010
Intro Create a Land Use Map for the City to: Maintain Handle on Land Use Patterns Database which can Keep Track of Changes Be Used for Analysis of Land Uses and Trends Turned into the Creation of a Dataset A Starting Point From Which to Work A Dynamic Dataset/Map Rather Than a Static Map
Data Acquisition GIS Parcel data from the County Appraisal District (shapefiles) Landmarks from County Appraisal District (shapefiles)
Government Hospital School Park
City of Galveston GIS data (shapefiles)
Cemeteries Churches Colleges Liquor Stores Parks S h l Schools Overlay Zoning Subdivisions Zoning Districts
City of Galveston land use permit data (spreadsheet data) May 2009 high resolution aerials created by the General Land Office
Classification Methodology The American Planning Association’s “Land‐based
classification standard” Chapter Six of the book “Research methods in urban
and regional planning and regional planning” The City of Austin The City of Austin’s Land Use Methodology website: s Land Use Methodology website:
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/landuse/survey.htm
CAD Data
Classification Methodology Code
Description
Code
Description
A1
Single Family Residential
D5
Acreage Non‐Qualifying Ag
A2
Si l F il M bil H Single Family Mobile Home
D9
A Acreage Exempt E
A3
Single Family Condo
E1
Farm and Ranch Improvements
A9
Exempt
F1
Commercial
B1
Multi Family Residential
F2
Industrial
B2
Multi Family Duplex
F9
Commercial Exempt
B9
Multi Family Exempt
J1
Utilities Water
C1
Vacant Platted Lots Residential
J2
Utilities Gas
C9
Vacant Platted Lots Residential Exempt
J3
Utilities Electric
D1
Acreage Ranch Land
J4
Utilities Telephone
D4
Acreage Undeveloped
O1
Inventory Vacant
O2
Inventory Improved
Final Classifications 1
Single‐Family Residential
9
Recreation/Parks
2
Multi‐Family Residential
10 Government
3
Residential other
11 Hospital
4
C Commercial i l
12 Vacant V t
5
Heavy Industrial
13 Cemetery
6
Light Industrial Light Industrial
14 Transportation
7
Agricultural
15 Religious
8
School
p p 16 Open Space
C Ch ki L Cross Checking Layers
Data Problems
Over 680 Parcels with Conflicts
Marking Parcels
Conflict Resolution 1.
All Data Layers Mentioned Above
2.
May 2009 high resolution GLO aerial imagery (Post‐Ike) y 9 g G O g y( )
3.
Parcel “Name” attributes
4. Land use permit records from the city 5.
Google Street View (with discretion) ( )
6. In‐person site visits p
Final Map Produced Colored Land Classifications Added Major Roads Created Insets for Clarity
Limitations Parcels without “XREF” IDs Overlapping Parcels with Different Classifications No Time Stamp Some with No “XREF” S i h “ R ” P Parcels in the Ocean l i th O Not Within Our Discretion Labeled as Vacant
Implications and Analysis
Scale – 1:18,000
NETWORK ANALYSIS SERVICE AREA ‘SCHOOLS’
NETWORK ANALYSIS SERVICE AREA ‘CHURCHES’
NETWORK ANALYSIS SERVICE AREA ‘PARKS’
NETWORK ANALYSIS
NETWORK ANALYSIS
NETWORK ANALYSIS
NETWORK ANALYSIS
NETWORK ANALYSIS
NETWORK ANALYSIS
Distance – 39 Miles
Maintenance and Upkeep Final product is a dataset from which to begin working Continued checks and updates need to be performed
as land uses change Needs to be maintained against any and every
department within the city as development occurs
Conclusion Created a dataset from which to begin monitoring and
updating Can be used for a wide array of analysis related to city
planning Can reveal patterns and problems within the layout of
a community GIS represents the best tool for the job