Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 01-10-1994
VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS A. Orange County Arts Commission Presentation of Grants Awards and Report (8 : 05-8 : 20) VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS VIII. ITEMS FOR DECISION--CONSENT AGENDA (8 : 20-8 : 30) (Any item may be removed for separate consideration) A. Establishment of the Criminal Justice Facilities Study Committee B. Budget Amendment W5 C. Watershed Protection Standards and Zoning of Little River and Cedar Grove Townships (Revisions) D. Senior Games Grant Application E. Robert Earl Greene, Zoning Case No. 240-- Recommendations for Making Demand for Payment of Civil Penalties and Injunctive Relief F. Minutes G. Advertisement--Economic Development Districts Public Hearing IX. ITEMS FOR DECISION--REGULAR AGENDA A. Revision to Capital Improvements Program (8 : 30- 8 : 50) B. Bid--Northern Human Services Center Roof (8 : 50- 9 : 00) C. Z-8-93 Old 86 Limited Partnership--Zoning Atlas Amendment (9 : 00-9 : 15) D. Z-9-93 First South Bank, Inc. --Zoning Atlas Amendment (9 : 15-9 : 30) E. HP-1-93 Maple Hill National Register Nomination (9 : 30-9 : 45) X. REPORTS XI. APPOINTMENTS - None XII. MINUTES - See Consent Agenda XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION XIV. ADJOURNMENT * SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 1994: woRK SESSION ON PROPOSE) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS, GOVERNMENT SERVICES BUILDING, 200 S. CAMERON STREET, HILLSBOROUGH, NC AT 7:30 P.M. ORANGE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR CONSIDERATION OF FUNDING IN THE NORTH CAROLINA TRANSPORTATION IMPR OVEMENT PROGRAM PRESENTED AT THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 28, 1993 Orange County appreciates the opportunity to participate in the North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program process. Like so many jurisdictions across the state, we have transportation-needs we feel are necessary to provide our citizens with a safe and efficient multimodal system throughout the County. Although our needs are extensive, we have concentrated our priority list on those projects we feel are most critical to all in Orange County. We would also like to commend the North Carolina Department of Transportation on its use of recycled and alternative materials in road construction projects. We encourage you continue the practice of using alternative materials such as shredded tires and recycled asphalt on'all projects statewide. Our transportation needs list is divided into two-sections. The first section deals with selected projects within the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro metropolitan planning area. The second section deals with projects in the remaining portions of Orange County which lie outside of the urbanized area boundary. PROJECTS WITHIN THE DURHAM - CHAPEL HILL CARRBORO METROPOLITAN PLANNING-AREA As a member of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization, Orange County will continue to work with the Transportation Advisory Committee (DCHC TAC) to develop a complete list of project priorities for the portion of Orange County that lies inside the urbanized area boundary. However, there are selected projects in Orange County which we would like to address now because they have been the subject of discussions between the TAC and the Department of Transportation. 1, Homestead Road Widening This is Orange County's top priority for new road projects requested from TIP funds. Last year the Orange County Board of Commissioners supported the request by the Durham - Chapel Hill- Carrboro MPO to widen and make safety improvements on Homestead Road-from High School Road (SR 1834) to Airport Road (NC 86). The requested improvements also -- included bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Although a small portion of this project was funded, the County feels a broader scope needs to be assigned to the project limits. Homestead Road is a connector facility for the Carrboro, and Chapel Hill communities and is the primary route 2 to Chapel Hill High School. A background investigation of this facility indicates safety problems associated with turning movements along the entire corridor limits. Left turns into driveways of large traffic generators such as the Duke Power Building and the Brookstone development, as well as at major intersections with Airport Road, prove dangerous due to sight- distance problems in existing road design. Substantial future traffic increases are expected on Homestead Road. Several residential developments are under construction in the vicinity of the Brookstone development and the Southern Human Services Complex will be constructed on Homestead Road in the near future. Orange County urges the North Carolina Board of Transportation to review the project limits for TIP Project U-2805 and revise the scope to include improvements from High School Road to Airport Road (NC 86), as described in the Regional Priority List. H. Bridge over Morgan Creek at Arboretum/Ache Place fIndeptndent Bicycle Proemm Proiect], The current TIP proposes a feasibility study in 1997 for pedestrian and bicycle improvements for a Morgan Creek Bridge. Orange County supports the DCHC TAC recommendation that this project be programmed for a feasibility study in 1994 and construction in 1995. [Estimated construction cost is $50,000] M. Two Projects Related to Traffic in Orange and Chatham Counties: US 15-501 Widening from Moran Creek to the Chatham- County Line [R-9421 and the Chatham Connector rR-29241. Orange County's major concern is with the timing of these two projects. Orange County supports the building of a southern connector road in Chatham County to handle traffic between Chatham County and destinations in the Research Triangle Park and Durham. Otherwise increased traffic will come through the already congested intersection between US 15-501 and SR 1008 and funnel through Chapel Hill. Orange County cannot support the widening of US 15-501 south of Chapel Hill from Mt. Carmel Church Road (SR 1008) to the Chatham County line unless a Chatham Connector is built previously or at the same time. Recognizing that these roads cross county and DOT district lines, the Commissioners encourage continued coordination of transportation planning at the county, municipal, district and Metropolitan Planning Organization level to handle this regional traffic. LV, Projects Built with the STP Attributable Allocation Orange County supports the DCHC TAC position that the STP Attributable Allocation be reflected as a separate item in the TIP. It is the County's position that the federal ISTEA legislation delegates to the TAC the authority to allocate these funds to projects selected by the TAC, in cooperation with NCDOT, rather than have the project selection rest solely with the NCDOT. - PROJECTS INTORANGE COUNTY OUTSIDE OF THE URBANIZED AREA BOUNDARY Orange County would like to give priority to identified safety needs on existing roads and V bridges and to other transportation projects which foster alternatives to automobile travel. The County also endorses environmentally responsible construction of all transportation projects. Finally, the County supports adequate maintenance for existing transportation facilities. L 1785 Widening Projects A) 1-304 and 1-305 - Best Management Practices (BMT's) for Erosion Control during and after widening construction of both portions of 1-85. Last year the Orange County Board of Commissioners requested a line item in the TIP for funding of BMP's for both 1-85 widening projects. The construction contract for 1-304 has been awarded and is scheduled to begin on September 27, 1993. NCDOT Division 7 officials and the contract engineer met with State and County Erosion Control Officers, the County Engineer, and the County Transportation Planner on September 21, 1993 to physically evaluate erosion control measures needed on the 1-304 project limits. This meeting represents a cooperative effort between NCDOT and the County and we request these efforts continue until completion of both projects. Among other concerns, the County desires input into the erosion control measures in order to ensure optimal protection of the Severimile Creek watershed, a possible future water source. The Upper Eno watershed, of which Sevenmile Creek is a sub-basin, has been designated a WS-H watershed, thus the county is committed to protect the water quality by working with NCDOT to implement the strongest protection measures available. B) 1 305 - widening of 1-85 to six lanes and reconstruction of interchanges from Orange Grove Road to Durham County Line 1) Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities - Orange County has worked over the last year with the WO to produce the Regional Bicycle Plan for Durham and Orange Counties. This plan represents the first such study to identify both rural and urban bicycle needs for one region. An element of the plan is to provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities at interchanges of major highways. Some of Orange County's major commuter roads that interchange with 1-85 include NC 86, Old NC 86 (SR 1009),and US 70.— These facilities are often used for bicycle and pedestrian travel as well, and the County requests that accommodations be made for these two alternate modes of travel when designing and constructing the 1-85 widening. Features requested for inclusion are sidewalks, bike lanes, and adequate guardrails on-overpasses. 2) 1-305 Wildlife Corridor Under 1-85 - In 1993 the Orange County Planning Department, in conjunction with the UNC Chapel Hill Department of City and Regional Planning compiled a report titled "New 4 Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan: Proposals for Linking Duke Forest and Eno River State Park." One of the recommendations of the study is to construct a wildlife corridor under the 1-85/US 70 interchange in conjunction with TIP Project 1-305. This crossing would have two positive effects at the 1-85/US 70 interchange: 1) it would reduce the amount of vehicular incidents on 1-85 due to wildlife crossing in traffic, and; 2) the corridor would provide a safe connector for wildlife migrating between the Duke Forest and Eno River State Park. NCDO was consulted during the study and advised on a staff level of the need for a 6' x 100 0 culvert along the stream under the I-85/US 70 interchange. This culvert specification is reco mended by Tom Hoctor, a wildlife corridor specialist from the University of Florida at Gaine ville. e vill' The 0 ge County Board of Commissioners is now formally requesting this wildlife corridor be addre in the early stages of planning for the 1-305 project. We encourage your planners to includ this as an element in the environmental assessment scheduled in 1997, the design, and L the final construction of the project. H. li�tersection Improvements - Countywide Orange ounty recognizes that intersection improvements provide immediate safety benefits without e environmental impact or cost of full roadway improvements.- We request the followin intersections be programmed either through Transportation Improvement Program funding r Safety Program funding for improvements which can be implemented as soon as possible. Each of these locations are listed on the NCDOT High Accident Location Analysis for Oran e County. 1) NC 86 / New Hope Church Road (SR 1723) experiences two types of traffic during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. NC 86 carries daily commuters to Chapel Hill,Hillsborough, and 1-40 as well as students to New Hope School. Delays and dangerous vehicular movements are experienced due to the high amount of left turns at this intersection. We request it be improved to include turn lanes on all approaches. 2) US 70 Bypass /Miller Road (SR 1555) also carries both local commuter traffic and Orange High School traffic. We appreciate the study in early October which indicates the need for a full traffic signal at this location. We encourage you to place the signal as soon as possible. We also request the intersection be studied for other improvements which will provide for safer traffic movement. s 5 Also on a High Accident Location List or identified by staff and in need of evaluation are the followin locations: 3 3 NC 54 / Southern Drive (SR 2416) 4 NC 86 / US 70 Bypass US 70 / St. Mary's Road (SR 1002) Carr Store Road (SR 1352) / Efland Cedar Grove Road (SR 1004) (Orange County appreciates NCDOT's quick response in providing a caution light at this intersection in response to concerns expressed by area residents in May). M. Railroad Grade Crossing Im r v m nts - Countywide There ar several at-grade railroad crossings throughout the County which are in need of improve eats, from track crossings to grade work on the roadway facility. The main line of the South rn Railway traverses the entire county. Motorists travelling roadway facilities which cross the railway encounter a multitude of signs warning of dangerous grade crossings. An inspe ct1 of existing crossings countywide indicates sight-distance problems, potential "bottomin out" grade problems, intersection grade problems, and substandard warning devices. Orange C unty requests railroad crossings countywide be improved to provide for safer travel conditions. Crossings of note include: 1) Southern Railway / Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) 2) Southern Railway / Mt. Willing Road (SR 1120) 3) Southern Railway / University Station Road (SR 1712) 4) Southern Railway / Mt. Herman Church Road (SR 1713) Each of th se crossings need roadway refinements to provide for better sight-distance and grade changes. IV tenance of r Orange C my has many bridges an its road system. We realize maintenance of all of these bridges is an enormous task, however many of our bridges are beginning to need some maintenan . In particular, the bridges along the Interstate are becoming somewhat of an -- eyesore. usting metal, and concrete streaked and discolored with rust from the runoff from the unpain metal, cause a less than appealing appearance. We request that bridges over the interstate painted. I V �ge Replacement Pr.Qiects The Orang County Board of Commissioners also continues to support the following TIP projects cu ently programmed in our jurisdiction. We hope to see them completed in a timely manner. • 4 • • * B-25)8 - NC 157 Bridge Replacement - FY 95 6 * B-21 - SR 1005 Bridge Replacement - FY 94 * B-2599 - SR 1148 Bridge Replacement - Under Construction * B-30 '0 - SR 1352 Bridge Replacement - FY 98 ! * B-32 8 - SR 1538 Bridge Replacement - FY 2000 * B-32 9 - SR 1540 Bridge Replacement - FY 2000 * B-28 2 - SR 1734 Bridge Replacement - FY 97 Thank y u for your consideration of these requests. Submitted this 28th day of October, 1993 i ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS By: Moses Carey, Jr., hair i I I December 9, 1993 Richard Franck, Chair Chapel Hill Transportation Board 306 N Columbia Street Chapel Hill, NC 27516 DISTRIBOTED Moses Carey, Chair S'- /G' Orange County Board of Commissioners Hillsborough, NC 27278 °'�`�~ JrA, Dear Mr. Carey: The Chapel Hill Transportation Adivisory Board is concerned about the transportation impact of the proposed Economic Development District at Old 86 and I-40. Although we recognize that the EDD itself is beyond our purview, we encourage you to carefully consider the following questions as you evaluate this district: * What will be the traffic impact of the EDD, not just in the immediate vicinity, but extending down 86 and Old 86 as commuters travel to their jobs? How will this contribute to our already deteriorating air quality? * Will road improvements be required on Old 86 to meet the demand of increased traffic? What will be the costs of such impor ements? * Since no form of public transit currently serves the site, how can this EDD be developed so as to decrease reliance on the single occupant automobile, with its resulting increased congestion, pollution, and road impovement and maintenance costs? * How does this EDD square with efforts by the Triangle Transit Authority, the Triangle Fixed Guideway Study Group, and others to promote a regional appoach to transit-oriented development? It is well accepted that for a fixed-guideway transit system to succeed, new develpment must be carefully planned for proximity to potential transit stops . In sum, we feel that it is crucial that any development initiative, particularaly on this scale, be planned in full consideration of the range of needed transportation modalities, ensuing impacts, and associated costs . Sincerely, Richar A. Franck Chair, Chapel Hill Transportation Board i I i i i I ` 61 MEMORANDUM • Director TO. Marvi�. Collins, Planning Dire FROM: Beth Wickham, Planner II I DATE: December 14, 1993 I RE: Updated Proportional Valuation Fisca3 T-npact Template kn ongoing goal of the Board of County Commissioners is the asses went of impacts of growth and development on the environmental, economic and service resources of the County. In keepi g with that goal, Staff has updated the Proportional Valua ion Fiscal Impact template which is designed to measure the fiscal impact of nonresidential development. The original template for Orange County was developed in 1990 and is based on The Fiscal Im ac Handbook by Robert Burchell and David Listokin. Burchell and L' stokin's work is often cited as the basis for many fiscal impac studies, including the Dupage County, Illinois study which has been referred to in many recent discussions on fiscal impact. Like all methods of fiscal impact analysis; the Proportional Valuation Method is a projection of the direct, current public costs and revenues associated with nonresidential (residential) growt to the local jurisdiction in which the growth is taking place. The Proportional Valuation Method involves a two step proce s to assign a share of the jurisdiction's costs to a new comme cial or industrial development. As the name implies, the templ to is based on proportions - the proportion of total nonre idential real property value to the total real property value, and then costs that would be incurred by the County based on the v lue of the new development. Ittached are fiscal impact analyses for four existing comme cial/industrial developments in Orange County. Attempting to represent a variety of nonresidential types, I included the follo ing: Parker-Hannifin Light Industrial Vietri,Inc. Distribution Overlook Executive Offices Office Space Walmart Retail Although there are significant differences in the net fiscal impacts of each, they are all positive. Walmart has the greatest positive fiscal impact, obviously because of the sales tax revenue. Park r-Hannifin, with high equipment tax, has the next greatest positive fiscal impact, although depreciation results in a decrease over time. New equipment purchases will bring that figure back up. Both Vietri and Overlook Executive Offices, although not as significant an impact, show steady increases. I i 60 a Cii c+i Z 8 a � 0 a * * 4 A � � p y 4c 1c a o z Fm F � a y Q •ds C� �p y 'O C IV .. U • o b w ZP a w W m C �n 'C C 0 d O O o w 62 Based on recent studies and review of research on fiscal impact analysis, the following applications might be useful for Orange County; Revenue Forecasting Capital Improvement Programming Budget Projections Comparing Levels of Service Steering Development Annexation Issues Determining Patterns of Land Use Planning Infrastructure The mast obvious risk in using any type of fiscal impact analysis is a jurisdiction's sole dependence on the outcome of the analysis for d cision-making. Fiscal impact analysis is a tool for guiding decisIfter on-making but does not take into account environmental or socia impacts, or impacts that are very real but not easily quantfied. These impacts could easily be more "fiscally signi icant" than the development itself. numerous discussions with you, Budget, Economic Devel pment and Finance Staffs, I feel safe in recommending the Propo tional Valuation Template for use as' a tool for "sensitivity analy is, " - comparing different development scenarios and assis ing decision-making based on each one's relative value, not on on individual development's bottom line net fiscal impact. I have attached an in-depth explanation of each section of the t mplate to the Parker-Hannifin analysis. Explanations for other analyses are identical to the Parker-Hannifin explanation with he exception of the obvious differences in the numbers. Addit onally, I have attached the Refinement Coefficient Worksheet for urther clarification. Please let me know if you need addit onal information. i C i 63 FISCAL IMPACT TEMPLATE: NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT/PROPOFMONALVALUATION Version 9/9/87 Bureau of Economic& Business Research —University of Florida Modified 12/3/93 —Orange County N.C.Planning Department SECTION 1 -BASIC DATA:.;; ENTER THE FOLLOWING DATA FOR EACH PROJECT: A PROJECT NAME: Parker—Hannifin B TOWNSHIP: Hillsborough C SCHOOL DISTRICT: Orange County D INFLATION RATE: 2.90 E COUNTY ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES: $51,497,942 F TOTAL LOCAL EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE: $4,408,709,951 G TOTAL NUMBER OF LAND PARCELS: 40,129 H TOTAL NONRESIDENTIAL EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE: $484,958,094 1 TOTAL NUMBER OF NONRESIDENTIAL LAND PARCELS: 1343 J REAL PROPERTY(MARKET) VALUE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: $1,945,105 K PERSONAL PROPERTY VALUE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT $3,236,561 CALCULATED INPUT DATA: FIA AVERAGE EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE PER PARCEL: $109,863 F1.2 AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE PER PARCEL: $361,101 F1.3 EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL PARCEL TO AVERAGE LOCAL PARCEL: 3.29 F1.4 REAL PROPERTY VALUE OF FACILITY TO AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY VALUE: 5.39 SECTION 2-SHARE OF EXISTING COUNTY EXPENDITURES TO TOTAL LOCAL NONRESIDENTIAL USES .. E TOTAL COUNTY EXPENDITURES: $51,497,942 F21 PROPORTION OF NONRESIDENTIAL VALUE TO 0.11 TOTAL LOCAL REAL PROPERTY VALUE: F1.3 EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL PARCEL TO AVERAGE LOCAL PARCEL: 3.29 L REFINEMENT COEFFICIENT: 0.28 F22 TOTAL EXISTING COUNTY EXPENDITURES ATTRIBUTABLE TO NONRESIDENTIAL USES: $1,586,137 S=C710 3 - FUTURE TOTAL COUNTY OPERATING COSTS INDUCED BY THE PROPOSED 64 DEVELOPMENT F2.2 TOTAL EXISTING COUNTY EXPENDITURES ATTRI UTABLE TO NONRESIDENTIAL USE: $1,586,137 1 F&1 PROPORTION OF FACILITY TO TOTAL LOCAL NONRESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY VALUE: 0.004 F1.3 PROPORTION OF FACILITY TO AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL REAL ROPEFiTY VALUE: 5.39 F3.2 COUN COSTS ALLOCATED TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: $6,362 SECTIO 4 ASSIGN TOTAL ANNUAL NONRESIDENTIAL COSTS TO COMPONENT SERVICE CATEGORIES CATEGORY PERCENT DOLLARS F4.1 COMM NITY MAINTENANCE 1 $64 F4.2 GENE L ADMINISTRATION 6 $382 F4.3 TAX&RECORDS 29 $1,845 F4.4 PUBLI SAFETY 16 $1,018 F4.5 PUBLI19 WORKS 0 $0 F4.6 PLANN NG&EDC 28 $1,781 F4.7 HUMAN SERVICES 20 $1,272 TOTAL 100 $6,362 SECTION 5 GENERAL GOVERNMENT DATA TAXES M COUNTY OVERNMENT TAX RATE: 0.746 Per$100 Assessed Valuation N SCHOOL ISTRICT TAX RATE: 0 Per$100 Assessed Valuation O ASSESS ENT RATIO 95 P COUNTY ALES TAX RATE: 0.02 Gross Annual Sales 0 COUNTY OVTS PERCENTAGE OF SALES TAX 0.633 R PERCENT GE OF TOTAL SALES TAX TO OPERATING 0.43 S SO.FOO GE OF PROJECT 74,884 T PROJECT D SALES PER SO.FOOT $0.00 CHARGES/INSPECTIONS/FEES(Initial Costs) I U EROSIO CONTROL $600 V GRADIN PERMIT $1,460 W BUILDIN PERMIT $9,040 X ELECTRICAL $2,496 Y PLUMBING $105 Z MECHANICAL $140 AA MISCELLANEOUS saxaasaaaaaaa TOTAL $13,841 i I 65 � ppti T oar p (y�[ �• wv0 � 01 H pppp O T � fR�"J� O1 W O O) N H f�R g�y 1H f9 H y H (p y M O Mi. cy W) N H _ f^A 64 C-1 y W y 69. H y y T Cl Y H T T{O ILI 0) YYtl!!! N a f co QQ CD p N M O tt r p p p W �Ny ts Ra. T N N y lNi C%T vz � tV y H y y. O A(Q P r fi! op 01 N n NN •••::: � � r! to 1� N � 5 N H r O» r <p to _=v ►� H H N Hy w H OyO O _r� O� Of CO)LO f-'a1 T y T T c T r T ♦Y H H HH yH a LO CY) W O tO �t00 CD MI�Cf O � � N - - - H T r (� T T r T H y �M(7 H H y H a 'm COOS�c~ N Ml�7 act 0 000 t09 ti r y y N H (Y71 Hy yH j O n orf p Co _� c�vvpp pp b IIR^ N He � O �ti cp C r H r (V-T r T r H yH w G&641, Q d a W (p W ~ {2� oWC U w W � cc � WS n Q m I- g cn ¢ � W 3�W 7 y aWay Z �F¢- m WO0 Q Z 2EN0W FI2I V WIL O ° Z Z z aqi 4d y b b (�0 ((d I-- d d d= 7 ((d LL IL QWWWW N LL U. t 66 EXPLANATION OF TERMS AND DATA SOURCES SECTION I - BASIC DATA Proiect Name- Name of the proposed development. Townshliv -Township in which project is located. t School istrict- School district in which project is located. istri 0 Rate - Unless an inflation rate is entered, the template will calculate fiscal impacts based on co mance,department mu t be dollars. Since the hiflation rate changes from month to month, the f Id for the most recent figures. Example-2.90 County 'Annual Operating Expenditures - This figure represents all county FY '93-94 General Fund expenditures except for the following: 1) School Capital Flund Transfers $ 2,606,048 2) County Capital Fund Transfers 1,170,428 3) Debt Service 5,578,534 General Fund Expenditures $60,852,952 $ 51,497,942 Total L�Eaualized Real Property Value-This figure represents the aggregate county mark value of all coun taxpaying properties on which taxes are assessed. This includes residential, farm, vacant, Q�and industrial. Contact the tax assessor's offices for this figure. Example -$4,408,709,951. Total N r of Land Parcels-This figure represents the sum of all county properties on which taxes are assessed. Contact the tax assessor's office for this figure. Example- 40,129. Total N�inresidential Equalized Real Proverty Value-This figure represents the sum of the market value of all c "e-rd.-al and industrial properties. Contact the tax assessor's office for this figure. Example - $484,95 094. Total Number of Nonresidential Land Parcels - This figure represents the sum of commercial and ind tax-paying properties. Because apartment complexes demand services simila to residential us m rcels, ey are not included. Contact the tax assessor's office for this figure. Example- 1343. Real Pr Dertv (Market) Value of Proposed Develovm - This figure represents the total market value of the development._For an existing development,contact the tax assessor's office. Obtaining an accurate figure for a proposed development is more complicated and will vary according to the type of development and the Plaimed location. Example - $1,945,105. Perso ProDery Value of Proposed Develot)ment - This figure represents the total personal property value of�the development and is based on the listing of equipment and other personal property. After reviewing this list, the assessor's office calculates a total value based on rate of depreciation. For an 67 existing or proposed development, it is best to contact the assessor's office for this figure. Example - $3,236,561. 0 Average Equalized Real Property Value- (Calculated Total Localized Real Property Value/Total Number of Land Parcels) - This figure is derived by dividing the total local equalized real property value by the total number of land parcels. The quotient is therefore the average equalized real property value per parcel. Example -$109,863. Average Nonresidential Equalized Real Pronertv Value Per Parcel (Total Nonresidential Real Property Value/Total Number of Nonresidential Land Parcels) - This figure is derived by dividing the total nonresidential equalized real property value by the total number of nonresidential land parcels. The quotient is therefore the average nonresidential equalized real property value per parcel. Example - $361,101. Equalized Real Property Value Average Nonresidential Parcel To Average Local Parcel(Average Nonresidential Equalized Real Property Value Per Parcel/Average Equalized Real Property Value Per Parcel) - This figure is derived by dividing the average nonresidential equalized real property value per parcel by the average equalized real property value per parcel. This quotient represents the proportionate value of nonresidential to residential equalized real property value per parcel. In this example, this figure indicates that the average nonresidential property is valued at 3.29 times the average local property. Real Property Value of Facility to Average Nonresidential Real Property Value (Real Property (Market) Value of Proposed Development/Average Nonresidential Equalized Real Property Value Per Parcel)-This figure is derived by dividing the real property(market)value of the proposed development by the average nonresidential equalized real property value per parcel. In our example,this figure indicates that the real property value of the proposed development is 5.39 times the average nonresidential real property value. 68 SECTION 2 SHARE OF EXISTING COUNTY EXPENDITURES TO TOTAL LOCAL NONRESIDENTIAL USES Total C tv Expenditures - This figure represents the total county expenditures for the current fiscal year budget. This information may be obtained from the county's finance or budget office. Example - $51,497,�42 1 Pro r)orfi on of Nonresidential Value To Total Local Real Property Value-This figure is derived by dividing the co ty's nonresidential equalized real property value ($484,958,094 in our example) by total local equaliz real property value ($4,408,709,951 in our example). The resulting quotient indicates that 11% of the to local equalized real property value is nonresidential. Ref nem nt Coefficient -County expenditures are not allocated according to market values of residential and nonresidential properties. It is therefore wrong to assume that because 11% of the total equalized real rty value is nonresidential,that 11%of the county's total expenditures go to serve nonresidential deve-Zrpol ents. Generally speaking,residential developments place more demands on county services,and therefor , cost the county more than nonresidential developments It is best that the analyst contact departm nt heads and review individuals budgets and expenditures for direct service to nonresidential develop ent Based on input from the Orange County Department Heads and a study measuring indirect costs A- ost Allocation Plan For Orange County, North Caro David M. Griffith&Associates, 1992), the refil went coefficient was set at 28%. This means that 28%of the 11%nonresidential market value actually s to serve nonresidential developments. I Total Ex�-W County E=enditures Attributable To Nonresidential Uses -This figure is the product of j - the abov three figures(($51,497,942 x.11)x.28),or$1,586,137. This figure represents the total existing county e�:ZuWres attributable to nonresidential uses. ounty SECTION 3 FUTURE TOTAL COUNTY OPERATING COSTS INDUCED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Total E me County Expenditures Attributable to Nonresidential Uses - See above. This figure is $1,586,1 7 in our example. Pro t)ortion of Facilitv to Total Local Nonresidential Real Proverty Value-This figure is derived by dividing the real roperty market value of the proposed development ($1,945,105 in our example) by the total real j nornwir ntial real property value ($484,958,094 in our example). This results in a quotient of .004 indicati that the market value of this development is.004 of the total nonresidential real property value. Countv Costs to Proposed Development-This figure is the product of the two figures above ($1,586,137 x .004 $6,345). This gives the total county expenditures allocated to the future nonresidential development. 69 SECTION 4 0 ASSIGN TOTAL ANNUAL NONRESIDENTIAL COSTS TO COMPONENT SERVICE CATEGORIES Category • - Specific county government service category. Percent-These figures are estimates of the percentage of the total expenditure that the county will spend in each service category. These percentages are based on responses from 26 Department Heads regarding the amount of their operating budgets going for direct service to nonresidential development (See Refinement Coefficient Worksheet). Dollars - These figures represent the dollar amount that the county spends in each service category for the nonresidential development. • Community Maintenance Includes Commissioners, Elections and Soil and Water Conservation. General Administration Includes Manager, Budget, Personnel, Finance, Purchasing, Central Services and Data Processing. Taxation & Records Includes Register of Deeds, Land Records, Assessor and Tax Collector. Public Safety Includes Sheriff and Emergency Services. Public Works Includes Sanitation, Buildings and Grounds, Road Naming, Building& Rents and Motor Pool. Planning& EDC Includes Planning and Economic Development Human Services Includes Social Services, Health, Agriculture Extension, Recreation & Parks, Aging, Commission for Women, Child Support Enforcement SECTION 5 GENERAL GOVERNMENT DATA TAXES County Government Tax Rate-The County tax rate per$100 of assessed valuation. Because the template is designed to measure only the current,direct cost and benefits of a particular development,any funding of capital projects should not be included in the calculations. In the FY 1993-94 budget,property tax funds $3,880,060 of the total debt service. Each cent on the tax rate — $432,054. Debt service is equal to 8.98 cents on the tax rate ($3,880,060/$432,054). 83.6 cents (93-94 tax rate) - 8.98 cents — 74.62 cents. School District Tax Rate-The supplementary tax for either Chapel Hill/Carrboro or Orange County school systems. Assessment Ratio- The ratio of market (sales) value to assessed value based on information supplied by the Tax Office. The assessment ratio is used to convert market value to assessed value for the purpose of computing the tax base. Example - 95. County Sales Tax Rate-The percentage of county-wide gross annual sales that are returned to the county. Example - .02 Gross Annual Sales. County Government's Percentage of Sales Tax-All county jurisdictions receive a percentage of the sales tax returned to the county by the State. The amount is calculated by taking the total county population as estimated by the State and adding populations of all county jurisdictions (total Orange County population + Chapel Hill + Carrboro + Durham + Hillsborough + Mebane). A percentage of this total 70 goes to each jurisdiction on a per capita basis by dividing each jurisdiction's population by the total This results the percentage of the original 2 percent that is returned to each jurisdiction. The finance office I can su ply this information. .p 633. Percen of Total 5ales Tax To Op -In Orange County 43%of the total sales tax revenue goes to ope ating. Total sales tax revenue — $9,204,000. Total to operating — $3,950,00. $3,950,000/$9,204,000 — .43. Souare�Footaffe of Proiect - This information can be obtained from the developer or tax assessor. Exampl-- 74,884 sq. ft. ProiectA d Sales Per Square Foot -This information can be obtained from the developer or tax assessor or by referring to SALES PER SQUARE FOOT from Urban Land Institute's DOLLARS AND CENTS OF SHOPPING CENTERS There is no sales tax revenue with this particular development. I CHAR ES/INSPECTIONS/FEES(All inspections charges are initial revenues and will not be included in futu n futur yearly revenue estimates.) ES� r yearly 'u Erosion Erosion ntrol-An Erosion Control Plan must be prepared for all land disturbing activities subject to the W Orange unty Erosion Control Ordinance whenever the proposed activity is to be undertaken on a tract comp . ru more than 20,000 square feet, if more than 20,000 square feet are to be covered. Land distur ce f for our example is 4 acres. At a fee of$150 per acre the total charge would be 4 *$150, or $600. gmd' Permit-Before starting a land-disturbing activity greater that 20,000 square feet, the owner or his agent shall obtain a Grading Permit from the Erosion Control officer. Grading permit fees are$365 per The total fee for this example would be 4 *$365, or$1,460. Buil Permits-Most construction activity in Orange County requires the issuance of a building permit. Zomme*ial, industrial,and nonresidential buildings,alterations and additions fees are under Schedule D in the Inspections Fee Schedule in the Appendix. The total building permit fee for this example is$9,040. El ri All buildings with electricity require an electrical inspection.The electrical inspection fee for ML this e ple is$2,496. Plumb' All buildings with plumbing require a plumbing inspection. Plumbing inspection fee for this example is $105. 1 example a a in in c b p r de i s $ m!M All buildings with heating and cooling systems require a mechanical inspection. The am inspection fee for this example is$140. in Misc . e e0us-Miscellaneous Building Inspections include those such as Mobile/Modular Homes,Building Demoliti n,Satellite Dishes,Swimming Pools,Signs,etc. There are no miscellaneous inspections for this example It is t to project electrical,plumbing and mechanical fees,especially when the use of the building has not en determined. The fees in this example were obtained from the Permits Coordinator and are hypothelical. 71 SECTION 6 COUNTY GOVERNMENT/PROJECTED 0 FISCAL IMPACTS OF PROJECT Tax Base-The tax base represents the increase in assessed property value expected each year as a result of the project development. The values are shown in 1,000's, and are derived from a formula which includes the market value of the proposed development, the assessment ratio and a percentage for personal (equipment) tax. Example Market Value = $1,945,105,Assessment Ratio = .95, Equip.Tax = 5% 1) $1,945,105 x .95 — $1,847,850 2) $1,847,850 x .05 = $92,393 3) $1,847,850 + $92,393 = $1,940,243 4) $1,940,243/1000 — $1,940 Revenues Property Tax-Derived from a formula which multiplies the tax base times the tax rate. Inflation rate is entered in for each year. Example Tax Base = $1,940,243, Tax Rate = .7460 per$100 valuation 1) $1,940,243 x .7460'_ $1,447,421 2) $1,447,421/100 = $14,474 Sales Tax- Sales tax is derived from a formula which multiplies the proposed square footage of the new development times the projected sales per square foot of the new development. This product is multiplied times the county sales tax rate to determine the amount of sales tax generated annually. There is no sales tax in this particular example. Equipment Tax-Equipment tax is derived from a formula which multiplies the assessed value of all personal property (equipment) times the tax rate times a percentage for depreciation. The product is then divided by 100 to reflect per$100 valuation. Example Assessed Personal Property Value = $3,236,561, Tax Rate = .7460 per $100 valuation $3,236,561 x .7460 x .90/$100 = $21,730 Fees-Revenues from fees are included in the first year's total. This figure is taken from the total in Section 5. Expenditures - First year expenditures are taken from the breakdown by category in Section 4. Expenditures for subsequent years include an inflation factor. Example Community Maintenance expenditure for 1993 = $64, Inflation rate — .0290 $64 x .0290 = $1.856, $64 + $1.856 = $65. 72 Net Balance - The net balance is the difference between expenditures and revenues. A negative net balance indicates that it costs Orange County more to provide services for the proposed development than it receives in revenues from the same development. A positive net balance indicates that more revenues are received than it costs to serve the project. Our balance shows a positive net across the board,starting with a b3lance of$43,684(which includes fees)and leveling out to$17,784 with equipment tax depreciation (the development would more than likely be purchasing new equipment after 2001 which would increase the net balance). The county should therefore experience a significant positive net fiscal impact from Parker- in. I I I I i I 73 FISCAL IMPACT TEMPLATE: NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT/PROPORTIONAL VALUATION Version 9/9/87 Bureau of Economic& Business Research — University of Florida Modified 12/3/93 —Orange County N.C.Planning Department SECTION;1 BASIC DATA ENTER THE FOLLOWING DATA FOR EACH PROJECT A PROJECT NAME: Vietri B TOWNSHIP: Hillsborough C SCHOOL DISTRICT: Orange County D INFLATION RATE: 2.90 E COUNTY ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES: $51,497,942 F TOTAL LOCAL EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE: $4,408,709,951 G TOTAL NUMBER OF LAND PARCELS: 40,129 H TOTAL NONRESIDENTIAL EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE: $484,958,094 1 TOTAL NUMBER OF NONRESIDENTIAL LAND PARCELS: 1343 J REAL PROPERTY(MARKET) VALUE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: $976,718 K PERSONAL PROPERTY VALUE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT $109,009 CALCULATED INPUT DATA: F1.1 AVERAGE EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE PER PARCEL: $109,863 F1.2 AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE PER PARCEL: $361,101 F1.3 EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL PARCEL TO AVERAGE LOCAL PARCEL: 3.29 F1.4 REAL PROPERTY VALUE OF FACILITY TO AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY VALUE: 2.70 SECTION 2 ' SHARE OF EXISTING COUNTY EXPOIDITURES TO TOTAL LOGAL NQNRESIDENTIALIUSES E TOTAL COUNTY EXPENDITURES: $51,497,942 F21 PROPORTION OF NONRESIDENTIAL VALUE TO 0.11 TOTAL LOCAL REAL PROPERTY VALUE: F1.3 EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL PARCEL TO AVERAGE LOCAL PARCEL: 3.29 L REFINEMENT COEFFICIENT: 0.28 F2.2 TOTAL EXISTING COUNTY EXPENDITURES ATTRIBUTABLE TO NONRESIDENTIAL USES: $1,566,137 74 SECTION 3 —FUTURE TOTAL COUNTY OPERATING COSTS INDUCED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT F22 TOTAL EXISTING COUNTY EXPENDITURES ATTRIBUTABLE TO NONRESIDENTIAL USE: $1,566,137 F&1 PRO RTION OF FACILITY TO TOTAL LOCAL NONR SIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY VALUE: 0.002 F1.3 PRO RTION OF FACILITY TO AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL REAL P OPERTY VALUE: 2.70 F&2 COUN COSTS ALLOCATED TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: $3,195 SECTION 4-ASSIGN TOTAL ANNUAL NONRESIDENTIAL COSTS TO COMPONENT SERVICE CATEGORIES CATEGORY PERCENT DOLLARS F4.1 COMM NITY MAINTENANCE 1 $32 F4.2 GENE LADMINISTRATION 6 $192 F4.3 TAX& ECORDS 29 $926 F4.4 PUBLIC SAFETY 16 $511 F4.5 PUBLIC WORKS 0 $0 F4.6 PLANNI G&EDC 26 $894 F4.7 HUMAN ERVICES 20 $639 TOTAL 100 $3,195 SECTI4fi1 -GENERAL GOVERNMENT DATA TAXES M COUNTY OVERNM ENT TAX RATE: 0.746 Per$100 Assessed Valuation N SCHOOL (STRICT TAX RATE: 0 Per$100 Assessed Valuation O ASSESSM NT RATIO 95 P COUNTY S ES TAX RATE: 0.02 Gross Annual Sates 0 COUNTY OVT'S PERCENTAGE OF SALES TAX 0.633 R PERCENT GE OF TOTAL SALES TAX TO OPERATING 0.43 S S0.FOOT GE OF PROJECT 30,000 T PROJECTE SALES PER SO.FOOT $0.00 CHARGESANS ECTIONS/FEES(Initial Costs) U EROSION ONTROL $667 V GRADING ERMIT $1,566 W BUILDING ERMIT $3,040 X ELECTRIC L $832 Y PLUMBING $100 Z MECHANI AL $140 AA MISCELLA EOUS ==meaeaaaxc-ate TOTAL $6,345 75 lO' NNg O to IAN �O 0 N CCVV H M) N Yl N V! 66R N co o �18 �0 co n o m Q a w . a . co CD t� m m .r. H CO 01 O SR N p�p ���pp �4% p� M N Of 1f! �p l� O> cy co � NN� NIA rj' N H N r V ffi pad N� to N �_ O �0g1 � O C � NIA�N�H N N w CD 6> X h y a W y o Mu Z Z � ? p 0V U W Ws a � W 0 W 5 W W Z UJ (0 �a1 Fa- $ 2EENWUU.. O � LU06 - Z O Z m a W ¢ U. U. W U. 0 tL N W I • i 76 FISCAL I PACT TEMPLATE: NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT/PROPOR11ONAL VALUATION Version 9!9! 7 Bureau of E onomlc r;< Business Research —University of Florida Modified l 3/93—Orange County N.C.Planning Department SECTION 1 -BASIC DATA ENTER THE F LLOWINO DATA FOR EACH PROJECT.• A PROJE NAME: Eastowne S TOWNS P: Chapel Hill C SCHOO DISTRICT: Orange County D IN FLATI N RATE: 2.90 E COUNTY ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES: $51,497,942 F TOTAL L CAL EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE: $4,408,709,951 G TOTAL N MBER OF LAND PARCELS: 40,129 H TOTAL N NRESIDENTIAL EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE: $484,958,094 1 TOTAL NU BER OF NONRESIDENTIAL LAND PARCELS: 1343 J REAL PR PERTY(MARKET)VALUE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: $1,318,400 K PERSON PROPERTY VALUE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT $198,451 CALCULATED!INPUT DATA: F1.1 AVERAG EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE PER PARCEL: $109,863 F1.2 AVERAG NONRESIDENTIAL EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE P R PARCEL: $361,101 F1.3 EQUALI D REAL PROPERTY VALUE AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL PARCEL O AVERAGE LOCAL PARCEL: 3.29 F1.4 REAL PROPE RTY VALUE OF FACILITY TO AVERAGE NONRES DENTIAL REAL PROPERTY VALUE: 3.65 SECTION -SHAWOF EXISTING COUNTY EXPENDITURES TO TOTAL LOCAL NONRESlDENTIA L USES E TOTAL C LINTY EXPENDITURES: $51,497,942 F21 PROPOR ON OF NONRESIDENTIAL VALUE TO 0.11 TOTAL L CAL REAL PROPERTY VALUE: F1.3 EQUALIZ D REAL PROPERTY VALUE AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL PARCEL O AVERAGE LOCAL PARCEL: 3.29 L REFINEM NT COEFFICIENT: 0.28 F22 TOTAL (STING COUNTY EXPENDITURES ATTRIBUTABLE TO NONRES DENTIAL USES: $1,586,137 77 SECTION 3 —FUTURE TOTAL COUNTY OPERATING COSTS INDUCED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT F22 TOTAL EXISTING COUNTY EXPENDITURES ATTRIBUTABLE TO NONRESIDENTIAL USE: $1,586,137 F3.1 PROPORTION OF FACILITYTO TOTAL LOCAL NONRESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY VALUE: 0.003 F1.3 PROPORTION OF FACILITY TO AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY VALUE: Z.65 F3.2 COUNTY COSTS ALLOCATED TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: $4,312 SECTION 4-ASSIGN TOTAL ANNUAL NONRESIDENTIAL COSTS TO COMPONENT SERVICE CATEGORIES CATEGORY PERCENT DOLLARS F4.1 COMMUNITY MAINTENANCE 1 $43 F4.2 GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 6 $259 F4.3 TAX&RECORDS 29 $1,250 F4.4 PUBLIC SAFETY 16 $690 F4.5 PUBLIC WORKS 0 $0 F4.6 PLANNING& EDC 28 $1,207 F4.7 HUMAN SERVICES 20 $862 TOTAL 100 $4,312 SECTION S..'-GENERAL GOVERNMENT DATA''::; TAXES M COUNTY GOVERNMENT TAX RATE: 0.746 Per$100 Assessed Valuation N SCHOOL DISTRICT TAX RATE: 0.1575 Per$100 Assessed Valuation O ASSESSMENT RATIO 95 P COUNTY SALES TAX RATE: 0.02 Gross Annual Sales 0 COUNTY GOVT'S PERCENTAGE OF SALES TAX 0.633 R PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL SALES TAX TO OPERATING 0.43 S SO.FOOTAGE OF PROJECT 8,060 T PROJECTED SALES PER SO.FOOT $0.00 CHARGESANSPECTIONS/FEES(Initial Costs) U EROSION CONTROL $240 V GRADING PERMIT $584 W BUILDING PERMIT $0 X ELECTRICAL $0 Y PLUMBING $0 Z MECHANICAL $0 AA MISCELLANEOUS TOTAL $824 7s c! 0)) Nnt�p1A� � YYWW�� O O �t c0 N H H H M!H !4 K v�N Q co I m - V? r N H N y y H y �p � N �h � 01 et Of N � 9►�0 y y Go co OD CY 'No �_- N O U . : per. a� It tpD.�" �N n MOf tp0 O z:... w.> C O coo � eN9 M to, N m La p H y y Hy z Le) O � W faro I� ch p N MNNI Nap a H of �tpp O cr) In cV u�f p OCR Oap Cl a�D �t � O lON � N ei C 11RR _ t0 H N ^ H z !� Q d w � � j W � N O U W W Z C � o � WV a z `� N -iLl G 0LL ad m X m WOW � W WZaIW (1) z0 o m CD ►-� g Z � � OW i' � ttMUUZZ � Jj Cd - WWIL 2Z `� a''omZ§ Z v, (d LL. � � (d � y � UC7F= aaCLi �C U. W t 79 Tax Map Number Real Property Value Personal Property Value 7.26a..8a $138,473 $8,803 7.26a..8b $77,444 $14,675 7.26a..8c $94,502 $10,627 7.26a..8d $101,267 7.26a..8e $117,32D $106,253 7.26a..8f $84,306 7.26a..8g $96,953 7.26a..8h $58,917 7.26a..8j $54,309 $2,901 7.26a..8k $150,308 $55,102 7.26a..8 $146,240 Total $1,318,400 $198,361 Above are tax map references for individual businesses located in Overlook Executive Office Condominiums (Eastowne). Each office is owned separately and taxed accordingly. Equipment taxes are those assessed on the tenants of each condominium. All taxes are added to represent a total for the building. 80 FISCALI PACT TEMPLATE: NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT/PROPORTIONALVALUATION Version 9/9 87 Bureau of E onomic&Business Research — University of Florida Modified 1 3/93 —Orange County N.C.Planning Department SECTION'i -BASIC DATA ENTER THE F LLOWJNG DATA FOR EACH PROJECT.• A PROJE NAME: Waimart B TOWNS P: Hillsborough C SCHOO DISTRICT: Orange County D IN FLATI N RATE: 2.90 E COUNTY ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES: 851,497,942 F TOTAL L CAL EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE: 84,408,709,951 G TOTAL UMBER OF LAND PARCELS: 40,129 H TOTAL N NRESiDENTIAL EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE: 8484,958,094 1 TOTAL N MBER OF NONRESIDENTIAL LAND PARCELS: 1343 J REAL PR PERTY(MARKET)VALUE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: $2,903,196 K PERSON J�L PROPERTY VALUE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT $487,173 CALCULATED t PUT DATA: FIA AVERA E EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE PER PARCEL: 8109,863 F1.2 AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE ER PARCEL: $361,101 F1.3 EQUALI ED REAL PROPERTY VALUE AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL PARCEL O AVERAGE LOCAL PARCEL: 3.29 F1.4 REAL P OPERTY VALUE OF FACILITY TO AVERAGE NONRE IDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY VALUE: 8 SECTION SHARE OF EXISTING COUNTY EXPENDITURES TO TOTALLOCAL NONRESIDENTIAL USES . E TOTAL C UNTY EXPENDITURES: $51,497,942 F2.1 PROPOR ION OF NONRESIDENTIAL VALUE TO 0.11 TOTAL L CAL REAL PROPERTY VALUE: F1.3 EQUALIZ D REAL PROPERTY VALUE AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL PARCEL O AVERAGE LOCAL PARCEL: 3.25 L REFINEM NT COEFFICIENT: 0.28 F2.2 TOTALED I ISTING COUNTY EXPENDITURES ATTRIBUTABLE TO NONRE iDENTiAL USES: $1,586,137 81 SECTION 3 —FUTURE TOTAL COUNTY OPERAI iNG COSTS INDUCED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FZ2 TOTAL EXISTING COUNTY EXPENDITURES ATTRIBUTABLE TO NONRESIDENTIAL USE: $1,586,137 F3.1 PROPORTION OF FACILITY TO TOTAL LOCAL NONRESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY VALUE: 0.006 F1.3 PROPORTION OF FACILITY TO AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY VALUE: 8,04 F3.2 COUNTY COSTS ALLOCATED TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: $9,495 SECTIONA-ASSIGN TOTAL ANNUAL NONRESIDENTIAL COSTS TO COMPONENT SERVICE CATEGORIES CATEGORY PERCENT DOLLARS F4.1 COMMUNITY MAINTENANCE 1 $95 F4.2 GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 6 $570 F4.3 TAX&RECORDS 29 $2,754 F4.4 PUBLIC SAFETY 16 $1,519 F4.5 PUBLIC WORKS 0 $0 F4.6 PLANNING& EDC 28 $2,659 F4.7 HUMAN SERVICES 20 $1,899 TOTAL 100 $9,495 SECTION 5 -GENERAL GOVERNMENT DATA TAXES M COUNTY GOVERNMENT TAX RATE: 0.746 Per$100 Assessed Valuation N SCHOOL DISTRICT TAX RATE: 0 Per$100 Assessed Valuation O ASSESSMENT RATIO 95 P COUNTY SALES TAX RATE: 0.02 Gross Annual Sales Q COUNTY GOVT'S PERCENTAGE OF SALES TAX 0.633 R PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL SALES TAX TO OPERATING 0.43 S SO.FOOTAGE OF PROJECT 44,690 T PROJECTED SALES PER SO.FOOT $136.52 CHARGES/INSPECTIONS/FEES(Initial Costs) U EROSION CONTROL $1,008 V GRADING PERMIT $2,463 W BUILDING PERMIT $3,040 X ELECTRICAL $323 Y PLUMBING $114 2 MECHANICAL $233 AA MISCELLANEOUS =coo==as=oc=� TOTAL $7,181 82 40 co cli cocj C O eY+►S N T K� 60 U! K fA cli C?IA �— O r cc9� CCND�C9 to CD V! Of O O to cc N N !2 � qt T to Ch CA T Cc�p T N C' HK� iRH f9C O p CR M s N CY COD CS .d r N N Cl) �C1Q� r O !� Of r r f Cr1 CD CA m dry QQ �r1A N_ �CpCCO �WO CYi C" �Cp Ow N HfR11lMl tlCq3i�A tCT�CT V! r OD T CD r CA CD CD O O r r 44 C' CuN � p VI CR N r N N p p fA CI! k . Z at o N co �As T N fN?K �N fOR tT V cl Vi O �� O H H p ys co to N N � u (c Co V Cr Of Vi ui fOA C d � y��, Z C — Zyt??- (�W V .0cc 2a Cap ��etf¢ a m Nawato ¢ wzawy3�N ° s � o nW z 8 z Nw� o g � Z mmZ p Z r r N o qt LO d (d LL U. y 60C� � aagi D 4d LL IL m u. 83 r- o a 0 C7 f7 w MO rh z 0 ° ot7l ZA pr �+ v ►+ N NN0 � Z ry .. O Cro y fA.. 64 O H TA H H N H H b9 H H H H H H! H H ►W.+ J W LpAp is W O� �.+ N W �.. t!1 J r+ ►.a � V1 0pW0� t-4 10. _ ao � N WW fie 64 �,q p� C v fA 4A �p ►N-� Oy0 tNli A O O z A z O A A H ►~+ H H H H N 00 r.. N pp ..:...., j' r l Cppl r+ A p Wpp v N ►+ N 00 O W O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Vii O 0 00 to N N H H • H C O C ..:. t1i 4A 4A 4A 4A 4A 464 rVi 0� O v Hy W H HN tAo U . O O w 00 -4 +0. N N O O C O O o O N N A W G W JA-. N N r+ O O O O O -3 b rA Ln CA 84 � O to O vn C �. z rA tA A � $ G n' •'1 fC ~ 0t� Z A «- z z .. 4z z any ~ O tA o ° °q � o � 0000`go 15A 115A � O � b W 0 h N 'OA � b9 ? 69 69 64 69 4A 64 W rte+ C gtN w tW o vv'.. to 8� 00 Z Te z ;< z 44 o 44 W 00 t-4l� i� Ap v jil. v 4A 464 a A �O tp bp��! 69 O 4 � 4 N 1.4 N En N �o • "i 'jj Jo avb N ►-. 6,, N r+ N 0pop v O j A ... N 14`r �p O CN+ coo W O IC v Sr d VJ c-�n Zry p •` C W J 69 "00 � Q C ►+ `N �,,, U O to ,� b O °q O o O O O o O o 0 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 u n MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissi0IIer8 John Link, County Manager Geoffrey Gledhill, County Attorney Ted Abernathy, Economic Development Director Beverly e, Clerk the.Co oners FROM: Marvin llins, lam Director DATE: January 4, 1994 SUBJE Work Session-Economic Development Districts COPIES: Platming Board Economic Development Commission A work im ssion has been scheduled for January 10, 1994, at 7:30 p.m. in the Governmental Services Building nference Room in Hillsborough for the purpose of considering the Economic Development Districts I esign Manual.The work session is being held in response to concerns expressed by the Board of Comink sioners at its December 21, 1993 meeting.Some specific concerns expressed about the Design Manual 'included the following. 1. The Table of Permitted Uses in Section 2.2 should be revised to eliminate water storage tanks, radio and TV towers, transmission lines, motor freight terminals, storage and distribution of petroleum products,and fieestanding restaurants,service stations,and retail stores as permitted or special uses. The Table should also permit churches and clubs or lodges. 2. Section 3.5, Service and Storage, should be revised to address noise originating from rooftop air co idituming equipment, to refer to trash areas and dumpsters as solid waste containers and re 7cling bins,and to provide a sketch which not only shows screening techniques for solid waste co 2tainers but recyding bins as well. 3. St ction 3.2,Landscape Design,should be revised to require a 100-foot setback along Old N.C. 86, an arterial street, in addition to reserving an additional 20-foot right-of-way dedication. Where co lector roads intersect with Old N.C. 86,a setback of 100 feet applied in the first 100 feet from th intersection, 75 feet in the next 100 feet, 50 feet in the next 100 feet, then 25 feet for the re nainder of the fiontage along collector road The setback would apply to buildings, parking, loading, and storage areas. 4. Section 3.3, Circulation and Parking, should be revised to change all references to "should" to "must" or "shall". Another concern identified at the Commissioners'December 21 meeting involved the lack of a cost-benefit analysis. A separate memorandum will be provided before the January lo meeting which addresses that concern. UPDAI ED SECTIONS - DESIGN MANUAL Includ with this memorandum are revised sections of the Design Manual which address the above mention 1t ion concerns. Section 2.3, Land Use Intensity, has also been revised to correct some "addition" errors d a new Table of Contents provided to reflect updated pap numbers. Each section has been revised d reprinted in its entirety, so you simply have to take out the old section and insert the new one. The onall dividers printed on white paper are provided as a guide to let you know where one section ends an another begins. Simply discard them as you insert the new sections and retain the light brown divider. Table o Permitted Uses The T e of Permitted Uses in Section 2.2 has been provided in a different format. It combines all districts one table so comparisons of permitted uses in one district versus another are possible.It also requires fewer pages. Old N. Highway 86 Setback Standards lihnit, PrOD001. The setback standards referred to in #3 above were suggested by Commissioner Willhoit a means of preserving the entranceway character of Old N.C. Highway 86. In applying the start to properties in the I-40/01d N.C. 86 district, 11 properties are rendered unusable because of the 100- t setback requirement alone or in combination with floodplain restrictions and MTC buffer However, five lots are remnants from the 1-40 construction and would be unbuddable anyway ess combined with adjoining lots. The lots i question are located in two areas,along the west side of Old N.C.86 between Cates Creek and the irate , and on the south side of the interchange on either side of Old N.C. 86. In dealing with such lots several options are available. C .The current proposal requires that an additional 20 feet on either side be dedicated for the dening of Old N.C.86.In addition,a 25-foot front yard setback is required from the new right-of- way line r buildings,while parking and storage areas must be set back 10 feet from the new right-of-way. ITIhough required, applicants are strongly encouraged to locate parking and stomp areas to the si a or rear of buildings for aesthetic as well as transit access reasons. In either cam, the 10-foot setback ea must be landscaped in such a manner to screen vehicles or storage areas from view. The t proposal stems in part from the setback requirements applicable in zoning districts associated with the inmercial.Industrud Activity Node land use category.Specifically,the front,rear,and aide yard setback uirements for Economic Development Districts are those of the Office&Institutional zoning district, they are approximately mid-range in comparison to other districts (see chart on following page). As was case with the Willhoit proposal described above,some lots are rendered unusable through the MTC req * meats as well as the construction of 1-40 (remnant parcels). Six lots on the south side of the in would be unbuildable because of size and/or the 100-foot buffer requirement adjacent to the 1'�right of-way. Alte es.Since both the Willhoit proposal as well as the current one result in a number of lots which would be Zbuildable, one solution is to utilize the Willhoit setback proposal and allow the Board of i Adjustme t to use its variance power to deal with the hardships caused by the higher standards.Another solution ' to utilize a"sliding scale" based on lot size or depth. For example, the City of Durham, in its Business ark zoning district,requires a 35-foot building setback for lots equal to or less than 10 acres in size. For ots greater than 10 acres,a 60-foot setback is required.For parking areas, the setbacks are 15 feet and 5 feet, respectively. When sing the lots which front on Old N.C. 86, the"break point" in terms of acreage versus ability to build a pears to be 2.0 acres.Thus,a standard combining the Willhoit and Durham standards might be a front back of 25 feet for lots 2.0 acres or less in size and 100 feet for lots greater than 2.0 acres in size. How er, lot depth appears to be more critical than lot size. The "break point" appears to be those lots w ' have depths (after a 20-foot right-of-way dedication) of approximately 170 feet. For example, in the D ' Manual case study, the lot depth after right-of-way dedication is 180 feet. The 25-foot front yard set enables the property to be developed, a setback which is 13.9% of the lot depth. The front yard boil setback standard thus recommended by staff is 15 percent of the lot depth(after the 20-foot right-of- y dedication), but not less than 25 feet and not more than 100 feet. For the case study, the standard Quid mean a front setback of 27 feet. For parking and storage areas, the setback standard would be five percent of the lot depth, but not less than 10 feet nor more than 100 feet. At the intersect: n with new collector streets,the standard would also apply for the first 200 feet of the collector road from a intersection rather than the step-down proposed by Commissioner Willhoit.These standards would le lots limited by size and depth to be developed without having to seek relief from the Board of Act ent. Front Rear/Side Lot Building Zo g Lot Area Setback Setback Width Height D at (SgFt) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) LC NA 15 15 75 25 N 2,000 50 NA 20 35 40,000 35 NA 20 45 0& 5,000 25 10 50 35 I-1 80,000 50 50 200 45 1-2 20,000 50 NA 100 45 I-3 20,000 50 NA 100 45 Pro; lsll 25 10 ,Jed • • 2.2 Permitted Uses • Permitted Uses As noted in the preceding section, Economic Development Districts are divided into two major development categories: Primary and Secondary. In Primary Development Areas,a wider range of acceptable nonresidential uses is permitted. However,since Secondary Development Areas are provided ]moo Cam *Ady- as a'step-dawn"or transition between Primary Development it Areas and neighboring residentially zoned or developed property,the range of permitted uses is limited to office and As shown 2.2.7, offices and residential uses. personal sttb�4stmnts are per tied bn both Primary and Secondvy D veAoprrnentAreas.Pans In the table presented on the following pages,individual uses for*Ve1WMnt of the"case$tudy"site permitted in the Primary and Secondary Development Areas wj#Vws be rs' Hewed and gWvved by are identified for each Economic Development District.The County staff. rationale for distinguishing between each district is as follows: I. I-40/011d NC Highway 86-The intent in this district is to create a business park setting. Light industrial and distribution establishments are permitted, and service and retail establishments normally associated with such parks are also allowed. In an effort to control strip commercial development, free-standing retail,service station,and restaurant buildings are not permitted. 2. I-85Buckhorn Road- The intent in this district is to create more of an industrial park setting. Light industrial and distribution establishments are permitted,but almost all other uses require the approval of a Special Use Permit. 3. 1-85AIS Highway 70-Because of the number of existing uses in this district,nearly all uses of an industrial,wholesale, retail or service nature are permitted. Ec Devek p wntDistrtts Deson AAarwal Pie 2.2.1 Where an "X"appears in the column entitled "Permitted by Right",the use is allowed,and plans for the development of that use will be reviewed and approved by the County staff. Where the column is vacant,the use is not permitted. If the letter "A"or '8"appears in the column, the use is allowed,but only after a public hearing is conducted,and a Special Use Permit has been approved for the use by either the Board of County Commissioners(A)or the Board of Adjustment(B). Each application for approval of a Special Use Permit will be evaluated in terms of the design criteria and performance standards contained in this Manual as well as the general conditions governing such uses as identified in Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. Econon*DeveA*mnt Districts Des&7 A &%W Page 2.2.2 PERMITTED USE TABLE — ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS NOTE:Where an"X"appears in the column,the use is allowed,and development plans will be reviewed and approved by County staff.If the letter"A"or"B"appears in the column,the use is allowed,but only after a public hearing has been conducted,and a Special Use Permit appoved for the use by either the Board of County Commissioners (A) or the Board of Adjustment(B).Where the column is vacant,the use is not allowed. I-85/Bucidtorn Road I I-40/01d NC 86 I-85NS Highway 70 Land Use Primary Secondary I Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Area Area Area Area Area Area <RESIDB ''IAL Dwelling,single—family Only in designated X X X Dwelling,two—family locations and subject X X X Dwelling,multi—famil to des&standards X X X Dwelling,mobile home (For replacement of a sting mobile home) Temporary mobile home or custodial care B B B B B B Temporary mobile home (For occupancy during construction of permanent residential unit and for 30 days after issuance of Certificate of Occupancy) ADRICULTURE Agriculture service use Commercial feeder operation Greenhouse with and without on— remise sales Stockyard Feed/seed storage and processing Animal hospital/veterinarian B X X Class I kennel B X X Class I1 kennel B B B MINING , Extraction of earth 2roducts CONSTRUCTION Building contractor X X X Plumbing,heating,electrical,and similar trade X X X contractor MANUFACTURING,A$SEMB i AND PRO CESSIN+� Food products,except meat packing plants, X X X slaughter houses,and similar uses Paper products,except pulp and paper mills X X X Apparel products Leather products Tobacco products Lumber and wood products,including sawmills Furniture and fixtures X X X Printing and publishing establishments X X X AMW Chemical products X X X Rubber and plastic products X X X Stone,glass,clay,and concrete products X X X Economic Development Districts Design Manual Page 2.2,3 PERMITTED USE TABLE — ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS NOTE:Where an"X"appears in the column,the use is allowed,and development plans will be reviewed and approved by County staff.If the letter"A"or"B"appears in the column,the use is allowed,but only after a public hearing has been conducted,and a Special Use Permit appoved for the use by either the Board of County Commissioners (A) or the Board of Adjustment(B).Where the column is vacant,the use is not allowed. I-85/Bucthorn Road I-40/01d NC 86 I-85/US Highway 70 Land Use Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Area I Area Area Area Area Area MANUFACTURING,ASSEMBLY,AND PROCESSING# Coa.tinu Primary metal industries X X X Fabricated metal products X X X Industrial machinery X X X Electronic equipment X X X Transportation equipment X X X Instruments X X X Miscellaneous products,including,but not limited to,jewelry,musical instruments,sporting goods, X X X and toys Waste management facility for hazardous and toxic substances TRANSPORTATION,COMMUNICATIONS,AND UTILITIES General aviation airports,heliports,and S.T.O.L. Bus passenger shelter X X X X X X Bus terminals and garages X X Landfills two acres or more Landfills (less than two acres) Surface and structure parking as principal use (When associated with a local or regional X X X transportation goal such as mass transit or park—and—fide) Public utility stations and sub—stations,switching stations,telephone exchanges,and water and A A A A A A sewage treatment plants Radio and television transmitting and receiving towers,and elevated water storage tanks B B As accesso use without SUP Transmission lines B B B B B Water and sanitary sewer pumping stations X X X X X X Motor freight terminals X X Postal and parcel delivery services X X X Storage and warehousing,inside building X X X Storage of goods,outdoors (Accessory only and X X X sub' ct to screenin WHOLESALE TRADE Durable goods X X X Non—durable goods X X X Economic Development Districts Design Manual Page 22.4 PERMITTED USE TABLE — ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS NOTE:Where an"X"appears in the column,the use is allowed,and development plans will be reviewed and approved by County staff.If the letter"A"or"B"appears in the column,the use is allowed,but only after a public hearing has been conducted,and a Special Use Permit appoved for the use by either the Board of County Commissioners (A) or the Board of Adjustment(B).Where the column is vacant,the use is not allowed. I-85Buckhorn Road I-40/01d NC N I—W/US H*hwyy 70 Land Use Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Area Area Area Area Area Area WHOLESALE TRADE Cantluuc Junkyards DETAIL TBAUE '' Storage and distribution of petroleum products (Facgities for local distribution and sales only— A A bulk terminals and tank farms p rolubited) Farm equipment sales A X Motor vehicles,new and used,sales and rental A X Motor vehicle service station A X Nightclubs,bars,and pubs (Only as accessory use to botel,motel or restaurant Restaurants(carry—out,drive—in,and general) A X in a separate,free—standing building Restaurants(carry—out,drive—in,and general) when located in a service building,court or plaza, A X X or enclosed mall consisting of multiple uses Retail trade,sales and rental of durable and convenience goods,merchandise,and equipment, A X including mail order houses,in a separate,free— standing building Retail trade,sales and rental of durable and convenience goods,merchandise,and equipment, A X X including mail order houses,when located in a service building,court or plaza,or enclosed mall consisting of multiple uses. FINANCB,INSURANCK AND REAL ES'TATE Banks,savings and loans,and credit unions A A X X X X Credit agencies and institutions A A X X X X Security and commodity brokers,and investment A A X X X X offices Insurance carriers and agents A A X X X X Real estate agents and brokers A A X X X X Cemetery SERVICES Day care facility,including large day care home B B X X X X Botanical gardens/arboretums Family rare home Group care home Economic Development Districts Design Manual Page 225 PERMITTED USE TABLE — ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS NOTE:Where an"X"appears in the column,the use is allowed,and development plans will be reviewed and approved by County staff.If the letter"A"or"B"appears in the column,the use is allowed,but only after a public hearing has been conducted,and a Special Use Permit appoved for the use by either the Board of County Commissioners (A) or the Board of Adjustment(B).Where the column is vacant,the use is not allowed. I-85/Bucthorn Road I-40/01d NC 86 I-85AJS Highway 70 Land Use Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Area Area Area Area Area Area SERVICES Continued Rehabilitative care home Hotels and motels A X X Fraternities,sororities,and dormitories Rooming house Tourist home Churches X X X X X X Community center A A A A A A Non—profit educational cooperative Cam /retreat center Schools,elementary,middle,and high A X X Schools,vocational A X X Schools,dance,art,and music B X X X X Universities,colleges,and institutes Beauty and barber shops B B X X X X Clubs and lodges,and social,fraternal,and union A A A A A A clubhouses Drive—in theaters Indoor theaters A X X Funeral homes A X X Health services,including doctors and dentists A A X X X X offices,and medical and dental laboratories Hospitals Massage,business Laundry,dry cleaning,and shoe repair services B B X X X X Libraries A A X X X X Golf driving and practice ranges X Golf course/country club Crematoria Art/photographic studios B B X X X X Recreational facilities (Non—profit) A A A A A A Recreational facilities (Profit) A A A A A A Repair service,electronic and appliance A A X X X X Research facility X X X Research lands/installations (Non—profit) Assembly facility— less than 300 person capacity A X X 0 Assembly facility— 300 or more person capacity A X X Motor vehicle maintenance and repair(body shop) A X Economic Development Districts Design Manual Page 22.6 PERMITTED USE TABLE -- ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS NOTE:Where an"X"appears in the column,the use is allowed,and development plans will be reviewed and approved by County staff.If the letter"A"or"B"appears in the column,the use is allowed,but only after a public hearing has been conducted,and a Special Use Permit appoved for the use by either the Board of County Commissioners (A) or the Board of Adjustment(B).Where the column is vacant,the use is not allowed. I-85/Buckhorn Road I-40101d NC 86 I-85/1JS Highway 70 Land Use Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Area Area Area Area Area Area SERVICES fptatt;inwA Other offices and personal services,including,but not limited to,attorneys,watch and jewelry repair, A A X X X X computer programming and data processing, employment and travel agencies,and advertising agencies Governmental protective services(police and fire stations,rescue squads,and volunteer fire X X X X X X departments) Parks,public and non—profit X X X X X X Military installations (National Guard and Army Reserve Governmental facilities and office buildings X X X X X X Iacludin solid waste collection centers t?THER USES:!: Accessory uses X X X X X X Portable Buildings Historic buildings for non—residential/mixed use A A A A A A Economic Des elopment Districts Design Manual Page 22.7 • • 23 Land Use Intensity • Land Use Intensity ne cam study- Introduction Thee Al7t01ypre PAD7 In section 2.1- Development Areas,schematic plans were presented to illustrate the desired balance between economic rho protrotypep6n used by the devekpar development and environmental protection. In this section, m othercomr»unrties is an offnce corrlalex intensity standards are introduced which seek to carry this consir*V of four om-story office approach one step further by defining an acceptable three- borrit fts cAstered around a Pw*m 1p court dimensional spatial relationship between natural features and ro detenrnine if ftre prototype plan wwf man-maw construction. Stated differently,intensity standards fit the site, the dsvaioperreviewed Vw seek to define the degree to which a parcel of land may be recorrnrrnsrrdgd bt of or*;ari=, echn W used. reports,and other docru mnts contatined inAADvW'xA anddvw yo the folowmV To assist the user in applying the intensity standards described A'stof dsst"constraWs. in this section,a"case study" is presented,using the development scenario described in the Introduction section of — Bukfts andparrki*tQ lots must not be this Manual. Fist,however,a brief description of some more located#?hoop?areas. traditional approaches to measuring intensity is presented to — the bott=AnndharrAwm fawtnwt help the reader understand the evolution to the intensity not be aPsiturbed. concepts of impervious surface ratio (IS R),building volume The mrrrai WW W0dbraas nwtbe ratio (BVR),landscape volume ratio (LVR),and site volume ds0tedordy to the extent necessary ratio (SVR). to fit the&W&V and parking to the site. Traditional Approaches — Old N.C.Hohway as is to be wwasrred Traditionally,the typical measure of residential land use from a so-foot r6ht=of-way to a intensity has been density. For nonresidential uses,bulk has too feetsactran,ragrJirarip ilia been the measure of intensity,and building coverage,building dsddcatOn of 20 fat ofr4ht-of-way. height,and floor area standards have been used to limit bulk B&id Ips mast be Wtdack at lout 25 to acceptable levels.A basic understanding of these intensity feat from Ow now prcpar ty ftht ot- measures wAy)Aire. 8y alDpiyirlQ these constraints and Bail g COvem9e Raft(OCR): Perh*3 the oldest of intensity measures,the BCR measures the ratio or AAmc.YV the prototype pAv?on the we, percentage of a site that is covered by a buiding. However, the deveAW/cams that thepr'otntyce building coverage is not a true measure of bulk. It only deals w#not"fit"and revisions must be mods. with two of the three dimensions needed to define bulk,and building height must be used in combination with the B C R to Econornk DeveA*rrrent Distracts Deson A4&%W Page 2.3.t '���������������������i�i♦i�i�i� NP i�i���i�• 465+64-9545-rV NORTH ♦�� •♦ ♦�11111�11r+ 111 '' ♦1����111111�♦ ���♦ �i��'i'�►�i�����i�i�i�i�i�i♦��i�i�i�i�i nov : ,, \. Li Feet of . . , , . ��t provide an adequate measure.Another drawback is that the BCR is only an approximation of actual site use. Substantial 77*Rewsed Am portions of a site may be occupied by parking and loading areas,and driveways. To br#W the pr»totype pkvn into Floor Area Ratio(FAR): Developed as a more accurate coma kwice mth the Desp?Manua(and measure of bulk,the FAR takes the number of stories into 34*0rft orc0irWnces and reports, the account;e.g.,it is derived by dividing the total floor area of a de ve4wr re vaes the An to YvL*the building by the area of the site or lot. Since a FAR (or B C R) Wowkv: of 1.00 is the same as a building covering the entire site, the measure would seem to be easily understood. However,it is — DeaLcatbn of 20 feet ofrapht-of-way difficult to relate FAR to real life projects. Like the BCR, the for the wh*rNrtq of Old N.C.Highway FAR does not measure the impact of parking and loading 8s. areas. —Alons entrance location to match pr000sed loca ibn of stgrWzed Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR) lntermbon, a mater access po#?t to The impervious surface ratio (IS R)is an extension of the And an the&trict on the east sale of building coverage ratio (B C R)and is the proportion of a site Old N.C.Hehway 86. covered by any surface or material which impedes or prevents A4gns exit locabbn to allow&7vers to the natural infiltration of water into the soil. Buildings, turn rightandprocad south or move sidewalks,driveways,and parking,loading,and exterior to tum A►ae for north oreastbound storage areas (paved and unpaved)are all examples of movement: impervious surfaces. Achieves same floor area as prototype pWn by provialM two two-story offte Locally, the ISR is a key element in watershed protection Duya VS instead of four one-story efforts.The rationale for its use is to keep significant amounts structures. of land in a natural or landscaped state to allow stormwater to — Ch&Ves desOn context from infiltrate into the soil,removing contaminants before they conterrlaorary style used lrr other reach water supply reservoirs. Accordingly, the maximum CDOWKnraitres to CobbnW,9evival Impervious surface ratio in each Economic Development style to mflecthisb*character of District is limited to the following: HftboroWh. MAXIMUM PERMITTED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIOS With Without foul Detention Detention ED District Ponds Ponds 1-85/Buckhorn Road 0.70 0.12 1-40/Old NC ss NA NA Street Elevatbn I-e5AIS 70 0.70 0.24 w/C&G 0.36 w/o C&G NOTE: See Appendix C for discussion of detention pond standards. The steps used to calculate the ISR are almost identical to I those used to calculate the building volume ratio (BVR). Rather than duplicate calculations,an example of the I S R Panttri►ZQ LotElevatbn calculation for the case study site is presented on page 2.3.7 using BVR data. Economk Development Districts Des&n A4&%W PVC 2.3.3 The Case Study Revised Plan It NORTH Old NCW HUM to faurAms PMVA*Mar Amt for&W Am Atecorawafty far t ttil w fiwm9Imwts AvvA*A9Wi'*s It I ` ; 41�-f Acems l POW 1 1 E/l&WXV !1 7k v-Stt y �1 + 1 SC31@: 1" - 60=0" � Ecorxw?k Devck mentDkftts Des&?Marx) Pale 2.3.4 Building Volume Ratio (BVR) Me C33W Std►-( Oft In Economic Development Districts,the building volume ratio BUMV Arty Vbbw (BVR)is used as both an intensity measure and a performance standard to measure the amount of land devoted to budding, S parking,loading,and exterior storage use.The BVR is best Office Arrilolirfp dwnsms 45 ft.x 55 ft. understood from the following formula: Office bvifo#V Awr area 2,475$4.ft. Nwrrberof office bts 2 (VB+VP+VL+VE)/t o Total bt+uibhV area 4,SW$I.ft BVR = (2,475 SQ.ft.x 2 kfil fts) A Offte bwito4irZp heett 28 ft. where: rofW&A*W vokme 138,6Q0 at.ft. (4,950 sq.ft.x 28 ft.hebht) BVR = Building volume ratio VB = Volume of buildings? VP = Volume of porwag areas VL = Volume of loading areas VE = Volume of exterior sterage tM A = Site or lot area 28 VB-Building Volume: Building volume is simply the .raiff combination of bidding coverage and budding height,and the cahuclation is accompished as follows: For the case st*&"V,its hMht was rmaxnd from d level to a 1. Measure the ground floor dimensions or ``Footpr�#"of point trm%my between tria eaves and ail buildings on the site,including accessory buildings or �t per, uses such as trash clump3tem,electrical transformers, heating and cooling units,canopies,and storage buildings. AMOS"y L&W Whore uses rich as esters or transformers are HVAC enekmm diwnxbm a ft x 12 ft enclosed by a screen wad or fence,measurements must HVAC encloswe area 96 sq.ft. reflect the dimensions of the enclosure.AN measurements Nwrrberof HVAC wvbswes 2 must be tiken from the exterior wad surface. toted HVAC encdOSUre area 192 sq.ft. HVAC enclosure heot 5 ft 2. Calculate the growl floor area of each building and roMHVAC enckurare vokm 960 au.ft. accessory use. Dwrbcsttrr pad dtrre mbm 10 ft.x 12 ft 3. Measure the height of all buildings,eluding accessory Dw Wterpadaxa 120 sq.ft. buildings and uses.When measuring the height of buildings Nwnber of d rpstarpa* 1 or uses with flat roofs,the measurement must be talus rota)darrbcsterpad area 120 sq.ft. from this mean elevation of the proposed finished grade Dwrbosterpad helpht 5 ft. at the front of the budding tothe highest point of the rot1/Oth7 sterpad vO&W 60o at.ft. buking. For buildings with gable,hip or gambrel roofs, the Porch dinenskaro 10 ft.x 32 ft. measurement is taken to the mean height between eaves Porch area 320 sq.ft. and the ridge fine. Number*of porches 2 4. Calculate that volume of ail buildings,ancloiing accessory rotadporch area 640 sq.ft. buildings and uses,by multiplying the area of each building Porch hetht 28 ft. or use by its height. rotad porch vaAmne 17,920 cu.ft. 5. Add the volumes of all buildings,including accessory TOM va"'l71e3 1540MCU A buk*W and uses,to obtain the total buffing volume for the totaw bu mp vo&M is egjad to the the site. star»of trio voAms of aQ'daidA W and acticwssory uses. . Econw?k Devek*rrient Districts Deson M&%W Pale 2.3.5 VP-Parking Area Volume: Calculation of the parking area volume is accomplished as follows: 1. Measure the dimensions of a typical parking space from the site plan and calculate the area of a single parking space. 2. Count the number of parking spaces shown on the site plan and multiply that number times the area of each space.The result is the area of the site occupied by The Lase Sfxdl -catz ttft parking spaces. Panth ►Arm bdb/I71e 3. Measure the width of the driveway aisle which provides pan" s access to individual parking spaces and multiply that Pankfp spade al wnsions 9 ft.x 20 ft width times the length of the driveway.The result is the Pasr*#w space area 180 sq.ft. area of the site occupied by driveway aisles. Number of pa*mV spaces 33 4. Add the parking space area and the driveway area,and Averagee vd*le heoht 5 ft multiply the total area times a height of five feet, This Pa*#v spasm area 5,940 sq.ft. height is the average height of an automobile as (189 sq.ft./space x 33 spaces) determined by actual measurements. The result is the Pa ftV space VOLM . . 29,700 cu.ft. parking area volume. (5,940 sq.ft x 5 ft.hetht) VL-Loading Area Volume: Calculation of the loading area Dr wvmyA&es volume is very similar to that for the parking area and is Pasr>ini V ask(&MPAAay) wiim 25 ft accomplished as follows: P&*#V*/I+avih 237 ft. 1. Measure the dimensions of a typical loading space from (from en&wxv to en&ww) the site plan and calculate the area of a single loading Panriirm a w a►W 5,925 sq.ft (25 ft x 237 ft.) space' Parov arsk vOAM 29,625 cu.ft. 2. Count the number of loading spaces shown on the site plan and multiply that number times the area of each TOM va&w 5.%325caft space.The result is the area of the site occupied by loading spaces. 3. Measure the width of the driveway aisle which provides access to individual loading spaces and multiply that 7Tae!am SAAdy-CWczdOV width times the length of the driveway.The result is the Lax,J,AmR jO area of the site occupied by loading aisles. Do not count driveway aisles which were included in the calculation of rhere are no Boa ft areas or Vwa on parking area volume. Count only those aisles which the case S**NIL clearly provide access to loading spaces. 4. Add the loading space area and the loading aisle area,and multiply the total area times the height of the truck or vehicle which will use the loading spaces. For example,if delivery vans will loadfunload in the spaces,use a height of 10 feet. If trailer trucks WIN use the spaces,use a height of 14 feet. These heights are averages based on actual measurements.The result is the loading area volume. Ecorr wi:DeveAoprrsent Districts Destr h&%W Pave 2.3.6 VE-Exterior Storage Area Volume:The calculation of exterior storage area volume is similar to that of parking and The lases S -cabLotfry loading areas. For example,exterior storage may involve EX&V iWStarWAm VQO bw stacks of lumber at a building supply establishment,bulk containers stored at awarehouse which are used for the No exteror sibeaage areas are located shipment of goods,and automobiles on display at a car on the case shady site. dealership. In the case of the lumber stacks,calculation of the storage area volume simply involves multiplying the width and length of 770!am SAAdy-Caft ' the stack by its height.A similar calculation would be used for * Vim°Raft the bulk containers,but the automobiles on display would 8c treated identically to parking and loading areas. r ► VQe�ari�ees Buwbl V$ x58,080 cu.ft. 10 Feet-The Constant: In calculating the traditional floor Par*#V areas 59,325 cu.ft. area ratio,a FAR of 1.0 is equivalent to a building covering the Loaft areas Novae entire site.A constant, 10 feet,is included in the formula for Exterior storage areas None the calculation of building volume ratio (BVR),for it provides a similar basis for comparison;e.g.,a BVR of 1.0 is equivalent Total Voati W 217,405 cu.ft. to a building covering the entire site at a height of 10 feet. Site area 1.80 acres or 78,408 sq.ft. BVR-Building Volume Ratio: Having determined the Total Bufaft VO&W/10 ft. volumes of building,parking,loading,and exterior storage BVR = Site Area areas,calculation of the building volume ratio is simply a matter = 217,405 cu.ft:110 ft. of applying the formula. 78,408 sq.ft. Landscape Volume Ratio 0.277 The landscape volume ratio (LVR)is calculated using the same approach as BUR except the focus is on plant materials and land forms,either existing or installed. LVR is the total volume TIN Cam SAAYJF-catub of trees,shrubs,buffers,and berms compared to the total tW W SM?UW paw size of the lot and is calculated using the following formula: tffP&-V&"Sans"S LVR = (VT+VB)/10 Bwift area 4,950 sq.ft. A HVAG enclosure area 192 sq.ft. where: D&rpsterpad area 120 sq.ft. Porch area 640 sq.ft. VT =Volume of trees SkL-wa*area 1,808 sq.ft: VB =Volume of berms Parlor space area 5,940 sq.ft. A =Site or lot area Dnveway/alsle areas 5,925 sq.ft. Total hrloervious Surface VT-Tree Volume:Tree volume is much more than the /SR = volume of trees on a site. It includes existing wooded areas Site Area retained during the construction process,installed trees,both 19,575 sq.ft. large and small,shrubs of varying sizes,and berms installed 78,408 sq.ft. for screening purposes.Tree volume does not include lawn 0.250 areas or ground covers. Economic Develop went Districts Design a14&%W Page 2.3.7 While the approach to calculating tree volume is similar to that used for building volume,it is somewhat more complicated. The steps identified below are intended to simplify that process. 1. Measure that portion of the site on which existing forest land is to be retained. One means of accomplishing 7h&CAM SttAgy-Cal=ebft this is through the use of a planimeter, an instrument used 7me V oA#w by surveyors and engineers to measure acreages. If the area is a uniform geometric shape such as a rectangle, EXJL>ifiv ftetatl0 n the area can be calculated;e.g.,length x width. Exist tQ wooded area 26,690 sq.ft. to be reWvd,incRAV natural 2. Estimate the height of the existing forest land and multiply area and forest&nd that height times the amount of site area covered by AverWe hephtof selected tree W ft. the forested area. Height estimates may be made using a species in wood area field manual or other reference source which identifes VOARW of exlsr ft 1,334,025 cu.ft. canopy height and spread for various tree species. Use w&mWarea the predominant tree species as an 'Indicator"in Itilew PAb7tAIaterrW estimating the height of the forested area. Lame rreas- from Tree P+4nft Detail 3. Multiply the forest land area by average mature height of Nwraberof trees a the indicator species.The result is the volume of the Cawpy hermit 50 ft existing forest land. Canopy spread 40 ft. Area per tree 1,256 Sq.ft. 4. To calculate the volume of new plant material,the best VD&M par tree 62,600 cu.ft source of information is the comprehensive site rota)AW tree VoAa W 502,400 cu.ft. development plan,particularly the landscape plan. The plan lists the types of trees and shrubs which will be installed to Sma#Trees- from Tree Phntt Detail satisfy the landscape design criteria of section 3.2. Aldnber of trees 11 Canopy hegtht 20 ft. Plant materials will fall into one of the five categories Canopy spmw 15 ft. listed below. In calculating the volume of new plant Area per tree 177 sq.ft. material,the caunopy spread and height for each category VoAm per tree 3,532 CU.ft. should be used.They are representative of the average rotal sma4'tree Vot" 39,952 eu.ft. sizes that plants materials used widely in this region will reach upon maturity. Shmft- from Shuab PMi#V DetaW Alumber of shrubs(4-6 ft j 93 CANOPY CANOPY CANOPY Canopy hetpht 5 ft PLANT HE IOHT SPREAD AREA Canopy Wwad 4 ft MATERIAL (Feet) (Feet) (Sq.Ft.) Area per shrub 13 sq.ft. Voom per shrub 63 cu.ft. Large Trees 50 35 1,256 Total V0&N of s&V t 5,959 cu.ft Small Trees 20 15 177 Shrubs 6-12 Feet 10 6 28 TOts7/11771lP 1,881,136Gf�1� Shrubs 4-6 Feet 5 4 13 Shrubs 1-4 Feet 2 3 7 5. Using the canopy height and area from the table above, the volume of each type of plant material can be calculated (height x area x number of plaints). The total volume of all plants is the sum of new and existing material. Ecorr mic DeveA*wnt&t tarts Deson A4arxW Pwe 2.3.9 The Case Study Tree Planting Detail NORTH Nattaa/arva M&WMAffid topvvv ftvduffBr 1 buffer,savm o and .. l!t entram a wrap smarImes to r - ce►a®kuppmitrx,�►� ran-WsmWt,ws to so mm ti ti " ti y ti =tress ti Vkb 1 • 4�-r sr aw&W to Maindand � � 1 � y � woaoial�rnaEs cwd to bumv y /L°ti�7161d _ I Not to Scale Econmik aeveA pwnt Distracts Desin M&,x4Y PVC 2.3.9 VB-Volume of Berms; Like landscaping,berms can be effective screens.They are also effective in collecting or diverting storm water runoff. Because they are a land form -CaW ' and have volume, they are included in the calculation of Beim VOA#W landscape intensity. There are no berms provided on The simplest method for calculating the volume of a berm is to the case study site. start with its cross-section. For stability,berms must have side slopes which rise one foot for each three feet of distance.The ridge or crown of the berm must contain a level surface at least five feet in width, and the base must have a minimum width of 25 feet. Based on these cross-section dimensions, the area can be calculated as a series of geometric shapes,e.g.,two triangles and a rectangle. As an example, the cross-section area of the berm shown in the accompanying sketch would be calculated as �., follows: 1 A= 112(3.33'X 10') + 1/2(3.33-X 10') + (3'X 5') 3 5' 10' Height=3.33' =48.3 sq.ft. 25' minimum Provided that the cross-section of the berm were uniform, the volume could be calculated by multiplying the cross-section When catL*ffi p the vO&M of a berm, area times the berms length. however, start w0th the cross-sectional tea• LVR-Landscape Volume Ratio:As was the case with the building volume ratio,calculation of the LVR is simply a matter of applying the formula.The constant, 10 feet,is again included in the formula as a basis for comparison; e.g., a LVR Of 1.0 is equivalent to vegetation with a height of 10 feet covering the entire site. The Cane S*AI Y-Cadaca�r bg V0*,E1971!°Mt& An important point to note is the effect that retention of existing wooded areas has on the calculation of the LVR.As ! r*kc VVA#WS shown in the case study example,the site's LVR is 2.399. If EXIsr ft forest AV d 1,334,025 cu.ft. the site had been devoid of any vegetation,the new plant Alew piW?tmater;W 547,11 t cu.ft. materials installed would be equivalent to an LVR of 0.698.As Berms Alone will be seen in the following section,the new plant materials installed would be insufficient to comply with the site volume Total VoOne 1,881,136 CU.ft. ratio. Site Area 1.80 acres or 78,408 sq.ft. Site Volume Ratio(SVR) lotV Landsca-loe Vo�Rxrae/10 ft. Site Volume Ratio s e volume oun LVR = (SVR)i th l f building, parkin g, Site Area exterior storage,and loading areas compared to the volume 1,881,136 cu.ft:/10 ft. of landscape features such as trees and shrubs on a site. 78,408 sq.ft. Specifically,the Site Volume Ratio is equal to the difference 2.399 between Landscape Volume Ratio and Building Volume Ratio (SVR= LVR- BVR). Ecorwrrdc DeveAWwntDbtrkts Desi�n MarxW Paige .2.3.10 The Case Study Shrub Planting Detail S►MAOs toSY.Tm 1bUx&ttoOda�e NORTH � 1 SMADs�to�pe►atiir�e I buI&r,smwn H VACi z&t � �..—.rte —�!18� �It1' X.�MRcC �107 .bis is mcwt � - . - � � AM&S �JIiI f�.�f/� w� Is srxr�o«• � ' to Senm H VAC uneit ' Not to Scale Econw*DeveA*mnt D4 ticts Desin A4&%W Pape 2.3.1 r The importance of the Site Volume Ratio (SVR) is that it sets the land use intensity standard that projects in the Economic Development Districts must meet.A minimum SVR has thus been established for each category of land use permitted in the Economic Development Districts. Proposed development must meet or exceed the following ratios: Minimum Required Site Volume Ratios Land Use Required SVR Residential 2.0 Offce/lnstRutional 2.0 Service/Retail 1.0 Flex Space 1.0 Distribution/Wholesale 3.0 Industrial 1.0 With the exception of residential uses, the site volume ratios were selected after an intensive study of the design features me lase Std-cabe&ft and land use intensity ratios of selected sites in the Research SW V ANN Paft Triangle and Piedmont Triad regions. The study involved at least three sites from each of the land use categories, and the SVR= L VR-BVR ratios established above are representative of the average SVR for each category. LaJIdS>C�' I�QOtJE17ae�tJOD 2.399 Less:BUaQe V Va&w Although studies were not conducted of residential uses,they Akv oD a277 have been assigned the same SVR as office and institutional uses.The rationale for this approach is that land uses in Site Volume Ratio 2.122 Secondary Development Areas are limited to residential and officelinstitutional uses, thus the same landscape to building ratio;e.g.,site volume ratio,was desired. A final point to note is the landscape volume ratio obtained in the preceding section when comparing wooded sites with sites devoid of tree cover. The site volume ratio for the case study site (2.122)exceeded the minimum required SVR for office and institutional uses because of the forested areas on the rear portion of the site. If the forested areas had been absent and only the new plant material had been installed, the SVR of 0.421 (0.698-0.277)would have fallen well short of the required SVR of 2.0.This example illustrates the importance of retaining and using wooded areas,both to satisfy the SVR and to reduce landscape expense. The final plan for the case study shown on the following page illustrates how building,parking,and landscaping (both existing and installed)areas combine together to produce a site plan which meets land use intensity ratios and design criteria. Econoomk Devekpwnt distracts Des07 Manual PVe 2.3.12 i Jr frO - lie ,.1 i 3.2 Landscape Design Other than the buffers described above, screening between adjacent land uses sham be provided in accordance with the accompanying Schedule of Land Use Buffers. Buffers may consist of existing wooded areas or, if existing vegetation Is not sufficient for screening, a planted buffer sham be provided, consisting of 50-75% evergreen trees reaching a mature height of at least 3o feet. Necessary mass drives, utilities, and pedestrian paths are allowed within required buffers; however, no other disturbance for buildings, parking,or storage is permitted.Access and utility crossings are to be made perpendicular to the length of the buffer. Limited breaks in required interstate buffers may be allowed, 1 1 but only if they are well designed and provide either a scenic 3 s' s vista or bndscaped area. Landscaped berms,fences,and wWb, as well as storrrwater detention ponds or fountains, may 25' be used in association with such breaks, provided they are Armdw4weAvmram�r a�rdw�rs, designed and located in harmony with other site features and day mrtW U&v miinum xxlP rAvPr0f3:1. functions. No more than one (b)break per lot shall be permitted,and the break shall constitute no more than twenty-five percent (25%)of the interstate frontage. ZcaaamucArwAWz4vrA6VicerDes&"Manusf Pave 3.2.7 Schedule of Land Use Buffers r+ A I -A- provides a ` B When this land use is buffer width of._. Abuts this existing being developed and_._ next to 'B" land use... Residential (Lot Sizes) Residential (Lot Sizes) 40,000 SgFt or more Not applicable 40,000 SgFt or more 30 feet 20,000 - 39,999 SgFt 30 feet 15,000 - 19,999 SgFt 40 feet 10,000 - 14,999 SgFt 75 feet Office 20,000 - 39,999 SgFt 30 feet 40,000 SgFt or more Not applicable 200000 - 390999 SgFt 30 toot 15,000 - 19,999 SgFt 30 feet 10,000 - 14,999 SgFt 50 fact Office 150000 - 190999 SgFt 30 feet 40,000 SgFt or more 30 lost 20,000 - 39,999 SgFt Not applicable 15,000 - 19,999 SgFt 30 feet 10,0000 - 14,999 SgFt 50 foot Office 100000 - 140999 SgFt 40 feet 40,000 SgFt or more 30 feet 20,000 - 39,999 SgFt 30 feet 15,000 - 19,999 SgFt Not applicable 10,000 - 140999 SgFt 40 feet Offi cc 20,000 SgFt or more 100 feet Retail/Service 100 feet Distribution/Wholesale 100 feet Light Industrial Ecaaorrac Deverbiarr ntDistracts Des#7 h0arrtW PVe 3.2.8 Schedule of Land Use Buffers (Continued) .6j— 9Z A I 'A' P rovides a ` B When this land use is buffer width of... Abuts this existing being developed and... next to 'B' land use... Residential (Lot Sizes) 75 feet Retail/Service 15,000 - 19,999 SgFt 75 feet Distribution/Wholesale 75 feet Light Industrial 10,000 - 14,999 SgFt 50 feet Retail/Service 50 feet Distribution/Wholesale 50 feet Light Industrial Residential - All Types Streets & Highvays 100 feet I nterstate 75 feet Arterial 30 feet Collector 50 feet Railroads 50 feet Transmission Lines Office Residential (Lot Sizes) 75 feet 40,000 SgFt or more 50 feet 20,000 - 39,999 SgFt 40 feet 15,000 - 19,999 SgFt 30 feet 10,000 - 14,999 SgFt Not applicable Office Not applicable Retail/Service Not applicable Distribution/Wholesale Not applicable Light Industrial Streets & Highvays 100 feet Interstate Not applicable Arterial Not applicable Collector 30 feet Railroads 3 0 feet Transmission Lines EcorbVa*DevebpwntDistni:ts De*i Manual Pie 3.2.9 Schedule of Land Use Buffers (Continued) h . M. A -A-provides a ` B When this land use is buffer width of... Abuts this existing being developed and... next to "B' land use... Retail/Service Residential (Lot Sizes) 100 feet 40,000 SgFt or more 100 foot 20,000 - 39,999 SgFt 75 feet 15,000 - 19,999 SgFt 50 feet 10,000 - 14,999 SgFt Not applicable Office Not applicable Retail/Service Not applicable Distribution/Wholesale Not applicable Light Industrial Streets & Highways 100 feet I nterstate Not applicable Arterial Not applicable Collector 30 feet Railroads 30 feet Transmission Lines Distribution/Wholesale Residential (Lot Sizes) 75 feet 40,000 SgFt or more 75 feet 20,000 - 39,999 SgFt 50 feet 150000 - 19,999 SgFt 40 feet 10,000 - 14,999 SgFt Not applicable Office Not applicable Retail/Service Not applicable Distribution/Wholesale Not applicable Light Industrial Streets & Highways 100 feet I nterstate Not applicable Arterial Not applicable Collector Not applicable Rail roads Not applicable Transmission Lines Economk Deva+gamentD4h*ts Des&n Mmmif PVC 32 ro i Schedule of Land Use Buffers (Continued) J. A -A" provides a B When this land use is buffer width of... Abuts this existing being developed and... next to "a- land use... Light Industrial Residential (Lot Sizes) 100 feet 40,000 SgFt or more 100 feet 20,000 - 39,999 SgFt 100 feet 15,000 - 19,999 SgFt 100 feet 10,000 - 14,999 SgFt Not applicable Office Not applicable Retail/Service Not applicable Distribution/Wholesale Not applicable Light Industrial Streets & Highways 100 feet 1 nterstate Not applicable Arterial Not applicable Collector Not applicable Railroads Not applicable Transmission tines Footnotes: i. "Adjacent"and " "land ups belade those across a street from a proposed development other than an i nterstate highvey. Ecow*DeverbWwt 04ft is Desim M&,xW Pape 3.2.11 Landscaping Parking Areas Two to three tonnes as much space may be devoted for parking as there is for floor space in building(s).AN too often,though, parking lot landscaping is an afterthought. Unrelieved expanses of asphalt or concrete are monotonous while also Pkn,t#W.svmmrawarwWpw*mW lots#7W vW detracting from the overall attractiveness of the site. V*wson!b&W SM0. _ Landscaping can break up wide expanses of parking areas and Improve the appearance of new construction. It can separate pedestrian and vd*Mw traffic, and delineate different functional areas (visitor vs.employee parking). Landscaping can defer different parking areas to control traffic and lower speeds, xW trees in a parking lot's interior provide shade. Perimeter landscaping reduce the views of parking lots from neighboring homes,muffles vehicle noise, and reduces glare from headlights and parking lot fighting. WkVi pw**g lots nwst a&d a S&Wt ar . PwgO IF 410,a 1O-Ibot klWJr4P#awPa nwst a he PVVxW ErtWW A*pw*#W lot and prvpw4f an-044-of-bow Liars. h' 77mpr+P/arrrdAwaftn&-ofl�sei-+eetpaw* is da, #W Me dviftV a way lunar»6'k shunt. 10' Landscape Area ' While it is preferrable to place off-street parking behind structures and away from the highway,when parking lots abut a street rat-of-way or side or rear property fine,screening is required. In addition to a minimum 1 0-foot landscape area,a 36-inch high opaque screen consisting of landscape materials, rolling earth berms,and low screen wails or combinations '. 1 thereof are regWred as an effective screening treatment. Avoid Preferred Where screening wall*are provided, they must consist of solid and attractive materials enhanced by landscaping. XW nomicA-w1vpmentDlstric&DesonM&xwj Pale 3.2. 12 As well as providing a landscaped or screened perimeter, trees and landscaped islands must be integrated into parking areas. Landscaped islands shall be provided at maximum intervals of every 10 parking spaces and at the ends of all rows of parking. Landscape islands shall have a minimum width of eight [8]feet. Continuous — 500 square feet island concrete curb may be used to satisfy required around open spy requirement island. 12.5' Maximum interval 10 spaces H min. rrw.r and/indsc4ofW iTAWN s nxcrt Ar A continuous poured-in-place concrete curb shall be provided meie�-ili�d�n�Jv par�aag bts around landscape islands to prevent vehicular intrusion. However,where vehicles will extend over landscape islands, such islands shall be increased two and one-half [2-1 I'2] feet in depth by decreasing the length of the parking stall the same distance. PrrveMct dand�c�o�ag Jf�arn rwhiicA melrrismn dy srlt�p,antiapdMds l}� of least 2�1/�art 1Fovn tYIM r'� Minimum 2.5'overhang RVl OXic A-VVlopzCntDlstrfc&Desrpn Marva f Pave 3.2.f3 Coarse Where practical,lowering the grade of the parking lot from stone existing street elevations may aid in obscuring views of outran automobiles while promoting views of architectural elements Fps of the structures beyond. When grading a site for parking purposes,runoff from parking areas must be infiltrated through grass lined swales or porous-fill retention areas rather than directing the flow to natural wetlands. l MAdi igs and Grounds Retention Area Landscaping not o* softens the Impact of architecture and 56 M7 a pew sfyi 1 moved surfaces,but it provides a more human scale. It also rr4W700vr&sn Jh #0RAV t.,ff AWIN#W& helps define circulation patterns,distinguish bolding entries, pwneivct/w&ra!wrt/a &as w 1fas wiMrsfms and unify the overall project Existing � r� Roadway _• AP Parking Lot 1 • [owrrfay eylr*eob af�l7aparrt�dag bt/wr f Larnciscaping around the entire base foundation of structures !Xl stNl�s�'M!tlkWt1171n�klsVJlWSOf av WWAiks as Wffas as wts ti'Iw pant•V bt is required to blend the architecture into the site, to soften to an araw wM 5AW rAWr. the edge between the parking lot and structure(s),and accent entrances. Landscaping shall be in scale with adjacent structures and be of appropriate size at maturity to accomplish its intended purpose. Additional landscaping to define use boundaries and circulation patterns,and create courtyard environments within the site is ' also required. Mass plantings and natural groupings of trees and shrubs are more effective than anear installations. No fence or wall shall be located within ten (t o)feet of the front property line or of any street right-of-way line. Vegetation of varying heights and textures shall be placed Lands��oary anarnad 67r briar atdriin�iiays surd detwwn hvi&hgsandpar**W lots6knifs along walls and fences to soften hard planes and to create —Fcwamic lL-vVlopr 6-nrDirrricrrOCSOT M&XW Pale 3.2.14 interest and variety. Long expanses of fence or wall surfaces must be offset and architecturally designed to prevent monotony. Chain ink fencing is not permitted in areas visible from r�.. a4acent properties,parking areas,street or pedestrian •' walkways unless it is screened through use of coniferous trees �' •` , and/or appropriate shrub plantings. '+ Objects such as water towers,storage tanks processing ,p 9 ` equipment,cooling towers,communications towers,vents,and i Fir any other structures or equipment shall be compatible with the building architecture or screened from adjacent properties, I a parking areas,streets,and pedestrian walkways by using a combination of landscaping and fences or walls. �• the use of art features such as sculptures, fountains, distinctive landscaping,and nnurals add a unique identification LaWjv4o*W.jvAWw Mee himcfpAwies of'&> x and style to a development.Art features should be grad rvlXr. appropriate to the historic,architecttuai,and visual character of the site. Platt Materl dlS AN areas not paved or built upon shall be landscaped with De net disturb grade trees,shrubs,and lamas. Lawn areas may be seeded or within tree spread sodded,but seeded areas must be mulched after seeding, parrticulargr in steep slope areas to prevent water erosion. Large uninterrupted areas of gravel or bark mulch or bare soil Drip line ---->EI r1, are prohibited. Finished grade ,�� ti ..... �) Wherever possible,existing vegetation shall be preserved to -_ 0-i9bW rat the requirements of this section. New WW3caping shall a gram consist of species suitable for the climate and soi conditions of piedmont North Carolina.A list of recommended trees and ' - shrubs is provided on the following pages. If existing vegetation is not preserved,no fewer than the number of trees per acre specified in the section, "Plant Size Aa pnrsae+rvxytexistxag tl►�res,r rrvtd�rsttirrb doe aid Dbtrturtion,"shall be planted or the amount of landscaping dwl���wali+'r tr+i�spr�adarc�v,�goy of1Y�e elw�ts�? required to meet the Landscape Volume Ratios,whichever is greater. Required parking lot island trees may not be included Zaor3oMic&-WIopMearh"YCrr Des&"Mat x qJ Pape 3.2.r 5 in this count unless they are located in islands larger than soo square feet in size. Trees must be protected during construction to reduce damage to both limb and roots. Mechanical equipment must not be operated nor materials stored in sensitive areas. No grading is allowed within the drip One of retained trees. When installed,all irrigation systems are to be below ground, f My automated systems in comp =e with all applicable building code requilrements. Use of water conserving systems — ——— — such as trickle [drip]irrigation for shrub and tree plantings is encouraged.AN backfbw control devices are to be located or ~�-► I screened so that they are not visible from streets,parking lot [ rr or pedestrian areas.. Along streets and highways,and at driveways intersections, 41b yff&w-ex&WhS0mWr.avadat*7w way plant materials must be selected and placed to avoid blocking Ms, avvAfAAw *p siM IWsat sight Cores at intersections and curb cuts.Ar such intersections, inMrs�ctaans a t 0-foot by 70-foot site triangle must be provided,with the 1 0-foot dimension located on the street with the lesser traffic volu ne. Trees within a site triangle shall be trimmed 10 feet above ground,ard strubs shah be maintained at a height of three [3]feet to provide adequate visibility. Along utility low --r- rights-of-wW,plantings must not disrupt service or access to overhead or underground equipment. _ Plant material must be used to provide microclimate - a modification and energy conservation. Shade trees will 'b provide relief from summer heat in outdoor activity areas and 4 reduce cooing costs when located to the southwest of buildings. ML Wind screening 13 desirable on the windward side of a building during cold periods.When new development is sited on an exposed and open landscape,awindbreak planting La*d5r,AW*ynaod%F*-v ho npkmw Mule dy perpendicular to the prevailing wind will reduce wind velocity pvnrxmgsA&*rrm?dr+oe"rel vaw by 50 percent over adistance of 10 to 15 times the height of 5W I50%*' A ddiv#H*y wix& the windbreak. lbanoxic Arvz°lopmenrMjVicV Des(pin M"iW Pave 3.2.16 andaVPM71 xnMrnor/i WiV in f4114red to h&r. Winder waadsyet 44w AVlbiW&rrWh*. VAV- r�d�atxxr. SUMMER a Good shade FALL/SPRING Protection from Good solar exposure winter wind sA+ WINTER Good solar exposure Plant Size and Distribution The number and d is'trfttion of trees which must be planted, by size,is as followS: Number of Trees Per Acre of Percent Unobstructed Distribution of Open Space of Trees Use Category Large Small! Large Small Industrial 0 10 40X sox Distribution 94 26 70X 30X Flex Space 23 20 55X 45X Office 51 23 70X 30X Retail 39 is 79X 3ex Service 24 52 30% 70X "Unobstructed open space"included all areas not covered by buildings,parking lots,driveways, sidewalks,and other Impervious surfaces.Parking lot islands may be counted as unobstructed open space if they are at least 500 square feet in area. .r'casnotmic Destn Marxvail fte 3.2.17 At installation,trees must be at least six (6) feet tall,with a caliper of at least three-fourths (3/4)to one and one-fourth (1-1/4)inches. Shrubs must be at least 14 inches high. Plant Species Following is a list of recommended tree and shrub species for use in Economic Development Districts.The listing is not exhaustive and substitutions are permisslole.The pat is based on a survey of 1 s existing businesses in Piedmont North Carolina,inckukng lint industrial,distribution,flex space, office,retail, and service uses. Widely used species are indicated with an asterisk ("). AN species appear to grow well given proper planting and maintenance practices. — Do not remove b the margins adjacent to the list of recommended plant leader g Thin branches materials are sketches which illustrate acceptable procedures Ib�eyt/ - for the installation of landscaping.These sketches as well as -? •'� .;, nataral the following section, In3talation and Maintenance,"must be shape adhered to as site development occurs. } � :f wi yam• _ 1 Large Deciduous Trees Scknffk NNW Cormrlan Name Acer Rubrum Red Maple" Top of root ball Querc us phelbs Willow Oak" must be ad same Lkluidamim styracifhia sweet Gum" Wader level d grade Quercus palustris Pin Oak retention ring Mulch L*nus americana American Elm • ( Mulch Platanus occidentalis Sycamore _S Mulch Platanus acerifolia London Plane Tree _ ..• Acer saYccharinum Silver Maple I [l r - SaIx babylonicaa Weeping Willow Finished `- FraxMs americana We Ash grade Quercus coccinea Scarlet Oak rrW p1&7,f nga-WI Ak#- Gleditsia triacanthos HIoneylocust Acer saccharum Sugar Maple Zelkova serrata Japanese Zelkova IWnemic li-nrlopmenrNr& cts Desmn M&%W Pie 3.2.t8 2 Large Evergreen Trees Sc%ntiflc Name Conwroon Name Pinus taeda Loblolly Pinex Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red Cedarx Mapoia grandiflora Southern Magnolia" Pins strobes White Pine Cedrus deodara Deodar Cedar T3uga canadenis Canadian Hemlock 3 Small Deciduous Trees SCAWAt Name CorrX M N&W Pyrus calleryana Bradford Callery Pear" Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle' Betula algra Riiver Birch' Corns florida Flowering Dogwood" (.� Males hybrida Flowering Crabapple' Pru m cerasifera Atropurpurea' Purple Leaf Plum Prune serrulata Japanese Cherry iRubber hose " �� /yam pahnat t� J apanese Maple between tree bark ,�� Cupressus sempervirens Leyland Cypress and WIRS A )Arbon MIm03a steel We 4 Small Evergreen Trees twisted to crake wire 4"-S""above taut ScjbnbYk Name Coffdnon Nance gee P'umn cara Carolina Cherry Laurel' Mulch Burlap or Mulch lex opaca 'Savannah Savannah Hollyx -� approved tree wrap °• s Deciduous Shrubs a-12 fact Scknffk v 1-3/4"x1-3/4# � � Name CorynonName stakes Cortaderia seloana Pampas Grass' 18--24-long _..,. ; Forsythiaintermedia Border Forsythia' 7"n4e 4*aiffOr &WS ro'a*ff0 Mr. Euonymu3 alatus Winged Euonymus" Viburnum dilatatum Linden Viburnum rc»rsomicAevrlopmenrDisrricrsDes07 M&xaal Pie 3.2. 13 6 Evergreen Shrubs 6-12 feet Sckntifk Name Corners&►Name Myrica cerifera Wax Myrtle' Photinia glabra Red Tip Photinia' Osmanthus fortunei Fortune Tea Olive" Ligustrum japonicum Japanese Privet' Ligustrum lucidum Glossy Privet" Hex cornuta'Burfordi' Burford Holly Prunus lauurocerasua English Laurel Cleyera japonica Cleyera Hex cornuta Chinese Holly Camellia sasanqua Sasanqua Camellia Ilex vomitoria Yaupon Holly Osmanthus heterophyllus Holly Osmanthus Elaeagnus pungens Thorny Elaeagnus Ligustrum senense 'Variegata' Variegated Privet �f 7 Deciduous Shrubs 4-6 feet Sckntiffc Name Common Name Berberia thunbergu Japanese Barberry" Rubber Spiraea cantoniensis Reeves Spires' hose Hamameh vernalis Vernal Witch Hazel 14 gauge wire 2'minimum s Evergreen Shrubs 4-6 feet Sceenfifur Name Corrnrr on Name Ilex cornuta 'Burfordii Nana' Dwarf Burford Holly" Juniperus chinensis pfitzeriana Pfitzer Juniper" Abelia grandiflora Glossy Abelie it Hex crenata'Hetzi' Hetzi Japanese Holly' Prunus laurocerasus auugustifolia English Laurel' 18"-24" "� ' l t o Nandina domestic& Nandine to+ Aucuba japonica Japanese Aucuba Fatsia japonica Japanese Fatsia rrm sfatag*tar7lfar&verb=to' Gardenia jasminoides Cape Jasmine Rhododendron hybrida Hybrid Rhododendron Hex crenata'Rotundifloia' Roundleaf Japanese Holly rconomic Arw1opmenr Nstricts Design Mauraf Page 3.2.20 9 Deciduous Shrubs 1-41eet Scaentifk//aortae Conmrs n Nurse Euonymus alatus 'Compactus' Dwarf Winged Euonymus" Hydrangea arborescens Snowhill Hydrangea" 'Grandiflora' to Evergreen Shrubs 1-4feet Scxntific Nam Gammon Nam Juniperus horizontals 'Parsons' Parsons Juniper" Ilex vomitorla'Nana' Dwarf Yaupon Holly" Juniperus horizontals 'Plumosa' Andorra Juniper% Azalea obtusum Kurume Azalea' Nandina domestic&'Nana' Dwarf Nandine Ilex cornuta'Rotunda' Dwarf Horned Holly' Chamaecyparis obtusa Dwarf Hinoki Cypress 'Nana GraCiN3' -� Nex cremta'Heleri' Heller Japanese Holly Rex crenata'Stokes' Stokes Japanese Holly Pinus mugo 'Compacta' Mugo Pine Jr Art M , Yucca fAamentosa Adam's Needle Yucca -,f- s ct*=3i3 pfitzerlana'Nana' Dwarf Pfitzer Juniper Leucothoe fontanesiam Drooping Leucothoe Installadiien and Maintenance Water retention ring AA new landscaping shall be of good quality,drought resistant, Mulch and installed in a sound,workmanship-like manner. New plant material must meet or exceed the standards set forth by the Mulch American Association of Nurserymen. •i. . _ Finished -''• / Planting holes are to be dug at least one-third [1!31 larger than " S��• the root ball of the plant,and as landscape material must be tin`'' planted in its permanent location immediately upon delivery to Y. the site. While it is not necessary to remove the burlap "Original grade surrounding a root ball,the burlap must be folded from the top one third [t i3[of the ball after the plant is in the hole. The rr�e p,►aWtaap soil around the plant must be tamped to remove air pockets, and a three-to-four inch layer of mulch provided to help retain moisture. �'cnnomlc Llev�lopmen.r srricts Deso?I40wxW Pale 3.2.2 t Prune Trees which have heavy tops or are over six [b] feet in proportionately to_ height must be staked to prevent wi nds from Iooseni ng the compensate for root roots.All landscaped areas are to be provided with a reduction and promote natural growth 1. readily available source of water,and plants are to be � , ���•• soaked thoroughly with water at planting turn and once a week thereafter during the first growing season [except y. during periods of heavy rain]. t ±. t ,s• �;�. The owner of the property shall be responsible for the Wader : '. ' - continued proper maintenance of all landscape materials,and retention -{�,- - Mulch Mal keep them in a neat and orderly appearance, free from ring refuse and debris,at all times. AN unhealthy and dead plant material shall be replaced by the owner within one [t]year of Finished issuance of an occupancy permit or by the next planting gee ` season,whichever comes first. Compr acted topsoil backfill �' �i pGnf�rgde�ai! zcpvnomlc Dewlopmenrmstrlcts Deson h"jd Page 3.2.22 • • 33 Circulation & Parking • Circulation & Parking Introduction The purpose of the circulation and parking criteria is to provide for safe and convenient movement of pedestrians,bicyclists, and motor vehicles,both in parking areas and on adjoining U C:J streets and walkways,and to lay the groundwork for long-term t` '�'' fixed guideway transit systems. Ull • Parking Lot Design ._ Avoid Parking lot design can be a critical factor in the success or eAcceprable faire of a business use. In co nsidering the possibilities for developing a new parking area,a developer must analyze the � following factors:the overall configuration and appearance of parking areas;entrances and exits with consideration to possible conflicts with street traffic;pedestrian and vehicular Ad�ylar�vle esrc» rraaarnnwstbe�arovmfndon snit conflicts;and on-site circulation and service vehicle areas. /S�'allo�ar>Firrg spax+ls Hnli�,frs�not pkv»�ith►d eb back web tfral7r�. Lncati m&Cangtraun Each site shad be a 3eif-contained development capable of accommodating its awn parking needs. The use of the public street and any parking setback area for parking and staging of trucks is not allowed. T v,� A parking lot can be the dominant visual element of any site. scars For this reason,parking areas which accommodate a significant number of vehicles mist be divided into a series of connected c4q►,W**g duns nWSt he diVAW Woo sWr*s smaller lots not to exceed 75 cars separated by major of snaalb+r dots landscape buffers to provide visual relief. It is preferrable to place off-street parking to the side or rear Of structures and away from streets and highways. Parking Economic DeveA*nwntDkrftts Desert A4&%W Pape 3.3.1 lots adjacent to and visible from streets must be adequately Lod�1 screened from view through the use of rolling earth berms, low screen walls,changes in elevation,landscaping or 13mlerred combinations thereof(See section 3.2- Landscape Design). ._j I I lgl� Glare from automobile headlights within parking lots must not `— _ ' I have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses. Shared parking is also encouraged to minimize disturbance and reduce I , impervious surface. For a lot facing two streets (corner lot),do not locate parking I at the corner facing the intersection. Prominent building or J L* -- = --- landscape features must occupy the corner. Avoid W 7: -__: _ ' = Visitor drop-oft zones and parking must be provided near visitor entrances,and all-day employee parking must be SiM parftg dots to hye skb or rear oidriiddsags separated from visitor and front entrance traffic. Parking ,oasedafavt+�rs�►ctAan careers aisles are to be separated from vehicle circulation routes whenever possible. i - Parking areas must be separated from structures by either a raised concrete walkway or landscaped strip,preferably both. I — Situations where parking spaces directly abut the structures are to be avoided. �,. n cn. The use of parking structures is encouraged.Where used, JIM! sac special attention must be given to the exterior design of the structure so that it is compatible with the architecture of the Sitcrgpav�FAag datsbwhAadbuiddaags ispAArr+od principal building. In addition,such structures must be designed Avoid _� Proforred Me baidd t s on Me kft pant on4r on a W. 77*buiukg airraggww it to Mo rtOt is pv e4wr•+nd 0 W09 par*prg be+hAad 610 AViddA ys a nd enwemg usab,b yo n spov. Ecawmk DeveA*rrcent Disftts Deson Matrwaf PaV6 3.3.2 in relation to topography to help reduce their visibility. Screening at the perimeter of the structure must also be provided so that automobiles are screened up to a height of three [3j feet above the floor level. Enbames and Exits Site access and internal circulation shall be designed in a straight forward manner which emphasizes safety and efficiency.All vehicular maneuvering requirements for entry and exit to and from individual parking spaces must be executed entirely on site. Furthermore,vehicles must not be required to enter the street in order to move from one area to another on the same site. . Entrances and exits must be restricted to side streets Shared access whenever possible rather than providing direct access to '+- arterial and collector roads.Access points,whether located on -•— front or side streets,shall be located as far as possible from street intersections so that adequate stacking room is provided. In addition,entrances and exits must also take into account safety considerations such as sight distance,lane widths,vehicle turning distances,pedestrian crossings,etc.All .._. . access points shall be clearly marked with appropriate ShWed directional e. On Public roads,access points are subject Shared access to review and approval by the NC Department of pWWRg Transportation. SOf 00-6 OW&J-T fa iWJV NVM A74WsrchdarLT&r To miiWas the number of turning movements,entrance and passok AMOIaNNO s dcr�as-sicarss W*"WrA".rAk. exit points shay be limited to one (t)per street frontage. More than one (I)access point may be permitted if justified by site configuration,trip generation,and traffic conditions, including the need for separate service and visitor/employee Vehicular access,and/or one-way traffic movement. Common drivewayrs or aNeys which provide vehicular access to more than one site are an acceptable means of reducing the number of access points to public streets. Shared parking between acliacent businesses and/or developments is also encouraged. Pledestrian/VeNcular Conflicts Separate velar and pedestrian circulation systems shall be provided. Pedestrian linkages between uses in office, ECOrvrAt DevebiawntD4h*ts Design MarxW Pave 3.3.3 � � � ■ - � m � e ■ ■§ Aegis I ' e me aft■%�� e� cqs§��' ' e m v l l �� cm q5 2G§ ■ �� w - : oil �■§ 9 ` ■ § § ev� A n.■� ' a� ■� 41® ■ q a . I QA . $ s . ■ � Ell . �■ ® -� 1026 q3 � �q3 § ' A ■ 4 A 42 e e �� e m■� ® 2 ® ■2 4 all®0�Cv . � Q, a. q3 ® e ■ ■ ■ IL ■ 66 v tow o @� . 2 k _ �� ■ ® s 2 - D ■ w service,and retail areas shall be emphasized, includin g distinct pedestrian access between adjacent sites with sidewalks and crosswalks,and appropriate lighting and landscaping. In addition, the parking area shall be designed in a manner which links the structures to the street sidewalk system as an extension of the pedestrian environment. Changes in paving ;;;a materials to accent pedestrian circulation are encouraged. PP I Lam! Avoid r-42-- Preferred Avoid Ckrselew bail kgr are a si&to crevte ,vc*s&ian rf#mr ffim separa ft h&WWWs Wiffi pars .*g Parking areas must be designed so that pedestrians walk parallel to moving cars.This minimizes the need for pedestrians to cross parking aisles and landscape areas. Safe and adequate access must also be designated for handicapped pedestrians,especially between parking and budding or use. Preferred A#s07 pare*g&*rvs sn#NtpM►atrsb ns AN parking spaces shall be visible from the interior of the WJ*Pi ra/k/tb l-afl*fbw structures,especially entrances. Parking areas and pedestrian walkways shall be visible from structures to the greatest O degree possible,and clear,well illuminated paths must be provided from parking areas to the street and building Pedestri entrance. Path G Parking standards AN parking facilities on each site shall be sufficient to serve the $ttrreet 9 on business conducted without using adjacent streets or parking lots. In the case of multiple use buildings,such as flex le9wr Re&r6-A"pi r s cross S&Wds,a buldhw,parking requirements shall be determined for each c afpa Mg ar x6n ok y is rrgav~ use separately. Minimum parking space requirements for tb a t a�i�rrs e!v!Y!w pOle►ntia/p�rrs�vrca afsei►,ars select land uses are shown on the accompanying page.The Manual user must consult Article 10.4 of the Zoning Ordinance for a detailed list of parking space requirements. Econardi:Devekpmnt Districts Desin MarxW PVe 3.3.5 Parking Angle:Angled parking is preferred by many Clear 16' motorists over 90-degree parking,because it is easier to pull i. - Aisle into and back out of spaces. It also has the advantage of taking up less space than the traditional 90-degree parking and is preferred for larger parking lots,particularly if one-way traffic flow is desired to achieve a better traffic flow. ' 450 Perpendicular or 9o-degree parking handles the most vehicles 1 and permits two-way traffic flow,but it is difficult for some Cdrivers to manuever into and out of the spaces. •x,•,20;. 9� \ Parking Space Dimensions: Parking spaces are required to be a minimum width of nine feet and 20 feet in depth.Where �.: perpendicular parking is used,a back-up aisle at least 24 feet ' in width must also be provided. For angle parking, the width of the back-up aisle will vary from 10 to 18 feet depending upon 20' the angle of parking. Handicapped Parking: In addition to standard spaces,the North Carolina State Building Code requires that every cco to Ar # -gems, A development designate parking spaces for persons with access!b avxt'PF�oim spa�raes, takrs W kssspace, avtdisaccatwdWMg disabilities.At least two handicapped spaces per parking lot or crate-way es-,tffk nwW IM4 one space per 20 standard parking spaces,whichever is greater,must be designated for use.Such spaces must be at 24 least 13 feet in width,20 feet in depth,and located within 100 feet of the main entrance of the building.They must be clearly marked for use by the physically handicapped,both by painting 900 in the space and with an information sign. Curb cuts or ramps W must be provided for each space for access t0 adjoining J_L walkways. 20'----1 • �• . Loading Space Dimensions/Standards: In addition to the requirements and standards concerning parking spaces,every retail,distribution,and industrial use is required to provide _ off-street loading space sufficient to accomodate the needs of the particular establishment. In any case, the minimum required number of loading spaces is as follows: Retail One space per 3,000 3q.ft.of floor space not to exceed three spaces R#rP*dd*&AvRjr**g AwvWAps lYte nwst cars &'Wd W -nits twa-way traf ti:, Taut it& Distribution& One space per 10,000 sq.ft.of floor difl*&#tSor.sMV tO n*0644. Industrial space not to exceed three spaces Econornk Deve wwntDistncts Desi7n A4cert W Pave 3.3.6 Required Improvements:Al parking and loading spaces, and vehicular circulation areas must be paved with asphalt or concrete,and provided with continuous concrete curb and gutter. In addition,all parking and loading spaces must be designated by painted fines,and driveways entering onto public streets must be constructed in accordance with N.C.Department of Transportation standards for urban situations. OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SELECTED LAND USES (Refer to Article 10.4 of the Zoning Ordinance for detail requirements for each use) Minimum Space Requirements Per Per Basic Dwell1ling or Sq.Ft.of Per Per Use or Activity Standard Lodging Unit Floor Area Employee Said Residential Single-family 1 Duplex 1 Multi-faunilyy 2 Services Hotels &motels 1 Banks &financial institutions 11200 Medical offices 110 Theatres 112 Laundry &dry cleaning establishments 11300 Barber &beauty shops 11200 Offices &personal services 11300 Restaurants - Drive-In 116+ 1150 - General 1150+ 114 Retail Retail store or center 11200 Automobile sales 11400 Service station 1 Jbay+ 1 Distribution Wholesale sales 1 Storage &warehousing 1 Light Industrial Manufacturing &processing 1 Research facility 1 Econoffdi:Deveaopwnt Detracts Deslpre Maw PVe 3.3.7 Thoroughfare Planning 10 Streets perform two primary functions -traffic service and land service.The traffic service function is achieved by assuring that traffic can move safely and efficiently along an area's thoroughfare system.The land service function is accomplished by providing access to and from adjoining properties. Local thoroughfare plans utilize thoroughfare planning principles,including street classification systems,to identify which streets perform these functions and to what degree. Such plans also establish levels of service to determine when the streets are functioning properly and when .. r they are not. �' T Artonial Street Classification: Streets are generally classified Local Street Colector according the function(s)they perform;e.g.,as arterials, collectors or local streets.These classifications and the Slats�n�ywx�ral�¢j cicssifird�ccarrlig tla characteristics associated with each are shown on the tYi�ir lsimact r. accompanying table. CHARACTERISTICS OF GENERAL STREET CLASSFICATION SYSTEM Artalaft CoNectW3 Local Streets Trap Distance: Provides for long-distance Provers for t-di3taie Provides for short distance traffic movement.in and traffic movement,collecting trips and not intended for between communities and distributing traffic through traffic between local streets and arterial streets Access Control: Access points are limited Provides direct access to Provides direct access to to control strip commercial abutting land and some abutting land and for development through the access control through traffic movements in spacing and location of spacing and location of neighborhoods driveway locations drhrewalrs Traffic Separation: Opposing traffic lanes are Generally unseparated but Unseparated separated by a median or may have turn lanes continuous left turn lane Sianalizzation: Traffic signals are Signals discourage through Signals considered at coordinated traffic and some may be intersection with collector coordinated streets Traffic Volumes: 10,000 to 25,000 ADT 5,000 to 20,000 ADT Under t,500 ADT (Average Daily Traffic) Number of Lens: 2 lanes in each direction t or 2 thrown lanes in 1 lane in each direction each direction Other: Travel by pedestrians and Travel by pedestrians and Travel by pedestrians and bicyclists will be considered bicyclists will be considered bicyclists will be considered econon*Devekprrant Districts Design A4&xW Pais 3.3.8 Level of Service; The term level of service denotes any number of differing combinations or operating conditions that can occur on a given lane or roadway when it is accommidating various traffic volumes. Six levels of service have been TRAFFIC LEVELS OF SERVICE defined which determine the type of service that a particular street or thoroughfare gives to the motorist under the stated Level A Free flow at low densities with conditions. These levels of service are used by state and local no restrictions due to traffic thoroughfare planners extensively and are shown on the conditions accompanying table. Level B Stable flow with some slight restriction of driver freedom. Economic Development District Application used as standard for rural The thoroughfare planning principles presented above have highway design been incorporated into and used in the preparation of local Level C Stable flow with increased thoroughfare plans. The classifications,capacities,and levels marked restriction on the of service for each affected thoroughfare in the three driver's selection of speed Economic Development Districts is discussed below. and with reduced ability to Pass 1-85/3uekMm Road District;Aside from 1-8511-40,two Level D Decreased flow with little roads have been included on the Orange County Thoroughfare freedom for driver Plan. U.S.Hghway 70 has been classified as an arterial road. It maneuverability-operating has a 22-foot pavement (two lanes)located in a 60-foot speeds are still tolerable but right-of-vain. It is currently capable of handing 8,500 vehciles approaches condition of unstable flow per day and had an average daiyr traffic volume of 4,000 vehicles per day in 1 987. By the year 2010,traffic on the road Level E Unstable flow with low is expected to reach 7,500 vehicles per day. Both roadway operating speeds and and right-of-way width are considered adequate to handle the volumes near or at capacity projected traffic. Level F 'Traffic jam"conditions with frequent interruptions and Buckhorn Road is classified as an collector road. It has a breakdown of flow-volumes 20-foot pavement (two lanes)located in a 60-foot above capacity exist along right-of-vain. It is currently capable of handing 7,500 vehciles with law operating speeds per day and had an average daily traffic volume of 400 vehicles per day in 1987. By the year 2010, traffic on the road is expected to reach 1,000 vehicles per day.Although the roadway and right-of-way width are considered adequate to handle the projected traffic,the widening of Buckhorn Road to a 24-foot pavement section is preferred to match the cross- section being installed as part of the 1-85 widening. Grade crossing improvements at the Southern Railroad,and the 0 installation of turn Well and improved turn radii for easier Econornk DeveA*mnt Distracts Deson A &%W Pale 33 9 and safer truck turning movements, are also warranted at the U.S.70/Buckhorn Road intersection. 1-40/01d N.C.Highway 86 District; Other than 1-40, only one road has been included on the Orange County and Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plans- Old N.C.Highway 86. Classified as an arterial street, Old N.C.Highway 86 is currently capable of handing 10,000 vehicles per day and had an average daily traffic volume of 8,300 vehicles per day in 1986. By the year 2005,traffic on the road is expected to reach 19,600 vehicles per day. Wlth traffic volumes expected to exceed the capacity of the road,the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan calls for the widening of Old N.C.Highway 86. The proposed cross section for widening is a four-lane facility,with sidewalks and two travel lanes in either direction,plus a center turn lane.To accomplish the widening,the right-of-way would also have to be expanded from 6o feet to 90 feet. lee'ROW w � Travel lam Travel lanes 1s' 12' 12' 1s' 1 � _s'Sidewalk 44 __Z T6"Sidewalk 4'Bike lane 25'Landscape Medi 4'Bike lane Prnlooas#d row-Av*cross_wtwn far Rather than utilize the five-lane facility proposed in the Odd M.C.h"dray Bd. HiNsborough Thoroughfare Plan,a different cross section is desired.To provide an attractive entranceway into Hillsborough and to prevent the strip commercialkross-traffic turning movements associated with Churton Street,the cross section would be changed to provide a landscape median instead of a center turn lane.Turn lanes would only be available at designated access points.These points were identified on the schematic plans presented in section 2.1, Development Areas. In addition to the landscape median,the outside lane would be widened from 12 feet to 16 feet to accommodate bike lanes EcenarAt Dev opwnt Distracts Des#7 MarxW Page 3.3.10 0 on either side. Old N.C.Highway 86 is recommended as a bicycle route in the Regional Bicycle Plan for Durham and Orange Counties, and the provision of bike lanes through the Economic Development District would provide opportunities for recreation as well as travel to work. To accommodate these improvements, the right-of-way for Old N.C.Highway 86 would have to be widened from 6o feet to 1 oo feet. 1-85ALSMighwaq 70 District; In the 1-85iU.S.Highway 70 area, U.S. Highway 70 has been classified as an arterial road, and Did N.C.Highway 10, Mount Herman Church Road, Pleasant Green Road,and N.C. Highway 751 as collector roads. Specific deficiency analysis data is not available in the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (D C H C)Thoroughfare Plan other than to note that U.S.Highway 70 will be over capacity by the year 2000. As noted in section 2.1, Development Areas, Mount Herman Church Road is being realigned as part of the 1-85 widening.A 0 24-foot pavement in a 60-foot right-of-way is proposed. However,as was the case with Old N.C. Highway 86, Mount Herman Church Road has been recommended as a bicycle route in the Regional Bicycle Plan for Durham and Orange Counties.The addition of four feet to each side,resulting in a 32-foot pavement,will assure that bike Was are provided as part of the Improvements. The same condition exists with Old N.C. Highway 10 and Pleasant Green Road. Both roads have 20-foot pavements in 60-foot rights-ofrway,and both roads are part of the bicycle system recommended in the Regional Bicycle Plan. The preferred cross-section for these roads is a 24-foot roadway with a four-foot bike lane on each side. As part of the I-85 widening project,improvements will be made to U.S. Highway 70 at the interchange;e.g., expansion to a four-lane divided facility,including two 12-toot travel lanes in either direction. Given the deficiency noted for U.S. Highway 70 by the year 2000 and the proposed Eno Drive extension,the preferred cross-section for that road is an extension of the four-lane divided facility. Ecor=Aii:Devedgar nt Distracts Deson M&%W pme 3.3.f r A final thoroughfare improvement noted in section 2.1 was the proposed Eno Drive extension from Durham.Also known as The Case Study- the Northwest Loop,the project is intended to relieve traffic Roadway Design& congestion in and around the urban areas north and east of lmpmOments Durham.The western terminus of the four-lane facility would V CAWWtt°1 fOCS be at a new interchange with 1-85 approximately 1,000 feet Off=buuila0irtp dlimerrsions 45 ft.x 55 ft west of the Durham County line. In the DCH C Thoroughfare WrWr of straries 2 Plan,the road is planned for extension to connect with Nwnberofofftekfik rtes 2 U.S.Highway 70 immediately across from N.C. Highway 751. Offace&uiloPr"tp floor area 2,475$9.ft Total fibor area 9,900 sq.ft. Bike lanes are proposed as part of the Eno Drive project; ARM e.g.,four-foot lanes on the edge of the outside vehicle travel Effpabyeesper 1,000 sq.ft. 3.39 lane. In addition, N.C.Highway 751 is another thoroughfare of tntatl fidorareat designated in the Regional Bicycle Plan as a bike route. If the Total effro+ovees 34 Eno Drive project is extended to U.S. Highway 70, the bike ITE Tnb Generation Hates lanes are to be extended to connect with those proposed for (Vehicle tfW per efriabyee) N.C. Highway 751. A veratge waakal3ty 5.32 —A.M.Peak hour 0.70 Roadway DesignAmprovement (One hour between 7 and 9 A.M.) — P.M.Peak hour 0.79 During the design phase of each project in an Economic (One hour between 4 and 6 P.M.) Development District,an analysis of the proposed developments impact on increased traffic flow must be TraAv Genereeka (Vehicle trao�s) prepared. Specific*,a Traffic Impact Study is required and —A vera�ge weekday lei A.M. Peak haw. 24 must be submitted with the comprehensive site development 83%Ente►trtp 21 plan if the traffic generated by a development exceeds 800 1 t%Exitartp 3 trips per day. Specifications for the preparation of the Study, — P.M.Peak hour 27 including levels of service,are contained in Article 13 of the 17X Enteft s 93X Exit>i v 22 Zoning Ordinance. ExistrV Traffic VOAKM 8,300 In all cases,roadways and/or signalized intersections must be (lSes AD ) designed to maintain adequate service levels and assure user PrgectedDevekprnentADT let safety. Highway design and siting must respond to present TotaIADT 8,481 and projected capacity/volume deficiencies as identified in the StrvvtADTGapacity 10,000 Traffic Impact Study;e.g.,existing streets adjacent to a proposed development must be upgraded and improved when Since total prg0ctedADT does not such improvements are made necessary by increased traffic exceed cagoacity of street,no flow from the development. rirfwvvements are reputled except aal final rtht-of-way de&atibn Whether improvements are required or not,adequate and buAft setbacks from new right-of-way must be dedicated to accommodate the r4ht-of--way Airre. projected right-of-way requirements as identified in adopted Ecor=nk Devekprnent Distracts Des07 MarxW PaVe 3.3.r2 The Case Study Roadway DesignAmprovil meat I It NORTH 1' t Odd MC 86 �° � 1 rrr�pOrr�vavrn�,r7ts St �to MWAMS nxvgw extra oen vats rAw 1 krme PmvA*cwtmAq d ti + a6rtters�ct�en for -mvA*SMOVAMS RequftW Exit� r MAP ROW 20AWt an both SA*s S&MAMW Az* 2S fWt ftMHBW ti ROW l � AfXa°SS l e f OW �.Y Ent FAMNOW 740-Stbery y` Scale: t" - 60-ou Ecoraant DeveA*mnt Distracts Desip M&xgi Page 3.3.r3 throughfare plans. New development must also provide building setbacks as required in section 3.1,Architectural Design,from the proposed (new)right-of-way. A case study example illustrating the application of these criteria is provided on the preceding page. If the case study had indicated that the projected traffic from the development would,when combined with the existing volume, exceed the capacity of the road,additional improvements such as widening the road through the property frontage (one-half of the cross-section)would have been required unless the improvements were scheduled to be made as part of the N.C. Department of Transportation's (N C D OT)Transportation Improvement Program. New Streets: Identified in section 2.t, Development Areas, were proposed access points and collector road systems to serve the proposed Economic Development Districts.These locations are identified,not as definite alignments,but as statements of intent. Comprehensive site development plans, including proposed subdivision plats,must incorporate these alignments and access points wherever possible. However, road locations,including local residential or commercial streets, must avoid difficult topography,respect the land form by paralleling contour lines,be sited so they do not interfere with natural drainage,and stubbed-out to property lines to assure connection with future development on adjoining lots. New collector and local streets,serving residential or commercial development,must meet the specifications and standards contained in the Subdivision Regulations andbr NCDOT Construction Standards for streets with curb and gutter section.The ultimate cross-section will be dependent, however,upon the review and recommendation of N C D OT. On-street parking is not permitted on collector streets which will intersect with existing thoroughfares proposed as bicycle routes in the Regional Bicycle Plan. In lieu of on-street parking, four-foot bike lanes must be delineated on each side (curb)of the street. Ecaaankc DeveAop=nt Dirft:ts Desert Manual Pape 3.3.f4 Transit Access In i 990, the Research Triangle Regional TransiVLand Use Study was presented to the Joint Regional Public Transportation Subcommittee of the Transportation Advisory Committees for the Greater Raleigh Area and the Durham- Chapel Hill-Carrboro Area. Conducted by Barton-Aschman Associates and Hammer, Siler, George Associates,the study evaluated the potential for mass transit in the Research Triangle Region. ! s to 15 t' TSL 11 TSL U Minute T' ; Corridor , „ Wdking Owns. Fixed Guideway Distance 16 "-•-•' .'.�.�._...,•,...�.j�.„ :•',�.TSL III Stop /a Mile Radius i-Urban service area TSL III Stop- OL TSL I 1/0- 112 We .. Area 1 '� L : Radius ~~""+•�. TSL 11 TSL III IL Area Stop tit = r ... r TS II Corridor" TSL 11 /��j��L 11: • .'• .:• ' • •Corridor ,i "' _ , Stops ,� •f ''r. TSL it Thoroughfares t. • TSL 11 t� Aria TSL 11 Area ` Corridor Conce�oeSw/o' ram ofTrauwSory The findings of the study were that a fixed-guideway or other to MIS ea r.-*Vk 41AW*O. type of mass transit could be a viable transportation option for the Region only if there were a significant change in urban development patterns over the next 20 years. Fixed guideway systems are specialized transit services that include light rain,people movers,dual-mode bus,and busway systems. Subsequent to the study,the Planning Directors Exchange of 0 the TrWxye J Region prepared and presented a report which evaluated local development standards and found that Economk Deved*r nt Distracts Desin M&xnW Pape 3.3.is generally they do not support transit. In response, they TSL II Areas drafted recommended changes to the standards and land use policies for consideration by the Region's local governments. Residential Suburban,single-family detached or Transit Service Levels(TSL) clustered, and pedestrian accessible. (2.5 DU/AC to 5.o DU/AC) A significant recommendation of the Planning Directors Exchange was that land use and related development Non-Residential standards be keyed to three Transit Service Levels (TS Ls)in Neighborhood scale,support services the Region.AN areas of the Region would receive a TSL only, low intensity (storage,day care, designation depending on the type of transit service planned neighborhood business,industrial parks). for the area. Listed below is a summary of the characteristics RoadwayMarking Standards of the three Transit Service Levels.A conceptual diagram of � ' Provide interconnected IOCW street the three levels is shown on the accompanying page. system - Provide parking lots in areas designated for future transit access TSL I; Areas that generally would be rural in character, Provide small park &ride lots for probably in a county planning jurisdiction,and with limited car &van poolers,including bike transit services such as carpooling or van pooling. storage. Reserve ROW for fixed guideway TSL U: Developed or developing Areas and Corridors, corridors where needed,protect sites for bus stops,provide for located within urban service districts.The Area includes all land transit vehicle use 8&pedestrian within locally designated urban service districts and generally access in shopping areas,office would be described as sulliurban.Gangs are located along complexes,etc. mayorthoroughfares that serve as routes for buses or other Subdivision/Site Design Standards rubber-tire transit vehicles and include the area within a five to ' Provde pedestrian access to transit 15 minute walking distance to the thoroughfare.The corridors development patterns in these corridors are likely to be Keep walking distances to minimum urban in character. between transit stop and development Provide pedestrian access between developments TSL W: Coacentraded urban areas surrounding fixed guideway transit system that are defined based on a distance radius from the transit Stoic- t/a mile for the first ring, followed by a distance of t Pa to t r2 mile for the second ring. i t Economic Development District Application I ' Economic Development Districts are located in Transition Areas as designated in the County's Comprehensive Plan, areas which are the equivalent of locally designated urban service districts.This is because Transition Areas are future —.—..- growth areas for municipalities and expected to receive the Pe�dPSlf�A�nacoess WO MW MPHPd*0MYV nwst full range of urban services. cave Wt wr i sri fWV&S/Awffis ame faciliUte aie ofprA6lAr &an5parht*0. Economk Develoia wnt arrtricts Deson Manual Pave 3.3.f8 Because of their location in Transition Areas (or urban service districts), Economic Development Districts are clearly aligned with the Transit Service Level (TSL) 11 category. Shown on the accompanying tables are the development standards TSL ii Corridors recommended by the Planning Directors Exchange for TSL 11 Residential Areas and Grrrrkrs.These standards identify residential Urban,small lot single-family,town- densities,non-residential uses,and roadway,parking,and site houses,and patio homes design standards which are supportive of transit systems. L 5 to 15 DU/AC with 9 DU/AC average) Non-Resideatiall Because they are located adjacent to or bisected by Medium-size shopping centers,and interstate and arterial highways,and rasa corridors,the medium-intensity offices and industry Economic Development Districts are aligned with the TSL 11 Corridor standards.As noted on the preceding page,TSL 11 RoadwayNaricing Standards Corridors are located along majorthoroughfares and include - Provide priority signalization on the area within a five to 15 minute walking distance to the transit-only lanes,high occupancy vehicle (HOV)lanes,and turn-outs thoroughfare.Awaiking travel time of five minutes is roughly at bus stops equivalent to a distance of 1,500 feet. Most,if not all, Provide parking at sides and rear of portions of the Economic Development Districts are within a buildings to allow direct pedestrian 1,500 foot distance of arterial andbr interstate highways. access from the btak*W to transit stops Provide park &ride lots in non- Although mayor transit systems do not currently exist in either residential areas,including incentives of the District IoW kw,as they develop Into employment for businesses which allow their centers,the need for transit facilities in the Districts will parking lots to be used - Reserve ROW for fixed guideway increase. For this reason,transit access paints have been corridors where needed,protect designated an each District,and comprehensive site sites for bus stops,proves for development plans submitted for review and approval must transit vehicle use &pedestrian indicate how the TSL I l standards are addressed.These access in shopping areas,office complexes,etc, standards will be used on an interim basis until studies being undertaken by the Triangle Transit Authority provide more Subdivision/Site Design Starulards definitive recommendations concerns transit routes and Require a master plan to address transit_ tang design criteria. Example-3 of standards transportation issues,Including which can be addressed,even on an interim basis,are denoted connections to adjacent uses - All development should be pedestrian in the TSL 11 standards tables by an M . accessible with buildings placed close to ROW,and transit corridors and Acceleration Stopping Dece�ration stops Taper ! Taper ` Provide pedestrian IM3with green- ways and out h door amenities,inc x220' 10 '` 220' links 'through} developments to nearby stops Mibibiw7i 4rst s tsar gar tea•»-wt Imehm. Ectarron*DeveA;ww rt Drst*ts Des4n A &vW Pape 3.3.17 Pedestrian & Bicycle Facilities While the purpose of pedestrian and bicycle circulation criteria is to promote free and safe movement of people throughout Economic Development Districts,other goals can be accomplished,including the following: — The elimination of physical and manmade barriers which impede the use of pedestrian systems by the physically handicapped. — The provision of a greater sense of association and identification among neighbors,be they workers in adjoining buildings or residents in a neighborhood. To achieve these goals,residential and non-residential development are not to be designed as isolated enclaves but must be Inked with each other and other forms of transportation,including transit, consistent with the criteria • listed below. Pofts#rian Qrcnfladion:W Ways or sidewalks must be ,S�oaratsa�rrh�adarav�dpeaflstraan p�adfscan provided along all new collector and arterial streets. In all fir&cc0n;o1&h#d&evjo b4#am ora d-dsr4ord cases,public sidewalks,and walkways on private property, sh'•��' must be at least four feet in width and clearly marked with paint or a contrasting surface material. In addition,barrier-free design must be incorporated into sidewalk and walkway systems for use by the handicapped. Iff , I Buildings must be sited in ways which make their entries or -- " intended use clear to approaching users and visitors. Clear �,l pedestrian entries from the street and not just from adjacent '� •, ' 1 •; parking areas are to be provided. a134 n. M ell !1 Consistent with design criteria for off-street parking and r transit faccilities,locate parking areas to the side or rear of buildings and relate building facades to the street, public PawaF dotr wv first daca&& 6V sA*ar mor sidewalks,and transit stops. Ofh& fluffs, ka V*Y MM/pant doors***e!v praf�seraan and transit s�stY+nxr In the area between the pubic realm of the street and the private realm of the residential complex or commercial building,provide a transition consisting of a well landscaped front yard,a low fence or wall,a recessed entry,a courtyard, or other device that promotes privacy but visibility from the street. Ecorwmk Deveopmmnt D4 tuts Despn M&x4al Page 3.3.is Street and parking lot design which separates or delineates pedestrian uses from vehicle uses makes a significant contribution to public safety. To differentiate between such uses,employ paving materials which provide positive visual guidance during the day.At night, delineate pedestrian and vehicular pathways through differentiations in the paved width, by lighting layouts,and by providing curbs or other barriers to protect pedestrian walkways.Where pedestrian paths parallel roadways,landscape buffers should be used to provide separation,and,wherever vehicular and pedestriian paths cross, the area should be designated by changing pavement patterns,signals or signs. Q In office,service,retail,and other nonresidential areas, - coordinate pedestrian access between and connect buildings ' on adjacent sites to form an integrated pathway system which links with public sidewalk,transit,and open space systems and adjoining residential areas. Consistent with landscape design p� criteria,use natural areas along drainage corridors to provide C� such linkages. An example of such a pathway system is the recreational corridor in the 1-85f1.1.S. Highway 70 Economic pe►drseYiv,peens cross raids,c c/fw�yr Development District which links Eno River State Park and cfpr wfi*nt&d/ar sd-sally r isle r-t Jriwws Duke Forest and is described in Section 2.1, Development Av enr p�oei�rrtiilar�s+w�or afae�icrar Areas. Chcrrgrs ,pa wv xv t nrce�,rriais it or b-�v,�.�e gilcyge C am; Bicycle routes have been designated in ai-iw•srnat On&JAW&nweSar-istsafpev�frseY-�ns brit sdkrrrs as an ivnwrie, The Regional Bicycle Plan for Durham and Orange Counties along the following routes in Economic Development Districts: Ecorwrt is Devebpwnt D4Mi:ts Deson Mae7eaal Page 3.3.rs — Old N.C.Highway se — Old N.C.Highway 10 — Mount Herman Church Road/Pleasant Green Road — N.C.Highway 751 These routes will provide recreational opportunities as well as an alternate form of transportation to employment centers. The location and types of improvements associated with each of these routes has been described previously in this section. Development projects which abut a proposed bicycle route must make provision for bicycle parking/storage as part of the comprehensive site development plan. In addition,such facilities are to be provided in conjunction with designated transit stops. Bicycle parking and storage facilities,as well as the installation and/or delineation of bike lanes must be done in accordance with the standards contained in: The Regional Bicycle Plan-Durham and Orange Counties North Carolina Bicycle Facilities Planning&Design Criteria Bus pun-out B"Sholteir Bicycle r lockers Bicycle =:a :%11111 . :d 4111u W.M. f•iit=7:•. tra� •���• '•l�l f�. Trav�i�Qar�iobrsnxrstiacarpara lf►facilifxs /brAwyckwwp�*S&-ian!YaVol In each instance where bicycle parking/storage is provided,the number of bicycles for which space is provided must be appropriate to the location and expected clientele.Where such facilities are provided,safe and sheltered parking and storage is to be provided ass close and convenient to building entrances as vehicular parking. Ecowmk Deve*p mnt Dts*ts Desmn MarxW Pale 3.3.20 • 3.4 Service & Storage • Service & Storage Evergreen Introduction planting The purpose of Service and Storage Criteria is to provide --� Provide adequate appropriate locations for and sufficient screening of elements � turning radius g which are visible from adjacent properties,public streets, and pedestrian walkways.These elements include solid waste receptacles and recycling bins,mechanical and utility v ping equipment, loading docks,and other exterior storage areas for materials,supplies,and equipment. Location&Accessibility Building service and loading areas must be conveniently Loading dock/service located and accessible for normal service and maintenance needs,including the provision of adequate turning radii and parking areas for service vehicles. Such areas are to be servme, -r&r4W' and kJdiV a"WS nwst be located at the side or rear of the principal building(s),and 40A *&a&' a "°'r"'af 'v avrd designed so that all service and loading operations occur within naa�te�rarrce needs the confines of the building site. Exterior storage for materials,supplies,and equipment may only be located at the side or rear of a building and only in ' f' totally enclosed screened areas. Exterior storage areas must never be located to the front of any building unless screened from view through the use of fencing,walls and/or landscaping. Screened Storage area Rooftop mechanical equipment must be considered during the vehicular Screen fence initital design phase of the prinicipal buildings)and screened stoke Screen planting from view by the use of materials and colors compatible with Extermir x4 ragr ar"s nwst de,QWR&W#7 sm(+or the building architecture.Where rooftop mechanical equipment MWyardareasandsxrn*vred#M? vmVA-Vt i is installed,consideration must also be given to the noise fiWh79 and dandsV4OJhg Ecorwmk DeveA*ment Districts Design Marwa► pale 3.4.1 generated by such equipment. Equipment enclosures and/or the building design must adegautely provide for the reduction of noise so as to comply with the maximum permitted sound levels shown on page 2.4.3. Screening Ground level mechanical equipment such as air conditioning equipment,satellite dishes,utility meters and boxes, must be screened from view through the use of landscaping,walls and/or fencing.Mere necessary,such design treatments must also be used to reduce noise from such equipment so as to comply with the maximum permitted sound levels shown on page 2.4.3. Solid waste containers and recycling bins must be enclosed in durable,attractive structures screened from view through the use of shrubs planted around the base of the enclosure. Roofp nx4 1wkalegrr*vrmwtnwsthe Loading areas may only face side or rear property lines and 5on4eared rMfil V*w Hrr=o Ar ORW afPS07 and evnaaathk dvWkg mw&rrals: must be designed so as not to interfere with traffic movement within the site;e.g.,loading areas shall not be located within Evergreen shrub required drives or parking areas. Loading areas shall be f' screen screened from view through the use of landscaping,walls �� . • and/or fencing. Plastic edging Screen fencing,walls,and landscaping and other design treatments must be compatible with the building architecture. '> and shall be at least equal to the height of the materials, Grass or -: equipment and/or area being stored or screened. ground cover 3, 4' 3' Paving min. Loadmg4bvA*snwstdie ImaAWto avoAfbaf* g canf k&avrd.5VrW#nr►d frW? v*W F�r7t Screen LRi Rip equipment wall Plant screening /h�+c/ran�alandutilie�/e+W*wientnwsthe svreer al ft n v*v Mi►•sato 6*use of AW09 acrd khds�apAag Ecor'w&Dever*wnt Distracts Des07 A4&%W Page 3.4.2 Recycling bins Solid enclosure r Solid waste container f Landscaping €•� CC . ..€:'r;, .r.�rr'?s:• ��:• %t:�; s�:' III I I ;•, � 'I I Self-closing ' I doors Trellis -' r Concrete pad So/�wash canfa rs avrdr+�cyc/Aag bps nwsf de sMW*d ftni vk w 6%--40 6*usa Of'jn af6►acfir�,a�abk wrc bSWO a Od kV d5V40Mg. Economt Deve1gpiwnt Distracts Desim A &%W Pale 3.4.3 c A w Cost-Benefit Analysis For discussion at the Economic Development District Work Session - January 10, 1994 at 7:30 P.M. Governmental Services Center Hillsborough, North Carolina MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners John Link, County Manager Geoffrey Gledhill, County Attorney Ted Abernathy, Economic Development Director Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Commissioners FROM: Marvin Collins, Planning Director DATE: January 7, 1994 SUBJECT: Cost-Benefit Analysis - Economic Development Districts Work Session COPIES: Planning Board Economic Development Commission At the December 21, 1993 and January 4, 1994 meetings of the Board of Commissioners, a question arose as to whether cost-benefit studies should have been undertaken as part of economic development initiatives,and,if so, in what time frame. This memorandum provides an explanation of the evolution of cost-benefit to fiscal impact analysis,provides examples of the use of a spreadsheet template developed to evaluate the fiscal impacts of non- residential development (see Attachment A), and presents scenarios comparing residential and non-residential development of the same tract. As requested by the Board, copies of articles concerning the fiscal impacts of development are also provided in Attachment B.This memorandum does not attempt to revisit every step or point of discussion taken or considered along the seven-year path. THE EVOLUTION OF COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS To understand the origins of the term "cost-benefit analysis" as used in the context of economic development initiatives, it is best to review the development history of the Economic Development Strategic Plan and the implementation steps taken in response to it. Strategic Plan.Perhaps the central issue surrounding cost benefit analysis is what was intended by Challenge 1 and Strategy 1.1 as identified in the Strategic Plan. I. Identify Target Industries and Appropriate County Areas for location Identify appropriate industry for each area of the county, based on an evaluation of the effect/impact of industrial development: This evaluation can also be used to insure effective utilization of resources and as input into the program to educate the public. Stratm 1.1 Cost-Benefit Analysis. Conduct a cost-benefit analysis of industries. - To develop a data base for educating the public, and - To develop a target list of industry. (look at both primary and secondary effects.) Implementors: County Government(Tax&Finance Offices) Economic Development Commission/set up advisory group Professional consultant who would support that advisory group Refer to.Economic Development Commission Preliminary Study(February 1988) North Carolina Department of Commerce Agriculture Extension Service Planning Board Response.In responding to the December, 1988 draft of the Strategic Plan.the Planning Board noted the following with regard to Strategy 1.1: To assist in the evaluation of development proposals and consideration of funding requests for water/sewer projects, the Planning Department is evaluating various methods of fiscal impact analysis. If the purpose of the cost/benefit analysis is to determine if industries will provide a positive impact in terms of service costs vs. revenues received, the work of the Planning Department will be useful in implementing Strategy 1.1. Preliminary Study. The Planning Board's response was based in part on the following reference contained in that strategy: Refer to Economic Development Commission Preliminary Study (February 1988). The Economic Development Commission Preliminary Study was actually an Executive Summary of three reports drafted by Sarah Rubin for the Economic Development Commission.In the summary of Report#3,Estimating the Effects of Development, Ms. Rubin cited the following. Fiscal formulas and their uses Moving away from land use concerns, the report also presents techniques to estimate the"fiscal impact" of economic development and residential growth, in order to determine whether certain kinds of growth will bring the county net cost or net revenue. The fiscal impact of development is an important issue in Orange County, since the property tax base already depends disproportionately on residential property.If future development tips the balance even further toward residential property, tax rates will be forced to rise. Staff Initiatives.The other reason for the Planning Board response was the fact that the Planning Director and current Special Projects Planner were completing graduate programs in city and regional planning, and public administration,respectively.To satisfy the degree requirements,the Planning Director had taken an independent study course and examined the fiscal impacts of residential development. The Special Projects Planner, then an intern with both Planning and Economic Development Departments, was writing her thesis on the fiscal impacts of nonresidential development.Their work,in combination with the Executive Summary reference,prompted the question, "Do you mean cost-benefit analysis or fiscal impact analysis?" EDC Target Advisory Group.At about the same time that the Strategic Plan was being completed in draft form in December, 1988, a set of implementation strategies was also produced. Related to Challenge 1 were the following- IA Establish EDC Target Advisory Appoint EDC Target Group to identify industry, Advisory Group by commerce, institutions for July, 1989 recruitment to appropriate areas of the county. 1.B Assemble Background Information for Targeting 1. Cost-Benefit Analysis to Employ consultant enumerate and quantify the benefits, effects, impact of Complete by June, economic development linked 1989 to specific types of industry/business. To put the June, 1989 completion date for a cost-benefit analysis in perspective, the Strategic Plan was adopted by the Board of Commissioners in March, 1989. The EDC Target Advisory Group as well as four other sub- committees were appointed in July, 1989, and began their work in August, 1989. As the Target Advisory Group carried out its work, it did consider cost-benefit analysis in a general sense. Early in its deliberations, it considered the following categories of businesses and the benefalts and impacts of each: DISTRIBUTION BENEFITS R"ACTS Low employee traffic May be a large building Low utility use May have some truck traffic Clean May not produce much County tax revenue (property or equipment) No off-site noise Low employment Can locate on various size lots May be a multiple shift business Often attractive buildings and landscaping Employ a range of skill levels ASSEMBLY BENEFITS MWACTS May have minim-al noxious processes Multiple shifts with a lot of employee traffic Will generate many jobs Could be a very large facility May generate a lot of County tax revenue Could be noisy to neighbors Generally a one-dory building May require water/sewer Employs low skilled employees May have high landscaping needs MANUFACTURING BFJWJWS I"ACTS Employs wide range of skill levels May generate processing by-products May generate a lot of County tax revenue May generate noise off-site Generates lots of jobs Multiple shifts- several peak traffic times Budding would be one-story May cause air pollution Employs many people Large building Requires lots of parking space I J SERVICE CENTERS (COMMERCIAL PARKS) BENEFITS IMPACTS Small, attractive buildings Non-peak traffic - regular traffic throughout the day Encourages small business development Who locates there may be hard to control Diversifies economic base Limited employment Low utility use Limited tax revenue While not definitive, the above analysis as well as the discussions of the Target Advisory Group prompted two of its members, Lindsey Efland and Pat Davis, to meet with the Planning Director to discuss, among other things, the question of cost-benefit analysis and how to approach it. It was during these meetings that"cost-benefit"was clarified to be interpreted as"fiscal impact".The interpretation was consistent with the emphasis given fiscal impact by Sarah Rubin in Report #3, Estimating the Effects of Development. When the Final Report of the Target Advisory Group was presented to the Economic Development Commission in December, 1990, it contained recommendations concerning the location and types of businesses, desirable business attributes, and types of businesses to recruit (see Attachment Q. Subsequent Initiatives: Prior to the completion of the Target Advisory Group report and as one of its FY 1990-91 goals, the Board of Commissioners asked that specific parcels be identified for pre-zoning for economic development purposes in a manner consistent with the Orange County Land Use Plan. The goal established August, 1990 as the public hearing date for consideration of the proposal, and directed EDC and Planning, both at the advisory board and staff levels, to coordinate their efforts in accomplishing the goal. Under another economic development goal, to increase understanding of economic development as a solution to poverty in Orange County, reference is made in Objective 3 to fiscal impact analysis. OBJECTIVE 3 To educate the public regarding benefits of Economic Development, especially as a solution to poverty. PLAN of ACTION EDC and the EDC Public Information Committee will lead the effort in the context provide by the EDC Strategic Plan. Fiscal Impact Analysis will provide a new tool. By June of 1990, it became apparent that the parcels and methods for pre-zoning could not be identified in time for the August public hearing. Instead, the Planning Board and the Economic Development Commission focused their attention on ways to coordinate their respective roles and,in October of 1990,jointly adopted an agreement which established procedures to address comprehensive planning and economic development matters of mutual interest. At the same time, a separate agreement was jointly adopted which included the following objectives: 1. Identify appropriate locational criteria, land use categories, and zoning designations to promote business;and 2. Develop performance standards and project size thresholds which measure the impact of land development. To accomplish these objectives, a Work Group was established, comprised of representatives from both advisory boards and their respective staffs. In December, 1990,the EDC Target Advisory Group completed a report identifying preferred locations and types of businesses for Orange County. Consistent with the recommendations of the Target Advisory Group, four areas were identified by the Planning Board/EDC Work Group as focal points for its efforts. They included: 1.The northeast quadrant of the I-85/Buckhorn Road Interchange; 2. The I-40/01d NC 86 Interchange; 3. The I-85/US Highway 70 Interchange including NC 10 and NC 751; and 4.The NC Highway 54-West area near White Cross and Morrow Mill Road. Using construction cost data supplied by an area contractor and a spreadsheet template to evaluate the economic feasibility of development scenarios, the PB/EDC Work Group identified the preferred distribution of land uses for the selected target areas.Land uses considered appropriate for such areas included light industrial,distribution, flex space, office, and service/retail categories. Rather than limit itself to traditional techniques,the PB/EDC Work Group decided to evaluate other methods of controlling land use intensity.Among the techniques were those promoted by performance zoning advocates. To help the PB/EDC Work Group understand the application of the standards, the staff conducted detailed analyses of selected business sites to illustrate the relationship between development character and intensity standards. All of the work completed by the PB/EDC Work Group led to the formulation of a more definitive goal; i.e., to develop an "economic development district" proposal with acceptable performance standards and streamlined approval procedures. This goal was adopted by the Board of Commissioners for FY 1992-93. At the same time that work on the Economic Development District goal was evolving, so was the goal related to fiscal impact analysis.In FY 1991-92,the Board of Commissioners adopted the following long range planning goal. Pro long range planning by developing a complete set of impact statements with which to assess e g range effects of growth and development on the environmental, economic, and service resources of he county. What was contemplated as three separate impact statements (infrastructure, school facilities, and fiscal impact) in FY 1991-92 evolved into a single objective in the FY 1992-93 goal statement, the development of one template with which to assess the full range of impacts.Though not complete, the Planning Staff recently completed work on the portion of the template intended to evaluate non-residential development. FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Provided as Attachment A is a December 14, 1993 memorandum from Beth Wickham,Planner II,to the Planning Director which describes the Proportional Valuation Fiscal Impact Template.The template was used to evaluate four existing non-residential uses in the county.The results of the analysis are summarized below. NON-RESIDENTIAL USE FISCAL IMPACT IN YEAR 2003 Parker-Hannifin +$17,409 V etri, Inc. +$5,084 Eastowne Office Building +$ 7,377 Walmart +$59,795 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS - RESIDENTIAL VS. NON-RESIDENTIAL FISCAL IMPACT To translate the data from the proportional valuation fiscal impact template to more understandable terms, the 112-acre quadrant of the I-40/01d N.C. interchange was developed under both residential and non-residential scenarios. The results of the comparative analysis are discussed below. l Residential Build-Out Example.The residential build-out example assumes that the 112-acre quadrant would be rezoned and developed in a manner similar to the Cornwallis Hills Subdivision. As shown below, the net fiscal impact in year 10 of a 10-year buildout period would be - $71,935. RESIDENTIAL BUILD-OUT EXAMPLE Total Acreage (Acres) 112.0 Less: 15% for Street Right-of-Way 16.8 Net Development Area (Acres) 95.2 Net Development Area (Square Feet) 4,146,912.0 Average Lot Size (Square Feet) 16,500.0 Net Number of Homes 251 @ 10-Year Buildout (Homes Per Year) 25 Average Sales Price Per Home $129,20 Net Fiscal Impact in Year 10 @ 10-Year Build-Out -$71,935 (See Attachment D - Residential Case Study for detail) Non-Residential Build-Out Example. In this example, the fiscal impact data dervived from the analysis of Parker-Hannifin, Vietri, and the Eastowne office building are used to project the impact of a mixed use development on the same 112-acre tract.To arrive at comparative numbers,however,assumptions had to be made as to the absorption rates of office, distribution, and light industrial uses into the market. The absorption rates as well as the equivalent number of office, distribution,and manufacturing buildings is shown in the table below. ABSORPTION RATE NON-RESIDENTIAL USE (SQFT/YEAR) BUILDING EQUIVALENT Manufacturing/Parker-Hannifin 300,000 SgFt 4 Plants Distribution/Vietri 300,000 SgFt 10 Buildings Office/Eastowne 150,000 SgFt 9 Buildings Using the building"equivalents"derived above as well as information obtained about each site during the site-by- site investigations,the 112-acre tract was developed with fiscal impacts resulting as shown on the following page. When comparing the fiscal impact of non-residential development (+$169,460)with that of the residential impact (471,936 or an average of$287 per dwelling unit),the difference of+$97,525 may provide some indication of the relative "benefits" of one use in comparison to another. NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILD-OUT EXAMPLE Total Acreage (Acres) 112.0 Less: 7% for Street Right-of-Way 7.8 Net Development Area (Acres) 104.2 Less: Office Development 14.4 (9 Sites x Average Lot Size of 1.6 Acres) Less: Distribution Development 58.3 (10 Sites x Average Lot Size of 5.8 Acres) Less: Manufacturing Development 31.5 (3 Sites x Average Lot Size of 10.5 Acres) Net Fiscal Impact Per Office Site +$7,377 Net Office Fiscal Impact @ 10-Year Build-Out +$66,393 (9 Sites x Net Fiscal Impact Per Site) Net Fiscal Impact Per Distribution Site +$5,084 Net Distribution Fiscal Impact @ 10-Year Build-out +$50,840 (10 Sites x Net Fiscal Impact Per Site) Net Fiscal Impact Per Manufacturing Site +$17,409 Net Manufacturing Fiscal Impact @ 10-Year Build-out +$62,227 (3 Sites x Net Fiscal Impact Per Site) Net Fiscal Impact @ 10-Year Build-out-All Uses +$169,460 i w 3 I N I Attachment A Updated Proportional Valuation Fiscal Impact Template for Non-Residential Development MEMORANDUM TO: Marvin Collins, Planning Director FROM: Seth Wickham, Planner II DATE. December 14, 1993 RE: Updated Proportional Valuation Fiscal I-spact Tem2late An ongoing goal of the Board of County Commissioners is the assessment of impacts of growth and development on the environmental, economic and service resources of the County. In keeping with that goal, Staff has updated the Proportional Valuation Fiscal Impact template which is designed to measure the fiscal impact of nonresidential development. The original template for Orange County was developed in 1990 and is based on The Fiscal Impact Handbook by Robert Burchell and David Listokin. Burchell and Listokin's work is often cited as the basis for many fiscal impact studies, including the Dupage County, Illinois study which has been referred to in many recent discussions on fiscal impact. Like all methods of fiscal impact analysis; the Proportional Valuation Method is a projection of the direct, current public costs and revenues associated with nonresidential (residential) growth to the local jurisdiction in which the growth is taking place. The Proportional Valuation Method involves a two step process to assign a share of the jurisdiction's costs to a new commercial or industrial development. As the name implies, the template is based on proportions - the proportion of total nonresidential real property value to the total real property value, and then costs that would be incurred by the County based on the value of the new development. Attached are fiscal impact analyses for four existing commercial/industrial developments in Orange County. Attempting to represent a variety of nonresidential types, I included the following: Parker-Hannifin Light Industrial Vietri,Inc. Distribution Overlook Executive Offices Office Space Walmart Retail Although there are significant differences in the net fiscal impacts of each, they are all positive. Walmart has the greatest positive fiscal impact, obviously because of the sales tax revenue. Parker-Hannifin, with high equipment tax, has the next greatest positive fiscal impact, although depreciation results in a decrease over time. New equipment purchases will bring that figure back up. Both Vietri and Overlook Executive Offices, although not as significant an impact, show steady increases. l Based on recent studies and review of research on fiscal impact analysis, the following applications might be useful for Orange County: Revenue Forecasting Capital Improvement Programming Budget Projections Comparing Levels of Service Steering Development Annexation Issues Determining Patterns of Land Use Planning Infrastructure The most obvious risk in using any type of fiscal impact analysis is a jurisdiction's sole dependence on the outcome of the analysis for decision-making. Fiscal impact analysis is a tool for guiding decision-making but does not take into account environmental or social impacts, or impacts that are very real but not easily quantified. These impacts could easily be more "fiscally significant" than the development itself. After numerous discussions with you, Budget, Economic Development and Finance Staffs, I feel safe in recommending the Proportional Valuation Template for use as' a tool for "sensitivity analysis, " - comparing different development scenarios and assisting decision-making based on each one's relative value, not on one individual development's bottom line net fiscal impact. I have attached an in-depth explanation of each section of the template to the Parker-Hannifin analysis. Explanations for other analyses are identical to the Parker-Hannifin explanation with the exception of the obvious differences in the numbers. Additionally, I have attached the Refinement Coefficient Worksheet for further clarification. Please let me know if you need additional information. ` FISCAL IMPACT TEMPLATE: NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT/PROPORTIONAL VALUAT10N Version 919/87 Bureau of Economic& Business Research —University of Rorida Modified 12/3/93 —Orange County N.C.Planning Department SECTION I - BASIC DATA ENTER 774E FOLLOWING DATA FOR EACH PROJECT. A PROJECT NAME: Parker—Hannifin 8 TOWNSHIP: Hillsborough C SCHOOL DISTRICT: Orange County D INRATION RATE: 2.90 E COUNTY ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES: $51,497,942 F TOTAL LOCAL EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE: $4,408,709,951 G TOTAL NUMBER OF LAND PARCELS: 40,129 H TOTAL NONRESIDENTIAL EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE: $484,958,094 I TOTAL NUMBER OF NONRESIDENTIAL LAND PARCELS: 1343 J REAL PROPERTY(MARKET)VALUE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: $1,945,105 K PERSONAL PROPERTY VALUE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT $3,236,561 CAL CULA TED INPUT DA TA: F1.1 AVERAGE EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE PER PARCEL: $109,863 F1.2 AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE PER PARCEL: $361,101 F1.3 EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL PARCEL TO AVERAGE LOCAL PARCEL: 3.29 F1.4 REAL PROPERTY VALUE OF FACILITY TO AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY VALUE: 5.39 SECTION 2 -SHARE.OF E),=NG1COUNW EXPENDITURES TO TOTAL LOCAL NONRESIDENTIAL USES E TOTAL COUNTY EXPENDITURES: $51,497,942 F11 PROPORTION OF NONRESIDENTIAL VALUE TO 0.11 TOTAL LOCAL REAL PROPERTY VALUE: F1.3 EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL PARCEL TO AVERAGE LOCAL PARCEL: 3.29 L REFINEMENT COEFFICIENT: 0.28 F22 TOTAL EXISTING COUNTY EXPENDITURES ATTRIBUTABLE TO NONRESIDENTIAL USES: $1,586,137 SECTION 3 -FUTURE TOTAL COUNTY OPERATING COSTS INDUCED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT F22 TOTAL EXISTING COUNTY EXPENDITURES ATTRIBUTABLE TO NONRESIDENTIAL USE: $1,586,137 F3.1 PROPORTION OF FACILITY TO TOTAL LOCAL NONRESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY VALUE: 0.004 F1.3 PROPORTION OF FACILITY TO AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY VALUE: 5.39 F3.2 COUNTY COSTS ALLOCATED TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: $6,362 SECTION 4 -ASSIGN TOTAL ANNUAL NONRESIDENTIAL COSTS TO COMPONENT SERVICE CATEGORIES CATEGORY PERCENT DOLLARS F4.1 COMMUNITY MAINTENANCE 1 $64 F4.2 GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 6 $382 F4.3 TAX&RECORDS 29 $1,845 F4.4 PUBLIC SAFETY 16 $1,018 F4.5 PUBLIC WORKS 0 $0 F4.6 PLANNING&EDC 28 $1,781 F4.7 HUMAN SERVICES 20 $1,272 TOTAL 100 $6,362 SECTION 5-GENERAL GOVERNMENT DATA TAXES M COUNTY GOVERNMENT TAX RATE: 0.746 Per$100 Assessed Valuation N SCHOOL DISTRICT TAX RATE: 0 Per$100 Assessed Valuation O ASSESSMENT RATIO 95 P COUNTY SALES TAX RATE: 0.02 Gross Annual Sales 0 COUNTY GOVT'S PERCENTAGE OF SALES TAX 0.633 R PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL SALESTAX TO OPERATING 0.43 S SO.FOOTAGE OF PROJECT 74,884 T PROJECTED SALES PER SO.FOOT $0.00 CHARGESANSPECTIONS/FEES(Initial Costs) U EROSION CONTROL $600 V GRADING PERMIT $1,460 W BUILDING PERMIT $9,040 X ELECTRICAL $2,496 Y PLUMBING $105 Z MECHANICAL $140 AA MISCELLANEOUS aaaaasaaaae=- TOTAL $13,841 § 2 REQ % § (D2 ;20 $ @ @ 2 : I ® 2 M-R � e a ® 2 s e 2� 2 �k & C ° Clt W k A 2 k # ® ® � N �m CM �INk�^I ■ 2 © � #40 k 40 a - ® ® § 9214 § �G § §22° § a k Z 40 � # ■ 40 40 _ § 40 ASS § ■ ®I- - � o � § � ■ � ® 2 g k " g § % ga$ § 40�§ \�� / 2 ® ■ ■ & §■ ■■ 41,6: 2 � § G § t k © K 2 ■■ w ■ $ � a $ k §a�cri § # RONa N § ( 1w 4 IQr 1 § » � 2 _e �k & $ k _ k Kok § 102 k J ® ■ 2 3 e_ 4040 ■ $ a : CL 7 §2@$ § I� kk�KI k a ® a■ � 4040 ■ I � � k �� §�� o0 © e LU £ ew 2 omtl "> _CL « LUC* ■ & &« 0�0 �■ a � wz w�» 2� m E �& ouj 02z j ! e8 za■ w� o wad « o z _ z § 2 � m� mL� 2 § �� k}} )} % ■ � , EXPLANATION OF TERMS AND DATA SOURCES SECTION 1 -BASIC DATA Proiect Name - Name of the proposed development. Township -Township in which project is located School District-School district in which project is located. Inflation Rate - Unless an inflation rate is entered, the template will calculate fiscal impacts based on constant dollars. Since the inflation rate changes from month to month, the finance department must be contacted for the most recent figures. Example- 2.90 County Annual Operating Expenditures - This figure represents all county FY '93.94 General Fund expenditures except for the following: 1) School Capital Fund Transfers $ 2,606,048 2) County Capital Fund Transfers 1,170,428 3) Debt Service 5,578,534 $,9,355,010 General Fund Expenditures $60,852,952 -9,355,010 $ 51,497,942 Total Local Equalized Real Property Value-This figure represents the aggregate county market value of all county taxpaying properties on which taxes are assessed. This includes residential, farm, vacant, commercial and industrial. Contact the tax assessor's offices for this figure. Example - $4,408,709,951. Total Number of Land Parcels-This figure represents the sum of all county properties on which taxes are assessed Contact the tax assessor's offtce for this figure. Example-40,129. Total Nonresidential Eaualized Real Property Value-This figure represents the sum of the market value of all commercial and industrial properties. Contact the tax assessor's office for this figure. Example - $484,958,094. Total Number of Nonresidential Land Parcels - This figure represents the sum of commercial and industrial taxpaying properties. Because apartment complexes demand services similar to residential parcels, they are not included Contact the tax assessor's office for this figure. Example- 1343. Real Property (Market) Value of Proposed Development -'Phis figure represents the total market value of the development. For an existing development,contact the tax assessor's office. Obtaining an accurate figure for a proposed development is more complicated and wilt vary according to the type of development and the planned location. Example — $1,945,105. Personal Propev Value of Proposed Development - This figure represents the total personal property value of the development and is based on the listing of equipment and other personal property. After reviewing this list, the assessor's office calculates a total value based on rate of depreciation. For an existing or proposed development, it is best to contact the assessor's office for this figure. Example - $3,236,561. Average Egualized Real Property Value- (Calculated Total Localized Real Property Value/Total Number of Land Parcels) - This figure is derived by dividing the total local equalized real property value by the total number of land parcels. The quotient is therefore the average equalized real property value per parcel. Example• 109,863. AXI= Nonresidential Equalized Real Property Value Per Parcel (Total Nonresidential Real Property Value/Total Number of Nonresidential Land Parcels) - This figure is derived by dividing the total nonresidential equalized real property value by the total number of nonresidential land parcels. The quotient is therefore the average nonresidential equalized real property value per parcel. Example - $361,101. Equalized Real Property Value Average Nonresidential Parcel To Average Local Parc erage Nonresidential Equalized Real Property Value Per ParcellAverage Equalized Real Property Value Per Parcel) - This figure is derived by dividing the average nonresidential equalized real property value per parcel by the average equalized real property value per parcel. This quotient represents the proportionate value of nonresidential to residential equalized real property value per parcel. In this example, this figure indicates that the average nonresidential property is valued at 3.29 times the average local property. Real Property Value of Facililh-•to Average Nonresidential Real Property Value (Real Property (Market) V alue of Proposed Development/Average Nonresidential Equalized Real Property Value Per Parcel) -This figure is derived by dividing the real property(market)value of the proposed development by the average nonresidential equalized real property value per parcel. In our example,this figure indicates that the real property value of the proposed development is 5.39 times the average nonresidential real property value. SECTION 2 SHARE OF EMSTING COUNTY EXPENDrIVRES TO TOTAL LOCAL NONRESIDENTIAL USES Total County Exrlenditw-es - This figure represents the total county expenditures for the current fiscal year budget. This information may be obtained from the county's finance or budget office. Example - Proportion of Nonresidential Value To Total Local Real Prolpertr Value-This figure is derived by dividing the county's nonresidential equalized real property value ($484,958,094 in our example) by total local equalized real property value ($4,408,709,951 in our example). The resulting quotient indicates that 11% of the total local equalized real property value is nonresidential. Refinement Coefficient-County expenditures are not allocated according to market values of residential and nonresidential properties. It is therefore wrong to assume that because 11% of the total equalized real property value is nonresidential,that 11%of the county's total expenditures go to serve nonresidential developments. Generally speaking,residential developments place more demands on county services,and therefore, cost the county more than nonresidential developments. It is best that the "yst contact department heads and review individuals budgets and expenditures for direct service to nonresidential development. Based on input from the Orange County Department Heads and a study measuring mdirect costs (A Cost Allocation Plan For Oranee County, North Car David X Griffith&Associates, 1992), the refinement coefficient was set at 28%. This means that 28%of the 11%nonresidential market value actually goes to serve nonresidential developments- Total Existi= Countv Eimenditures Attributable To Nonresidential Uses - This figure is the product of the above three figures(($51,497,942 x.11)x.28),or$1,586,137. This figure represents the total existing county expenditures attributable to nonresidential uses. FU rURE TOTAL COUNTY OPERATING COSTS INDUCED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Total Existine County Exr)enditures Attributable to Nonresidential Uses - See above. This figure is $1,586,137 in our example. Proportion of Facilitv to Total Local Nonresidential Real Proverty- Value-This figure is derived by dividing the real property market value of the proposed development ($1,945,105 in our example) by the total nonresidential real property value ($484,958,094 in our example). This results in a quotient of .004 indicating that the market value of this development is.004 of the total nonresidential real property value. Countv Costs to Provosed Development-This figure is the product of the two figures above ($1,586,137 x .004 - $6,345). This gives the total county expenditures allocated to the future nonresidential SECTION 4 ASSIGN TOTAL ANNUAL NONRESIDENTIAL COSTS TO COMPONENT SERVICE CATEGORIES Category, - Specific county government service category. Percent-These figures are estimates of the percentage of the total expenditure that the county will spend in each service category. These percentages are based on responses from 26 Department Heads regarding the amount of their operating budgets going for direct service to nonresidential development (See Refinement Coefficient Worksheet). Dollars - These figures represent the dollar amount that the county spends in each service category for the nonresidential development. * Community Maintenance Includes Commissioners, Elections and Soil and Water Conservation. General Administration Includes Manager, Budget, Personnel, Finance, Purchasing, Central Services and Data Processing. Taxation& Records Includes Register of Deeds, Land Records, Assessor and Tax Collector. Public Safety Includes Sheriff and Emergency Services. Public Works Includes Sanitation, Buildings and Grounds, Road Naming, Building& Rents and Motor Pool. " Planning& EDC Includes Planning and Economic Development Human Services Includes Social Services, Health, Agriculture Extension, Recreation & Parks, Aging, Commission for Women, Child Support Enforcement SECTION 5 GENERAL GOVERNMENT DATA TAXES County Government Tax Rate-The County tax rate per$100 of assessed valuation. Because the template is designed to measure only the current,direct cost and benefits of a particular development,any funding of capital projects should not be included in the calculations. In the FY 1993-94 budget,property tax funds $3,880,030 of the total debt service. Each cent on the tax rate — $432,054. Debt service is equal to 8.98 cents on the tax rate ($3,880,060!$432,054). 83.6 cents ('93-94 tax rate) • 8.98 cents = 74.62 cents. School District Tax Rate-The supplementary tax for either Chapel Hill/Carrboro or Orange County school systems. Assessment Ratio-The ratio of market (sales) value to assessed value based on information supplied by the Tax Office. The assessment ratio is used to convert market value to assessed value for the purpose of computing the tax base. Example-95. County Sales Tax Rate-The percentage of county-wide gross annual sales that are returned to the county. Example - A2 Gross Annual Sales. County Government's Percentage of Sales Tax-All county jurisdictions receive a percentage of the sales tax returned to the county by the State. The amount is calculated by taking the total county population as estimated by the State and adding populations of all county jurisdictions (total Orange County Population + Chapel Hill + Carrboro + Durham + Hillsborough + Mebane). A percentage of this total goes to each jurisdiction on a per capita basic py dividing each jurisdiction's population by the total. This results in the percentage of the original 2 percent that is returned to each jurisdiction. The finance office can supply this information. Example- .633. Percentage of Total Sales Tax To 0 -In Orange County 43% of the total sales tax revenue goes to operating. Total sales tax revenue - $9,204,000. Total to operating - $3,950,00. $3,950,000/$9,204,000 - .43. Souare Footage-of Proiect - This information can be obtained from the developer or tax assessor. Example - 74,884 sq. ft. Proiected Sales Per Souare Foot -This information can be obtained from the developer or tax assessor or by referring to SALES PER SQUARE FOOT from Urban Land Institute's DOLLARS AND CENTS OF SHOPPING CENTERS There is no sales tax revenue with this particular development. CHARGES/INSPECTIONS/FEES (All inspections charges are initial revenues and will not be included in future yearly revenue estimates.) Erosion Control An Erosion Control Plan must be prepared for all land disturbing activities subject to the Orange County Erosion Control Ordinance whenever the proposed activity is to be undertaken on a tract comprising more than 20,000 square feet, if more than 20,000 square feet are to be covered. Land disturbance for our example is 4 acres. At a fee of$150 per acre the total charge would be 4 *$150, or $600. Grading Permit-Before starting a land-disturbing activity pester that 20,000 square feet, the owner or his agent shall obtain a Grading Permit from the Erosion Control officer. Grading permit fees are$365 per acre. The total fee for this example would be 4 *$365, or$1,460. Building Permits-Most construction activity in Orange County requires the issuance of a building permit. Commercial,industrial,and nonresidential buildings,alterations and additions fees are under Schedule D in the Inspections Fee Schedule in the Appendix. The total building permit fee for this example is$9,040. Electrical --All buildings with electricity require an electrical inspection.The electrical inspection fee for this example is $2,496. Plumb *-All buildings with plumbing require a plumbing inspection. Plumbing inspection fee for this example is$105. Mechanical * - All buildings with heating and cooling systems require a mechanical inspection. The mechanical inspection fee for this example is$140. Miscellaneous-Miscellaneous Building Inspections include those such as Mobile/Modular Homes,Building Demolition,Satellite Dishes,Swimming Pools, Signs,etc. There are no miscellaneous inspections for this example- * It is difficult to project electrical,plumbing and mechanical fees, especially when the use of the building has not been determined. The fees in this example were obtained from the Permits Coordinator and are hypothetical. SECTION 6 COUNTY GOVERNMENT/PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACTS OF PROJECT Tax Base - The tax base represents the increase in assessed property value expected each year as a result of the project development. The values are shown in 1,000's,and are derived from a formula which includes the market value of the proposed development and the assessment ratio. Example Market Value = $1,945,105, Assessment Ratio = .95, Equip. Tax = 5% 1) $1,945,105 x .95 = $1,847,850 2) $1,847,850/1000 = $1,848 Revenues Property Tax -Derived from a formula which multiplies the tax base times the tax rate. Inflation rate is entered in for each year. Example Tax Base = $1,940,243, Tax Rate = .7460 per $100 valuation 1) $1,940,243 x .7460 = $1,447,421 2) $1,447,421/100 = $14,474 Sales Tax -Sales tax is derived from a formula which multiplies the proposed square footage of the new development times the projected sales per square foot of the new development. This product is multiplied times the county sales tax rate to determine the amount of sales tax generated annually. There is no sales tax in this particular example. Equipment Tax - Equipment tax is derived from a formula which multiplies the assessed value of all personal property (equipment)times the tax rate times a percentage for depreciation. The product is then divided by 100 to reflect per$100 valuation. Example Assessed Personal Property Value = $3,236,561, Tax Rate = .7460 per $100 valuation $3,236,561 x .7460 x .90/ $100 = $21,730 Fees - Revenues from fees are included in the first year's total. This figure is taken from the total in Section 5. Expenditures-First year expenditures are taken from the breakdown by category in Section 4. Expenditures for subsequent years include an inflation factor. Example Community Maintenance expenditure for 1993 = $64, Inflation rate = .0290 $64 x .0290 = $1.856, $64 + $1.856 = $65. Not Ba,a c -The net balance is the difference between expenditures and revenues. A negative net balance indicates that it costs Orange County more to provide services for the proposed development than it receives in revenues from the same development. A positive net balance indicates that more revenues are received than it costs to serve the project. Our balance shows a positive net across the board,starting with a balance of$42,994(which includes fees) and leveling out to$17,409 with equipment tax depreciation(the development would more than likely be purchasing new equipment after 2001 which would increase the net balance). Over a period of ten years, the county will realize a $238,022 cumulative positive net fiscal impact from parker-Hannifin. 1 ` FISCAL IMPACT TEMPLATE: NONFIESIDEN71AL DEVELOPMENTRROPORTIONAL VALUATION Version 919/87 Bureau of Economic&Business Research —University of Florida Modified 12/3/93 —Orange County N,C.Planning Department SECTION I -BASIC DATA ENTER THE FOLLOWING DATA FOR EACH PROJECT. A PROJECT NAME: Vistri B TOWNSHIP: Hillsborough C SCHOOL DISTRICT: Orange County D INFLATION RATE: 2.90 E COUNTY ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES: $51,497,942 i F TOTAL LOCAL EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE: $4,408,709,951 G TOTAL NUMBER OF LAND PARCELS: 40,129 H TOTAL NONRESIDENTIAL EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE: $484.958,094 1 TOTAL NUMBER OF NONRESIDENTIAL LAND PARCELS: 1343 J REAL PROPERTY(MARKET)VALUE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: $976,718 K PERSONAL PROPERTY VALUE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT $109.009 CALCULATED INPUT DArk F1.1 AVERAGE EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE PER PARCEL: $109,863 F1.2 AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE PER PARCEL: $361,101 F1.3 EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL PARCEL TO AVERAGE LOCAL PARCEL: 3.29 F1.4 REAL PROPEFTY VALUE OF FACILITY TO AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY VALUE; 2.70 SEC71ON 2 -SHAFE�OF E)=NG COUNTY EXPEND17TURESTO TOTAL LOCAL NONRESIDENTIAL USES E TOTAL COUNTY EXPENDITURES: $51,497,942 FZ1 PROPORTION OF NONRESIDENTIAL VALUE TO 0.11 TOTAL LOCAL REAL PROPERTY VALUE: F1.3 EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL PARCEL TO AVERAGE LOCAL PARCEL: 3.29 L REFINEMENT COEFFICIENT: 0.28 F22 TOTAL EXISTING COUNTY EXPENDITURES ATTRISU7`ABLE TO NONRESIDENTIAL USES: $1,586,137 SECTION 3 -FUTURE TOTAL COUNTY OPERATING COSTS INDUCED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT F22 TOTAL EXISTING COUNTY EXPENDITURES ATTRIBUTABLE TO NONRESIDENTIAL USE: $1,586,137 F3.1 PROPORTION OF FACILITY TO TOTAL LOCAL NONRESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY VALUE: 0.002 F1.3 PROPORTION OF FACILITY TO AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY VALUE: 2.70 F3.2 COUNTY COSTS ALLOCATED TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: $3,195 SECTION 4-ASSIGN TOTAL ANNUAL NONRESIDENTIAL COSTS TO COMPONENT SERVICE CATEGORIES CATEGORY PERCENT DOLLARS F4.1 COMMUNITY MAINTENANCE 1 $32 F4.2 GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 6 $192 F4.3 TAX&RECORDS 29 $926 F4.4 PUBLIC SAFETY 16 $511 F4.5 PUBLIC WORKS 0 $0 F4.6 PLANNING&EDC 26 $894 F4.7 HUMAN SERVICES 20 $639 TOTAL 100 $3,195 SECTION 5-GENERAL GOVERNMENT DATA TAXES M COUNTY GOVERNMENT TAX RATE: 0.746 Per$100 Assessed Valuation N SCHOOL DISTRICT TAX RATE: 0 Per$100 Assessed Valuation 0 ASSESSMENT RATIO 95 P COUNTY SALES TAX RATE: 0.02 Gross Annual Sales 0 COUNTY GOVT'S PERCENTAGE OF SALES TAX 0.633 R PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL SALESTAX TO OPERATING 0.43 S SO.FOOTAGE OF PROJECT 30,000 T PROJECTED SALES PER SO.FOOT $0.00 CHARGESANSPECTIONS/FEES(Initial Costs) U EROSION CONTROL $667 V GRADING PERMIT $1,566 W BUILDING PERMIT $3,040 X ELECTRICAL $832 Y PLUMBING $100 Z MECHANICAL $140 AA MISCELLANEOUS aaaaaaeaaaaaa TOTAL $6,345 $ U)40 ■2 -, -OD ) ■ � ® # ._ 4A ¥ 2 4& � _ _ k� § § kk §(�§ § \ ■ 2 ® 2 40 � �� ,7 4 � )�k § 401% 2��$2 ) § a ■ ® ■ aa 4® 2 § k § $_00Cl $ ■ 2 # 40 CV) § § N §�■ � §§ § @40 G R I ® _ R N e N 2 ®�_ ® 9 ■ e 40 40 2 B . § § K ka $11WE a9ƒ § $ 2 � ■ ®a® f® t $ % § k k kso do § i's§�■�■ $ ■ &�2 ■ 2 § k R A E E 2 a 40 I's® e _ ■ § � § )a§ 7 � e e e 2 CL e § ) §aI, § B @ § 2a ® ® � ® � w ' � / z c Z ■ Cl)§ � $ £ / w § 1 �acc �dW « LU c 22« 0% ad u ] uj co k z z �■ zo ■ § « o w w Q Q 2 t $ � § LU o Bxz ®J� �2 z 2N2v� § � S� k2a )i % § § � ¢�� �� ■ ■ 0 U. FISCAL IMPACT TEMPLATE: NONRESIDENTIALDEVELOPMENT/PROPORTIONALVALUATION Version 9/9/87 Bureau of Economic& Business Research —University of Florida Modified 1213/93 —Orange County N.C.Planning Department SECTION 1 -BASIC DATA ENTER THE FOLLOWING DATA FOR EACH PROJECT.- A PROJECT NAME: Eastowne B TOWNSHIP: Chapel Hill C SCHOOL DISTRICT: Orange County D INFLATION RATE: 290 E COUNTY ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES: $51,497,942 F TOTAL LOCAL EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE: $4,408,709,951 G TOTAL NUMBER OF LAND PARCELS: 40,129 H TOTAL NONRESIDENTIAL EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE: $484,958,094 1 TOTAL NUMBER OF NONRESIDENTIAL LAND PARCELS: 1343 J REAL PROPERTY(MARKET) VALUE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: $1,318,400 K PERSONAL PROPERTY VALUE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT $198,451 CALCULATED INPUT DATA: F1.1 AVERAGE EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE PER PARCEL: $109,863 F1.2 AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE PER PARCEL: $361,101 F1.3 EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL PARCEL TO AVERAGE LOCAL PARCEL: 3,29 F1.4 REAL PROPERTY VALUE OF FACILITY TO AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY VALUE: 3,85 SECTION 2 -SHARE OF EXISTING COUNTY EXPENDITURES TO TOTAL LOCAL NONRESCENTIAL USES E TOTAL COUNTY EXPENDITURES: $51,497,942 F2.1 PROPORTION OF NONRESIDENTIAL VALUE TO 0.11 TOTAL LOCAL REAL PROPERTY VALUE: F1.3 EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL PARCEL TO AVERAGE LOCAL PARCEL: 3.29 L REFINEMENT COEFFICIENT: 0.28 F2.2 TOTAL EXISTING COUNTY EXPENDITURES ATTRIBUTABLE TO NONRESIDENTIAL USES: $1,586,137 SECTION 3-FUTURE TOTAL COUNTY OPERATING COSTS INDUCED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT F22 TOTAL EXISTING COUNTY EXPENDITURES ATTRIBUTABLE TO NONRESIDENTIAL USE: $1,586,137 F3.1 PROPORTION OF FACILITY TO TOTAL LOCAL NONRESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY VALUE: 0.003 F1.3 PROPORTION OF FACILITY TO AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY VALUE: 3.65 F3.2 COUNTY COSTS ALLOCATED TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: $4,312 SECTION 4-ASSIGN TOTAL ANNUAL NONRESIDENTIAL COSTS TO COMPONENT SERVICE CATEGORIES CATEGORY PERCENT DOLLARS F4.1 COMMUNITY MAINTENANCE 1 $43 F4.2 GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 6 $259 F4.3 TAX&RECORDS 29 $1,250 F4.4 PUBLIC SAFETY 16 $690 F4.5 PUBLIC WORKS 0 $0 F4.6 PLANNING&EDC 28 $1,207 F4.7 HUMAN SERVICES 20 $862 TOTAL 100 $4,312 SECTION 5-GENERAL GOVERNMENT DATA TAXES M COUNTY GOVERNMENT TAX RATE: 0.746 Per$100 Assessed Valuation N SCHOOL DISTRICT TAX RATE: 0.1575 Per$100 Assessed Valuation O ASSESSMENT RATIO 95 P COUNTY SALES TAX RATE: 0.02 Gross Annual Sales Q COUNTY GOVT'S PERCENTAGE OF SALES TAX 0.633 R PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL SALES TAX TO OPERATING 0.43 S SQ.FOOTAGE OF PROJECT 8,060 T PROJECTED SALES PER SQ.FOOT $0.00 CHARGES/INSPECTIONS/FEES(Initial Costs) U EROSION CONTROL $240 V GRADING PERMIT $584 W BUILDING PERMIT $o X ELECTRICAL $0 Y PLUMBING $0 Z MECHANICAL S0 AA MISCELLANEOUS TOTAL $824 r N�N CY H r H HH H H A r H N us 0 0 H `y N i9 Y4 H Go H H VVV!!! N a a � � _ Est H M N H N H h 8 ISE 9 �I'M �l s o F H H H H Z W H H .4t O a MPH I co H Q H W {z GC Z W V 2 uwiWuZ� ' ¢ �W5 a a wya : oc `¢ m s wo 5w jQw�, I�t N3ZN Srm F= g :Z) � � WIwL W Z4fJmZ ° to cc Nl9d IO w 400 CD u'°.yu`0. � � � v'i � vaa= N 4 t Tax Map Number Real Property Value Personal Property Value 7.26a..8a $138,473 $8,803 7.26a..8b $77,444 $14,675 7.26a..8c $94,502 $10,627 7.26a..8d $101,267 7.26a..8e $117,320 $106,253 7.26a..8f $84,306 7.26a..8g $96,953 7.26a..8h $58,917 7.26a..8j $54,309 $2,901 7.26a..8k $150,308 $55,102 7.26a..8 $146,240 Total $1,318,400 $198,361 Above are tax map references for individual businesses located in Overlook Executive Office Condominiums(Eastowne). Each office is owned separately and taxed accordingly. Equipment taxes are those assessed on the tenants of each condominium. All taxes are added to represent a total for the building. FISCAL IMPACT TEMPLATE: NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTIPROPORTIONAL VALUATION Version 9/9/87 Bureau of Economic& Business Research —University of Florida Modified 12/3/93 —Orange County N.C.Planning Department SECTION 1 -BASIC DATA ENTER THE FOLLOW/NCB DATA FOR EACH PROJECT.• A PROJECT NAME: Walmart B TOWNSHIP: Hillsborough C SCHOOL DISTRICT: Orange County D INFLATION RATE: 290 E COUNTY ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENDrTURES: $51,497,942 F TOTAL LOCAL EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE: $4,408,709,951 O TOTAL NUMBER OF LAND PARCELS: 40,129 H TOTAL NONRESIDENTIAL EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE: $484,958,094 1 TOTAL NUMBER OF NONRESIDENTIAL LAND PARCELS: 1343 J REAL PROPERTY(MARKET)VALUE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: $2,903,196 K PERSONAL PROPERTY VALUE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT $487,173 CALCULATED INPUT DATA: FIA AVERAGE EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE PER PARCEL: $109,863 F1.2 AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE PER PARCEL: $361,101 F1.3 EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL PARCEL TO AVERAGE LOCAL PARCEL: 329 F1.4 REAL PROPERTY VALUE OF FACILITY TO AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY VALUE: 804 SECTION 2 -SHARE OF EXISTiNQ COUNTY EXPENDITURES TO TOTAL LOCAL NONRESIDENTIAL USES E TOTAL COUNTY EXPENDITURES: $51,497,942 F21 PROPORTION OF NONRESIDENTIAL VALUE TO 0.11 TOTAL LOCAL REAL PROPERTY VALUE: F1.3 EQUALIZED REAL PROPERTY VALUE AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL PARCEL TO AVERAGE LOCAL PARCEL: 329 L REFINEMENT COEFFICIENT: 0.28 F22 TOTAL EXISTING COUNTY EXPENDITURES ATTRIBUTABLE TO NONRESIDENTIAL USES: $1,586,137 SECTION 3 -FUTURE TOTAL COUNTY OPERATING COSTS INDUCED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT F22 TOTAL EXISTING COUNTY EXPENDITURES ATTRIBUTABLE TO NONRESIDENTIAL USE: $1,586,137 F3.1 PROPORTION OF FACILITY TO TOTAL LOCAL NONRESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY VALUE: 0.006 F1.3 PROPORTION OF FACILITY TO AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY VALUE: 8.04 F&2 COUNTY COSTS ALLOCATED TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: $9,495 SECTION 4 -ASSIGN TOTAL ANNUAL NONRESIDENTIAL COSTS TO COMPONENT SERVICE CATEGORIES CATEGORY PERCENT DOLLARS F4.1 COMMUNITY MAINTENANCE 1 $95 F4.2 GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 6 $570 F4.3 TAX&RECORDS 29 $2,754 F4.4 PUBLIC SAFETY 16 $1,519 F4.5 PUBLIC WORKS 0 $0 F4.6 PLANNING&EDC 28 $2,659 F4.7 HUMAN SERVICES 20 $1,899 TOTAL 100 $9,495 SECTION S-GENERAL GOVERNMENT DATA TAXES M COUNTY GOVERNMENT TAX RATE: 0.746 Per$100 Assessed Valuation N SCHOOL DISTRICT TAX RATE: 0 Per$100 Assessed Valuation O ASSESSMENT RATIO 95 P COUNTY SALES TAX RATE: 0.02 Oro"Annual Sales 0 COUNTY GOVT'S PERCENTAGE OF SALES TAX 0.633 R PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL SALES TAX TO OPERATING 0.43 S SO.FOOTAGE OF PROJECT 44,690 T PROJECTED SALES PER SO.FOOT $136.52 CHARGES/INSPECTIONS/FEES(Initial Costs) U EROSION CONTROL $1,008 V GRADING PERMIT $2,463 W BUILDING PERMIT $3,040 X ELECTRICAL $323 Y PLUMBING $114 Z MECHANICAL $233 AA MISCELLANEOUS xxxxxaaxaaxxx TOTAL $7,181 O W � � p NnIAWNVO N n NN N NN111 ^ N N M NN NH N UWf N N N N N 1L3 � N Ip W 10 tp00 Nfr-p b Cf �Rj n.- t� .� •'- P Y �N9 c9 N C N N y� N n M 4640 NN 111111 N N M pp� ^ 0- 00)^ tO �Wp aDO W) C NtO � C� NN N �t�N �q N y N t8 N N N N N ^ M 11! N N im�pp ytnO NU N N M N N NNN to N N OD W l9 �GGGy 777 � N 1r� C^f N Oco TN n�O - N d N MM I N N _ N N M Q �. oo tp 1+� p SO p N NN ��lryf ^ OW� U 's f Nl^�N N I MN NN O^ 1� NNN N N W q. R: N N li! N t6 N M N N N N NN S �� pp� 1 olrp� mOpia�: O! O E aD /p -IG W t0 IO2Iy O O p�p In CY 06 N NN NN NN p IA N N 1 O WW Q ��pp co C4�®p �pj W NA O N NIA ijags gig O O (Wp IApf W�WQ A M OD N N- INS N b 11�A N MOD 1'� S h NgaM fG NNN 4 :W IWN y G wj N NNN � m N w y A t- � � W (�y W w ~ W � 0> a W V z a w � t o ¢r¢ 5 a � � G � o cc .D¢ x m ywW j W W zg ¢1w Zy Q 4c t- Q� U U Z z iii o F- 8 2ayW1i O HwadQ=iZ< O Z � ¢ w �z x M co :5 m Q � N 9N 17 It U) tOOW <n3 :3 ro N Ipiv ¢�� IWi � N LUn ~aaax N LL. « i LL O O O X 0 Ca d a vNt � ¢v� cpps c a r, N a cT N co D 10 H H H H � � try the mat � NV h L r Q � C 4 c a N aoadaaa o oo c � I 4ft 44 w, NC% �o oaaaao0 0 r� �•, o tipp en h P H H i? C% lw wl O � Z f3 H HHHH H 0 Z a en .• en cT en �n fn h �G .r vn en v� u� �n e�i o°S �+ N �+ �„ c�i t� •� t� set ... M N m q +n cn h en 1 H H {LiL77 w O d O a O c IV r- W Z - U z t3 4 p Vl W Z w .5 n F o E- !Y. Yt Q Q >+ c ea 4 O k CG Q cc a U m C c 5 Q -Z G to cq d V CG a': ti. a° V C v=i ad r O O0 Ci 00 G C3 Cr O 4 tI1 4 ^�t al H H H H H H H H H d V l `q K \Q 0A h 0 00 N Q z H H H H H H H H LLF a •• 0� um a0 0 m °� v1 V� ^� ^+ N tT IV .3 tTl aQ ON IT Ir H G3 N Ci t c O CS M a LU Z _ v3j` oo r+S $ < z r17 y l •• r` CT v1 h a N �cS c+1 kn N M o+ N 5 c cL N h to vs N z E» Q H H H H ^ H H H M =• k Z H Q a = H H h E-- A» e 0 E• I � � � ^ � 05. z Z Z a m 2 UZtLI � � O E- _ 22 w n z z vy .. OG LU .j z A U a Gt� cn A G,i OG d U . cn Lu cn rn a, i w Attachment B Articles Concerning the Fiscal Impacts of Development Research: 7 1 FOR DETAILS- It Growth Is So Good, Why Are My centrated around rall lines, the land it utilizes is Copies of the Taxes Going Up? Now Vl!noi,_r S.I idy cheap.but requires expensive Infrastructure ex- report, lrr::acts of Unks Commercial Development to tensions to low-density areas. The results Development on Higher Taxes strongly suggest that an efficient pattern of development can make the difference between DuPage County How many times have we heard county and city stable local taxes and an ever-increasing burden Properry Taxes, are councils defend sewer, water, and road exten. on city budgets and taxpayers. available for $10 sions to remote development with the explana- from the DuPage tion,,we've 0 to grow-,growth will expand our (Reprinted courtesy of The Coastal Guardian, County Regional tax base."Yet how many times have those same newsletter of the South Carolina Coastal Con. Planning Commis- CDuncls lowered taxes as a result of the finan- servation League.) sion, 421 N Coun- clal fruits of growth? ty Farm Rd., A recent study of 20 years of development in Wheaton. IL 60187. fast-growing suburban DuPage County, Ill., ex- Oregon Affordable Housing Study plores this apparent contradiction.The study es- Shows Importance of Land Use tablishes a direct correlation between new Planning development, both residential and non-residen' A joint study by the Homebuilders Association tW, and Increases in local property taxes. of Metropolitan Portland and 1000 Friends of Previous research confirmed the drain on local Oregon shows that Oregon's land use planning budgets when residential development moves laws have created higher density housing in the Into rural areas. The Illinois study is surprising metro Portland region, helping to keep housing because it draws the conclusion that commer- costs affordable compared to other West Coast clal developments In urban areas, particularly urban areas(see Dec.19W Developments). Commerc,a= strip shopping centers and malls,also cost local Copies of the final report executive summary developments in governments more than they generate In tax are now available for $3 ($10 for the technical urban areas. par- revenues,resulting in tax increases. report) by contacting 1000 Friends of Oregon, ticular4's";-') s"`70,o- The study cites two major reasons for the in- 534 SW 3rd Ave., #300, Portland, OR 97204. ping cenre•s and crease In local taxes. The first is the cost of In- malls, also cost trastructure (roads, sewer, water) and services local govemments (police, schools, parks) required to support the [In the Courts more tear tney new development.The second is the willingness generate in tax (continued from previous page) revenues, result- of cities to offer tax breaks and discounted ser- ing in tax in- vices to compete for large development. themselves and pulling up the drawbridge." creases Further, because new development is often The Idea of 'lair share" housing has already Pnoto t, Br.:e ro,stet scattered at the edge of cities, rather than con- been integrated into planning laws in California, Oregon, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsyl- vania and New Jersey. Florida Court Upholds State Policies Against Sprawl A Florida district court has upheld the state Department of Community Affairs' (OCA) ability to curb sprawl as part of Florida's statewide growth management initiative. Homebuilders OODGE and some county officials had challenged DCA's Ilk K K application of "anti-sprawl" policies, such as urban service areas and large minimum lot sizes 17 In rural areas, In reviewing local comprehensive plans.The plaintiffs argued that DCA was using the policies as"de-facto"administrative rules,an invalid exercise of DCA's authority.The court dis- agreed, however, noting that DCA's policies as PIA t applied do not constitute rules, and are applied flexibly as best suited to each plan. 14 Developments Research FOR DETAILS: If Growth Is So Good, Why Are My centrated around rail lines, the land it utilizes is Copies of the Taxes Going Up? New Illinois Study cheap, but requires expensive infrastructure ex- report, Irrcacts of Unks Commercial Development to tensions to low-density areas. The results Develoomenr on Higher Taxes strongly suggest that an efficient pattern of DuPage.County How many times have we herd county and city development can make the difference between Property Taxes, are councils defend sewer, water, and road exten- stable local taxes and an ever-increasing burden available for S10 sions to remote development with L`* explana• on city budgets and taxpayers. from the DuPage tion,"We've got to grow;growth will expand our County Regional tax base."'y t how many times have those same (Reprinted courtesy of The Coastal Guardian, Planning Commis- councils lowered taxes as a result of the finan• newsletter of the South Carolina Coastal Con- sion, 421 N Coun- cial fruits of growth? servation League.) ty Farm PC- A recent study of 20 years of development in Wheaton, IL 60187. fast-growing suburban DuPage County, III., ex- Oregon Affordable Housing Study plores this apparent contradiction.The study es- Shows Importance of Land Use tablishes a direct correlation between new Planning development, both residential and non-residen- tial, and increases in local property taxes. A joint study by the Homebuilders Association Previous research confirmed the drain on local of Metropolitan Portland and 1000 Friends of budgets when residential development moves Oregon shows that Oregon's land use planning Into rural areas. The Illinois stud i» laws have created higher density housing in the y is surprising g metro Portland region, helping to keep housing because It draws the conclusion that commer- cial costs affordable compared to other West Coast Commerc.a, t sopping en it urban areas, particularly urban areas (see Dec.1990 Developments). p Aping centers and malls,also cost local developments in governments more than they generate In tax Copies of the final report executive summary urban areas. par- revenues, resulting in tax Increases. are now available for $3 ($10 for the technical ticularly st^a shop- The study cites two major reasons for the In- report) by contacting 1000 Friends of Oregon, ping ceme-s and 534 SW 3rd Ave., #300, Portland, OR 97204. malts, also cost crease in local taxes. The first is the cost of In- local governments frastructure (roads, sewer, water) and services i^► more rhar they (police, schools, parks) required to support the �n the Courts generate ,n tax new development The second is the wIllingness revenues, result- of cities to offer tax breaks and discounted ser- (continued from previous page) ing in tax in- vices to compete for large development, themselves and pulling up the drawbridge." creases. Further, because new development is often The idea of 'fair share" housing has already Pnom by B,__e Fo,ste, scattered at the edge of cities, rather than con- been integrated into planning laws in California, Oregon, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsyl- vania and New Jersey. • Florida Court Upholds State $(JI Policies Against Sprawl A Florida district court has upheld the state Department of Community Affairs' (DCA) ability • rtl to curb sprawl as part of Florida's statewide • .�• - �' - -- i growth management initiative. Homebuilders oo-o(A ' and some county officials had challenged DCA's ittuc � •. V+1 application of "anti-sprawl" policies, such as t— ( urban service areas and large minimum lot sizes 1 in rural areas, In reviewing local comprehensive plans.The plaintiffs argued that DCA was using ( < < the policies as"de-facto"adminisirative rules,an invalid exercise of DCA's authority.The court dis- agreed, however, noting that DCA's policies as applied do not constitute rules, and are applied flexibly as best suited to each plan. 14 Developments i a A POPULATION-ENVIRONMENT BALANCE Q 1325 G STREET. N.W Q SUITE 1003 u WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 Q 2021879-3000 data Number 24 August 1987 The Myths of Growth America's love affair with growth is succinctly ex- house generates in tax revenue less than 70 per cent of pressed in a quotation attributed to hahn Henry Cardinal the cost of services provided to its occupants by the Newman: "Growth is the only evidence of life:' county. The remaining 30 per cent of the cost is passed When the growth being measured and evaluated is along to other county residents. human population growth within particular geographic Commercial and industrial development often is rec- boundaries, whether those of a nation or a local com- ommended as an antidote to the tax drain created by new munity, a quotation attributed to Aldous Huxley is the housing, because commercial and industrial develop. better guide: "Facts do not cease to exist because they ment generate substantial tax revenue without creating a are ignored:' demand for new schools and certain other public ser- Many myths are being circulated to emphasize the vices. In isolation this is a valid argument, but new com- benefits of local population growth and to downplay the mercial and industrial development tends to attract new benefits of adopting a growth management strategy at the residential development because it creates a demand for community level,a step in local governance which Pop- housing in the vicinity of the workplace. Except in those ulation-Environment Balance recommends as a way to rare circumstances where all new residential develop. reinforce a national population-stabilization policy. ment occurs across local jurisdictional boundaries from Anti-growth management folk wisdom surfaces when- the commercial and industrial development, the result of ever advocates of growth solicit support for their devel- new commercial development also is likely to be a net opment proposals and oppose efforts to control urban loss to the county. sprawl. The frequency and earnestness with which these misconceptions have been repeated has led many people to accept them as being based on fact. In reality, nothing MYTH NO. 2: Growth management programs cause could be farther from the truth than these "myths of land prices to escalate, making private homes more ex- growth." pensive. MY'T'H NO. 1: New development increases a commu- This argument is used to attack the land use regulations nity's tax base,spreads the tax burden among more peo- essential to implement a growth management plan. pie, and lowers everyone's individual tax rates. Overregulation, it is said, adds substantially to the unit cost of new housing because of the additional cost as. This is probably the most common misconception sociated with obtaining permit approval, about development, both residential and commercial. In fact, most growth management programs streamline The case against it is easier to prove for residential de- the permitting process by locating all agencies with velopment, but applies to commercial development as which a developer must deal in one location. The review well, process is expedited, not delayed, and allows conflicts to Several studies have documented the conclusion that be resolved quickly between county agencies and devel- new residential development does not pay its way with opers. No one has ever proven a cause-and-effect rela- respect to the costs of public services and must be sub- tionship between the administrative burden created by a sidized by pre-existing residents through higher taxes. growth management program and higher housing costs The costs of new schools, roads, police and fire protec- for consumers. tion, water and sewer lines and other services far exceed A well-devised growth management program has the the tax income generated by the new housing develop- effect of stabilizing land prices,rather than inflating them, ment. because it eliminates the element of speculation which A recent study of loudoun County, Virginia, Washing- is the driving force behind rising land prices in most ton, D.C:s fastest-growing suburb, revealed that a new urban regions. If properly planned, a growth management program results from a mischaracterization of modern land use will zone enough land to meet the projected residential, planning as bung "anti-growth:' In almost every case, commercial and industrial demands of the county for the so-called "no growth" movements actually constitute a life of the program. The use of such additional eiements backlash against unplanned, chaotic urban sprawl. The as capital improvement programming and development conditions which give rise to "no-growth" sentiments are timing in a growth management program can eliminate precisely the conditions that can be prevented or reme- much of the speculative bidoing which can grossly inflate died by an effective growth management program. land prices. The development of a sound local growth management program requires a long-term commitment by a com- MYTH NO. 3: Growth management will increase the munity's leadership. The first step is to evaluate the com- costs of public services such as water, sewers, and high- munity's housing needs, available public services, and ways. environmental quality. Factors such as population growth projections, water, sewer and highway capacity, and the All of the evidence is to the contrary. Without a growth importance of preserving agricultural land, wildlife hab- management program, sprawl, strip development, and itat and other natural and cultural amenities are consid- leap-frog development occur, creating the need for enor- ered in the creation of a growth management plan. The mously expensive improvements in public services:sewer evaluation process defines the limas up to which a com- and water line extensions, highway widenings, storm munity may grow without sacrificing its character, envi- drainage improvements, sewage treatment facility expan- ronmental quality, or ambience and without unduly bur- sions, etc. In 'The Costs of Sprawl;' a report produced dening its residents with increased taxes to pay for the by the Real Estate Research Corporation for the Presi- expansion of public services. After the evaluation is com- dent's Council on Environmental Quality in 1974, the pleted, a growth management plan is devised which will higher public costs associated with strip development and reflect a community's capacity to accommodate growth. low-density sprawl development are documented. More A community which reaches its growth limit under a recent studies conducted in DeKalb County, Illinois and growth management plan would be no different than a Loudoun County, Virginia substantiate those findings. desirable residential subdivision which is completely built Growth management programs which channel growth out or an apartment complex in which all of the units are into those areas which have sufficient public services rented. A person who wants to live in one of those loca- available are extremely cost effective. tions must wait until a house or an apartment becomes available. Until that time, he or she must choose an al. MYTH NO. 4: Growth management programs are "eli. ternative place to live.This scenario of choice is repeated tist" because they exclude low-income families. every day all across the country without oppressive re- sults. This is a spurious argument when applied to the vast Choice is an essential ingredient in growth manage- majority of current growth management programs. Years ment programs. Politicians, planners and the public must ago, some communities attempted to create exclusive make hard choices about the type, number and density enclaves through the use of what was referred to as"snob of housing units to be built in their community; the ca- zoning:' In every case these attempts were either invali. pacity of school facilities, commercial enclaves and in- dated by court ruling or abandoned. Modern growth dustrial parks; the size and location of highways; and the management programs make affordable housing an inte- limits to which the community will go to protect its en- gral part of the community plan, including it within a vironment. These decisions may limit the options avail- broad diversity of residential areas, commercial zones able to residents in the future, but it is a small pace to and industrial parks. pay for a community free from high taxes, traffic conges- tion, crowded schools, and an unattractive, unhealthy MYTH NO. 5: If every community in the United States environment. adopted a growth management plan, eventually there Only by passing a national population stabilization would be a housing shortage. policy,ending government incentives for growth,and lim- The fear of a housing shortage as the result of the adop- icing U.S. immigration will the pressure on U.S. com- tion of growth management programs is unfounded and munities to grow ad infinitum be reduced. The Fiscal Impact of Commercial Development IBy Kim Newel i I Assessi7io t17c public ne consequence of the last few I volves several problems about what years'economic slowdown and cost and revenue items should be in- i costs a7zd beuc,fits of recession is that fiscal impact is- eluded,how they should be measured, sues have lost much of their and what time frame should be adopt- j dcvelopiuvit is a I 0 contentiousness. It is probably ( ed.Even though the states and munic- safe to assume, however, that both I tpalttses empowered to impose impact c0771plex but municipal officials and builders would fees have settled these matters legisla- !t prefer to see the economy and local fis- tively, the issues nevertheless continue 17ZC1`east776V cal impact battles heat up again. In to crop up, especially when builders preparation for that day,this article re- feel squeezed or development is i777ponxlt process visits a widely publicized conflict over booming. the costs of development in one of the A second set of issues goes deeper. j f07- both developen country's fastest-growing counties— These issues focus on the basic as- DuPage County,Illinois.The discus- sumption that underpins fiscal impact a7zd co77i77iu7zities. sion lays out some of the likely direc- analysis and ask if it is reasonable to } tions the overall fiscal impact debate expect a close connection between de- will take during this decade. velopment and specific attendant costs 1 Traditional fiscal impact analysis, and benefits. Critics argue that each i developed primarily by Robert$urchell new development must be considered and David Listokin of Rutgers Univer- as part of a region's overall growth. sits and practiced by many others,has Thus, as a region changes in nature III come to some fairly well-established due to ongoing development,a multi- conclusions. M'hile the exact magni- tude of factors is likely to change,each tudes of fiscal impact vary from case to affecting the costs and revenues of case,certain types of development con- subsequent development. It is impos- sistently generate more revenues than sible to link these changes to a specific costs. In rough sequence, office build- development on a clear-cut, one-to- ings, industrial uses,warehouses,retail one basis. Only a comprehensive, operations,and high-density apart- macro-level analysis can shed light on ment buildings with small units gener- the exact relationship. ate net revenues, while lower-density One example of such a comprehen- apartments,townhouses, and single- sive study is the 1990 analysis of the family homes impose net costs. Obvi- Elkwood Downs commercial and in- ousiy,the demand for schools and oth- dustrial development in Culpeper er residential services is relatively more County,Virginia. Carried out by the expensive than the traffic and protec- Government Finance Research Center tive services required for nonresidential {GFRC), the study is a response to a development. traditional fiscal impact analysis that proiected a large positive cash flog+ in Fiscal impact Analysis Critiqued count}' revenues. By constructing an _ ! Critics of fiscal impact analysis have alternative model that takes into ac. raised two sets of issues. The first in- count the induced service employ- I 10 Land Development/Spring-Summer 1993 .nent and porulatnon moving into the DuPace's impressive expansion, what In this context•the stud\•concluded count%• to occur\ newl\- created jobs, drove the study was the 13; percent that, for the years 1966 to 1989, taxes the GFRC authors proiecte, a negative increase to property taxes during the I', increased by a greater amount to areas fiscal impact for most of the 20-year period compared to 10: percent for ' of the count•with significant nonresi- stuav period. the other counties. More specifically, 'i dential development property than to In 1991,the DuPage County Devel- the simultaneous increase in nonresi- areas \..•ithout such development. The opment Department undertook a ma- dential development (as evidenced by I study used standard multiple regres- jor study that paralleied GFRC's work. employment gains) and properr taxes I sion analysis techniques to assess the The study was conducted at the initia- i spurred the county planning depart- I growth in tax revenues for each tax . tive of the department's staff during ment to investigate the relationship code. In DuPage Count•, each parcel the height of an unprecedented build- between the two. of real estate is taxed hv approximately tng boom in the county. DuPage, The department's study took place 10 separate taxing districts, all of home to almost 800,000 residents, is in a highly charged environment. Du- which have different district bound- part of the metropolitan Chicago area Page is one of two Illinois counties au- aries. A tax code comprises all proper- and is located wes: of Cook County i thorized to levy impact fees,and it be- ties that are taxed by the same,untoue and downtown Chicago. During the gan to do so only in 1989—to the usu- I set of taxing districts. Because of the 1960-1980 period, DuPage County ex- I al protests and threats from develop- many taxing districts in Illinois. all perienced a 110 percent growth in ers. One maior developer stated, "We with different boundaries,the counn population. VVhile county growth are not embracing doing business in a encompasses several 'hundred tax code slowed during the 1980s to 18.8 per- community that doesn't embrace us. areas. This large number of tax code cent, it still exceeded the average 16.3 There's plenty of vacant land in other areas made it possible to perform a percent growth of metropolitan areas around Chicago." At the same quantitative analysis of the effect of Chicago's other four suburban coun- time,a municipal planner in the coun- different levels of nonresidential de- ties. Employment expansion was even ty lamented that "you can go to the velopment.Other variables considered more rapid;the number of jobs in Du- Planning Department and see them by the analysis included the change in 'Page County grew by 72 percent be- reviewing plans and writing studies, total residential assessed valuation;the i tween 1979 and 1988 compared to 26 but none of this activity has any effect change in the number of firms; the percent in the other counties. Despite on the world." change in the ratio of nonresidential to Ufl OF I B ]),ST,'�TES TMIT2 IVIi � I � - f"t�;, Land Development/Spring-Sumner 1993 11 Developers feared that the study would lead to residential assessed value; the median I ! increases. For both the county as a residential property tax levy; and the I higher impact tees, whole and the smaller units within it, jratio of the tax code area to total mu- 1 there are many reasons why the two 1 I growth controls • nicipal assessed value. I g phenomena might occur simultane- ; Even though the study carefully oush%Below are several possible expla- stated that it did not point to nonresi- or a two-tiered tax nations; some may be unique to Du- dential development as the cause of Page County, but others may occur assessment system. counav tax increases,observers widely elsewhere as well. i t perceived the investigation as doing just that. In fact, the study declared ment to review all the studies and cri- Loss of revenue from other sources that"a one percent increase in nonres- tiques.'We concluded that the original Some taxing bodies in DuPage may i idential development is likely to result study was adequate for an exploratory have had to increase property taxes in a tax levy increase that is three times effort, though not as a "conclusive more rapidly than others to offset larg- larger than a similar one percent in- study." er revenue losses associated with other, crease in residential development." For instance, the 1986-1989 study nonpropemr-based sources. Our pre- j This was attributed to two effects of period was largely atypical in that it liminary investigation suggests that nonresidential development:the addi- embraced the height of the building lost revenue is an important factor for tional workers, shoppers, and others boom. In addition,the results of the DuPage County as a whole compared i who demand new services, and resi- study are somewhat difficult to inter- to other suburban Chicago counties;it dents'increased demand for more ser- pret because of the particular variables may also differentiate individual tax- vices and amenities as an area urban- selected for analysis. For example, ing bodies within DuPage.A large part izes. rather than comparing tax rates, the of this revenue loss is attributable to a Responses to the DuPage Study study used the total tax levy as the de- reduction in state school aid. Given pendent variable.In fact,as an area de- that school aid is distributed to indi- I �he development community reacted velops, the total levy inevitably rises; vidual school districts on the basis of _. to the study with outrage. Developers the expectation is that rates will de- local tax effort,districts with large in- I j feared that the study would lead to cline. Further, the study's measure of creases in their tax base (due, in part, higher impact fees,growth controls,or nonresidential development was to nonresidential development) prob- a two-tiered tax assessment system somewhat indirect; it counted the ably received reduced aid and thus had such as that imposed by neighboring number of firms rather than,say,the to increase their property tax levy Cook County. That system assesses square footage devoted to nonresiden- more than districts without nonresi- nonresidential real estate at two and tial uses. Given that various types of dential development. one-half times the rate of residential development were measured in differ- proper.In response,the DuPage De- ent units(number of firms versus resi- Lowered tax price m velopment Council retained North- dential assessed value),analysts cannot The larger the proportion of the tax I western University's Professor Edwin accurately compare the results of the base that is nonresidential, the less Mills, one of the pioneers of urban regression analysis and conclude that costly it is for residents to demand economics,to write a critique;at the one variable has a three times greater more services and thus increase public request of the DuPage Association of effect than another. expenditures. The reason is that the Realtors,the University of Illinois Of- But,even assuming that the empiri- "tax price" (i.e.,the share of the costs Fite of Real Estate Research issued a re- cal findings are basically correct,it is of local services borne by the average port with a strongly worded attack; still difficult to conclude that nonresi- household) for government services and other groups brought in experts dential development brings about in- demanded by DuPage residents may from the University of Chicago and creased property taxes.The simultane- have declined because of the growth of Harvard University to denounce the ous occurrence of high rates of non- the commercial tax base.This hypoth- study's assumptions, methodology, residential growth and increasing tax esis fits with the finding that areas with data,and conclusions. levies does not necessarily imply that a high nonresidential tax base experi- Seeking to bring some reason to the the costs of development lead to tax ence increases in the total tax levy.The i,debate,the East West Corporate Cor- ridor Association, a coalition of major I Il .hwqucnt section o f t his article a hand un the rel—n ktid tstifte 1 hvvinpwrrr,trni llrvptriy 74,vcs m th+J'u c ' /t Cmmry Frmd Report h% John McDonald.Charles Orlehcke,Ashish 4n.and Wim Wic%vrl,Cemer for Urban corporations in the county, retained P E.corn:rnic Development.University of Illinois at Chicafiu.Chicago,ivy .A sum mars of the stuJc arl+cared earlier the U niversity of Illinois at Chicago's in wtm Ww-cl et al.,-Commercial Uevclopmcnt and),rupertl•Taxes:Who Pars the It ills?". Public hnx•stm 1, I Center for Urban Economic Develop- Anscrrcan Planning Association.1.3:March I9142. i 12 Land DevelopmentlSpring-Summer 1993 j w Planners and t developers are ' becoming .,creases result not because nonresi- 1 section;and dential development increases costs i increasingly ■ increased expenditures for social r but because residents take advantage ( services. of the opportunity to increase services ; sophisticated In their at relativeiv little cost to themselves. f i Conclusion Indeed,our preliminary investigation i understanding of the In response to the original study, the into this hypothesis shows, for exam- interrelatedness of all Various critiques,and our own anal,- ple, that school districts whose tax sis,the Dupage Count, Regional Plan- base is disproportionately nonresiden- forms of development. I ning Commission voted to establish an f tial spend more per pupil than other impartial task force. At this time, the districts regardless of total assessed task force's mandate is still unclear,al- value per pupil. though it will likeh,include a broader collar counties.Income growth leads to analysis of the fiscal issues facing the l Need to catch up greater demands for public services,es- count,. We have proposed that the DuPage governments may have had to pecially schools.Our preliminan anal- task force undertake a detailed study catch up with population growth from ,sis shows that, not surprisingly, to investigate the above hypotheses. i the previous decade. Before 1980, Du- wealthier school districts spend more The stud,should include a quantita- Page experienced a greater rate of pop- per pupil than other districts. tive analysis of the tax rate in all Illi- ulation growth than Chicago's other nois counties as well as a more qualita- collar counties—and during a period Windfall profit taking tive analysis of the decision-making of high inflation. Governments may Other studies, including a recent Ur- process in some of the major taxing have been reluctant to raise taxes ban Land Institute investigation into bodies. enough to keep up with both the rising the revenue-generating capacity of The DuPage study and the recent .demands of a growing residential pop- Virginia municipalities,have suggest- study of Virginia municipalities by the ' tion and inflation. However,once ed that taxing bodies are engaging in Urban Land Institute show that both I -opulation and inflation growth "windfall profit taking." Stated anoth- planners and developers are becoming slowed in the I980s, the county no er way,as total assessments go up,the increasingly sophisticated in their un- doubt found it easier to raise taxes, taxing district raises the levy without derstanding of the interrelatedness of particularly given that nonresidential raising the rate. The DuPage study all forms of development. In the growth continued to increase rapidly mentioned this possibility but did not 1990s,municipalities will continue to and thus would shoulder an increasing investigate it. struggle with increased service de- share of the burden. mands and escalating service costs. Other factors While the Clinton administration may Increased education costs The original DuPage study suggests be more receptive than predecessor School enrollments may have in- several factors that may explain why administrations to the plight of cities creased in DuPage mare rapidly than nonresidential development might be and their infrastructure needs, efforts elsewhere in the metropolitan area,es- associated with tax increases. Most re- to reduce the federal deficit will make pecially in the 1985-1989 period,thus late to increased education expendi. it unlikely that significant resources resulting in higher public education tures to meet the need for an ade- will be available to local governments costs.The upsurge in enrollment may quately trained and prepared work- on a regular basis. Thus, cities will be partly attributable to the "sec- force, road and traffic expenditures; continue to look for other ways to in- ondary" baby boom that has affected and safety-related expenditures (po- crease their revenues and offset many suburban school districts.In ad- lice, fire, courts) associated with in- costs—whether real or perceived. A dition, changes in other determinants creased urbanization. Some of these comprehensive understanding of the of school expenditures, such as in- factors are already included in the development process and its public creased teacher salaries or reduced above hypotheses;others,such as the costs and benefits will be required for class sizes and attendant capital costs, following,should also be considered: all participants. ■ might have contributed to rising pub- ■ the extent to which employers/ iic education costs. firms influence school expenditures; Further,some of the increased edu- a expenditures for vocational training Wim N'invel is director of the Center(or j Urban Economic Devc!opnicrrt and _fstion costs may have been driven by and increased in-school services; associate rrnjessnrtry the School nf Urban fincome growth, which was higher in I ■ increased expenditures (absolute hlamrirre and Policy at the L'trivcrsityof I DuPage County than in the other three I and per capita) for police and fire pro- 111innis at Chicago. Land Development/Spring-Summer 1993 13 , ►nAacr+ iss< SL[C PUr'" r r.�► .` vestijlol A PLANNING G ASSOCIATION !!' A special edition of the PAS Merno published quanerly I devoted to puvlic invesnnent and.finance Commercial beyond question and indeed mI ntes most local economic Development and development efforts. A recent stud-, in DaPace Count%, Property Taxes: Illinois. however,cast doubt on this widespread belle:. Not su rsingly, the study has come under ven, strong at,,;: Who Pa��S the Bids`' with critics questioning everything from the motivations of r the researchers to their assumptions, data, methods. and By Wim \'iewel.John McDonald, conclusions. Our review of the stud\,critiques. and some of Ashish Sen. and Charles Orlebeke the data suggests that there is reason to reconsider the prevailing wisdom. But at the same time, the DuPage stud\ Last September. Public ins stment News reported on a study may have left some misleading impressions about the causal hi the Di4Page Cowin. Illinois, development deportment that effect of nonresidential development on property taxes. raised mom important questions about the nature and The analysis by the DuPage County development structure of economies in urbanizing suburbs. That issue of department found that in areas of the county with ;arise PIN' has attracted considerable attention, even outside the growth in nonresidential development, property taxes went planning profession. The following article represents another up more than in areas without such development. In fact, the voice in this continuing discussion, D.B. study stated that "a one percent increase in nonresidential Does the development of nonresidential real estate help the development is likely to result in a tax levy increase that is tax bills of residents? Common wisdom has long been that three times larger than a similar one percent increase in )development of shopping malls and office buildings is very residential development."The study attributes this to two lesirable from the perspective of the residential taxpayer. effects of nonresidential development: nonresidential uses These kinds of developments help pay for local services, bring in additional workers,shoppers. and others,all of while demanding relatively few for themselves.The truth of which create demand for public services; and residents in the this perception has long been considered so obvious as to be now more urbanized environment demand more services and t G K � a_ ti Eli i rrizir:s� _ 1 , Debate continues in DuPage Counry, Illinois, over whether commercial development pot's for itself. Over Ilic las:nti'o decades. areas like Oak Brook(above)hove sprouted dozens of new office buildings, hotels, and shopping centers. nitre.. Thus, the first reason points at direct costs an effect three times greater than the other. ..osed by nonresidential development, while the second, But even if further investigation were to show that the suggests a less clear. indirect effect. empirical findings are basically correct,one canna draw the There is no doubt that both nonresidential development conclusion that nonresidential development brings about and property taxes have nsen rapidly in DuPage County. increased property taxes. The simultaneous occurrence of Our research reveals: high rates of nonresidential growth and Increasing tax levies • Population growth in DuPage was very rapid 0 10 percent) does not necessarily imply that the costs of development during the 1960-1980 period, but populatiun increased cause the latter. Both for the county as a whole. and for only 18.8 percent from 1980 to 1990. smaller units within it,there are mane reasons why the two • Employment growth for jobs located in DuPage was 72 Phenomena might occur together. Below we offer several percent from 1979 to 1988, exceeding the 54 percent rise Possible explanations. Each of these possibilities should be in the number of emploved residents of DuPage. investigated further. • Total property values in DuPage increased very rapidly Loss of Revenue from Other Sources from 1982 to 1988, and property taxes as a percentage of DuPage governments may have had to increase property market value actually declined. The tax rate on residential taxes more rapidly Man other counties because of larger property in DuPage was 1.96 percent of market value in revenue losses from other sources. Our preliminary 1982 and 1.72 percent in 1988. investigation of this hypothesis suggests this is an Important • Property tax extensions in DuPage increased 135 percent factor for DuPage County as a whole: it may also from 1979 to 1988. (The average for Chicago's other four differentiate individual taxing bodies within DuPa_e. suburban counties, which generally experienced less Furthermore, a large pan of this revenue loss consists of economic growth during the period, was 102 percent). state school aid. In 1988. DuPage County received 5743 per It is therefore possible that the relatively rapid employment Pupil in state aid, while the other collar counties received an growth in DuPage County (and attendant nonresidential real average of 51,265 from the state. Since this aid is provided to estate development)is one explanation for the relatively individual school districts, it is quite possible that districts rapid growth in property tax extensions. Other researchers with large increases in their tax base (due, in pan.to have investigated this notion and come up with mixed nonresidential development) suffered larger losses and thus results. A 1987 study of jurisdictions in the Philadelphia had to increase their tax levy more than districts without metro area found that measures of employment and nonresidential development. This is consistent with the commercial property value were positively associated with findings of the DuPage study, but clearly indicates an local government expenditures per capita, but a 1989 study entirely different reason for the relationship between of central cities did not find such a result. nonresidential development and increased property taxes There are several ways of studying the relationship ��that stud} suggests: not increased costs, but declining between economic growth and property taxes.The study by revenues, due to the state aid formula. the DuPage County development department follows one particular approach.After reviewing its methodology, we Lowered Tax Price concluded that the general workmanship of the regression The larger a proportion of the tax base is nonresidential, the analvsis was a satisfactory exploratory effort. But it should cheaper it is for residents to increase expenditures.The "tax not be interpreted as a conclusive study. Our review, price" (i.e. the share of the costs of local services borne by however, raised many questions about aspects of the study. the average household)for government services faced by For instance, the 1986-1989 period studied was quite DuPase residents may have declined because of the growth atypical since it was the height of the building boom. Also, of the commercial tax base.This hypothesis, if true,could been difficult to interpret indeed lead to findings similar to those of the DuPase stud}: the results of the study have because of the variables used. Rather than comparing tax areas with a high nonresidential tax base experience rates,it used the total tax levy as the dependent variable. increases in total tax levy.This could happen not because But of course the common wisdom never promised that the nonresidential development increases costs, but because it total tax levy would drop—as an area develops,the levy represents an opportunity for residents to increase services inevitably rises—but that rates would go down. Furthermore, at relatively little cost to themselves. the study suggested that not all development contributes We conducted a preliminary investigation to test this equally to increases in the levy; rather, nonresidential hypothesis.The results show very clearly that school districts development has a three times greater impact than residential with a high proportion of their tax base in nonresidential use development. But there are two problems with this statement. spend more per pupil than other districts.The 10 elementary First, the measure of nonresidential development was school districts with the highest proportion of nonresidential somewhat indirect, in that it counted the number of firms, tax base spent an average of 55.025 per pupil in 1990, while rather than, say, square footage. Second, since the types of the other 20 districts spent an average of 54,100 per pupil. development were measured in different units (number of This holds true regardless of the total assessed value per firms vs. residential assessed value), one can't really pupil. It appears that local school boards display some compare regression coefficients and say one variable has tendency to respond to the lower"price" for schools faced by residents of districts with a high proportion of nonresidential uses. The authors are all faculty members at the the Ccntt.•for Illinois at Economic o. However, before this hypothesis can be accepted, more Research for this article w•as conducted by the Center for Urban Economic Development at UIC,and sponsored by the East west Corporate Corridor detailed analysis of the data, as well as of the actual decision- Association. making process of school boards, is needed. 2 Need to Catch lip Editor's Note: The encouraging response to the September DuPage governments may have had to catch up with issue is evidence that planners in rapidly urbanizing copulation growth from the previous decade.DuPage had jurisdictions across the nation are beginning to question More rapid population growth prior to 1980 than did the whether we as a profession have a complete understanding other collar counties.This was also a period of very high of how economies and land markets operate. The structures inflation. Governments may have been r_luctant to raise that allowed for "business as usual" in our communities taxes sufficiently to keep up with the rising demands of a seem to be undergoing a fundamental change. This change growing residential population and keep up with inflation, might be driven by an increasing demand for services, as However, once both inflation and population growth slowed DuPage County's study suggested. It might stem from in the 1980s,taxes could be raised more easily,especially political decisions made by states and localities, as the since nonresidential growth continued to increase very author:state above. It may result from changes in land use rapidly and thus would shoulder an increasing share of and a move towards a "post-industrial"economy, as 1 the burden. suggested last September. Or it might be a combination of the three.At any rate, it is clear that any jurisdiction Increased Education Costs integrating its land-use and fiscal planning must come to School enrollments may have increased in DuPage more terms with these questions. rapidly than elsewhere,especially from 1985 to 1989. This May, at APA's national conference in Washington, There is a"secondary"baby boom, and it has affected many D.C.. Public Investment News will hold a seminar on this suburban school districts. Along with this,there may have issue. The discussion should be lively and informative, and been changes in other determinants of school expenditures, 1 hope that many of you will attend. D.B. such as teacher salaries or classroom sizes and attendant capital costs. Some of the increased education costs may have been Wichita Ties driven by income growth.Income growth in DuPage was higher than in three of the other four counties in metropolitan Redevelopment to Chicago.Income growth leads to greater demands for public Environmental Cleanup services,especially schools. Our preliminary analysis shows, not surprisingly,that wealthier school districts spend more Just as the city of Wichita,Kansas, was preparing to draw per pupil than other districts. up plans for a major downtown redevelopment effort, a discovery of toxic groundwater contamination threatened to Cher Factors cloud the sunny future of the largest central business district e DuPage study suggests several variables as causal in the state.The contamination,stemming from an industrial ones to explain why nonresidential development might area on the edge of downtown, affected a six-square-mile be associated with tax increases.Most of these relate to area directly below the proposed redevelopment district. increased education expenditures to accommodate the need Once the contamination was discovered, all attempts at for a quality work force;road and traffic expenditures;and attracting financing for the redevelopment came to an abrupt safety-related expenditures (police,fire,courts)linked to halt."It was like turning off a switch"says Mark Glasser, increased urbanization. Some of these are already included in assistant to the city manager."You can't buy, sell,or get a the hypotheses above;others, such as the following,certainly loan on any property in a contaminated area."The possibility should be analyzed as pats of a larger study: of lenders being held liable for environmental cleanup, • increases in the quality of schools,as reflected in higher coupled with the normal risks of redevelopment,crushed paid teachers,smaller classrooms,etc.; any willingness by banks to invest in downtown Wichita. • the extent to which employers/firms actually influence Planners and other officials in Wichita felt that time was against them,as the downtown area was facing stiff school expenditures; competition from new development on the city's periphery. • expenditures for vocational training; If they waited for Superfund and other federal programs to • expenditures for increased in-school services; kick in,they could lose the opportunity to stabilize property • increased expenditures(absolute and per capita)for values downtown. police and fire protection; Wichita had some experience with federal cleanup efforts. At another site north of the city,property values dropped • increased expenditures on social services; over 40 percent and the cleanup took considerably longer What is clear is that the study by the DuPage County than originally estimated.The planning and development development department raised important questions that community blamed the inefficiency of the U.S.EPA.And, call out for further research.Possible lines of inquiry could while EPA dragged its feet,land in the area was lost as a include a quantitative analysis of tax rates in all Illinois contributor to local tax rolls.Determined to see that this counties,as well as a more qualitative analysis of the situation was not repeated downtown,the city resolved to decision-making process in some of the major taxing bodies. take responsibility for the cleanup.Cost estimates came in •-� . is would also allow an exploration of the possibility that at about$20 million—approximately the value of the taxes me of the tax increases represent"windfall profit taking" generated by the property at risk. ay some of the taxing bodies that experienced large increases The city first established a Tax Increment Financing in taxable property. district for downtown and redirected the funds raised there to begin the groundwater remediation process as soon as possible. It pursued legal action against the parties 3 A ne.. ... -, .nom Utl finds that growth enables local govern- ne F.,cws�t,' Eff&Z of 6rowth marts to spend more on resident *ces without increasing tax And Commercial Development !dens. v J . THOMAS BLACK AND RITA CURTIS perennial concern—the community impacts of tures per some parameter—residents,students,em- growth and development—became a major issue in ployees, rooms, trips generated,square footage— the 1970s and 1980s in the United States as metro- that can be related to the design and use characteristics politan areas experienced unprecedented growth. of the new development. One of the key questions has been whether or not Revenues typically are estimated by projecting growth pays for itself in local government fiscal the contribution of the development to the various terms: Do the taxes,fees,and other revenues it gen- bases used for calculating taxes and fees and then ap- erates exceed or fall short of the costs of servicing plying projected tax rates. growth% Evidence of concern about growth's net fis- Fiscal impact analyses nypically have been hypo- cal impact can be found in the spreading movement thetical,usually undertaken during rezoning or de- to adopt development impact fees,particularly in velopment permit approval processes.Rarely has re- high-growth areas.' search sought to measure the effects of various types While economic recession has put concerns about of development by examining actual service demands, the fiscal effects of irowth on the back bumer in the marginal costs of meeting those demands,and many communities, questions about the effects of actual revenue generation.The validity of the con- growth on local revenue capacity,service costs,and clusions of most fiscal impact studies,therefore,de- tax burdens will return to prominence as demographic pends on the validity of their assumptions. forces and an economic recovery spur new growth. The problem with standard focal impact analysis A review of fiscal impact studies by Robert is that it does not capture the complex interactions Burchell and David Listokin'indicates generally sig- among various types of land uses as growth occurs. nificant variation in the cost-revenue effects of dif- For instance.,a residential development may pro- ferent types of land uses.Uses that place below- duce a net direct cost.But it also provides custom- average demands on the school system and housing ers for businesses in the area,and thus can increase assistance,health care systems,and other social serv- business sales(and sales and gross receipts taxes) ices tend to generate a net fiscal surplus.Uses that and underlying commercial property values(and de- place above-average demands on education and so- rived property taxes).This expansion of tax revenues cial services tend to produce a fiscal deficit.Thus, does not necessarily add offsetting costs to the com- office,industrial,warehouse,retail,and small unit munity. Conversely,an industrial park may in itself one-and two-bedroom high-rent multifamily hous- generate a net fiscal surplus.But it may also increase ing uses typically show up on the net positive side of the demand for low-to moderate-income housing the ledger.On the other hand,lower-rent apartments in the community and thus,interactively,result in a and larger(three-and four-bedroom)housing units net fiscal burden.Various land uses are interdepend- tend to result in a net fiscal"deficit.This is under- ent.The overall fiscal impact of one kind of Bevel- ' standable:education and social service expenditures opment depends on the interaction of industrial, together constitute on average approximately 50 commercial,and residential land uses over time. percent of U.S.local government expenditures. A More Interactive Approach The Problem with Traditional impact Studies A few researchers have explored the use of statistical As typically applied,fiscal impact analysis involves techniques to examine the relationships between growth an estimation of the service requirements associated (measured by population size or growth, commer- with various types of land uses or developments— cial activity,or construction activity)and local gov- commercial,industrial,single-family residential, ernment revenues and expenditures across a set of multifamily residential—and a costing out of those urban jurisdictions with variable growth attributes. requirements.Costs are calculated,for the most If one can sort out the effects of growth factors part, on the basis of recent experience with expendi- from other factors that may influence local govern- 18 Urban Land - January 1993 s and revenues, this approach can capture the rough the economtive effects of growth as they th work :heir Dernwid and Supply Factors in Local fiovernment way througv-The few extant studies e of this type have examined per-capita local spending Expenditures )Is as the key variable affected by growth.The clear finding common to these studies is that in doff" lo al go rnm ri seru of vardtions that m me�rerary,dente,is po vey in demand for bill gPVerttttnerrt susvices induroc laced with vwnt uses per apm Tha may be per-capita spending by local governments increases as population increases. Whether the study looked `Education mad mama levees,which wW to exptaarnd by the efto of clarity on dotard corre be highly lated.Past research r4cates for services(see above).Another expiamation a at growth or at absolute size,the result of increased • that the danar•�d for that increased operation and maintenance casts spending for larger populations holds, public services a aroma Cross-jurisdictional fiscal impact studies have elastic,which means that as incomes increase, may more than oftet any cost savings on intra- IN dwwW lor su Mms Increases at a structure coastnxtion. not,however,explored growth's effects on service pmpwtiomt*greater rate. • The Production casts at services.The corn. levels or tax burdens,because comparable measures • Age suff which is obvio*impomitt.As pones:costs-tor labt,r,land,sermes,and ma- of these variables are elusive.Thus,these studies the proportion of the population represented by tenaus-of government services production vary have not determined whether growth simply drives school age children increases,the demand for iron Place to Piace.in ism vim up the costs of services or whether it increases the educational services incrtase&An increase in for residential land varied tram 510,000 an acre tax base per capita and thereby the revenue capacity the proportion of senior enacts will increase to 5200,000 an acre across 30 U.S.metrnpofr per capita.They have failed to address the effect of demand for local gavernnent services aanad at tan areas.labor costs vary comsiderably less growth on tax burdens. 9 rinose qp because people can easily move to take advan- •De aity,bemuse typically the higher the den- Cage of wage differentials,but differences do ex- shy the greater the demand for such public serv. aL In 1990,the state averages tar all teachers' U'S Study ices as parks and recreation facilities.traffic salaries ranged from$21,000 in South Dakota management,and environmental managemert to 543,000 in Alaska,according to the Ul De- ULI's research division recently completed a study Several factors tneoretially play some role in partment of Education's National Center for Edu- of the fiscal effects of growth that,unlike other stud- cation Statistics-Among metropogtan areas,the ies of this genre,reveals some consequences of growth `*n"a101g noel vrt coo d prat- cost of�varies it=pars or mono 35 per- for of s om levels of service,ambigut the net card of the national average cost of wing.Vari- forlocal revenue capacity and tax burdens as well as ef-xa d some d these factors a ambiguotrsr once in cfgmase�sod crua�tiora may kid to a for expenditures.This analysis was trade possible by 1w d secormLiesl of.scalL The variance in tack construction crests or operat- the availability of data on both revenue capacity and "V&&4 view is that uffqtpe services m9 costs.In some dry areas,for example,the expenditure levels for jurisdictions in the state of Water,sewer.and transportation)and txntai- unit costs of supptpav a gal4on of water art Jg a bled aftir ist ative unctions,.such as plarPding substantially elevated bemuse the water must _ .o Cities and counties in Virginia are independent; and kwicsal admit-stration display economies be mod. vide comparable services,and possess similar tax- of stole over a large sic range,while other im- •Remove transfers and debt burdens.The ing powers. Cross-jurisdictional analyses need not pow MOCIPal 1u iora-edumtion,police, amount of revenues transferred hm bderat and sort out the effects of variations in functions and ire.and soid waste collection-do not appear state governmerds and the eraart to which past services among jurisdictions.Also,local govern- to aft ecotmnies of scale,above a fairly low capital costs have been debt financed with pay- ments are required to submit standardized reports motion lewd'Some scale economies may me is amasaaed over burin Y*.an;can substan- on revenues and expenditures for inclusion in a state be invossibile to measure bemuse VW are qty affect the*price'of government services report comparing local government finances.Thus, by diftrentials in quaff of service.The actually paid by residents,Intergovernmental bottom in is that the net erect of stole econo- revenues vary couidera*tram area to area. standardized data are available for a large number miss rennaire uncleaar. in 1987.38 percent of total local government and variety of local governments that provide simi- .p,rosity.While 4th compeative revenues in the United States came from the lar services but represent a variety of size and analyses hanne shown that apical costs for federal and state governments.In the 50 larg- growth characteristics. roads and Mies go down as settlement pat- est U.S.cities„per-capita interpovemmartal The key factor explaining variations in levels of teats became mess compact,most smites of revenues ranged from$82 tTsdsal to$1,360 local government expenditures is likely to be the read pubic service costs have found not that (New York). -- relative capacity of the private economy in the juris- dettsity t TA=Iowa public SWAM coo but diction to generate revenues.Virginia has devel- oped a measure of per-capita revenue rapacity for per square mile.Population growth increases the local jurisdictions,based on a combination of total overall size of jurisdictions,and commercial and in- property value, total adjusted gross income of resi- dustrial development increases the proportion of dents,the aggregate amount of taxable retail sales, jobs per capita.Therefore,using measures of popu- _ and the number of automobiles(for personal prop- lation size and jobs per resident should give some in- erty taxes and motor vehicle registration fees). dication of how growth affects the basic capacity of _ ULI conducted two analyses to examine the jurisdictions to pay for public services. . relationship between population and economic • Growth Measures.For these same jurisdictions, i. - wth and revenue capacity: the analysis looked at the relation between the rate " t ge in jobs per capita, ze and jobs per resident and revenue capacity per the value of construction.per capita,and the change ze.Measures.The relation between population of population growth, the chaia capita was analyzed for the 59 cities and counties in revenue capacity per capita.The period covered with population densities of more than 100 people was 1984 to 1989. _ - January 1993 Urban Land 1$ s r. . ,,,i: •_.c.0 ��.� i,:. ,.:, :,1: Size meas- ally result in increased local government revenue ures indicate pacity.It follows that the more growth that occurs, _ - that both popu- the more iocal governments will spend per capita - 300 lation and jobs because the per-resident revenue capacity is higher. IL are positively It is not surprising that growth tends to be related !r = 200 -: _ related to reve- to increases in local government expenditures per nue capacity. capita.But these higher expenditures derive from the 10o As shown in greater revenue-generating capacinr of the private 13 Figure 1,an economy in high-growth areas,not from higher per- increase in the unit service costs. Growth enables local govern- ` 10,000 ' 210,000 410.000 level of jobs per ments to spend more without increasing tax rates. sias of capita by 50 ULI's analysis tested whether or not other fac- results in an tors are more or less important than variations in _ 1=D00 additional S237 revenue-generating capacity in explaining variations in revenue ca- in local government expenditure levels.It did so by C 800 pacitz-per cap- exploring the relationship of total general fund ex' ita while each penditures per capita to various demand/need and additional 50,000 supply factors(including revenue capacity),under 400 in population the assumption that expenditure levels reflect a rough adds S35 toreve- balance between need factors and factors that affect 200 nue capacity per the costs of providing services(see feature box). capita. A multiple-variable(OLS regression)statistical 30 70 110 150 190 An analy- analysis of expenditure levels per capita for the same Ma per Cob sis of growth 59 counties and cities was performed for the following t measures finds variables:dollar revenue capacity per capita,population For ss ab,and courba in t/irpris va I,p'n'r°"darrilin of nton Ims 100 poop' that change in size, gross density,share of population in povem; °r sou=U l jobs P�capita share of pop ulation under a g e 16 shim of poP ula- (a measure of tion over age 65,and the level of intergovernmental commercial and industrial expansion),change in the transfers from federal and state governments. amount of construction per capita,and the popula- These seven variables all turn out to be signifi- -tion growth rate are all significantly and positively cantly(at a 99 percent confidence level)and strongly related to changes in revenue capacity over the five- related to expenditure levels per capita(see Figure 3 year period(see Figure 2).Population growth is the for selected results).As a group, they explain 78 per- with facwr with each additional 10 percentage cent of the variation in expenditure levels among -- points in the population growth rate associated with the 59 jurisdictions. _ a 4.6 percent increase in per-capita revenue capac- As expected,revenue capacity shows up as the iry.A$1,000 per-capita increase in the volume of strongest factor.For each dollar of increase in reve- construction accounts for an increase of 4.86 per- nue capacity,local government expenditures per cent in per-capita revenue capacity.An increase in capita go up by$0.87.This result supports the the- jobs per capita by ten accounts for an increase of 4.3 ory that growth tends to increase expenditure levels percent in revenue capacity per capita. by increasing revenue capacity. The clear conclusion of this empirical data is Among the other factors strongly affecting ex- that population growth and economic growth gener- penditure levels,each additional S1 from the federal FIGURE 2: CHANGE IN REVENUE CAPACRY AND JOBS CHANGUPOK)LATION t 1 : 0. 25 12 35 ¢ r 20- 25- villa 4 t s o 5 10 15 20 2s 30 10 30 50 10 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Change in Jobs per Capita Population 6MWth Rate iPercentl Change in Construction per Capita IS) 'fror sa atties aril eaeefas n Virgro wUh peprdetion derwho Owe thm 100 pea*par tepun ride,over Yu poriod of 1984 In IOU. Source ULL ZQ Urban Land - ,74anuary 1993 21 --- ~ 60o 900 �e 500 s� Boo - -CL u 100 l = 400 too 1,200 " 300 '•= = 500 41 200 -410 400 800 8 100 300 400 650 1,050 1,450 1,850 2,250 1,100 2,300 3.500 4,700 5,900 200 240 300 400 500 600 Rennue Capacity(S per Capital Density(People per 34aere Mile] Intargenrmental Transfers(S per Capital For 59 dtis wW ir'Oietha in Vin Ok with popL0160 detniea or mote tAn 100 peoo per S Mtn mile. s«ese:uu. or state government increases expenditure levels by Notes i 4:TECHNIM RESUUM WS THREE XALYSES OF , $1.37.An increase in density of 500 people per i In the last 15 EAPACITY AND DWENDHURB square mile translates into a$49.50 increase in per- years,growing capita expenditure levels.Apparently,any econo- communities t.Dependent Variable Revenue Capacity per Cape mies associated with higher densities on the service have become in- VarWb 8 Codficisid T statistic supply side are more than offset by higher service creasingly con- population .718 2.343 demands associated with the higher densities. funned about the Jbs per Capita 4.741 4.088 Less strop effects on expenditures are exerted end capital funding R'-.24 fadli- by the proportion of the population that is dependent ties—.suck as Z.DepeedW VwmM t:Cheap M Revenue Capacity per Cam .. (under age 16 or over age 65)and by poverty rates, off-site roads Vatieble 8 CedIWW Tstatistic A two percentage point increase in dependency in- and sewage treat- Charge in Jobs per Capft .436 2344 creases per-capita expenditures by$28,while a simi- ment facilities— Charge in Coristnic ion w Capita .005 4.336 lar increase in poverty increases expenditures by$24. associated with population QVMM Rate .464 4.870 Population size was included in the analysis to new develop- R2=.48 whether or not the effects of economies of meat To provide 3 DepeadaR VarhMe:Ispsa aura per Capita kcales were evident.The results indicate a positive Support for the relationship between population size and expendi- collection of im- Variable B Coemdw T Statift pact fees at the Revenue Cape*per Capita 0.869 9.616 ture levels.They do not reflect either income or front end of the pope 0.417 2.435 land price effects because these are controlled for in development Density •099 7.046 the revenue capacity variable or density effects.The project,they Proportion under 16 years 14.729 2.536 likely explanation for the positive relationship is the have undertaken Proportion over 65 years 14.170 3.170 tendency to add services as a community increases to estimate the kftVWVvamrner- Trardlen; 1.368 6.869 in size,and scale economies make more marginal infrastructure Poverty Rabe IL598 2.968 services more affordable.Larger communities tend costs of new de- R =.78 to offer a broader range of services.Overall,the velopment How- variation in population size exerts a smaller effect ever,most such SOW=UM studies make no than the other factors.An increase in population of p p effort to assess the effects of net costs and revenues over 10,000 is associated with only a$4.17 increase in ex- time.Over time,net revenues from the new development penditure levels. may easily cover the annualized capital costs of off-site in- The bottom line of I LI's analysis of the effects frastructure. of growth on fiscal capacity and expenditure levels 2 There is no doubt about the fiscal impact of a recession, is that both population growth and economic Oobs) especially when property values de-cline in the process: growth increase revenue-generating capacity,and revenues recede quickly while costs do not,producing large revenue capacity is the primary determinant of local deficits and cutbacks in services even though needs are government expenditure levels.Enhanced revenue not declining. capacity makes it possible to increase expenditures 3 See Robert W.Burcheil and David Listokin,Fiscal impact without raising the tax rates or the relative tax bur- Prwedurrs--Stare of the Arc(New Brunswick,New Jersey: dens on the residents.Other factors such as increases Center for Urban Polity r-"'k ensity and size of population, in the proportion Research,Rutgers-the State University, 1992). I. ependent population,and in federal and state transfers tend to raise per-capita expenditure levels to a lesser degree,independent of the effects of in- J.Thomas BIack it ULI's staff vice president for"search creases in per-capita revenue capacity.•: and Rita Curtis n an amciate in LWs rcararrb department. -= -- - 7anuary 1993 • Urban Land 21 AM_RI'_A. . WkP! ANN;NG ASSOCIATION Mee, FEBRUARY 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Costs similar conclusion:sprawl is a significant burden on both of Sprawi, homebuyers and taxpayers. Revisited Who Pays for Growth? While"on-site"development costs(sidewalks,sewer laterals)are By Kevin Karounki passed on to buyers by developers as part of the price of the home, sprawl-related costs that are"off-site"(trunk sewers,water mains, How much does sprawl cost?A new study by the Center for schools,fire stations,treatment plants,widening roads)are another Urban Studies at Rutgers University in New Jersey says sprawl story.While some governments are now charging impact fees to is costing us a bundle. developers for hooking up to this community infrastrucrure,it is The Rutgers study pegged capital costs attributable to sprawl frequently the case that the fuL costs of off-site infiastrucrure go development patterns at S1.3 billion over 20 years for roads,water, unpaid and,as a result,everybody pays—indirectly. sewer,and school facilities.Additional operating and maintenance "We haven't kept pace,"says Jim Nicholas,professor of urban costs of 5400 million also were linked to sprawl development. planning and an economist at the Universin•of Florida."Our Capitalized at current borrowing rates,these annual operation roads,for example,are financed with fixed-base assessments.That and maintenance costs translate into an additional 57-8 billion— doesn't keep up with inflaron,let alone growth.Every time we the cost of sprawl over 20 years grow,every time the inflation clock ticks,we get a bigger and bigger The study was conducted by a team of 20 researchers and gap•" economists at the request of the New Jersey legislature to evaluate Nicholas notes,for instance,that the average combined federal- the impacts of the newly adopted state plan,which advocates more state gasoline tax today is 29 cents.If this tax has been held constant compact patterns of development. for inflation over the years,it would now be 90 cents per gallon. The Rutgers study suggests that if 500,000 new residents arrive The obvious result of this subsidy is heavy reliance on single- New Jersey in the next two decades,each homeowner will pay occupant Vehicle commuting,which clogs roads and gates trafnc 12,000-S]5,000 more for a house because of sprawl development tangles of fiustrating proportions."When you subsidize than they would if development patterns were more compact.This commuting,"Nicholas asks,"is it any wonder that people do it?" supports earlier research findings on significant sprawl-related costs. Nicholas says that the faster growing states—Califomia and In fact,some estimates are wen higher. Florida,for example—were the first to be drawn into the dilemma In a 1989 monograph for the Urban Land Institute,James Frank,associate professor of urban and regional planning at •• •A4,0 "i1't(N�4 OP-M8 55N5f-I0P4L' ON "N54 Florida State University, GOMMUN17TY.. . t&W -N< f=2V6NUES; NON J06S PIKO estimated a 58,000-per-house NON BUSIN5G5eG; INCF,`ptiG �IC. GfONTH sprawl"premium"for providing BOU�LD servicrs to three-unit-per-acre �ytp� Mph MOM development located 10 mils 1 t NO USES, R�►a5 �Ce � NtiO� from central facilities and I �t ' EdDC t �Q`�•• ••• PM .. employment centers.The sane costs for a home in a 12-unit- per-acre development located ' closer to facilities,with an equal U v , 3 mix of townhouses,garden - apartments,and single-family homes,would be 50 percent lower. Development costs vary with PLP'NNINO BC.MRD lot sizes,distance to central facilities,proximity to existing f...N' evclopment,community m ographics,existing service ce paeity,and the requirements ' of local codes and standards.Yet numerous studies dating back I to 1955 0 point toward a of :o-crom." in tact,the tax rn-oits that began with the cost tat an average home. Bu:.iiice bilk for Mater aiad st`wer Proposctan i_; to Caiirorma.and eon-mue to:his day,are an sen,ces.most impact fees are assessed on an average-cos, hasis. the .a indirect ackno viedgement that current patterns and rates of impact fees on a new home located 10 niiies from a treatment plant 4rvciopmcn:simpi.\ are not sustainable,As federal subsidies for tend to be the same as those levied on homes two miles away.rtien aerstate highways,sewer work,and other pubiic infrastructure though the actual costs of providing services to the former may be 4.a: made sora-1 possible disappeared over the pact two decades much higher. (witnour any apparent cut in federal taxes),the public simph,was To address this equin,issue.some jurisdictions, including nor willing to see those costs shifted to state and local government Tallahassee.Florida,and DuPage Counn-.Illinois,have begun to budgets.As a result,government's ability to cope with growth move toward geographically variable fees.a variation of°marginal pressures is often paralyzed."We have now effectively neutralized cost"pricing.Other jurisdictions in Florida and California are government's ability to raise money."saes Nicholas. seliing"pre-paid subscriptions" to landowners and developers who plan on hooking into public service systems within the next 20 A Question of Fairness years. TO add to the complexity of the issue,the costs of sprawl are not Frank think that many local governments now have the distributed evenly.uthen new developments are built far from analytical capacity to create more sophisticated marginal pricing water and sewer treatment plants or schools,it creates higher systems.Yet acceptance of marginal cost pricing by local incremental or"marginal"costs for adding new sewer system governments has been slow.The problem,"Politicians don't like to caoacity or operating school buses. By contrast,the marginal cost of charge voters one rate and others a differenr onc," notes Frank.Jim new develooment closer to existing services or facilities is lower. Nicholas seconds that observation,noting that average-cast pricing However,becausc costs currently are evenly distributed among all has been used because it is simpler and easer to defend in court. users by average-cost pricing.those who live farther away pay appearingto be fair—even if it really isn't. proporrionateh•less.As a result,some users subsidize other users. Nicholas believes the shift to marginal cost pricing can happen FSU's Frank says the result is"an enormous price subside."He only if impact fees arc an accepted realiry in a jurisdiction and there estimates that the true marginal costs of providing sewer sera ice to a is a;aod history of case law regarding their consritutionaiin•and new home can range from 52,738 to 526,263—far higher than methodology.Frank suggests that One v,•ay to build support for a most existing impact fees.And because newer homes tend to be more equitable pricing system may be to build coalitions of people most affordable for high-income buyers,this inequiry often in low-cost locations who are willing to complain that sewer rates translates into a subsidy of the rich by the poor,Frank says. are far too high because high-cost locations are not being charged "There is a tremendous equiry issue here,'sav Nicholas."What full cost,The difficulty with building such coalitions is that a clear we've evolved is capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich. geographic break may not actually exist in terms of land ownership So many problems we have today can be related back:to that." patterns. One visible impact of this subsidy is sprawl.V?hy?As with \Xt"nen officials in L.ee County,Florida.proposed a S7,500 bsidies for the automobile,subsidies for sprawl simply encourage "sprawl"surcharge on outlying development,it was met with"near more development in costly-to-serve locations,because developers riots"at a public hearing,with iirde support even from existing are allowed ro pass off some of their costs to the general public.A homeowners in central locations,according to Nicholas.A public less visible impact of subsidies is the ongoing fiscal distress of many poll later revealed that many of the existing homeowners were growing communities.Frank believes that cuing average-cost speculating on land at the urban fringe that would be subject to the pricing"systematialh•underfunds"public services.Actual marginal new surcharge. costs are often higher that assessed costs,creating an ever-widcning fiscal deficit for local and state governments. Melding Markets and Law The larger question,says Nicholas,is whether full cost/marginal Recapturing the Costs of Sprawl cost pricing would influence development at all.He notes that in V;-hat an be done to account fully for the cost of development and Lee County.the proposed S. 500 surcharge would have been a eliminate inequities in the current system' WriE t taxpayers already minor portion of the cost of$200.000-5400.000 homes or of lots pushed to the limit,and many governments facing huge deficits,is valued at more than S 100,000."If the issue is trying to affect there hope for changing course? development patterns,don't hook your cart to this horse(full-cast Communities increasingly are charging impact fees for schools, pricing),"%%arns Nicholas."It is certainly a component of roads,and sewers.According to Jim Nicholas,these fees can be as solution.But would sprawl go away if development picked up high as S50,000 on a single-family home in some parts of the all these costs?I think the answer is no." country,in other places,impact fees are nonexistent.The average Nicholas observes that"12w sets the parameter of the impact fee for a single-family home is S 10,000.but is growing at a marketplace.If we don't like the results of the marketplace,then rate of 20 percent per year.Typical rata are$7 per square foot for we need to go back to those laws and either restructure them or retail space,S6 per square foot for office development.and SS per somehow modify they to get the results we want,"One strategy he square foot for industry. recommends is tailoring planning incentives to reduce road impact Nicholas sees impact fees rising to an average of 525.000 to Pecs if a developer agrees to promote vanpooling or mass transit,as $30,000 per single family home--not an insubstantial portion of is done in Montgomery County,Maryland.Similar incentives could be createa to encourage compact development,affordable Kevin Kasewsii is director of the National Growth Afanagement housing,and other desirable outcomes. �•ea,,4 p Project in Portland Oregon. NGAILP i;a 21-statr nerwo,k conservation and planning organi atioru.Its mission is to advocate Least-Cost Development MEN new state and regional solutions to managinggrowtly through Another intriguing way to use market and regulatory strategies education, research,and leadership.develapmenr. This article originally togcther to contain sprawl—particularly in an era of ti,,hr money-- appeared in Developments, the NGAILP newdarer, may be the idea of"least-cost"development.The electric power 2 Industn is new using ant IcaSt-cos, principle In the hacinc More an irhe Northwest as a tact\ of imestsn:In conservation instead of new ,j �s plant capacity•. Because comervation an free up suppiy by iowcring Rutgers Study -- -•nand,it can be an roualiy cast-effective wav of generating,"new' of the �r.or what energy emciency guru Amon•Lovins calls New Jersey ra�vams." ;�- in the Northwest.utilities are now permitted to include the cost State Plan of providing conservation tools(low-energy bulbs,insulation) to consumers in their rate bases,much as the cost of new power plants Two years after the adoption of New Jersey's Interim State �.- have been included.The result is a new source of funding for Development and Redevelooment Plan.Rutgers Universin• investment in enerR,erncient tnfrasrrucrure. has assessed the plan and concluded that it will bring benefits to Can the same concept be applied to create more efficient, New Jersn•and its citizens that traditional development will not. compact,and conservation-minded development patterns?Henry The aim of the plan is to encourage development in existing urban Richmond,executive director of 1000 Friends of Oregon.and and rural centers and to discourage low-densin=sprawl.The founder of the National Growth Management Leadership Project, findings of the assessment are important to all states and local thinks it might. governments that are rethinking current development patterns As the recent Rutgers stud} in New Jersey indicates,the cost of and finding it difficult to finance infrastructure needed to serve building in more compact development panerns is much lower new development. than the current"business as usual"approach of allowing inefficient The plan assessment w•as done with a series of models that sprawl.Can we allocate those cost savings from fewer miles of roads simulate zrowth in the state under traditional (TREND)and and water and sewer lines(let's all them"negamiles")to the rate planned(IPLAN)development.According to the executive -'gy bases of various public service providers(school,road,and sewer summary of the impact assessment,the 1989 State Planning Act districts)and use that money as a w•av to fund new investments in "requires an assessment be undertaken of the economic be transit,housing,and efficient development parrerns? environmental,infrastructure,community lift,and Obviousiv,electric utilities and public service districts differ in intergovernmental coordination implications of the plan." terms of profit and nonprofit status,size,and scale,and these The following is a summary of the findings in four of these areas: differences would need to be accounted for in designing a lent-con development system.Yet Richmond believes the principle may be Economic Assessment worth further investigation: It was recognized that national and multistate regional forces "The idea of least-cost planning has been a tremendous positive shape New Jersey s economic growth,not state and local forces. step for the utiliry industry.It only makes sense that we should now ^Therefore both growth alternatives accommodate 520,000 new ine how the principle could be applied to planning for land residents.408.000 new households,and 654.000 new iobs,over and new development." the 20-year study period from 1990 to 2010.Although the same number of new permanent jobs and construaion jobs are expected under both scenarios,major urban centers will benefit more(in terms of jobs created)from IPLAN than will suburban and rural American Farmland Trust. Demit)•Re/aud Pub&Costs. areas.under IPLAN,suburban and rural areas will gain fewer Washington,D.C., 1986. permanent jobs,and also will have a smaller reduction in unemployment. _ Downing,Paul B.and Richard D.Gusrely."The Public Service By containing population and jobs in already developed Costs ofAlrernative Development Patterns:A Review of the areas and by creating or expanding centers in newly developing °- Evidence." in Local Service Pricing PoLcies and Their FjTrcr on Urban areas,IPLAN offers an annual$112 million fiscal advantage to Spatial Structure.Vancouver.Univcrsiry of British Columbia Press, municipalities.This advantage reflects the ability to draw on usable 1977. excess operating capacity in already developed areas.Public school DuPage County Regional Planning Commission.Inrpaers of districts are projeaed to realize a 5286 million annual financial DeveLrpment ore DuAage County Prope ny Taxes.Wheaton,111. 1991. advantage under IPLAN. Frank,James 1L T/sr Costs ofAlrmuttiue Developme?n Panmu: Environmental Assessment A Review of the Literature.Washington.D.C.:Urban Land Development under TREND will require 292,000 acres for new Institute. 1989. development,but IPLAN would consume only about 165,000 acres to accommodate the same number of households and jobs.TREND lsard.Walter and Robert E.Coughlin.Municipal Costs and �demands 28 percent more farmland and 67 percent more of 1957.urs Rtiulri,rg from Growth. VGrclleslcy,Mass.:Chandler-Davis, other vacant lands for the same level of development.Under IPLAN. � 19x7' no prime agricultural land would be lost.One drawback of!PLAN is Real Estate Research Corporation, The Costs ofSprau=1.•Ucuiltd Con the potential for loss in landowners'equiry of 5350 million in"lost Analwis.Washington.D.C.:U.S.Government Printing Office, development value."resulting from development being steered from 1974, prime agricultural areas.Development under IPLAN is projected to t consume 80 percent fewer acres of sensitive lands—forests.steep " nc,P.A. 77x Srrsrrnrrr.Siu,,rrrd Costs nf'Ilrbarr Sctticrrurus• slopes.and w•atcrshcds—than would"1`IiI:Nt). ibridgc, England:Gamhridge Univcrsin Press, 1971. V'ater pollutants from stormwater runoff will be decreased L% than Land Institute. F_ffrru ofC.rrge Lot.Si:r on Residential 4,500 tons under 1PIAN compared with-I'RE'•\D.The Butlers Development.Technical Bulletin No.32. Washington, D.C.. 1958. assessment acknowledged that tighter emission controls avill reduce -5" 3 �- relate more to the ripe and geographic location of cal=re development. For example.housine costs in outlying areas prom W'hci planning will same in New jersey: will increase because future vcloprnent will be iimlted in rhos: 1 areas.This will be balanced by reduced housing costs in urban ar J infrastructure (over ZO years) rural centers,resulting from an increased mix of housing types a:. Local roads $650 million higher densities in those areas. State roads $90 million Final))',the study team deveio ^ed 18 obiecrive criteria to crca: Water $61 million quality-of--life index.The index depicts six dimensions e`the c,.:a Sewer $374 million of community life:economic well-being,housing value and Schools $200 million ownership,property tax base and rates,public saren',school Total $1.38 billion achievement,and community amenin. The executive summary notes that the emphasis is on public Operating Costs anneal services and taxation,rather than on other commonly used node Po 9 (annually) of quality of life,such as environment and climate.In comparing } Municipal $112 million the two development scenarios,it was determined that quality'or School S286 million life would improve under both TREND and IPLAN.However, Total $400 million households that seek redeveloping neighborhoods under IPLA.N V see a slower improvement in their quality of life than if they hat Land Use and Resources moved to a rural fringe area. Farmland 30,000 acres over 20 years The researchers note that the purpose of the impact assessme- "Frail" land 29,000 acres over 20 years was to answer the"big question":Is New Jersn,better oFv.-i&.e Water 2.5 million gallons per day without the state plan?Their answer,upon completion of the Sewage 800,000 gallons per day assessment,was that the state and its citizens will benefit from plan.Darn generated from the models has provided planners,pas: officials,and citizens of New Jersey with the ability to make air pollution controls attributable to traffic by 2010,regardless of informed decisions about the state plan. which development scenario takes plate The great value of the impact assessment for all planners is rn: knowledge that there is solid,dollars-and-cents evidence that Infrastructure Assessment planning does pay off,particularly when the effort is directed Bemuse fewer lane-miles of state and loci roads will be built under inward minimizing sprawl. LAN,the assessment indicates there is a potential statewide savings A copy of the executive summary enthe Impact Assessment PLAN, sts. of the New Jersey Interim Development and Redevelopment of$740 million in road construction co Both TREND and MAN will crate additional demand for Plan is available from the New Jersey Office of State Planning, 609-292-fi156. public transportation,but in different geographic areas and for different types of services.In general,the scattered development patterns expected with TREND will increase the number of municipalities needing low-level bus service.On the other hand, Cali for Information IP1.AN will crate demand for service on existing local bus systems _ 1 and may decrease demand on several commuter rail lines. The APA Research Department has received a grant from the I Demand for water and sewer services will be comparable under Federal Emergency Management Agency to prepare a PAS Repo IPIAN and TREND,but development patterns under IPLAN will on designing subdivisions in flood hazard areas.We are looking r mean savings in construction of new infrastructure In the can of innovative floodplain ordinances,design standards for subdivisio: water,use of existing infrastructure,increased cluster development, in floodplains,sample site plans of subdivisions that are designee and more attached and multifamily housing will bring a savings of minimize flood risks,and related material. $61 million over the 20-year period A savings of$374 million in I Please send material to Marya Morris,Senior Research Associ. sewer infrastructure expenses is expected for the same reason. APA, 1313 E.60th St.,Chicago,IL 60637. Looking at school facilities,because excess capacity exists in both urban and nasal areas,only a small savings(5200 million)would result from IPLAN versus TREND. Community We Assessment The PASMr,eis is a monthly publication for subscribers to the Planning Ads^ison This assessment includes housing supply and demand,housing cost, Service,a subscription research service of the American Planning Association: and quality of life.Under IPLAN,demand for townhouses and Israel Stoliman,Executive Director,Frank S.So.Deputy Executive Director. multifamily units will be higher than under TREND.But overall' The PAS Mrmis is prodssccd by APA stag in Chicago.Research and writing by Rasa Department staff:Marys Morris.Editor.Production by Publications Department v 2.5 out of four homes built under IPLAN will be single-family Cynthia Cheski,Assistant Editor.Dennis McClendon.Design Director. detached.Interestingly,housing affordability is predicted to increase Copyright 01993 by American Planning Association.1313 E.Goth St., under both IPLAN and TREND.The study team predicted that, Chicago.IL 60637.The American Planning Association has headquarters because the projected inflation rate(just over five percent)will offices at 1776 Massachusetts Ave..N.W.,Washington.DC 20036. i outstrip the predicted increase in housing costs(slightly below five All right reserved.No part of this publication may be rcproduccd or utdiscd in s- ip p 8 .^ form or by any means,electronic or mechanical,including photocopying.recor(t^: 1 percent),housing will be eight to 12 percent cheaper for New Jersey or by any information storage and retrieval system.without permission in writing residents in 2010 under the TREND development scenario, from the American Planning Association. The reasons for improved housing affordability under IPLAN Printed on recycled paper,including 50.70%recycled fiber and 10%Postconsumer waste. 4 armland p report ... covering the policies, practices and fri fiotives that promote farmland and open spore retention Transferable development credits Community-based transfers could provide new TDR model SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA—A fresh approach to with its steep slopes and native Monterey Pine. transferring development potential in San Luis After the county assigns development credits to Obispo County,California,could provide a model the lots,the credits are sold to homebuilders for localities nationwide seeking to retire develop- seeking to build larger homes on less sensitive ment rights without the political trauma of desig- lots within the community. nating common receiving areas. In the Cambria program,sending and receiv- County officials recently awarded a contract to ing areas are "married." Every transaction is a local land conservancy to develop a program in carried out by the Conservancy. which development credits are transferred only The Conservancy's community based ap- . within the same community and on a voluntary, proach,Belknap said, gives the transfer concept a project by project basis.An existing transferable better chance at political viability because the development credits aDC) program in the county results are"visible and immediate" to the people _ will be used as a model affected most by them,and because the public In the mid-80's,San Luis Obispo officials participation is confined to one community, . 'downzoned" the gross structural area allowed on where participants take responsibility for citing lots,creating a market for development credits both the receiving and sending sites. based on square footage.Since 1987,the Land The one-year pilot project will produce sup- Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County,with a portive data for designating receiving and send- revolving fund from the California Coastal Conser- ing sites,as well as criteria and procedures for a vancy,has been purchasing lots in antiquated long-term program that would be applicable subdivisions in the coastal community of Cambria, ;tease tsme to page 2 New fiscal impact study says be wary of industrial growth STAUNTON,VA--Industry may be the fiscal development, the study said. "Developed land strong arm of Virginia's Augusta County,but (taking residential, commercial,and industrial because new industry also generates increased land together)still created a net deficit in the residential growth,a strained.fzscal climate could county budget for FY 91." result unless a balance is determined,according to a study by the Valley Conservation Council,a non- Flaw tm to p:ge 4 -profit group concentrating on planning and land use issues. Volume 3,Number 7 April 1"3 Although industrial and commercial uses inside this issue ... together contributed the lion's share of the county's gross revenues in 1991, "these uses help attract new AFI-s Grassi calls for major shift in ag policy..............p.3 residents to the county,and in FY 91 the surplus Fiscal impact studies,sources for study.......................p.6 from [these uses) was not b itself large h to Two counties opt for installment purchases ................p.6 y g a enou g FPR publisher to lead APA conference session ...........p.8 make up for the deficit created by residential Legislative briefs............................................................p.6,7 B0w9ra Farmland Preservation Report is published 10 Ornes per year.Subscription rate of 5153 irrludes tar spacial reports,annotated bibliography Pubhishing and index service. sack issues:53.Editorial and circulation ofAees:900 La Grange Rd.,Sir"t.Maryland 21154 -(410)622.2708. inc. lSSN:1050.6373. O 1923 by flowers Pubishirq Inc,Reproduction in any corm without permission from the publisher is strictly prohibited. Page 4 farmland preservation report April 1943 Virginia study says farmland protection makes fiscal sense inued fmm page 7 Augusta Co.,Va.:Land use costs St revenue When the figures are taken by themselves, the 1199I Residential I/C E Form use study said, industrial and commercial uses look Gross 43201,662 10,558,629 6281 AU enticing-just 20 cents provided in services for every Revenue 71.9501'. 17.59% 10.46% dollar they generate in revenue. Farm and rural land uses, as in other fiscal Gross impact studies,were shown to contribute more E)Pendi- 52,825,374 2.073,441 5D52221 tures dollars to county coffers than they use in services, 88.11% 3.4b% 8.43% but did cost more than industrial uses: 80 cents Net 9.6 million 8.5 million 1.2 million spent for every dollar generated. deficit/ deficit contribution contribution The county spent$1.22 for every dollar gener- contribution ated from residential land uses. The study was performed as the county pre- Average pares to update its comprehensive plan,-according Net -140.76 +378.75 +4.17 Revenue to John Hutchinson of the Valley Conservation per Acre Council, which conducted the study over the past year through a grant from the state's Center on Costs Per$1 1 1.22 .20 .80 Rural Development (see FPF,March 1992). generated The study's goals were to determine current $&.Me: Land Uw and Cownva*C*Oa in"WO County,Vbgbft land uses dividing them into four categories; to de- termine the rate of farm and forestland conversion necessary to derive a more accurate accounting of between 1959 and 1992;and,to assign revenues and farmland loss in the county between 1987 and 1992 ditu t the four categories.To meet criteria .2e res; o That loss was estimated at eight percent and was 'red by the Center on Rural Development, the added to a 14 percent loss cited by the Census of dy used data and methodology that can be Agriculture for the period of 1959 to 1987. duplicated in other Virginia counties. Land in farms, using both the Census and the The Augusta County study differs from other county's real property data from the two separate fiscal impact studies in at least one important periods,decreased from 338,281 acres in 1959 to respect,Hutchinson said.Part of the county's 269,117 acres in 1992,a decrease of 69,164 acres,an expenditures to serve households,largely schools, approximate 20 percent decline.The county's real was attributed to the farm/forest use category.The property files,which place all county land uses into purpose,he said,was to better reflect the nature of 32 categories,nine of which relate to ag use,could land use in Augusta,and to guarantee the study not be used as historic data, thus the current farm- would yield a conservative estimate of the deficit land loss figure was derived using both census and created by residential uses,a point of criticism of real property data. •: _. : r- : .1- - other studies. And,no method is available to the county to . "We're not saying these numbers are exactly derive a figure that can be said to be reliable, right,but we think that overall we've been more . Hutchinson said. than fair.If criticism were to come,it would be that "I don't think there is a one-hundred percent, we put too many expenses onto ag and forest uses ' dead-on mechanism for[determining) the amount and didn't claim enough revenue ... if anything, of farmland historically ... one thing we're trying to our numbers are low in terms of residential costs," do is to convince the county to do a natural re- Hutchinson said. sources survey," Hutchinson said. In addition to altering the attribution of service Furthermore,such capability is lacking in the costs, the study customized its definition of agricul- state,he said. "Nobody is really counting, for this lands to include all rural land not being used county or, probably, for the state. Nobody is really ornmercial, industrial or residential purposes tracking these things." 992,whether or not income was derived from Kat Imhoff, executive director for the (Va.) agricultural production—a departure from Census Commission on Population Growth and Develop- of Agriculture procedure,which the study found please continue to next page 11993 taratLa preservation report Page s uses in the county is "to preserve and protect the Ascd impoct studies:Sources for study farmlands within the county so that agricultural • cost of Develocrnent:Residential Fiscal k npact A ysis enterprise can be continued and production im- of Wright County,Mirw»sola.sponsored by the Mrnnesoio proved in the future." Dept. of Ag6cLMV9 and conducted by Resource Manage- But that goal has not been taken seriously, merit Coruuitants,Inc.Results were used in drafting zoning Hutchinson said The county's zonin not based on plans to encourage grow .growth near existing infrastructure and y as o guide for farmland preservation planning. Contact: density allowances,provides the countVs farmland PMCI. (2CZ 408-517 t. as a catch-all for a plethora of uses,and allows . impacts of Development on DuPape county Property "extensive changes zones that don't Taxes,prepared by the DuPage Co.,Minots.Pk w an es wing g pg Division,Oct. 1991.Study found that residential tax levies require rezoning, Hutchinson said.Up to two lots increased during periods of industrial growth,contrary to can be partitioned on any existing parcel,by acquir- tradttioncl ossumptions. Contact:OuPope Co.Planning. (7ob)682-7230. ing a building permit. • Northeastem Rtinois Metropolitan Region Strategic Man "The county almost never denies a rezoning," NorrttMeeostern Nlin`ots Mannning�lCOTmWon(NIIPC)June Hutchinson said. `They've never denied a rezoning 1992.Made 68 recommendations based on the study's because the services weren't in place ... rezonings conclusion that wasteful kind development pokcies ore are not denied to protect agriculture," he said. largely responsible for current fiscal crises in the region. Contact:NIPC, t3IZ 454-04L10. Hutchinson said nearly all of the countywide .The Tax tow and the lax EtB.sponsored by the Vermont region's growth has occured in the county,outside League of Cities and Towns and the Vermont Natural of the city oundaries nor to recent annexations. Resources Council.Sept. 1990,prepared by Ad Hoc ty p Associates.Describes the results of a study that choienged Rural areas are experiencing growth pressure not common ossumptfons about the Impact of development only from Waynesboro and Staunton,but from on taxes. Contact.Ad Hoc Associates,(80Z 352-9074. Washington,D.C. and West Virginia,as new resi- •Dondly-Rebted Public Cash,American Farmland Trust, � 1986.Contact:AFT,(2023459-512a dents settle in to enjoy Augusta County's peaceful • Now to Do a cost of community Services Study,nand- and scenic character and its thriving economy. book by the American Farmland Trust.Northeast Office. Contact.AFL(413)586-9330. The county has also experienced recent indus- trial growth,including a new Hershey chocolate Augusta County, p.«xatng pogo plant.A new J.C.Penny distribution center, which will employ 2,500 to 3,000 people is being built just ment,said part of that commission's strategy for across the county line,but,Hutchinson fears, "half developing statewide planning is to establish a the people will live in Augusta County." statewide geographic information system (GIS) The Valley Conservation Council is concerned network that could include farmland,although about a 1000-unit proposal for the county's Blue natural resources is not at the top of the list to be Ridge area,that will include a hotel complex.The inventoried. "We're talking about data layers-- Council,which has not testified on development infrastructure,911 applications are higher priori- proposals in its two and a half year existence,may .. ties," in many areas,she said. - provide comments on this one,Hutchinson said. The Augusta County study estimated that "People don't think of this area as one that is within the countywide region,which includes the growing at an incredible rate," Hutchinson said. cities of Staunton and Waynesboro, 14,424 acres The truth is,he said,Augusta County is right were converted to residential uses in the 1980s, behind Northern Virginia in its rate of growth and . when the countywide population grew by 14 in its inability and lack of will to control growth. percent.Between 1960 and 1990,population in- The Council will likely point up weak points in the creased by 63 percent,but the number of new county's pion and zoning code,and recommend the homes grew by 118 percent within the county's Board of Supervisors strive to channel new growth borders--excluding Staunton and Waynesboro to existing urban centers,Hutchinson said. and before recent annexations,according to the U.S. Augusta County is located along the I-81 corri- Census. Hutchinson said measuring farmland loss dor at Staunton, where I-81 intersects with 1-64 west could be done by showing growth in the number of of Charlottesville. Contact: Valley Conservation OUSing units and figuring the average acreage Council at (703) 886-3541, Read More:Ask for "Land ed, "but it would have to move over time." Use and Community Costs in Augusta County, Vir- The county's comprehensive plan, last updated ginia," Feb. 93,55 pages. Contact:john Hutchinson, in 1987,states that the primary goal for agricultural (703)337-8019;Kat Imhoff, (804)371 4949. r iWASSOCIATION AMERICAN PLANNING BL1 �/ MARCH 1993 A special edition o,f the !'AS Memo published quarterly and aevoted to public investment and finance • ! • • • • • f • • • • • ! • • { • ! • i • i • • ! • • ! i ! f f ! ! { ! { i ! ! • f ! t • f • { i { f • i f • i i ! • i ! i f Farmland Pays Costs,in which AFT reorganized community records to determine Ift Oven Wary the net effect of each land use.Bef-,re the Massachusetts studies, COCS studies had been done in Dutchess Counn,New Fork, By Mu w Morris in 1989,and in Hebron,Connecticut,in 1986. The findings of COCS studies have been used to dispel The American Farmland Trust(AFT)has published a study that common claims that residential development increases iocal concludes that farmland more than pays its own%-Ay in propem propexry tar,income,that resource conservation is too expensive at taxes.The final report,Doc Farmland Prorecrion Pa)? is a summary the local level,and that farmland does nor contribute signi candy of three cost of community service studies(COCS)in Agawam, to the tax base and is therefore best converted to a different use. Deerfield,and Gill in the pioneer Valley along the Connecticut River in western Massachusetts.The studies provide evidence that, Methodology while private farm and open lands do not generate as much gross The objective of a COCS study is to compare annual income and income as do developed lands,their need for public services is so expenses for four different land uses.As the report sates,"they are minimal that their net efr"ea on the fax base is a surplus. a snapshot in time of costs versus revenues per land parcel."Unlike "Although our research is not meant to show that growth a focal impact analysis,a COOS study does not predict the impact doesn't pay,it does suggest that development options are not of future land uses,'but rather gives public officials the benefit of .always necessary for towns to ensure economic stability,*says Julia a look back at the effects of past actions." Freedeood,author of the report.The northeastern office of AFT The Massachusetts studies began with AFT staff meeting with was hired by the Massachusetts Department of Food and local officials to set goals,explain the limits of the study,and Mc, Agriculture to conduct the study. identify local sources of information."Sponsors"from each AFT developed the COCS technique because rural and community were chosen,such as the manor or planning director, suburban fringe communities often Lack the staff and financial to provide oversight and support for each study. resources necessary to generate data to prove the relative value to the Their first task was to identify the basic land-use categories to community of different types of land uses,particularly farmland. be analyzed.The towns of Deerneld and Agawam used residential, The technique evolved from a 1986 report,Density Relaud PubLc commercial,industrial,and farmlopen land.in Gill,however, PW ._ • r'`!r`Jw` F�� 'tw+ j`�if..i'..•CI.-,sY`. �,f.1.±^ i.. vMl. t s L N r 74%Residential 69%Residential R 65%Restoenhal r. 2474 Commercial/ 26%Commercial/ 21%Commercial/ Industrial Industrial Industrial Form/Open Land 5%Form/Open Land ,; 14%Form/Open land A> 91%Residential 89%Residential - 87%Residenhol rvl.% 8%Commercial/ " 10%Commercial/ •"" 8%Commercial/ Industrial Industrial Industrial Form/Open Land 1%Form/6pen Land Form/Open Land sponsors chose not to differentiate between commercial and basis.Snte aid to schools was considered a residential revenue. industrial lands. Local receipts such as the motor vehicle tax,licenses,and permits, The next step for the researchers was to obtain reliable revenue were each apportioned by land use"as much as possible,"says the and expuue figures.All financial records for each town from a report. recent,typical year(meaning one that was not a boom or bust The researchers had an easier time categorizing revenues financially)were reviewed for the calculations.Important data came according to land-use type than expenditures because tax records from the towns'annual reports and Tax Rate Recapitulation Forms, include lot numbers,acres,property classification,and value. On sheets all Massachusetts towns and cities must submit to the state the contrary,most data on expenditures was not kept according to outlining their projected revenues and appropriations to determine land use.Researchers had to rely on budget allocations, local tax rates.The state Department of Revenue provided departmental expense reports,other financial data,and extensive information on state aid for eduction and transportation.This step interviews with service providers. also involved extensive interviewing of local officials and service Expenditures were grouped in five classes:general government, providem public safety,eduction,human services,and public works. Eduarion and human services were considered residential expenses Allocating Revenues and Expenses because they serve town residents directly.Building and zoning After the data were collected,the income and expenses on each department expenses were based on the number of permits and budget were reorganized to correspond with the assigned land-use inspections required for each land-use sector.The expenses of other categories.Discrepancies arose when deciding which types of lands services,such as police and fire,were more difficult to allocate by (and the resultant property tax income)should go into each land- land rue.Much of police and fire department annual budgets go to use Category.For example,the state of Massachusetts considers inspections,public eduction,and safety,none of which was easy to certain farm land to be commercial property.Bur,as Freedgood attribute to a specific use.Also,reviewing fire department records acknowledges"the nar=of[firm land)use and the type of services helped determine where the calls came from but did not make dear it requires are more closely associated with open land than with how much it cost to put each fire out Instead resarchers had to malls,morels,or movie theaters."Therefore,revenue generated by interview fire chiefs to determine how long it took to put each fire faun lands is included in the farm and open lands section,not the our,how many fire fighters were called in,and how much commercial section,on the spreadsheet. equipment was used A similar process was used to alloCare police Conversely,property taxes from farm houses and housing for department expenses.As the report states,"Domestic violence,for farm workers was attributed to the residential category.Also,taxes example was charged to residential.Cows in the road went to farm generated from rented homes were subtracted from commercial and open land" and added to residential.As Freedgood explains,"This is because a Public works expenses,particularly highways,proved to COCS study is concerned with who demands services,not the legal be the most d5cult to allocre-In some instances there was smtus of the property.Whether residents are farmers Iiving on the information available on the types orvehicles using the roads land or renters leasing from an absentee landlord,they require the and the frequency of trips,but for the most part,local sponsors same type of public services." were celled upon to make estimations. Other sources of income also had to be allocated on a land-use Finally,AFT researchers relied on the percentage of property rax 2 revenue paid by each sector as a guide to distributing revenue and dialogue beyond the sax questions to consider viable economic expenditures in cases where the sources were unclear.For=-n development rather titan growth for the salve of growth." 74.5 percent of property tax revenue in Agawam is from residential The report alsoµems that,although commercial and industrial 15.6 from commercial,8.2 percent from industrial,and 1.7 sectors were found to onset residential deficits,these sectors may cent from farm and open land.Therefore a revenue like"free not always oe"pure revenue generators."A study by the Vermont cash,"whit^,consisted of leftover income from a previous year,was league of Cities and Towns, Tne 1 ax Baas and rhr Tar Bill• 7az divided up so the 74.5 percent was aliocated to the residential ImpLarionr,_rDevelopmenr(1990),showed that property taxes sector, 15.6 percent to commercial,and so on for industrial and were highest in towns with the most commercial and industrial open lands. development.That study's authors explain that commercial and industrial development spurs residential development,which in -Findings rum drives up demand for public services.Those findings echo a The researchers found that farm and open lands"proved to be similar,although controversial,study done in DuPage County, respectable contributors to town income,and economical to serve Illinois,in 1991 (see Pub&Invertmem,September 1991). on a net basis."In fact,these lands were the least expensive to serve. The AFT report concludes with a discussion of the problems In Gill,for example, 12.2 percent of the town's total revenues came and opportunities of farmland preservation in the Pioneer Valley. from farm and open land,but only five percent of the town's Sans Freedgood,"The real issue is not whether to develop,but expenses were devoted to serving these areas.The findings were where and how and when to develop."Given that reality, similar in Deerfield,x,here 4.3 percent of total revenues were "communities need m decide what they want to be like in the artributabic to farm and open lands,while just 1.4 percent of future and manage the pattern of development to achieve their expenditures went tc service in these areas.Agawam followed the goals." same pattern. Currently,most new development occurs on farmland because On the other hand,the study revealed that the cost of providing these properties are already cleared,flat,and drained.To counteract services to residential area consistently exceeded the income raised this,communities can adopt zoning and land-use controls that by that sector in all three towns.In Ag %,am,the residential sector provide incentives to protect productive farm land.This could accounted for 74.5 percent of property tax revenues and 81 percent include raising funds to purchase development rights,supporting of all revenues.But it required 91 percent of expenditures.In agricultural enterprise zones,and adopting subdivision controls Deerfield,residential revenues comprised 71.4 percent of the town's with density bonuses for clustered development.The report total income,but 88.9 percent of total expenses.And in Gill,69.9 acknowledges that most small towns and rural communities lack percent of revenues came from the residential sector,but 86.6 the financial resources to do comprehensive planning.This problem percent of service costs went to residential areas. could hamper their ability to implement changes in zoning and In dollar-for-dollar terms,Deerfield spent S 1.15 for services Iand-use policies. residential areas for every dollar generated in that senor.The Finally,communities must begin to view farmland protection enuelservice ratio for residential services vans similar in the as an investment in rural k&stnucturc and an dement of local other towns.In contrast,public services for farm and open land in economic development."In the 1980s in Massachusetts,farms and Deerfield cost 38 cents on the dollar.The aggregate ratios for the related businesses accounted for S16 billion of the$123 billion state three towns x-as S 1.12 spent on public services for every dollar economy.Food processing plants alone generated$3.5 billion in raised by residential uses,compared with 33 cents in service costs sales.The report encourages towns to evaluate the economic for every dollar generated by farm and open lands. benefits and amenities that farm and open lands provide,beyond the property tax contributions revealed in a COCS study.With What it all means solid evidence that agriculture can be an economic development The findings of the study are important to local officials,planners, engine,town leaden an gain support for financial incentives for and citizens of the Pioneer Valley for several reasons.The region agriculture-based businesses,including grower cooperatives, experienced unprecedented growth in the 1980s,which fueled a improved roadside stand facilities,and new processing plants. huge increase in property values.The majority of this development k•as low-density residential sprawl.Although the higher property valuations resulted in higher assessments,the increased revenues could nor cover the increased cost of providing public services to Glendale Makes newly developed areas. Industrial Location In contrast,the report points out that although farm and open SIMPLE lands may have nor raised considerable revenue,they were not a drain on the towns'resourcm Freedgood says this parrcm was so Glendale,Arizona,a northwest suburb of Phoenix,has come up consistent among each COCS study that it has led her"to question with a unique way to lure industry.Glendale's economic some traditional assumptions,like what is meant by'highest and development department,in conjunction with the city's fire, best use.'It's a mistake to view prime farmland as open space just infrastructure,planning and zoning departments,local archireas, waiting around to be developed."She believes chat these findings and construction professionals,has developed a generic building may help towns resist pressure to develop simply to increase the specification and site plan called SIMPLE—Strategic Industrial tax base,especially if the bulk of the development is residential. Muter Plan and Landscape Encerprise Valley residents are also concerned about protecting the rural SIMPLE is an adaptable 50,000-squ2re-foot building,with aracter of the region and the effect rapid development has had on appropriate parking and landscaping.The building is designed for eir quality of life.Increased traffic congestion,pollution,noise, 80 percent plant operations and 20 percent office space and it u and crime are ail probable byproducts when a region becomes more tailored to fit in any of Glendale's three industrial parks. urban.Frecdgood says a COCS study can"extend the community The major selling point of the SIMPLE program is that it 3 I i Attachment C EDC Target Advisory Group Report :3PANG 011lo7 Y VNE 5f MV 4 ii0 04 0 $4 55•Pf GPIf kW- FIM.�T REPORT Lecembex 13, 1990 (Adopted by EW Board, i"/i s/91) This summary outlines the recomrendations of the EDP: Target Advisory Group as they compete their consideration of the implementation of the Ecanorrac Development SLrategi.c Plan. The mu.ssion of the Econoruc DeveioSi ent C=rt,ission is to encourage the expansion of existing businesses, investment in the Counry's human resources, and the creation of a climate for diversified and environmentally sate b*-sinesscs to prosper. This focuses on providing jobs for .our citizens and increasing lttie non-residential taxbase, to ultimately produce more tax dollars for the provision of appropriate County services. The. Target Advisory Group, as a sub=vrittee of the Orange County Economic Uevelop mnt Caimission has been asked to consider and investigate: 1) agricultural incentives and preferred locations, 2) review and revision of planning requirements, 3) location and types of business for Orange County, 4) malting a local response team to greet and ir>torm prospects, and 5) outlining an_aggressive promotional ca.mpaigr.. Their work, and that of four other su ttees, started in August 19813. The Texget Adviscry Group has considered and discussed tneir strategies, and forwards this Fi.-:iad Report for y^a.r acceptance and implementation. 1) Agricultural Ingaitives -- In discuss irq possible solutions to regulations affecting the farnu.^g industry, a group of people who made their living at farm::w, i elt that isi�-h ng on the County level coula be done to malty any difference; most policy decisions are made at the State and Federal level. The Target Advisory Group, therefore, does not fcr+f ,rd any r�m-,w Kktion for C17-wrty Cr�:r:,iasion>*r action. 2) Review and ?„vicion of Plan-o n,7 Rem:ire ant:: -- The Econom4.c De:Yel o,-Tr:F-rt Coaur 3si_on and "e Orange Co,.:J<ity Plaming Board have recen!C iy cwrglet.ed a major step, by rpproving, a Plarzdn3 Agreeo,-m to direct -heir sv.affs to work toq,,�-,.hsr vn following steps: - i.denl.i.fy any. apply zoning and lw.�nd v.7,n to promote business, - devC lop peiferm e-r ce standards art2 projert impact thresholds, - establish a cooperative planning prc=---,ss so thati the EX and the Planning staff are able to review projects and changes early, - review ways to streamline development approval processes by: ORANGE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION P.O. BOX 712 - 110 N. CsHURTON ST. • SAWYER BUILDING - HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. 27278 (919) 732-8181 (919) %8-4501 (919) 688.7331 (919) 227.2031 1Ft(919) 732'4249 • Combining maps to make a single planning/zoning map • developing a unified development ordinance through the help of a concerted effort by the Planning staff ana the appointment of a Task Force comprised of some Target Advisory Group members. • considering a unified development review process to include all parties that would need to review a project -- EDC staff could "walk the project through" to expedite review/approval reviewing barriers to concurrent consideration of development applications providing more staff review of development requests and a staff recommendation for the planning board's review/approval reviewing the possibility of adoption after public hearing instead of reqLu.ring further review by the Planning Board increasing the frequency of public hearings establish a process to conduct pre-development conferences with prospective business clients. The Agreement will also address the need for a "floating node" where thresholds will need to be upheld in order for a business to locate. with these thresnolds -satisfieci, it will be possible for the business to locate anywhere in the county appropriate for that type of business. 3) Location and Types of Business -- The Target Advisory Group came to the conclusion that the most appropriate areas for future business development are: the interstate corridors, within or near the town limits of Orange County's municipalities, and in the business nodes identified in the Orange County Land Use Plan. Each of these zones are appropriate for certain kinds of development. The Interstate corridors stood out to the group as one of the most appropriate locations for major business for several reasons. Among them are: the proximity to a major transportation route (and the junction of two interstate highways) , the fact that major businesses need to have easy access to major highways for transport of supplies and finished goods, that interstate highways can best transport employees in our regional labor market without causing traffic congestion in municipalities, and that the land adjacent to interstate highways is not considered to be favorable for residential development. Consequently, the Target Advisory Group recd mends that the corridors be used for businesses that generate truck and employee traffic, work two or three shifts, are regional shopping centers, include a mayor physical plant, or attract many tourists. Locating businesses within or near the tam limits of the municipalities makes sense to the Advisory Group since, in many cases, public utilities are available. This is also viewed as positive since the existence of business in the Town limits will increase the taxbase, thereby limiting tax rate increases and limiting increased traffic congestion since employees can then use alternative forms of transportation to get to work. Consequently, the Target Advisory Group recommends that these areas be used for businesses that require public water and sewer, have Low truck traffic, may have a night shift, serve as regional headquarters, bed and breakfast inns, hotels, home-based businesses, or ao light industrial, local retail, or service worx, Business nodes identified in the land Use Plan make sense for t)usiness aeveiopment since ana.Lvsis of plann.Lnq issues has already determined tnac these areas work. They are located to take advantage or transportation routes, ad)acenc to compatible uses, ana located to serve and be served by the surrounding area. Consequently, the -1-arger. Advisory Group reccmiends that these noaes W used for small, meal scores and retail centers, light industrial companies, conference and training centers, nusinesses tLat, serve agriculture, researcn facilities, businesses tnat have low truck and limited night traffic, and commuter traffic concentrated at b:UU AM and 5:UU Pm. Desirable business attributes -- Without exception, businesses that snould be attracted to Orange County should rie: x generally non-polluting, x use little treated water, do not produce hazardous or large volumes of waste for disposal. provide fair wages for employment of all Orange County citizens, regardless of race, education, and skill level. This employment can be accomplished through large or small employers, but large employers should be concentrated in the Interstate corridors, the Hillsborough and Mebane areas, and large activity nodes designated in the Land Use Plan. Water and sewer should be extended to businesses located near the municipalities. Efforts snould be made to make buildings architecturally attractive and complement the landscape. Commuter and daytime traffic generators should not locate in congested municipalities; multiple shift businesses should be located next to major tnoroughfares. Types of businesses to recruit: Generally, the businesses that fit Orange County's business niche are companies that serve/supply business in the Research Triangle or the Piedmont Triad, regional distributors, specialty mail order facilities, educational and/or consulting terms, or medical/hospital related companies. Research facilities should be allowed to locate anywhere in the County that is appropriate for business. Large, regional operations should locate in the interstate corridors and in the municipalities. Businesses with traffic (distribution, mail order, shopping malls, and major industries) should locate near the interstate highways. Service businesses should locate near their customers. Light manufacturing facilities should be recruited for all areas except the 1-40 corridor, the rural countryside, and Chapel Hill. Regional training and conference facilities should be encouraged to locate in the soutnern part of the County where there is access to the Research Triangle Park area and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Hotels and motels should be developed along the 1-85 corridor and in Chapel Hill. Page .4 r C,eograptuc areas that show immediate possibilities for appropriate development include: - Hillsborough Business Center area - Some Mebane sites - Hillsborough commercial and industrial sites; Meadowlands, Cornerstone, Hampton Pointe, France Property These areas are zoned appropriately and have water/sewer. Geographic areas with longer term potential include: - the rest of the 1-d5 corridor (especially, the big node in Cheexs Township) - the area around the intersection of Highway %U and I-d5 in eastern Orange County - sections of Hwy 54 west of Carrboro - the intersection of 1-4U and Old NC bb It is cne consensus of this group that I-40 is a valuable econonuc resource that cannot be ignored. Sites with accessibility to t-4U are especially suited for employers of the highly educated and companies desiring connections with the Universities, Research Triangle Parx and the Raleigh-Durham International Airport. The long term potential oL this resource can only be realized by a re-assessment of current land use policies. 4) Local Response Team -- A group of individuals from business and government has been recently recruited to welcome and inform prospects who visit Orange County. These members are assembled as needed depending on the prospect's business so that Orange County's interest towards business can be appropriately conveyed. The Target Advisory Group recommends that this group be supported by appropriate representation on the Team. 5) Promotional Campaign -- Orange County needs to continue increasing the intensity of its recruitment efforts. Active recruutment efforts should be funded and initiated within the next twelve (l'?) months. Recruitment efforts could be enhanced if speculative buildings were available to prospective businesses and an enhanced effort were made to maze it known that there are existing buildings available for lease and sale. in order for additional new business to be attracted to an orange County location, at least one area in the County should be pre-zoned to allow appropriate businesses to develop without unnecessary planning approval delays. The Planning approval process should also be streamlined to make the process bearable for business and industry that want to locate or expand here. Page 4 Conclusion -- The Target Advisory Group feels strongly cnaE.: i) work snould continue by the EX and Planning board to streamline ordinances and make the regulation process more Irienaly to ousiness, development should be encouraged at locations within the COLInty where utilities and zoning currently 1-*--rnit. it, 3) a re-assessment of land use policies snould start to allow utilization of the appropriate locations within the interstate corridors and Highway 54 west of Carrboro, 4) Orange County goverment should immediately concentrate on pre- zoning a parcel of land near the intersection of I-d5 and duckhorn Road within the identified activity node, 5) business sites which are immediately available for development in the Hillsborough and Mebane areas should be marketed, 6) the intersection of 1-40 and Old NC 86 could be the western gateway to the Research Triangle; all quadrants of this intersection are appropriate for commercial, retail, and service industry development. With the continuation of current actions and an active interest and approval by the Board of County Commissioners, Orange County can attract businesses that will protect our pnysical resources and our excellent quality of life, and increase opportunities for citizen employment. This will enhance the non-residential taxbase to allow for more tax revenues and better public services. Page 5 i _ 1 T�1 a Attachment D Residential Case Study Fiscal Impact Analysis FISCAL IMPACT TEMPLATE:SERVICE STANDARD METHOD Bureau of Economic dt Business Research — University of Florida Modified 11/5/93 — Orange County,NC Planning Department SECTION I - PROJECT DATA: ENTER THE FOLLOWING DATA FOR EACH PROJECT: PROJECT: 1-401011 NC 86 EDD Case Study TOWNSHIP: Hillsborough CONSTRUCTION PERIOD: Beginning Year: 1994 Ending Year: 2003 Inflation Rates 2.90% CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS: Persons/House: 2.58 Children/House: 0.47 %Non—Elder! , 100-00% HOME SALES DATA: Average Distribution Number of Sales Price of Units Year Homes S by Year 1944 25 1 129200 9.96% 1995 25 129200 9.960/c 1996 25 129200 9.960/c 1997 25 129200 9.96%a 1998 25 129200 9.96% 1999 25 129200 9.96% 2000 25 129200 9.96% 2001 25 129200 9.96% 2002 25 129200 9.96% 2003 26 129200 10.36% SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA: ENTER*1*IN{ }BESIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN WHICH PROJECT IS TO BE LOCATED TO GENERATE STUDENT DISTRIBUTION BY SCHOOL TYPE. School District: School Attendance: Orange County { 1 } Elementary School 50% Middle School 23% Chapel HAI—Caffbow 0 High School 27% SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN/HOUSEHOLD: ENTER NUMBER OF UNITS BY HOUSING TYPE TO GENERATE NUMBER OF SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN. Children School Age Housing a Units Per House Children Single—Family 251 0.47 118 Duplex/TriplexlQuadplex 0 0 0 Apartment/Condominium 0 0 0 Town House 0 0 0 Totals 251 0.47 118 SECTION 2 - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA BUDGET YEAR: 1993-94 COUNTY POPULATION: 100758 SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT POPULATION: 5444 COUNTY EMPLOYMENT: POSITIONS PER CAPITA General Government 108.60 0.0011 Public Safety 134.00 0.0013 Public Works 50.00 0.0005 Human Services 24629 0.0024 Education School District 726.00 0.0072 SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT: POSITIONS PER STUDENT Total 726.00 0.1334 COUNTY PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES S : REVENUES PER CAPITA Taxes-Other Than Property 4127000 40.96 Intergovernmental 8778421 87.12 Service Charges 2969123 29.47 Miscellaneous 787197 7.81 COUNTY PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES S : EXPENDITURES PER CAPITA General Government 6251551 62.05 Public Safety 5854402 58.10 Public Works 2760727 27.40 Human Services 15528989 154.12 Education(Recurring Capital) 750000 7.44 Non-Departmental 2343967 23.26 COUNTY PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURE S : EXPENDITURES PER EMPLOYEE General Government 6251551 5756493 Public Safety 5854402 4368957 Public Works 2760727 5521454 Human Services 15528989 63051.64 Education(Recurring Capital) 750000 1033.06 SCHOOL DISTRICT PER STUDENT EXPENDITURES S : EXPENDITURES PER STUDENT County Government 7420172 1363.00 School District 0 0.00 State 17584881 3230.14 SCHOOL DISTRICT PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURES S): EXPENDITURES PER EMPLOYEE County Government 7420172 10220.62 School District 0 0.00 State 17584881 24221.60 TAX DATA: ENTER APPLICABLE ASSESSMENT RATIO AND ELDERLY EXEMPTION: County Tax Rate ($) 0.7460 Per$100 Assessed Valuation School District Tax Rate ($) 0.0000 Per$100 Assessed Valuation Assessment Ratio 100.00 Elderly Exemption 0 $11,000 Where Applicable SECTION 3 - DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS BASED ON PROJECT DATA YEAR 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 HOUSING UNITS 25 50 75 100 I25 POPULATION 65 129 194 258 323 SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary 6 12 17 23 29 Middle 3 6 8 11 14 High School 3 6 10 13 16 TOTAL 12 24 35 47 59 COUNTY GOVERNMENT ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES General Government 0.1 0.1 02 0.3 0.3 Public Safety 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 Public Works 00 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 Human Services 0.2 03 0.5 0.6 0.8 TOTAL 0.3 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.7 SCHOOL DISTRICT 0.5 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.3 ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES YEAR 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 HOUSING UNITS 150. 175 200 225 251 POPULATION 387 452 516 581 648 SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary 35 41 47 52 58 Middle 17 19 22 25 28 High School 19 22 25 29 32 TOTAL 71 82 94 106 118 COUNTY GOVERNMENT ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES General Government 0.4 OS 0.6 0.6 0.7 Public Safety 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Public Works 02 0.2 03 03 0.3 Human Services 0.9 1.1 13 1.4 1.6 TOTAL 2.1 2.4 2.8 3.1 3.5 SCHOOL DISTRICT 2.8 3.3 3.7 4.2 4.7 ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES SECTION 4 — PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON COUNTY GOVERNMENT YEAR 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 TAX BASE($1000) 3230 6554 9974 13493 17114 REVENUES(S) Property Tax 24096 48890 74404 100658 127672 Other Taxes 2642 5437 8392 11514 14810 Intergovernmental 5619 11565 17850 24491 31501 Service Charges 1901 3912 6038 8284 10655 Miscellaneous 504 1037 1601 2196 2825 TOTAL ($) 34762 70841 108285 147142 187463 EXPENDITURES($) General Government 4002 8236 12712 17441 22434 Public Safety 3748 7713 11905 16333 21008 Public Works 1767 3637 5614 7702 9907 Human Services 9941 20458 31577 43324 55726 Education 16495 33947 52398 71890 92468 Non—Departmental 1500 3088 4766 6539 8411 TOTAL ($) 37454 77079 118972 163230 209954 NET FISCAL IMPACT S —2692 —6238 —10687 —16088 —22491 YEAR 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 TAX BASE($1000) 20841 24675 28621 32681 36987 REVENUES(S) Property Tax 155471 184075 213509 243797 275926 Other Taxes 18287 21954 25817 29887 34307 Intergovernmental 38898 46697 54915 63571 72974 Service Charges 13156 15794 18574 21502 24682 Miscellaneous 3488 4187 4924 5701 6544 TOTAL (S) 229300 272707 317740 364457 414434 EXPENDITURES($) General Government 27701 33255 39108 45272 51968 Public Safety 25941 31142 36624 42396 48667 Public Works 12233 14686 17270 19993 22950 Human Services 68810 82606 97145 112458 129091 Education 114180 137073 161198 186607 214207 Non—Departmental 10386 12469 14663 16975 19485 TOTAL ($) 259251 311231 366008 423700 486368 NET FISCAL IMPACT S —29952 —38524 —48268 —59243 —71935 SECTION 5 — PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON SCHOOL DISTRICT YEAR 1994 1995 19% 1997 1998 REVENUES(S) County 16495 33947 52398 71890 92468 School District 0 0 0 0 0 State 37954 78110 120562 165411 212760 TOTAL ($) 54450 112057 172960 237301 305229 EXPENDITURES ($) County 16495 33947 52398 71890 92468 School District 0 p 0 0 0 State 37954 78110 120562 165411 212760 TOTAL ($) 54450 112057 172960 237301 305229 NET FISCAL IMPACTS 0 0 0 0 0 YEAR 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 REVENUES(S) County 114180 137073 161198 186607 214207 School District 0 0 0 0 0 State 262716 315391 370900 429363 492869 TOTAL ($) 376896 452464 532099 615970 707076 EXPENDITURES($) County 114180 137073 161199 186607 214207 School District 0 p 0 0 p State 262716 315391 370900 429363 492869 TOTAL ($) 3768% 452464 532098- 615970 707076 NET FISCAL IMPACTS 0 0 0 0 0 t • SECTION 6 — SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHIC/FISCALIMPACTS YEAR 1994 1995 19% 1997 1998 HOUSING UNITS 25 50 75 100 125 POPULATION 65 129 194 258 323 SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary 6 12 17 23 29 Middle 3 6 8 11 14 High School 3 6 10 13 16 TOTAL 12 24 35 47 59 COUNTY EMPLOYEES 0.3 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.7 SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 0.5 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.3 TAX BASE($1000) 3230 6554 9974 13493 17114 COUNTY BUDGET($) Revenues 34762 70841 108285 147142 187463 Expenditures 37454 77079 118972 163230 209954 BALANCE —2692 —6238 —10687 —16088 —22491 SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET($) Revenues 54450 112057 172960 237301 305229 Expenditures 54450 112057 172960 237301 305229 BALANCE 0 0 0 0 0 COMBINED BUDGETS(S) Revenues 89211 182898 281245 384443 492,692 Expenditures 91903 189137 291932 400531 515183 BALANCE —2692 —6238 —10687 —16088 —22491 YEAR 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 HOUSING UNITS 150 175 200 225 251 POPULATION 387 452 516 581 648 SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary 35 41 47 52 58 Middle 17 19 22 25 28 High School 19 22 25 29 32 TOTAL 71 82 94 106 118 COUNTY EMPLOYEES 2.1 2.4 2.8 3.1 3.5 SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 2.8 3.3 3.7 4.2 4.7 TAX BASE($1000) 20841 24675 28621 32681 36987 COUNTY BUDGET($) Revenues 229300 272707 317740 364457 414434 Expenditures 259251 311231 366008 423700 486368 BALANCE —29952 —38524 —48268 —59243 —71935 SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET(5) Revenues 376896 452464 532098 615970 707076 Expenditures 3768% 452464 532098 615970 707076 BALANCE 0 0 0 0 0 COMBINED BUDGETS(S) Revenues 6061% 725171 849838 980427 1121510 Expenditures 636148 7636% 898106 1039670 1193444 BALANCE —29952 —38524 —48268 —59243 —71935 i S, Attachment E Hourly Wage Requirements for No Net Fiscal Impact Hourly Wages by Industry Group Distribution of Persons Working Outside County - 1990 CALCULATION OF AVERAGE HOURLY WAGE REQUIREM.'EN-T TO ACHIEVE NO NET FISCAL IMPACT ON COUNTY OPERATING BUDGLT Household Characteristics Persons Per Household 259 3.00 4.00 School Age Children Per Household 0.45 1.00 2.00 Housing Value Required — S140,000 5250,000 5455,000 No Net Fiscal Impact Mortgage Characteristics Principal S140,000 Principal 5:.50,000 Principal S455,000 Interest 7.25% Interest 725% Interest 7:5% Term(Years) Term(Years) Term(Years) 1 S12,129.89 1 S21,66051 1 S39,422.13 2 56,284.04 2 51122150 2 520,423.13 3 S4,338.81 3 57,747.88 3 S14,101.15 4 S3,368.74 4 56,015.60 4 S10,W39 5 52,788.71 5 S4,979.84 5 59,06331 6 S2,403.70 6 54,29233 6 S7,812.03 7 $2,130.13 7 S3,803.80 7 56,922.91 8 S1,926.18 8 S3,439.62 8 56,260.10 9 S1,768.66 9 S3,15832 9 55,748.14 10 $1,643.61 10 S2,935.03 10 S5,341.75 11 S1,542.19 11 52,753.90 11 $5,012.10 12 S1,458.46 12 S2,60439 12 54,739.99 13 S1,M834 13 S2,479.18 13 54,512.10 14 $1,328.90 14 S2,373.04 14 54,318.94 15 S1,278.01 15 52,282.16 15 S4,153.53 16 51,234.04 16 $2,203.64 16 54,010.63 17 $1,195.77 17 S2,13531 17 53,886.26 18 S1,162.24 18 S2,075.43 18 53,777.28 19 51,132.69 19 52,022.67 19 53,681.26 20 S1,10653 20 51,975.94 20 53,596.21 21 $1,083.25 21 51,93437 21 53,52055 22 51,062.45 22 51,897.23 22 S3,452.96 23 $1,043.81 23 S1,863.95 23 S3,39238 24 S1,027.05 24 $1,834.01 24 S3,337.90 25 S1,011.93 25 S1,807.02 25 53,288.77 26 S998.26 26 51,782.61 26 53,24435 27 5985.87 27 51,760.48 27 S3,204.08 28 5974.62 28 51,74039 28 53,16751 29 596438 29 51,722.11 29 53,13424 Monthly Mortgage Payment 30 5955.05 30 S1,705.44 30 53,103.90 Annual Household Income Required 538202 S68218 5124,156 Average Annual Income Per Person 519,101 534,109 S62078 Average Hourly Wage Required S9.18 S16.40 529.85 4 COMPARISON OF HOURLY WAGES IN ORANGE COUNTY&THE RESEARCH TRIANGLE AREA WITH STATE AVERAGES FOR THE QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2992 AVERAGE HOURLY WAGE SIC Research Orange Durham Wake Alamance INDUSTRIAL GROUP CODE State Triangle County County County County Total All Industries S1051 51237 S11.60 51493 512.03 S9.02 Agriculture 56.72 56.74 56.77 S8.54 S7.11 $6.70 Crop Production 01 S5.13 54.88 56.19 Disclosure 55.40 Disclosure Livestock Production 02 5927 59.07 $7.12 NA Disclosure Disclosure Service 071 56.77 5730 S6.83 5853 5734 56.22 Mining Nonmetallic Minerals 14 S14.47 51650 $1093 NA 51925 Disclosure Construction $10.17 51035 $923 $10.65 $10.86 59.07 Building Contractors 15 S10S0 S10-921 S1035 SlOD4_1 S1214 S8.86 Manufacturing $1169 516.78 S12S5 $23.98 $14.09 $9.18 Food Products 20 S10.061 S929 Disclosure S9.86 512.26 58.78 Tobacco Products 21 S18.63 51620 NA Disclosure NA NA Textile Products 22 $9.53 S1050 57.60 S1334 $1:135 58.41 Apparel 23 S683 5639 Disclosure S7.14 5652 S650 Lumber&Wood Products 24 S917 51093 57.70 56.46 $10.74 ! S13.00 Furniture&Fixtures 25 58.80 51030 Disclosure S9.76 51192 57.90 Paper Products 26 `: S15.57.. 51439 Disclosure 516.16 51432 511.70. Printing &Publishing 27 ' ' '$1147 S12A0 S10.17 S1398 S12.741 510:79 Chemical Products 28 31823 5?3.i6 Disclosure VNS3 $17b2 519.02 Petroleum Products 29 ::;; 312A6 NA NA NA NA NA Rubber&Plastic Products 30 : .;.!$1292 Sl. b ..:.;.... S1223 S1050 51453 _ . :; $1126. Leather Products 31 $8.49 $958' NA NA $11;99 Disclosure _. Stone/Concrete Products 32 Slib4 Si1.04 51028 $1426 SIOS3 $1259_ Primary Metal Industries 33 .. .. S14A3 51387 NA Disclosure $1596 Disclosure Fabricated Metal Products 34 $12A2 $1320 Disclosure $1238 $1450 $1054 Industrial Machinery 35 S1855 S2655 Disclosure Disclosure S17.66 $1195 Electronic Equipment 36 $13.44:::* $1557;: Disclosure Disclosure $15. 5930 Transportation Equipment 37 523.55 $13.77 Disclosure Disclosure 52142 $1226 Instruments 38 51389 51493 52034 S1661 : 'S13L2 S1294 Miscellaneous 39 59.46 510.16 Disclosure 58.93 S9.78 511.69 Transp,Communication $14.03 $14$0 S12.52 51451 S15.24 $12.41 &Utilities Trucking/Warehousing 42 51134 511.18 $1394 $1141 SIOS5 S1196 Transport Services 47 S9.89 S1124 S733 $9.68 Disclosure S5.26 Communications 48 $1528 516.62 S11.66 51730 S1255 $1457 Electric,Gas &Sanitary 49 $18.17 S19.43 $1332 S35A7 $1655 $14.62 Services Wholesale Trade 50151 S13.661 S16.42 j $12.12 S14S4 $1791 51067 Retail Trade 55.99 56.07 5531 55.99 5630 S5.72 Building Materials 52 58.71 $920 59.45 59.52 58.75 S830 General Merchandise 53 55.81 5555 54.74 5559 55.77 55.12 Food Stores 54 55.74 56.02 5535 S597 56.12 S550 Automotive/Service Station 1 55 SIOS61 $11.571 $11.141 SllS51 S12321 59.87 "Disclosure"indicates data suppressed to avoid disclosure;"NA"indicates industry,group not resent. indicates hourly wage at or above target goal of 59.18 per hour, rjabove 516.40 per hour. r COMPARISON OF HOURLY WAGES IN ORANGE COUNTY &THE RESEARCH TRIANGLE AREA WITH STATE AVERAGES FOR THE QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1992 AVERAGE HOURLY WAGE SIC Research Orange Durham Wake Alamance INDUSTRIAL GROUP CODE State Trian le County County county County Retail Trade (Continued) Apparel Stores 56 55.10 S4.63 54.76 54.28 S4.80 $5,15 Home Furnishings 57 $900 . $10.62 $9.08 $1029 $11.65 S6.42 Eating/Drinking Places 58 54.04 S4.21 53.45 54.15 S4.55 S3.87 Miscellaneous 59 57.06 S6.70 57.12 56.54 S6.47 56.75 Finance Ins &Real Estate $1293 $13!12 $1234 $12.55 $13.44 SISSO Banks 60 S11.72 $1147 59.91 $11.45 $11:77 51095 Insurance Agents 64 $1255 512.40 $1930 51312 $1210 516.67 Real Estate 65 �;21. S9.45 58.70 58.40 510.05 $7.50 Investment Companies 67 $15:62 S17.99 Disclosure $i5A7 $25 82 Services $9.70 SUD7 S927 51309 - S1032 5922 Hotels/Motels 70 $5.18 $5.47 $4.59 55.87 5537 5420 Personal Services 72 $637 5635 55.24 56.98 S6.60 56.75 Business Services 73 S7.67 S8.87 51032 59.83 58.90 55.77 Auto Repair Services 75 S8.60 S825 S8.98 58.70 58.12 S1110 Misc Repair Services 76 :59.67 S10m $583 510.78 51057. ........: .::.$930 Motion Pictures 78 54.40 S437 S4.12 54.67 54.80 $3.12 Recreation Services 79 $5.72 S5.05 $3.78 _ S638 $4.82 S4.47 Health Services 80 S12b3 513 b5 51038 51395 514.70 51185 Legal Services 81 $1527 511:06 $1490 : 515.12 513 65 Educational Services 82 51334: ...:.: . ..:$1440 $634 :.51523`; $8.30 Disclosure Social Services 83 $5.86 56.20 56.60 S6.09 S6.42 S5.27 Membership Organizations 86 56.88 58.10 58.71 S6.76 S832 S4.12 Engineering/Management 87 51489 S16.00t, Si4.64 516.74 $1552 S13A5 Private Households 88 54.14 S4.65 5433 55.17 S4.47 S3.75 . Miscellaneous 89 `51399 S1125 Disclosure Disclosure Disclosure Disclosure Non-Classifiable 99 NA NA NA NA NA NA Government 512.16 514.62 51488 513.60 51537 51022 Federal 91-97 $1627 - 53925 51799 51927 519:77 S18A0 State 91-97 ...,51494 51637 51584 S1596 51725 51150 Local 91-96 S10.02 51092 $1025 S1032 $1190 59.32 "Disclosure"indicates data suppressed to avoid diciosure;"NA"indicates industry group not present. indicates hourly wage at or above target goal of S9.18 per hour, I labove S16.40 per hour. Source:Employment Security Commission of North Carolina,Issued November, 1993. n� f WUO N MTT # i f r i NNrC'7NC7Met" t- N � U � ~ W^ = LL 0 W ° � $ aa117r. vu7RJr- � - WCL7 �' � Iti. E,. 2 117 LO'0) Q,Oa N N C) CO K7 CO C) r O M N N I,- +- o c09ad �ry coNo>N •.: N N Cd (aCdN � n co06 u•3 0 � *' N NN .117co -T LOLOMMr � N. - MMU7N M g0 wWmn •��=pyT tl? LDC4} GMh � Yr3tt it cCtj 0 'C' N .- M "d r v V) coin C7 0 W O 0 d0l� C7> r:�' CA' WrLn0t- MhCOMTtDi17ON tti M ii) t. .= C-5 .— 117 Cs ui N 0; (7i tt1t77 tt'> tXi �f ,v qT N u�7 M N M LLi u. W N CmV ca Co_f` tTG f, COi Q Q I : C0 f`1. 0(p) fpm . it .- t17 : M c- et in UJ 0 cc M 1"7 N a"): M C et r N N'T �- r .- st N .-: C) r ;::s i-• 3 Z CD O J � Ot"3OR"3 .oL�N:NC�:cD �75N W co �d' � �i7t.. cp Fa- CL N C11 T t'): N .t"� +.- .=.-• �- - r N N ,- Z 0 (�CL 00 = 4 : `a: CUD) in li: AD = Z W 'y a V w 0' o �. c cc O � L S tp u•' ... .� sn Z. ca :f Q> 0 ZI zcri wZ:m:m3w: w:uaw :Z< U I. �`* h tom• t�W O C �T: tV oT f T C-i r 6 T 4:r 1 :�O-'tr t.ro-' rO : 'r:N O O`O O O � NN •rT'T (,} O O O O:o O o o p,(D 0: O O o C) 0;0 0 ORA.NC,F- COU.NTY HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA MEMORANDUM TO: ORANGE QOUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEC 4&t J9L-1 FROM: JOHN LINK, COUNTY MANAGER SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SMALL AREA PLANNING GROUP DATE: JANUARY 7, 1994 1 COPIES: GEOFFREY GLEDBU-,L, COUNTY ATTORNEY MARVIN COLLINS, PLANNING DIRECTOR BEVERLY BLYTHE, CLERK TO THE COMMISSIONERS On December 16, 1993, the governing boards of Orange County and Hillsborough met in joint session to discuss matters of mutual interest concerning the Hillsborough CPZ Agreement. The governing boards agreed to establish a work group comprised of two members of each governing board to seek solutions to the University Station issue. On January 4, 1994, the Work Group held its first meeting and considered a resolution drafted by Town Attorney Michael Brough.The resolution proposed the establishment of a Small Area Planning Group with a specific charge for dealing with the University Station issue.Following discussion of the resolution, the Work Group recommended inclusion of a membership list as well as a listing of general and specific interests which the Group should consider. Staff representatives from the two jurisdictions met on January 6 and revised the resolution to include the Work Group's recommendations. It is being forwarded to you in advance of you next regular meeting for review. The schedule for consideration of the resolution by the two governing boards is as follows: January 10, 1994 - Hillsborough Town Board consideration; and January 18, 1994 - Board of County Commissioners consideration. If approved by both governing boards on the above dates, the Small Area Planning Group will meet for the first time on January 27 to begin work on its charge. A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A SMALL AREA PLANNING GROUP WHEREAS, Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough entered into a cooperative Planning Agreement on October 14, 1991 in order to establish a coordinated system of planning for the development that will occur within an area of mutual concern; and WHEREAS, a proposal for a large development known as University Station has focused the attention of both the County and the Town on the need to accelerate the cooperative planning process with respect to the area shown on the map attached to this resolution as Exhibit A; NOW THEREFORE, THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMNIISSIONERS RESOLVES: Section 1. The Board hereby established a small area planning group, subject to the adoption by the Hillsborough Board of Commissioners of a corresponding resolution. The membership of the group shall consist of. Orange County Board of Commissioners Commissioner Don Willhoit - Commissioner Verla Insko Hillsborough Town Board Commissioner Remus Smith Commissioner Evelyn Lloyd One representative of the developer of University Station One representative of the neighborhoods in proximity to the proposed University Station development For the representatives of the developer and the neighborhood residents, an alternate shall also be designated to attend in the event that the appointed representative is unable to attend. The small area planning group shall also be supported by the following staff. Orange County Staff' County Manager John Link County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill Planning Director Marvin Collins Hillsborough Town Staff Town Manager Eric Swanson Town Attorney Michael Brough Planning Director Margaret Hauth Section 2. The purpose of the small area planning group shall be to explore development possibilities for the planning area identified on Exhibit A to this resolution, including the proposed plan for the University Station development, and to recommend any modifications to officially adopted town or county policies, plans, or ordinances necessary to make permissible the recommended pattern of development. Section 3. In developing the recommendations, the small area planning group shall be guided by the following: (a) The Orange County Board of Commissioners remains committed to the principle, set forth in the Cooperative Planning Area Agreement, that areas designated as Open Space Areas will generally remain non-urban and generally contain low density residential uses but town water and sewer lines may be extended into such areas for the purpose of serving large developments or a combination of small developments with significant (Le., in principle, at least 30% of the development tract) preserved open space. Furthermore, to make the extension of water and sewer lines viable, such developments may, in principle, be developed at an overall density of up to two dwelling units per buildable acre. (b) The Orange County Board of Commissioners is committed to the principle that, when utility lines are extended into open space areas to serve large developments, connections to such utility lines shall be strictly limited to those developments that are consistent with the planning policies of the governing board having planning jurisdiction over such areas. The County is willing to enter into a binding agreement with the Town of Hillsborough to achieve this objective. (c) The Orange County Board of Commissioners is committed to the proposition that any recommendations developed by the small area planning group consider the following. (1) General interests [a] Avoiding urban sprawl [b] Preserving protected watersheds and groundwater supplies [c] Encouraging bicycle and mass transit transportation in and between urbanized areas [d] Protecting and preserving farmland and open space [e] Developing an appropriate mix of residential and nonresidential development, including commercial [f] Encouraging fiscally responsible development [g] Involving neighborhood residents in the planning process [h] Enhancing the revenue base of the Town and the County (2) Specific University Station interests [a] New town concept and service delivery [b] Site for new school [c] Impact accommodation [d] Development along utility line extension and potential for urban sprawl [e] Preserve open space, including issue of golf course development Ul Need to share information and data Section 4. The small area planning group shall establish a meeting schedule that will allow it to make its preliminary recommendations no later than March 15, 1994 with the expectation that every attempt will be made to conduct public hearings no later than April, 1994 on proposed changes to Town or County policies, plans, or ordinances. Adopted this day of , 1994. �Od od Ok (D m ► DI ov. -CM 83Nd I'm OD .40 80 AVM ZOIH zgg. cl .......... If 10. RD _Al -a8 AV ok rr oil Oita folk