Zoning Code Review

Oakwood Commons - Rezoning application

January 11, 2011

TO: Mr. Art Goddard, Chairman Planning Commission

INFO: Members of the Planning Commission

FROM: Paul Kowalczyk

Building Commissioner/Zoning Administrator

RE: Oakwood Commons - Rezoning Application Warrensville Center Road ~ P.P .#704-27 -001

Introduction

An Application for rezoning has been submitted to the Building Department by FISE, LLC to rezone a portion of P.P.#704-27-001 (indicated in legal description) from an R-75 One-Family Residential District to a C-3 Special Commercial District.

Per Section 763.02 of the South Euclid Planning and Zoning Code, "The Planning Commission shall receive all requests for amendments to the Zoning Map and process the same according to the provisions of this Planning and Zoning Code ... ss

Code Section 8ectionDescription Status
"
Map Zoning R-75 One-Family Residential District See attached
zoning map
763.02(a)(3) An ordinance amending the Zoning Map may be requested Refer to Ordinance
& (a)(4) by a member of Councilor the administration No. 01-11
The Commission shall make an official recommendation Date of public
on any proposed amendment to the Zoning Map relating to
763.02(b) hearing to be
a change of zoning classification. The Commission shall determined.
hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment.
Upon receipt of the Commission's recommendation, Date of public
763.02(c) Council shall hold a public hearing on the Zoning Map hearing to be
amendment. determined.
Special Commercial (C-3) District:
(a) All uses permitted in a General Commercial (C-2)
731.04 District; Applicable to C-3
(b) Drive-in restaurants serving food and nonalcoholic Zoning
beverages; and
(c) Similar uses as provided in Section 762.09.
Within the General Commercial (C-2) District; all uses Applicable to C-3
731.03(a) permitted within a Limited Commercial (C-1) District are Zoning
permitted. South Euclid Building Department

Page 1

Zoning Code Review

Oakwood Commons - Rezoning application

Within the Limited Commercial (C-1) District; all uses Applicable to C-3
731.02(g) permitted within a Residential-Office (R-O) District are Zoning
permitted, except a multiple-family residence.
Conditional Uses - refer to this section for those uses or Applicable to C-3
732.02(a) facilities that may be located within a C-1, C-2 or C-3
Commercial District. Zoning
Chapter 734 Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations -
requirements of this chapter apply to Special Commercial
(C-3) District.
• Circumstances Requiring Spaces and Accessways
• Required Number of Parking Spaces
• Regulations for Required Parking Spaces
734.01 thru Applicable to C-3
• Joint Parking Facilities
734.10 Zoning
• Access Driveways for Parking Spaces
• Municipal Parking Lots
• Improvement and Maintenance of Parking Spaces
• Required Loading Spaces
• Location of Loading Spaces
• Improvement and Maintenance of Loadin_g Spaces
Chapter 736 Lot and Yard Regulations - requirements of
this chapter apply to Special Commercial (C-3) District.
• Lot Sizes
736.01 thru • Creation and Preservation of Yard Areas Applicable to C-3
736.06 • Permitted Obstructions in any Yard Area Zoning
• Screening in Yards Adjoining Residential Districts
• Maximum Ground Coverage of Structures
• Screening of Refuse and Pick-up Facilities
Chapter 737 Height Regulations
737.01 thru • Principal Use Maximum Height - 35 feet Applicable to C-3
737.02 • Principal Use Number of Floors - 2 % Zoning
• Accessory Use Maximum Height - 20 feet NOTES

This property was formally part of the Oakwood Country Club.

south Euclid Building Department

Page 2

Zoning Code Review

Oakwood Commons - Rezoning application

DATA

The following data is included with this review:

• Applicable Area of the Zoning Map

• Copy of the Zoning Map amendment procedure

• Copy of Ordinance No. 01-11

• Rezoning application dated January 6, 2011

• Traffic Commissioner report dated January 10, 2011

• Fire I nspector report dated January 10, 2011

• City Engineer report dated January 12, 2011

This review addresses only Zoning Code requirements. Following a recommendation by the Planning Commission and approval by City CouncH, any proposed development will require site and building plan approvals by the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board prior to submission for construction documents review to determine compliance with the Ohio Building Code.

cc: Georgine Welo, Mayor

Mike Lograsso, Director of Law City Council Members

LISE, LLC

oakwood rezoning report 01.10.11 (b).doc

South Euclid Building Department

Page 3

5- 25-73

J - 14 -74 3-11- 74 6- 14- 76 3-28-77 9-28- 81 6-28- 82 3-l2-84 4~ 23- 84 6-24-85 4-21 -86 7-14 -86 1- 25 -99

6-12-00 2-25-08 10-27-08

COURT ORDER (CASE "* 907567) 47-73

38-72

43""75

62-75

41-75

16-82

6-84 4·7 -83

9-80 39-85 29-85 99 ~98

108-99 09-07 40-08

fPt""""""' ............ .... r

'PPL> po~eo pott1"tON.

Fort. t(.e."ZDN.t~ 1'0 C ... ~

~M F ······1
!
r ~-
I ! I 763.02

PLANNING AND ZONING CODE

182

ZONING MAP AMENDMENT PROCEDURE

Initiated by Individual, Partnership, Initiated by Initiated by Initiated by
or Corporation having legal title to Planning Commission. Council. Administration.
property in the City. I I I
...
Law Director shall prepare legislation to
accomplish such amendment and refer legislation
to Council.
!
Council shall refer the proposed ordinance
to the Planning Commission.
_..
Planning Commission.

~
l Public Hearing J
Process.
_.!.
Substantive Planning Commission shall make it's
Change recommendation to Council within 120 days after
closure of Public Hearing.
~
I Council shall hold I
Public Hearing.
J
Any substantive changes made by Council, then
such amendment shall be referred back to the
Planning Commission and the same procedure shall
apply thereto as applied to the original amending
ordinance.
No lChange
Any ordinance disapproved by the Planning
Commission, shall not be passed unless it receives
the affirmative vote of'three-forths of the entire
Council.
~
Any proposed amending ordinance relating to
Zoning Map classification, which ordinance has been
defeated by a vote of Council, shall not be eligible
for reconsideration for a period of one year after
such final action by Council. (Ord. 52-06. Passed 12-11-06.)

2008 Replacement

CITY OF SOUTH EUCLID, OHIO

ORDINANCE NO.: ""-0=..1--'-"1'-"1 _

INTRODUCED BY: __ __:.M~il~le:c!c.r _

REQUESTED BY: Miller, Goodman, & Mayor

January 10, 2011

AN ORDrNANCE

AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SOUTH EUCLID, OHIO AND SO AS TO CHANGE THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PROPERTY FROM ITS EXISTING CLASS R-75 "ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT" TO C-3 "SPECIAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT".

WHEREAS, FISE LLC, has submitted an application requesting the rezoning of the hereinafter described property from its existing Class R-75 One-Family Residential District to C-3 Special Commercial District; and

WHEREAS, Council deems that the aforesaid zoning change should be made and that the same is conducive to the public, health,safety, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the municipality.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Council of the City of South Euclid, State of

Ohio:

Section 1: That the Zoning Map of the City of South Euclid, Ohio made a part of said Ordinance, be changed and amended so as to rezone the following described property from its present Class R-75 One-Family Residential District to C-3 Special Commercial District, to wit:

Situated in the City of South Euclid, County of Cuyahoga, State of Ohio and known as being part of Original Euclid Township, Lot Nos. 23 and 24, Tract No.2 and is further bounded and described as follows:

Beginning at a 5/8" iron pin found at the intersection of the center line of Warrensville Center Road (86 feet wide) with the center line of Cedar Road (70 feet wide). Thence North 00°-34'-38" West, along said center line of Warrensville Center Road, a distance of 1830.92 feet to a Northeasterly corner of The Rapid Transit Land Co's Subdivision No. 17A as shown by the recorded plat in Volume 81 of Maps, Page 32 of Cuyahoga County Records. Thence North 89°-52'-17" West, along a Northerly line of said Rapid Transit Land Co's Subdivision No. 17A, a distance of 43,00 feet to the Westerly right of way line of said Warrensville Center Road and the principal place of beginning of the land herein described;

Course 1

Thence North 89°-52'-17" West, continuing along said Northerly line of The Rapid Transit Land Co's Subdivision No. 17A, a distance of 1357.39 feet to the intersection of the Southerly prolongation of the Easterly right of way line of Andrews Road (20 feet wide);

Course 3

Thence South 89°-40' -23" East, along a Northerly line of said City of South Euclid, a distance of 1338.79 feet to the aforesaid Westerly right of way line of Warrensville Center Road;

Course 2

Thence North 00°-25'-43" East, along said Southerly prolongation and along said Easterly right of way line of Andrews Road, a distance of 1319.46 feet to a Northwesterly corner of the aforesaid City of South Euclid;

Course 4

Thence South 00°-03 '-46" East, along said Westerly right of way line of Warrensville Center Road, a distance of 502.25 feet to an angle point therein;

Course 5

Thence South 00°-34'-38" East, continuing along said Westerly right of way line of Warrensville Center Road, a distance of 812.63 feet to the principal place of beginning and containing 40.7198 Acres (1,773,754 Square Feet) of land according to a survey made by Thomas J. Neff, Jr. Registered Surveyor No. 7065-0hio in November of2010.

The subject premises being the same land conveyed to the Oakwood Club by deed recorded in Volume 1485, Page 228 of Cuyahoga County Records.

The basis of bearings for the premises surveyed is North 89"-56'-50" East as the Northerly line of said Original Lot No. 24, Tract No.2 and a Southerly right of way line of said Blanche Road as evidenced in the Taylor Heights Allotment as shown by the recorded plat in Volume 61 of Maps, Page 15 of Cuyahoga County Records.

Be the same more or less, but subject to all legal highways and easements of record.

Section 2: That it is hereby found and determined that all formal actions. of this Council concerning and relating to the passage of this Ordinance were adopted in an open meeting of this Council, and that all deliberations of this Council and any of its committees on or after November 25, 1975, that resulted in such formal action were in meetings open to the public in compliance with all legal requirements, including Section 121.22 of the Ohio Revised Code.

Section 3: That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest period allowed by law and upon signature of the Mayor.

Passed this ~_ day of , 2011.

David B. Miller, President of Council

Attest:

Approved:

Keith A. Benjamin, Clerk of Council

Georgine Welo, Mayor

Approved as to form:

Michael P. Lograsso, Director of Law

Memorandum

Date: 1/10/2011

To: Building Commissioner Paul Kowalczyk From: Robert Abele

HE: Rezoning Oakwood Property

I have reviewed the plans for the proposed development of Oakwood Commons and have no objections for the rezoning.

I will review the site plans at a later time.

Division of Fire James Davis Fire Marshall

Date:

To:

From:

Re:

City Of South Euclid

1349 South Green Road South Euclid, Ohio 44121 Phone: (216) 691-4273 Fax: (216) 381-2016

Departmental Correspondence

January 10, 2011

Mr. Paul Kowalczyk Building Commissioner

J ames Davis, Fire Inspector Division of Fire

Oakwood Commons Warrensville Center Road

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

The Fire Department has reviewed the plans for the above captioned request. As presented, the Fire Department has no objections to this proposall

January 12,2011

STEPHEN HOVANCSEK & ASSOCIATES, INC, t!o~ EnylnuJa & fPfawu.u

TWO MERIT DRIVE. RICHMOND HEIGHTS, oHIO 44143

(216) 731-6255

FAX No: (216) 731-4483

City of South Euclid

1349 South Green Road South Euclid, Ohio 44121

Attention: Mr. Paul Kowalczyk, Building Commissioner

Re: OAKWOOD COMMONS REZONING APPLICATION PPN 704-27-001

Dear Mr. Kowalczyk,

The City Engineer has reviewed the subject rezoning application made by First Interstate Development for the subject parcel which was formerly used as a golf course. The subject parcel contains 60.8 acres according to the survey commissioned by the developer, and is currently zoned for R-75. Residential. Since the property owner has the right to develop the land consistent with the existing zoning and the city's development regulations, the following analysis will therefore compare the impact on the City's infrastructure of this type of development versus the developer's proposal. Our comments are below.

Potential for Development as R-75

We have prepared a concept sketch of a possible standard subdivision that could be built under Chapter 723, "Residential Subdivision Regulations". Please refer to attached plan. We estimate that 165 conventional, 12~000 sf sublots for single family homes could be developed on this land without recourse for variances or conditional use approvals. Such a subdivision would also involve the creation of approximately 7,200 If of new dedicated roadway, with City owned and maintained pavement, water lines, and sewers. Alternatively, 222 dwelling units could be built under the City's PURD regulations, which is a conditional use.

C-3 Development

First Interstate proposes that the 40.7 acres fronting Warrensville Center Road be rezoned to C-3 Special Conunercial, with the remaining 20.1 acres to retain its current zoning. This land would subsequently be donated to the City for use as a park. The rezoning application provides some conceptual details for the proposed development of the site. It is proposed to build approximately 325,000 sf of retail and restaurant space, and create 400 new jobs. Chapter 734 requires one parking space per every 300 sf of net floor area, however the retail industry prefers one space per every 200 sf, or five spaces per 1,000 sf. The amount of parking might therefore range from a minimum of 1,083 spaces to a maximum of 1,625 spaces.

Water and Sewer Use

Oakwood Commons Rezoning January 12,2011

Page 2

Comparison of Impacts

Table 1, attached, lists the estimated impact for each type of development with regard to water and sewer use, storm water runoff, and traffic.

The "Uniform Standards for Sewerage Improvements", Table 3.1, provides planning guidance for the estimation of domestic water use and sewage generation. For "Homes in Subdivisions" the estimated rate of usage is based on 400 gallons per day (gpd) per dwelling, while for retail stores the usage is estimated at a rate of 20 gallons per day per employee. Restaurants add considerably more, at a rate of 3 5 gpd per seat. For purposes of this analysis it is assumed that three restaurants will be built, averaging 7,000 sf with 250 seats.

From Table 1 the total estimated water and sewer use for the residential subdivision is nearly twice that of the proposed commercial use.

Impervious Area

The volume of stormwater runoff generated by a site is a function of the impervious area of the site. Table I lists the amount of impervious area estimated for the two types of development.

A typical residential development of L/4 acre lots will have an average impervious area of 3,500 sf, including the roof areas of the principle structure, a detached garage, driveway, walkways, decks, patios, and other hardscape features. The streets were assumed to have a width of 23 feet, with sidewalks on either side.

The proposed commercial development will entail the construction of new buildings having 325,000 sf of roof area and associated parking. The City is considering the adoption of new parking lot standards that would reduce the size of parking stalls to 9 feet wide by 18 feet long, with 22 foot drive aisles, from the currently required 10 feet by 20 feet stall and 24 foot wide drive aisle. The adoption of the new standards will result in a pavement area reduction of 19%, and is therefore recommended to reduce storm water runoff.

From the above, the total pavement area per parking space, including driveways, is 261 sf, which should be increased to 300 sf per stall to account for the ingress-egress and service driveways needed to serve the site. Assuming that the maximum number of parking spaces will be built, we can estimate the total pavement area, which is shown in Table 1.

Normally, commercial development, acre per acre, has more impervious area than residential uses.However, since more than 20 acres will be devoted to park use, the total estimated impervious area for the two zoning classes is very much the same. We are confident that the City's current storm water management regulations, combined with the LEED certified Best Management Practices promised by the developer, will be able to further mitigate the storm water impact of the proposed development on the tributary section of the Nine MiLe Creek.

P:\South Euclid\2011\] lOl07·oakwood.rezone·pk.doc

Oakwood Commons Rezoning January 12,2011

Page 3

Traffic

Traffic impact is often characterized by the number of trips a new use will generate in the peak hour period. In the case of commercial development this is usually taken to be the period between 4 to 6PM on a weekday. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (lTE) publish studies that enable traffic engineers to estimate the peak hour trip generation based on parameters such as the square footage of the buildings on a site, or the number of dwelling units, among other factors. To estimate the impact ofa new residential development we used the ITE factor of 1.02 trips per dwelling unit to calculate that there would be 168 new peak hour trips. The developer's traffic study has indicated that there will be a total of 999 trips generated in the peak hour period.

From the above it is obvious that the proposed commercial development will generate much more new traffic than a residential development would do. It should be noted, however, that Warrensville Center Road is capable of dealing with this increased traffic load, as it had

done so in the past. Warrensville Center Road between Mayfield Road and Cedar Road is a four lane roadway with a median within an existing 80 foot wide right-of-way. The current traffic volume is below past traffic volumes. Attached is a portion of the County Traffic Count map published by the Cuyahoga County Engineer in December, 2004. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on Warrensville Center Road between Mayfield and Cedar Roads is on the order of 16,025 vehicles per day. The County Engineer's previous traffic counts indicate that traffic volumes on this roadway have been on a declining trend. In 2000 the ADT in this section was 18,569, and in the late eighties it was as high as 22,095ADT. Please refer to the attached traffic count data sheets published by the County Engineer. In 200617 the County resurfaced this section of Warrensville Center Road and in the process removed a number of traffic signals that could no longer meet ODOT signal warrant requirements.

To mitigate the impact of the commercial development the developer has proposed to install a new traffic signal at the proposed main entrance, to be located across from Stonehaven Road. There is sufficient room here to create new left turn lanes into the site, but the developer would have to provide additional space for right turn lanes located on the west side of Warrensville Center. This signal will also provide protected turn phases for the existing neighborhoods on the east side of Warrensville Center, making up for some that were lost.

The developer has also promised to provide sidewalks on the west side of the road where none exist at present. In addition, he has also promised to provide an area for a GCRTA bus pull over where currently bus patrons have only a very narrow strip of grass and no bus shelter. The signalized intersection will provide a safe and ADA compliant pedestrian crossing to the site and the bus stop where none exist at present.

Cost of Community Services

While it is not the prevue of our analysis to compare the overall economic impacts ofthe two zoning classifications, some mention should be made of the cost to the city and the local school districts to provide services to the two types of development in terms of the tax revenue generated.

P:\South ElIcJid\2011 \1 J 01 07-oakwood-rezone-pk.doc

Oakwood Commons Rezoning January 12, 2011

Page 4

Attached is an Ohio State University Fact Sheet "Cost of Community Services" that is a synopsis of several studies which considered the impact of residential growth. The studies indicate that for every dollar of tax revenue generated residential development costs between $1.15 and $1.50 in community services, whereas the cost for commercial industrial developments is on the order of $0.35 to $0.65 per tax dollar generated. Interestingly, open space and agricultural space have ratios similar to commercial and industrial uses, according to the studies.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, and the information provided in the rezoning application, the proposed rezoning will have less impact on the community in terms of water and sewage use and have equal, 01' less impact in terms of storm water volume and quality than the existing R -75 zoning. The rezoning will create a greater traffic volume, however this impact is within the capacity of the roadway, and will be mitigated by the installation of a new traffic signal and the provision of enhanced pedestrian and mass transit access. In tenus of the cost of services, studies indicate that commercial development has a positive impact when compared to residential development.

If you have any questions please feel free to call.

Andrew K. Blackley, P.E. City Engineer

AKB/ab Enclosures

Cc: Mayor Georgine Welo

Ed Gallagher, Economic Development

P: \South Euclid\20 I ] \ 1 10 10 7 -oakwood-rezon e- pk. doc

~,----- ~_-- ---- -~-- ~--- -,--- - __ . -_-- - -
I
, .... ,i). I
\.::"t. ;~ ,,...- -
-3 ~ " .;
..... r_)1 &, " r- N e e i
~ ~ ".t I'M ,I -e'-----
"" '" <i) ~ I@
~. ~ <:: "2 I"'~ ~j
~ ~ '_oJ ,~ <$ J_
.:!! <f' c: ... .:,
------t~ ® I
j 1 '"' ~ ,(\ .". 're--
~ , .. r- .) U) re-
% <:> tt. r
4J ~ ,I' ..,. f' .5 'S
"~I e-
t: - ~
.. r- ~ V' ," ':-
1&\ ~ ~ r- >-> ~
r ,ft @ ,r. " ~ J_
11,' ~ t:: 0- Il:>
D c: ,_,-- ~ ~ ,? '"' I~ ~I
.d " ~I ~ r- .!l S
~ ~ ~ !P :r 9 ~ I
'L'! - '2 r- ~ L
J v', Q
,'~ ! -:.:: ,,~ '0 "" I~ !
* r- 1/,
,I 0 @
$' ~!!:. ~(\ (j> (~ ~ I~
~ V'
r? ,t' 'tlj ~ ..) i) ~ I
l' __.. .J :! ~ il> <l'\ <\ ~
tt i' 2 :r & i-J'" 1,/' ~ 'Z ~ I!
~ • .r <:J ~
.... -- "j~ cl'
S "~ '" J-
,~ :r. ~- ,,> s: ,J\ @ :,
:l .:;. -r- 'if- d" ~ ~~
,,", '" .-,'
-' ~ _. IJ' ~
~;. ::x- " ,.. ~
-::r »» -- ~ L{' C
~ o Ov07J ~ ~,
--- e
~ ."..- ~ I
'UCi SI'\3C1UN\;;I _r, V) re---
-
-
,- 71 G,- ~_
r-' .., ~I
- e
-- ~ ~
~ ';;5. ce--
I
~ er" 0. e- I
~ -4' <:Y ~ ~
c r .(\ ~
? " <:) !'l
-' e
- .'J ~
<r -<r Ie
-c: ~@
p 0 .,.l \,\' Vl
-
0" q- <.\- r-> ~-
,,,,
'.(\ .1"'\ ::r .~ ~~
w -.: ¢
I " ~
u --- '7' :; e
z ;=.. '"
<[ v '" e
_j '" -r ~
r:Q '" '" e
9 :. _- -;- Ie
sr: «r N
,.,.. <:""' -:-. r
'" ~
'" .... j' ~J-
1---'
'~ .,:I .,. "'" I.!-
<S- r-
7' -~
"f> ...
-e-' .<" @
f' -r f@
~ -,
2- r '£, ~~
.<' ,
~ H .... ~
~3 ~
~ ~" IS
~ (~'q('J~ ,\,;-i'"" ~
.L..;:_. __
1 £89 dl;lW 'SlH aNI;Il3f\T1J,_

l0 ......
._
("'0 ~
\ I t£!
['...
C::i. I ~
-. "C
Z
~
---'
~ i
-
D
\5:J
::s
\fJ ~
D
t:t ~
~
d
7.
~ City of South Euclid Stephen Hovancsek Associates"Engineers

COMPARISON OF IMPACTS

Project:

OAKWOOD COMMONS REZONING ANALYSIS

Date: January 7, 2011

Property/Parcel:

Size:

704"27"001 61.8

Warrensville Center Road

Acres

Current Proposed
ZONING R"75 C"3
Minimum Lot Area: 12,000 sf 40.7 Acres, actual
Minimum Lot Frontage: 75 ft 1,314.9 ft, actual
Minimum Lot Depth: 160 ft 1,348.1 ft, Avg. depth
Required Street ROW: 60 ft NA

Estimated Standard Density: 165 Sublots 400.0 Employees
Dedicated Streets, Standard
Subdivision: 7,200 If

PURD Density 3.6 DUlAc.
PURD Units: 222.0 DU

Water & Sewer Use
GPO/Unit: 400 GPD/OU 20 GPO/person
Estimated Use: 66,000 GPD 8,000 GPO
8,750 GPD
8,750 GPO
8,750 GPD
Total: 66,000 GPO 34,250 GPO

Impervious Area
Buildings 3,500 577,500 sf 325,000 sf
Impv. SF per lot
Pavement 165,600 sf 487,500 sf
Sidewalks 72,000 sf 13,149 sf
Total: 815,100 sf 825,649 sf

Traffic Impact
Peak Hour,PM 1.02 168 trips 999 trips
Trips per lot 1I{1107~rez.one-colllparc.xls

Table 1

Notes

Retail

Restaurant\, 7000 Sf Restaurant\, 7000 Sf Restaurant\, 7000 Sf

Spaces!

5 1000 SF

300 Sf/space,

lncl drives

5 ft x frontage x2

Per developer's study

1!l2l2011; 2:29PM

Single .. Family Detached Housing (210)

Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units" ,~".

On a: Weekday,

P.M. Peak Hour of Generator

Number of Studies: 354 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 176

Directional Distribution: 64% entering, 36% exiting

Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit

Range of Rates

Standard Deviation

Average Rate

0.42 2.98

1.05

1.02

n

1,900
1,BOO
1,700
1,600
1,500
1,400
1,300
1,200
1,100
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 ~' •• L • ' •• ; ... _

c ,c

• ' •••• .' ••• _' •••• " ••• .' •••• '_ ••• : ., _' _ • _ , ~ L ••• ' •••• ', _ •• ! _ • _ .' .... ~ .... ' .. ,"':'. c , •

• • I : ....... ,.,. I

• " I" I I I I j'''''i.

_ •• _. _ • _ • ," •.• 'i • L •••• : ••• ",' ••• " ••• j •• " _ •• ~ ••• ',' ••• " • - L • ".' ••• ~ ~;/ " L •• ':" •• _

, I I I I I I I • • "," • I

- - -,' ••• ," .•• , - •• ',' ••• r ••• '.' ••• " ••• 1 ... -.' .. L r ••• ',' • _ - " ••• , ••• ',' • ;A r ••• - ••••• ,_ - , •

• • I I • .,. I • I

I ~'..

• • _ ., • . . • ,. _ _ . • . . . ... _ _ . _ . . _ -, _ . . .. - . . . , _ _ . -. _ _ . _ ... . . _ ->.. ~,~..,.. . .) ... - . - . - . - • - . .. - - - . ,. .

, ,

· . , . ........, . ,

- •• -: ~ ~ - .;. • __ ~ • • . .'. • •• , • •• T' " • , _ ~ • • ~ ,'~ - • , ~ - • • .' •••• :. - :- ..-: __ •• ' _ ' -;' • ~ x

,

. .,.,",.....,

. . . . . . . . . . .• ! . . __ '. . . " ~ .. ' .' .. _ . '. . .. ! . _ . _'. __ T ' •• _ C T' , _ ~.(_ < .. __ .' . __ .'. ,. . ... _ " .• _ . . _

. , , , ",'" .

, . . . ,,,,, .

_ •• '.' •• ~ " T. _ ••• : •••• : ••••• ~ ••• -: •••• ; __ • -: •• _ -x· . ;.r<? .. -:- . - . ~ .

· X ',,"" ,

· }" .

___ " _ • • .,' • • • , _ • • ., •• T • T • • _ " • , , ',~ • • • , • ~ • _, _ • .~,; ~ •• " ",' • •• •• ~ _ T • >,. ~ C " ~ T • " '. > _ ~ • " ~ _ •

, ..... , L • , • , •

. . - - ; .>; - ... ~:~ ~ .. ~ " : ~ - - . :. - - . ; , - .. : .... ~ , ... : ... -: ... -

. , '

.... " ,

, , , , , . .(

" ~. " .. - X' .. '.' ... ; ... ',' . - - " .. ,... ..... ~ T

, • , , . , /r x-'

• ,. , ,I'

- • - " • ' • - " ••• '; T' - ~ -:' ~F~./:- .

, ,

"'-'" ",'" ',' -,.

, , , , , .

~ - - .. " " - . " , - . . . - . . . . - ... - - - . . .

, , , , . .

, , ,

- _. _ .... - - -" ..

· , ,

, , ,

• •• __ L _. __ ••• _ •••••••

, ' . ,

, ,

~ .. " _ . , . ,~ - - . , - . . ','

x , , " , ,

•• ' • , ~ r • • • ~. - - • - " ••• I ' • , " - - - . r . _ • " • .' • T •

.'" , • • ~ • ~ _ _. • • " _'. • _ • J , • • _'. • • _ .. , • , _' _ • • .'. ~

, -, , , , . .

· . . . , . , . ,

• , • , • _ • _ • , • • • _ • T , • • r • • • • • _ _ _ • • _ _ _ • • ~ _ _ • • _ _ "

, • • • • I • •

, , . . . , . .

_ ~ .- _ . . " . , . ',' .. ' ' .. , - ",' - . , .. . - - '. " - . - " ...

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800

x = Number of Dwelling Units

X Actual Data Points

--- Fitted Curve

- - - - - - Average Rate

.Fltted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.89 Ln(X) + 0.61

R2 =0.91

f

273

Institute of Transportation Engineers

! I

j

I I'

ROBERT C. JCLJUBER, Jr., F.B., P.5.

STATtON

DATK

NO.

THIS LEG

Vl!JUCLB VOLmm SDMMAR ....

TOTAL ...

VOLOKE

TKS

, TX5

.' .,'~$ llATll:Lt!:d

~~ ~~~~ ~_. ~ R __ ~ __ ~W_~~_~~~_~¥ ~_----~--~~ __ w_p ~~ ~ ~ ~~_y ~._

-- ..... _ ......

5

OF HILL:tARD RD.

N OF l.JtWD B"l:5 BLV 5 OF LKWD R'l'S BLV N OF LORAnI' AVE. N OF MADISON AVB. S OF MADISON AVE. SE OF TRX5X8TT RD. N'I'I OF TlllSlOtt'l' RD. N OF ~B ROAD S E OF TUTTLR ROAD

( CONTJ:mnm I

512 06/02/99 14427 747 07/14/00 18908 20418 339 07/17/00 16896 1236 08/02/99 14641 18710 746 06/23/96 21SlS 19B69 989 07/17/00 158GB 20307

VEBXCL~S ON W~SVILL~ CR 004

N OF AtJROllA ROAD

S OF B.P. alSCH.

~ OF B.P. RESCH.

N OF BROADWAY

S OF ~~~ll.r;ll\P

N N S N 3

OF bwri P:BiuI OF CHAGRIN BLVD OF CSAGRXN BLVD OF CLARII: AVENtI'lr OF ~ AVlMl'B

N OF CLA'iTlIORNB

N OF SLLACOTT n:.w

S OF ELLACOTT PItW

N OF EMERY ROAD .

S OF EMBlI,Y ROAll

S 01' VALMOO'l.'1l RD.

N OF l'ARNSLBIGn

S 01" l'ARNSLEIGR

S 01' GWlDSTOm DR N OF GLADSTONE OR

S C? GItAHD BLVD.

N 01.' lUNSJ!lN ROAD

S OF B1INSBK ROAD

5 OF IIARVAJU) ROAD

N OF ·'l!:.JlVARll ROAD

S OF HILLGROVi!:

N OF RILLGROva S 01' LlBBY ROAD

N 5 If 5 N 5 5 N

OF LIBBY IlOAD OF LONGBROO~ RP OF t.ONGBROOll: RD 01' HARVIN ROAD

0" ,~i!'@~~' 01'~w~'I!l~!! lID. OF ~OWBROO!( 01 IoI£A.DOmIROOP>

U OF H:aADOWGl.TB

U OF Mlt.I!S IUt.MP-N

S 01' KI!.ES RAMP-N

......

67 06/27/91 31849 284 07/06/89 26812 181811 82 06/11/99 6500 37 06/09/00 ~:~:lll&

I l'-'~J~' 62 06/16/99 25935

:!l2D6 535 07/05/89 2S722 25663 1404 06/16/99 21086 lOG 06/27/91 25131 23162 971 06/15/99 28011 28557 1405 06/16/99 26613 623 06/28/91 26725 26391 220 01/19/92 18451 18291 814 06/22/90 7221 439 07/30/92 29399 lUSH 6J5 06/01/00 21956 :10.,] 524 07/05/89 27439 27220 76 06/14/99 23534 Hll6 219 07/06/89 27552 16tH

,:, ....

27693 JOHO 30640 JSB6a lOlB'! 30384 30 G91 30692 14J67 24367

38993 2nJ) 29733 24.07'1 4.:I~9Q\ ,tili~·~O 6H7Q H47a l650S 26505 35098 26057 26057 "'0069 40069 36506 J70l2 37B22 19510 19510

B7lS 30093 30093 36B4.0 36640 27719 27719 3'1647 34.G4.7 28127 28127

67 06/17/91 33056 38993

:1.7 06/12/00 lr.~6'~'+"~"~"~iit: i,;l':~,!i· <.:~'j)$'~f 391 07/H/n'ili~85

17B64.

814 06/22/90 8~~6 1572 06/15/~9 1895l HH}

20299 20299 B7l5 34H~ H2.)

"Oo/2S/92 12999 1 07/01/94 24444 :2 26723 2 07/07/94 23865 "07/01/94 17893 1 21503 :2 oB/06/9l 20512

19344

l 07/07/94 17671 :2 21060

3 OB/18/S7 38B21 :2 / I 0

o 6 07/01/94 5676 5 09/16/91 16000

~

27037

~ 08/02/94

19025 a o 1 07/2]/92 25750 4 06/23/86 24786

3 / /

3

23614

~ 07/30/92 287'0 .. 27835 J 07/23/91 27116 1 08/19/76 27854

3

14615

1 07/06/89 11777 3 17546 3 07/20/67 5429 2 07/oS/89 33884

2B997 3 08/02/94 23890

3 J 3

/ I

21556. o a

2 06/26/91 22809

J

3 / /

J

3 oB/18/B7 3 06/16/97 3

:2 07/13/89 1

22un o o 40110 12253

....llll£

laUB

1799)

3 07/20/87 95B3 • 07/30/92 31114

3HH

19214 38164 3U6i 4.7001 3 ]7·1) 33743 J0306 ]0306 24801 24801

43868 o o 24595 UGH UGH 6319] 631H

o o 38970 25B24 25BH 38462 38402 36111 340969 34969 18725 187H

9776 )4]77 34377 39442 39U2

o o H406 3H06 o

o 43668 lBHS 38165 201l'! 20724

9776 )5920 JS~2o

2 08/08/B9 ~~~S3

2SS10

2 07/30/91' 16762 127973.

2 IB4~7 ~7973

2 08/10/90 19]07 40679

2 08/08/89 12898 27596

2 17345 27598

1 ~1/1S/B6 15562 24058

2 14251 24056

1 07/30/91 17406 1 18294

06/25/65 31434 all

a

4 08/05/92 4774 3 07/14/09 21249 21B78 06/10/91 29816

3 o o

19890

/ /

1 07/11/89 21436 3 06/28/82 22631

2

llBB8

5 OB/l0/07 22231 "" 22217 2 07/11/89 23S6B o 07/30/73 2774B

o 2

/ /

200al o

2 0 2 06/15/as 10098 2// 0

3 o6/2B/91 15l0J

3 22434

all 0

o 0

07/20/87 25379

3 o o 3

27650

/ / 0

o 06/25/85 33199 01/H/Sl U9H

-....lJ..Ul. 07/n/86 18953

IB9H

o e

1 06/25/85 11756 08/18/81 26090

3

10139

22056 12056

o

37950 n o :aS99 4.5641 45641 64665 .U665

o o 400n 23596 2359G 301H 30344 31774 H951 34951

a o 11973 o o H769

fs0769 o o 42668

4266B o o 37950

46617 45617 11571 21577 1l.973 lHJl 3U33

e

1 2 1 2 3 l 2 :2 1 1

:I o o

"" :I

3

:I o o o

3

2

o o o c

c o 4

o a 2 2 o o

5 c o 2

Costs of Community Services, CDFS-1260-98

http:// ohi oline.osu.edul cd- facti 1 260.html

factSheet

Ohio State University Fact Sheet

Community Development

700 Ackerman Road, Columbus, OH 43202-1578

Costs of Community Services

CDFS-1260-98

Land Use Series

Allen M. Prindle Thomas W. Blaine

The term, costs of community services (COCS), usually refers to a growing body of literature which focuses upon how various types of land use affect local government taxation and spending. This body of literature generally summarizes studies that use fiscal impact analysis as their primary method of determining whether various forms ofland use contribute to or detract from local government budgets.

During the period immediately following World War II, many communities sought to attract business, industrial, and residential growth for a number of reasons. Among these was that economic growth would raise the property tax base and generate increased revenues for local infrastructure, including schools, roads, and fire/police protection. During the 1980s however, many skeptics began to question whether economic development in rural areas "paid its own way" in terms of local taxation. When farmland, open space and woodlands are converted to residential development, for example, local tax revenues increase substantially, since property values increase. But the local government and school district are also required to provide added services to the new residents. Does the increased revenue balance the increased demand for services? That is the question the COCS studies set out to answer.

The COCS Ratio

It has become conventional in COCS studies to divide land use into three categories: residential, commercial/industrial, and farmland/open space. One of the most common procedures used is the calculation of a COCS ratio for each land use category. The ratio compares how many dollars worth of local government services are demanded pel' dollar collected. A ratio greater than 1.0 suggests that for every dollar of revenue collected from a given category of land, more than one dollar is spent in

10f4

1113/2011 1:30 PI'. 'I

Costs of Community Services, CDFS- J 260-98

htlp:/ lohi 01 ine.osu.edu/cd- fact! 1260.htmJ

association with it.

Many of the early studies providing estimates of COCS ratios were either sponsored or conducted by the American Farmland Trust. But in recent years a great number of other researchers from a variety of backgrounds have undertaken such studies. The results seem to corroborate each other. Virtually all of the studies show that for residential land, the COCS ratio is substantially above 1. That is, residential land is a net drain on local government budgets. The average estimate ranges from about 1.15 to 1.50; which means that for every dollar collected in taxes and non-tax revenue, between $1.15 and $1.50 gets returned in the form of services by the local government and school district.

On the other hand, the COCS ratios for the other two land use categories are both substantially below 1. For commercial/industrial, the ratio usually ranges from 0.35 to 0.65, indicating that for every dollar collected, only about 35 to 65 cents worth of services are provided by the local government. For a~'iculture and open space, the ratios are only slightly smaller, usually ranging from 0.30 to 0.50.

The largest single expenditure category for communities, according to the studies, is the public school system, accounting for 60 to 70 percent of spending. Since open space and commercial development in themselves do not place any burden on the schools, it should not be surprising that their ratios are less than the residential category.

Several questions emerge from these results. These include the following: are these studies reliable, and why do the numbers vary?

The studies do appear to be reliable because of the way in which taxes and service expenditures are calculated and imputed. The methods used in the studies have been laid out clearly. Regarding the variation in COCS ratios, it should be noted that they do not vary in any profound manner. The studies are unanimous in showing that residential land use ratios are above 1 and that the other types of land uses are below 1. The primary reason that the ratios do have some variation is that all communities are not identical. If, for example, many homes in a community are in an extremely high price range, and occupied by "empty nesters," the COCS ratio should be expected to be relatively low. On the other hand, low or middle income property occupied by families with numerous children would produce a higher ratio. Some communities have gone beyond simply calculating a COCS ratio and have actually calculated the "break even" home value for their community. Not surprisingly, these values tend to be substantially higher than the median (average) home value.

Other researchers have attempted to measure the costs of growth simply by statistically measuring the relationship between population growth rates and per capita local government spending. Most of these results have shown that for very small growth rates (in the area of 1-2 percent per year), costs do not escalate rapidly. For communities with higher growth rates, however (above 3 percent per year) per capita spending begins to increase very dramatically.

Another Approach

The findings of the various types of studies on costs of services seem to be in agreement that, as farmland and open space are converted to residential development, local public per capita spending increases.

Criticisms of the COCS Literature

Initially, critics of the COCS studies argued that it may be difficult to generalize from these studies. This

20f4

1113/2011 1 :30 Pfv

Costs of Community Services, CDFS·1260·98

http.z/ohioline.osuedu/cd-fact/Izou .brml

criticism has lost some credibility, however, because so many studies have been conducted in a wide range of communities nationally, The results seem to be unambiguous.

More recently, critics have developed the argument that only looking at the fiscal impacts on local governments and school districts is too limited in scope. They maintain that new residents do much more than simply pay taxes and demand services. Residents work, earn money, and spend much of it locally, and therefore contribute to the economic base of the community in a substantial way that is not captured in the eoes studies. The critics argue that future work should include these impacts.

But if coes studies do not include these "multiplier" effects, it also must be said that they do not include non-economic costs to the community, such as the loss of scenic landscape, increased traffic congestion, and other variables associated with quality of life either.

Another argument against coes studies is that they are based on a "cost theory of taxation" and do not consider how growth, even with increased taxation, increases the values of properties. The rival "benefit theory of taxation" states that as new taxes pay for better infrastructure such as schools and roads, property values (and thus the net worth of property owners) increase. Considerations such as this have not been measured within the context of COCS.

Implications

One of the most important implications of the COCS literature is that proponents of farmland and open space preservation now have an important economic argument on their side. Some proponents of economic development have argued that a system that allows land to go to the highest bidder provides the most efficient economic results. The COCS fmdings, however, indicate that residential development often brings costs to the community that are not fully borne by the new residents, but instead are distributed throughout the community. Local leaders should be aware that efforts to "promote growth" in their communities will have substantial impacts on revenues and expenditures. They should be able to estimate these impacts when planning for the future.

Two things emerge when reflecting on the COCS issue. The first is that residential development in any area invariably leads to increased per capita demand for publicly provided services, placing increased burdens on local infrastructure and public agencies. As a result, increases in local tax rates to provide additional services tend to follow growth. Second is that members of each community should ask themselves the broader question, "How do we manage growth in our community, along with all of the impacts (both positive and negative) that it brings?"

References

American Farmland Trust, 1993, Is Farmland Protection a Community Investment? How to do a Cost of Community Services Study. Washington. DC.

30f4

:1

;1

1113/2011 1:30 PI\. il

Bunnell, Gene, 1997, "Fiscal Impact Studies as Advocacy and Story Telling," Journal of Planning Literature, 12/2, pp. 136-151.

Burchell, R.W. and D. Listokin, 1995. Land, Infrastructure, Housing Costs and Fiscal Impacts Associated with Growth: The Literature on the Impacts of Sprawl vs. Managed Growth. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Kelsey, T.W" 1996. "The" Fiscal Impacts of Alternative Land Uses: What do Cost of Community

Costs of Community Services, CDFS-1260-98

http://ollioline.osu.edulcd-factl1260.hl:m1

Services Studies Really Tell US?'I Journal of the Community Development Society, 27/1, pp. 78-89.

Ladd, H., 1992. Effects of Population Growth on Local Spending and Taxes. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Keith L. Smith, Associate Vice President for Ag. Adm. and Director, OSU Extension.

All educational programs conducted by Ohio State University Extension are available to clientele on a nondiscriminatory basis without regard to race, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, gender, age, disability or Vietnam-era veteran status.

TDD No. 800-589-8292 (Ohio only) or 614-292-1868

I Ohio line I Search I Fact Sheets I Bulletins I

40f4

1/13/2011 1 :30 VT'v

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful