Agenda - 01-10-1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

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.