# 4 supplemental - granicus

Date of Meeting: July 17, 2018

# 4 Supplemental

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE COMMITTEE

ACTION ITEM SUBJECT: ZMAP-2013-0006, SPEX-2016-0029, SPEX-2016-0030,

SPEX-2016-0031, SPEX-2017-0032, SPMI-2016-0008, ZMOD-2017-0010, Silver District West

ELECTION DISTRICT(S): Broad Run & Dulles CRITICAL ACTION DATE: September 17, 2018 STAFF CONTACT(S): Richard W. Hancock, AICP, Project Manager, Planning and Zoning Kenny Young, Acting Director, Planning and Zoning

Erin McLellan, Department of Management and Budget Naeem Mia, Department of Management and Budget

PURPOSE: To provide the Committee with additional analysis of the capital facilities impacts of this development as well as revenue detail requested by the Committee. Also, LCPS staff has provided additional information regarding student generation, elementary school site development and programmatic costs, suburban vs. urban school facility considerations and information on the physical education program within urban schools. RECOMMENDATION(S): Transportation and Land Use Committee: At the TLUC meeting on May 15, 2018, TLUC agreed by consensus to continue discussion at future TLUC meetings based on the work plan outlined in the May 15, 2018 TLUC Action Item.

Planning Commission: At the Planning Commission (Commission) Work Session on February 27, 2018, the Commission forwarded (7-1-1: Salmon opposed; Priscilla absent) the applications to the Board with a recommendation of approval subject to the Proffer Statement (Proffers) and based on the Findings for Approval.

Staff: In addition to the recommendations contained in the July 17, 2018 item, staff recommends that work continue on the analysis of facility needs and that staff return to the Committee’s September 17, 2018 Committee meeting with results of this analysis. Further, staff recommends that the Fiscal Impact Committee (FIC) be convened at the conclusion of the Comprehensive Plan revision to examine the CFS and the CIF to include standards and factors that consider urban development in all of the areas where it might occur under the Plan, as well as adequately addressing transportation improvements needed to support development, in particular urban development, which is currently not fully captured in the current CFS or CIF.

Item 4, Supplemental: Silver District West Transportation and Land Use Committee

July 17, 2018

UPDATE: At its April 23, 2018 meeting, the Transportation Land Use Committee (TLUC) requested analysis of capital facilities needed as a result of the proposed development as well as revenue projections. Through discussion with the Committee it was apparent that Committee members were concerned with whether the proffer amounts being generated by the county’s current standards were sufficient to mitigate the impact of the proposed development particularly as it relates to schools. Since that meeting staff has focused on examining the current suburban standards for public facilities in an attempt to quantify an appropriate adjustment to account for the complexities of urban development which is new to the County. The current CIF process includes the development of general cost estimates for various facility types, based on the Capital Facility Standards (CFS). These costs are primarily based on estimates for land acquisition and construction and are developed using historical information and other general factors. Since the CIF is a high-level planning process, it does not include conducting preliminary planning studies or design/engineering in its estimation process. Once a general cost estimate for each type of facility is developed, this cost estimate is developed into a per-capita figure based on the total cost of the facility divided by the population that the facility will serve. These population figures are based on the CFS (e.g., each fire station in the Eastern planning subareas of the County serves 25,000 persons).1 The CIF that is calculated for a rezoning application is based on the per-capita cost for the population (household size and student generation) expected to be generated by that development, in excess of the base density. This is to ensure that each housing unit type in the redevelopment application is charged only for the incremental impact of the population generated by that development. It is important to remember that currently the CFS are meant to address needs in suburban and rural environments as this has been the nature of development in the County for many years. Suburban standards and the resulting CIF currently used are not able to address all of the impacts that result from urban development, particularly in the areas of additional costs associated with building in an urban area and the nature of transportation improvements that may be needed to support a densely populated area of smaller size. Transportation impacts in particular, have never been fully addressed through the County’s CIF. Now that urban development is starting to occur in the County, staff recommends that the mitigation of transportation impacts of development be more closely examined by the FIC. ISSUES: As the Comprehensive Plan is revised, staff anticipates that the Fiscal Impact Committee (FIC) would be convened at the conclusion of the Comprehensive Plan revision to examine the CFS and the CIF. Part of this effort will need to include standards and factors that consider this new type of development as well as adequately addressing transportation improvements needed to support development, in particular urban development, which is currently not fully captured in the current CFS or CIF.

1 The Adopted Capital Facility Standards can be found online.

https://www.loudoun.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/32666


July 17, 2018

In order to provide information to the Board during this interim time period until the Comprehensive Plan is revised and the FIC can work on this issue, staff has worked to develop a potential increase that could be applied to the Eastern CIF for this development that would allow the County to ensure public facilities are provided. DMB staff, in consultation with Department of Transportation and Capital Infrastructure (DTCI), conducted research to identify completed public facilities in the DC Metro area in neighboring jurisdictions and to ascertain differences in costs between those facilities located in suburban, lower-density areas and in urban, higher-density, near Metro station areas. Using this information, staff compared the per-square footage costs to Loudoun County CIF estimates for facilities. A summary of the cost differences and specific facilities examined is in Supplemental Attachment 1. Facility types considered include fire stations, libraries, community centers, and recreation centers as those facilities are more likely to exist in sufficient numbers across jurisdictions and be relatively comparable in scope and standards. Based on the wide range of differences among facility types or more detailed planning-level estimates for specific facility types, staff started with an initial estimate of a five to ten percent increase to the CIF. Because of the lack of consistent comparators for this exercise staff continued to examine the characteristics of public facilities in urban areas and believe that the 5 -10 percent range may be too low to provide facilities which provide services for these types of developments. Since the time that information was included in the staff report, staff from both the County and LCPS have continued to look at ways to approximate the additional costs of developing capital facilities in urban areas in an attempt to determine an appropriate additional cost range. Staff considered the components of construction where cost differences are likely to exist such as, parking, stormwater management, design complexities, construction material type and reinforcements if building greater than three to four stories, access/exit features and fire protection standards for higher-rise buildings. Land acquisition costs are likely to be higher on per-SF or per-acre basis but are likely to be somewhat offset by the need to acquire less land overall. The table below shows a preliminary estimate of some of the additional costs that might be incurred when building a fire station on a smaller footprint with multiple stories. This estimate is very preliminary and staff will be working on fine-tuning this analysis for a future report to the Committee.


July 17, 2018

Example: Additional Costs to Build an Urban Fire Station

Urban Building Component Approximate Additional Cost Percentage Increase

Structural reinforcement $300,000 Elevators $500,000 Stairwells $350,000 Additional sq. footage* $1,950,000 Total increase $3,400,000 23%

*Assumes that an additional 15% will be added to total sq. footage in order to accommodate for the efficiency lost by building a multi-story building. As is demonstrated by this example, staff would consider an adjustment in the range of 20 – 30% as appropriate for urban developments. This adjustment would allow for the costs of providing services within the development but also provide an interim measure of mitigation for transportation needs which will be caused by dense development but will exist outside of the development itself. Similarly, LCPS staff has indicated that an adjustment of approximately 20 percent above the current cost to construct an elementary school may be appropriate for this development. LCPS staff analysis is provided in Attachment 3. FISCAL IMPACT: In addition to the fiscal impact associated with developing County and School facilities in an urban area, the Committee requested detail on revenues that might be generated as part of this development. Additional detail on the revenue information requested by the Committee on April 23, 2018 is provided in Supplemental Attachment 2. Each scenario is briefly described as follows:

1. Current Zoning is based on the permitted uses under ZMAP-2005-0041 (Dulles Parkway Center II) and ZMAP-1990-0015 (Loudoun Parkway Center). The permitted zoning allows for up to 494 MF Attached units and 540,000 square feet of Flex/Industrial space, as well as 1,575,800 square feet of Office and 100,000 square feet of Retail space.

2. Current Zoning with Data Center development is based on Scenario 1 but assumes that the 540,000 square feet of industrial space is rezoned and developed as Data Centers. These numbers were developed at the request of the Committee.

3. The Proposed Rezoning (100% MF Attached) scenario is based on ZMAP-2013-0006 (North/Centergate Drive and South/Barrister Street). Although the exact mix of MF Attached and MF Stacked units (totaling 3,325) is to be determined, this scenario assumes that 100% of the MF units will be developed as MF Attached for purposes of developing a range.

4. The Proposed Rezoning (100% MF Stacked) scenario is based on ZMAP-2013-0006 (North/Centergate Drive and South/Barrister Street). Although the exact mix of MF Attached and MF Stacked units (totaling 3,325) is to be determined, this scenario assumes


July 17, 2018

that 100% of the MF units will be developed as MF Stacked for purposes of developing a range.

All inputs are from the 2017 FIC Guidelines and 2017 Capital Intensity Factors. Operating expenditures and proffer credits are not included in this analysis. DRAFT MOTIONS: 1. I move that the Transportation and Land Use Committee forward ZMAP-2013-0006, SPEX-

2016-0029, SPEX-2016-0030, SPEX-2016-0031, SPEX-2017-0032, SPMI-2016-0008, ZMOD-2017-0010, Silver District West, to the September 17, 2018 Transportation and Land Use Committee meeting for further discussion and evaluation of the topics outlined in the July 17, 2018, TLUC Action Item.

AND

I further move that the Transportation and Land Use Committee recommend that the Board of Supervisors reconvene the Fiscal Impact Committee after the Comprehensive Plan update and request that they consider an urban CIF.

OR

2. I move an alternate motion.

ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Comparison of Urban-style Facilities in Neighboring Jurisdictions 2. Revenues Generated by Silver District West Rezoning 3. Memo from Loudoun County Public Schools Division of Planning Services Regarding

Additional Analysis of ZMAP 2013-0006 Silver District West

Comparison of Urban Facility Types in Neighboring Jurisdictions

Location Est. $ PSF $ Delta % Delta Notes

Library Facility Standards (Eastern CIF - Suburban) Loudoun $ 691 Fairfax Regional Library City of Fairfax $ 722 $ 31 4% Located in downtown Fairfax City

Wheaton Library and Community/Recreation Center Montgomery $ 756 $ 65 9% Located near Metro; underground parking

Silver Spring Library Montgomery $ 1,120 $ 429 62% Located near Metro; uses nearby public parking garages

Community Center Facility Standards (Eastern CIF - Suburban) Loudoun $ 641 Lubber Run Community Center Arlington $ 682 $ 41 6% Near Metro

Wheaton Library and Community/Recreation Center Montgomery $ 756 $ 115 18% Located near Metro; underground parking

Fire Station Facility Standards (Eastern CIF - Suburban) Loudoun $ 787

Herndon Fire Station #4 Fairfax County $ 921 $ 134 17% Located in Herndon town center; underground parking

Jefferson Fire Station Fairfax County $ 907 $ 120 15% Located near Mosaic District; site is suburban

Lorton Fire Station Fairfax County $ 892 $ 105 13% Located near VRE station

Recreation Center Facility Standards (Eastern CIF - Suburban) Loudoun $ 797

Wheaton Library and Community/Recreation Center Montgomery $ 756 $ (41) -5% Located near Metro; underground parking

Attachment 1

Comparison of Revenues under Current Zoning and Proposed Rezoning

Current Zoning Current Zoning (Data Center)

Proposed Rezoning (100% MF Attached)

Proposed Rezoning (100% MF Stacked)

Residential (# of units) SFA: - - 381 381

MF Attached: 494 494 3,325 - MF Stacked: - - - 3,325

Total Residential: 494 494 3,706 3,706

Non-Residential (square footage) Flex/Industrial: 540,000 - - -

Data Center: - 540,000 - - Office: 1,575,800 1,575,800 740,000 740,000 Retail: 100,000 100,000 239,500 239,500

Total Non-Residential: 2,215,800 2,215,800 979,500 979,500

Capital Facility Contributions (one-time) SFA: $ - $ - $ 12,852,425 $ 12,852,425

MF Attached: $ 7,738,070 $ 7,738,070 $ 52,083,166 $ - MF Stacked: $ - $ - $ - $ 83,180,062

Total Proffers: $ 7,738,070 $ 7,738,070 $ 64,935,591 $ 96,032,487

Revenues (annual, no inflation) SFA: $ - $ - $ 2,063,827 $ 2,063,827

MF Attached: $ 1,907,632 $ 1,907,632 $ 12,839,834 $ - MF Stacked: $ - $ - $ - $ 12,662,041

Total Annual Residential Revenues: $ 1,907,632 $ 1,907,632 $ 14,903,661 $ 14,725,868

Flex/Industrial: $ 612,117 $ - $ - $ - Data Center: $ - $ 12,663,162 $ - $ -

Office: $ 2,886,866 $ 2,886,866 $ 1,355,680 $ 1,355,680 Retail: $ 253,045 $ 253,045 $ 606,043 $ 606,043

Total Annual Non-Residential Revenues: $ 3,752,028 $ 15,803,073 $ 1,961,723 $ 1,961,723 Total Annual Revenue Generation: $ 5,659,660 $ 17,710,705 $ 16,865,384 $ 16,687,591

Attachment 2

Attachment 3

Washington

Fiscal Impacts of Transit-Oriented Development Projects

Baltimore

December 2016

Washington

Table of ContentsIntroduction...................................................................................................................3

TOD: ULI Best Practices..................................................................................................4

Research: Do TODs Cost More for Cities and Counties?................................................5

TOD Case-Studies Project Profiles ................................................................................6

TOD Projects Produce More Revenue for Cities and Counties.......................................9

Regionwide Impacts.......................................................................................................11

General Characteristics of TOD versus nonTOD Projects..........................................13

Conclusions....................................................................................................16

Future Research............................................................................................................17

Report Author DeanD.Bellas,PhD,President,UrbanAnalytics,Inc. Alexandria,Virginia(www.UrbanAnalytics.com)

Report Editor KathleenMcCormick,Principal,FountainheadCommunications,LLC

Thank you to the following individuals who provided project dataBradCoker,TheBozzutoGroupMarkFranceski,TheBozzutoGroupAnthonyWolfGreenberg,TheJBGCompaniesSamanthaRoser,TheJBGCompaniesRebeccaE.Snyder,InsightPropertyGroup,LLCKeithCorriveau,DOLBEN

TOD Product Council LeadershipJamesPalmer,Associate,EDSA,Inc.(ULIBaltimore)MicheleL.Whelley,Principal,M.L.WhelleyConsulting,LLC(ULIBaltimore)DavidKitchens,Principal,CooperCarry(ULIWashington)

District Council LeadershipBobYoungentob,President,EYAandChair,ULIWashingtonKimberlyA.Clark,ExecutiveVicePresident,BaltimoreDevelopmentCouncilandChair,ULIBaltimore

ULI District Council StaffLisaW.Rother,ExecutiveDirector,ULIWashingtonLisaNorris,Coordinator,ULIBaltimore

Graphic Design KellyAnnis,Owner,BranchCommunications

Photo Credits: PhotoscourtesyofWMATA;MetrowayphotobyDanMalouff.

3

Transit-orienteddevelopment(TOD)isaresponsiblefiscalchoiceforlocalgovernmentsandcanactuallysavelocalgovernmentsmoney,asdetailedinFiscalImpactsofTransit-OrientedDevelopment(TOD)Projects.Thisreport,basedonresearchundertakenbytheBaltimore-Washington,D.C.Transit-OrientedDevelopment(TOD)ProductCouncil,waspreparedbyDr.DeanBellas,presidentofUrbanAnalyticsandamemberoftheTODproductcouncil.TheanalysisfoundthatTODnotonly“paysitsownway”butalsosubsidizesnonTODdevelopmentincitiesandcounties.

Introduction

Thisreport,basedonastudyofnearly10,000TODandnonTODapartmentunitslocatedwithintheBaltimore-Washington,D.C.metropolitanregion,showsthatlocalgovernmentsreapsubstantialfiscalbenefitsfromtransit-orienteddevelopment,includinghighernettaxrevenuesandlowerimpactsonpublicservicesfrompeoplewholiveneartransit.ThreeTODcasestudyprojectswerelocatedinclose-insuburbsintheregion,andonewaslocatedintheCityofBaltimore’sdowntowncore.

TheBaltimore-Washington,D.C.TODProductCouncildecidedtoundertakethisresearchandfiscalanalysisinresponsetooften-statedoppositionintheBaltimore-Washington,D.C.metroregiontothedevelopmentofmultifamilyapartmentsandcondominiumsprojectsnearnewtransitstops.Opponentsgenerallyopposethelevelofdensitytheseprojectsarepermittedonthegroundsthatincreaseddensitywillplaceagreaterburdenonpublicservicessuchaspublicschools.Thissentiment,alsoheardinotherregionsacrosstheU.S.,isdirectlyoppositetoULI’sresponsibledevelopmentprinciples,whichencouragegreaterhousingdensityintransit-orienteddevelopmenttoachieveavarietyofenvironmental,health,andsocialobjectives.

Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Transit-orienteddevelopmentisaplanningapproachthatcallsforhigh-density,mixed-usebusiness/neighborhoodcenterstobeclusteredaroundtransitstationsandcorridors.TODisconsidereda“smartgrowth”strategybecauseitprovidesasolutiontotheissueofwheregrowthshouldoccurfromaregionalsustainabilityperspective,anditcoordinateslanduseandtransportationsobothlandandinfrastructureareusedefficiently.TODisdesignedtomaximizeaccesstopublictransitandoftenincorporatesamenitiestoencourageridership.ATODneighborhoodtypicallyhasacenterwithtransitaccesssuchasatrain,metrostation,tram,orbusstop.Atransithubmayhavemultiplemodes.TODneighborhoodstypicallyarelocatedwithinaradiusofone-quartertoone-halfmile(400to800meters)fromastationorstop,adistancethatencouragestransituserstowalkorbiketotransit.Locatingthegreatestdensityofhousingwithinthisradiusprovidesasolutionto“thelastmile”problemaswellasenvironmentalandhealthbenefitsbyreducingtheneedtodrive

totransit.

Washington

ULIpromotesthecloseproximityandconcentrationneartransitofmultifamilyhousing,alongwithofficeandretailuses,asabestpracticeandahighestandbestuseofurbanlandandinfrastructure.Buildingaroundtransithubslinkspeopleofallagesandabilitiesmoredirectlywithjobs,schools,andservices,andreducesthenumberofcarsontheroadandresultingtrafficcongestion.Locatinggreaterdensityofhousingneartransitreducestheimpactsonlocalcommunityservicesonaper-householdbasiswhileimprovingairqualityandboostingnetlocalandstatetaxrevenues.

Transituserswholiveneartransitstationsalsobenefitfromhealthierlifestyles--theyaresignificantlymorelikelytowalkorbiketotakeatrainorbusratherthandrive,andthisincreasedphysicalactivityhelpsreducetheriskofobesity,diabetes,heartdisease,andotherchronicdiseases.Residentswhodon’tneedtodriveandmaintainacaralsobenefitfinanciallyfrommoredisposableincome,andthuscanspendmoreonhousing,food,goods,andservices.

ThisreportpresentsthefiscalimpactoffourTODcasestudyprojectsonthecities,counties,andstatesinwhichtheseprojectsarelocated,aswellasthesocio-economiccharacteristicsofTODandnonTODapartmentunitsintheBaltimore-Washington,D.C.metropolitanregion.

TOD: ULI Best Practice

Key Findings: TODHousingPaysItsOwnWay—andSubsidizesOtherResidentialDevelopment

• TheTODprojectsanalyzedgeneratedbetween$1.13and$2.20intaxandnontaxrevenuesfortheirrespectivejurisdictionsforevery$1inpublicservicesprovidedtotheirresidentsandemployees.

• TODdevelopmentnotonlypaysitsownway,italsosubsidizescityandcountyservicesforexistingnonTODresidentialdevelopment.

5

TODopponentsintheBaltimore-WashingtonD.C.metroregionandnationwideclaimthatTODprojectsposeabiggerfiscalburdenonthebudgetsoflocaljurisdictionsthannonTODprojects.TODprojectstypicallyaredesignedtobehigher-densitytouseurbanlandmoreefficiently.TheargumentagainstthemholdsthatincreasingthetotalpopulationonasitewithaTODprojectcausesagreaternetfiscalburdenordeficitforthejurisdiction’sbudget,comparedtoatraditionalnonTODprojectwithlowertotalpopulationdensity.

OpponentsofTODprojectsgenerallyhavethreemajorconcernsaboutTODhousingdevelopment:

1. theycontainmoreunitsandwilladdmorepublic-school-agestudents,thuscreatingabiggerfiscalburdenforthelocalpublicschoolsystem;

2. theywillincreasedemandforandthusincreasethefiscalburdenonlocalpublicsafetydepartments,whichprovidepolice/sheriff,fire,andemergencymedicalservices;and

3. theywillposelargerfiscalburdensrelatedtotheoverallcostsofprovidingpublicservicesfor

peoplelivingintheseprojects.

MethodologyUrbanAnalyticscollecteddataon42TODandnonTODprojectscomprising9,546apartmentslocatedinclose-inurban-suburbanareasinArlingtonandFairfaxcountiesinVirginiaandinMontgomeryCounty,Maryland.ThefirmthenselectedfourTODprojectsforanin-depthfiscalimpactanalysis.ThecasestudyprojectswerelocatedinFairfaxCounty,VirginiaandinthecitiesofBaltimoreandRockville(BaltimoreandMontgomerycounties,respectively)aswellasinsuburbanAnneArundelCounty,Maryland.

BoththeTODandthenonTODapartmentsanalyzedreflectedthefullrangeofbuildingclasses(ClassA,B,andC).All42TODandnonTODapartmentbuildingsanalyzedhadatleast50unitsperbuilding.

Research: Do TODs Cost More for Cities and Counties?

TheVirginiaandMarylandcountiesselectedforthisreportoffera“fiscalsnapshot”ofTODprojectsincountieswithsimilarrevenueandexpenditurecategoriesbutverydifferentrevenueandoperatingbudgets.Residentsandworkersinthesecountiesreceivesimilarpublicservices,thoughwhattheypayfortheseservicesintaxesandhowmuchtheyactuallyreceiveinservicescanbequitedifferent.ThispatternistypicalacrossallcountiesandcitiesintheUnitedStates.Thecountiesanalyzedallprovideresidentsthesamebasicpublicservices,withsomeminortechnicaldifferencesinthewaypublicrevenuesarecollected.Thecostsofprovidingtheseservices,however,varyamongthecounties.

Fiscal Snapshot of TOD Projects

Washington

Thefourcase-studyTODprojectseachhadbetween235and275apartments,andallwereClassAbuildingslocatedwithinone-halfmileofatransitstation.

UrbanAnalyticshadtwoobjectives:1)MeasurethecostforpublicservicesthatresidentsandworkersintheTODprojectsrequiredfromcitiesandcounties’generalfundoperatingaccounts,and2)measuretherevenuesgeneratedforcitiesandcountiesbyresidentsandworkersoftheselectedTODcasestudyprojects.TheanalysisestimatedthetypeanddollaramountofnewtaxrevenuestheTODdevelopmentprojectsgeneratedatfullbuild-outandoccupancywithinthe2014fiscalyear.ItalsoestimatedexpendituresrequiredtoprovidepublicservicestotheTODprojectsinfiscalyear2014.

Estimated ExpendituresEstimatedexpendituresforpublicservicesinmostofthejurisdictionstypicallyincluded,butwerenotlimitedto:generalgovernmentadministration,judicialadministration,planningandzoning,publicsafety,publicworks,healthandwelfare,communitydevelopment,parks,recreation,culture,andpublicschooleducation.

Estimated RevenuesInmostjurisdictionsintheBaltimore-Washington,D.C.metroregion,revenuesmayincludebutarenotlimitedto:realestate,personalproperty,andsalestaxes(eitherpaiddirectlytothejurisdictionorreceivedthroughintergovernmentaltransfersfromthestate);utilitiesorconsumertaxes;transientoccupancytaxes;revenuesfromlicenses,fees,permits,fines,forfeitures,andchargesforservices;miscellaneousandotherlocaltaxes;andvariousintergovernmentaltransfersintheformofrevenuesharingtothejurisdictionfromthefederalgovernmentandthestate.

ThefourTODcasestudyprojectsselectedforanalysisallwereClass-Abuildingslocatedwithinone-halfmileofatransitstation.Eachhadbetween235and275apartments.Theanalysisusedaverageassessedrealestatevaluesperunitandaveragehouseholdincomesperunit,solowerhouseholdincomesfromanymoderatelypriceddwellingunits(MPUDs)wereoffsetbyhigherhouseholdincomesinmarket-rateunits.Inmultifamilybuildings,onlyonerealestatetaxbillisassessedforallunitsinthebuilding,regardlessofwhethertheyarerentedasmarket-rateorasMPDUs.

TOD Case-Study Project Profiles

A fiscal impact analysis estimates the type and dollar amount of new tax revenues generated by a new or existing development project at full build-out and occupancy and the estimated expenditures required to provide public services to the existing or new community.

Fiscal Impact Analysis

7

• Sizeofapartmentbuilding:240units

• Location:one-halfmilefromtheHuntingtonMetrorailstation

• Location:withinTODneighborhoodthatencourageswalkingtothestationandpublicbuses

• Averageassessedrealestatevalueperapartment:$250,000

• Averagehouseholdsize:1.56peopleor42percentlessthantheaveragehouseholdsizeof2.68peopleforrenter-occupiedhousingunitsinFairfaxCounty(2010Census)

• Averageschool-agechildrenperunit:0.07or85percentfewerthantheaverage0.45perhousingunitacrossallhousinginFairfaxCountyforschoolyear2013-2014

• Meanaveragehouseholdincome:$88,955perunit

• Retailspace:None

• Revenuesgeneratedfromtaxandnontaxsources:$1,117,400

• CosttoFairfaxCountyforservicesfortheproject’sresidents:$752,454

• Totalestimatednetannualfiscalbenefitforthecounty:$364,946

The Shelby, Fairfax County, Virginia

The Shelby in FY 2014 generated an estimated $1.49 in tax and nontax revenues for Fairfax County for every $1 the county spent on public services for the project’s residents.

TOD Case-Study Project Profile

Washington


• Location:one-quartermilefromtheTwinbrookMetrorailstation


• Averagehouseholdsize:1.54peopleor33percentlessthantheaveragehouseholdof2.31peopleforrenter-occupiedhousinginRockville(2010Census)

• Averagenumberofschool-agechildrenperunit:0.06or86percentfewerthantheaverage0.42studentsperhouseholdacrossallhousinginMontgomeryCountyforschoolyear2013-2014

• Averagehouseholdincome:Notavailable

• Retailspace:14,800squarefeet,supporting33full-timeequivalentjobs

• Revenuesgeneratedfromtaxandnontaxsources:$388,817

• CosttoCityofRockvilleforservicesfortheproject’sresidentsandemployees:$342,949

• Totalestimatednetannualfiscalbenefitforthecity:$45,868

The Alaire in FY 2014 generated an estimated $1.13 in tax and nontax revenues for the City of Rockville for every $1 the city spent on public services for the project’s residents and employees.

The Alaire, City of Rockville, Maryland

TOD

Case

-Stu

dy P

roje

ct P

rofil

e

9

The Fitzgerald, City of Baltimore, Maryland

The Fitzgerald in FY 2013 generated an estimated $2.20 in tax and nontax city revenues for the City of Baltimore for every $1 the city spent on public services for the project’s residents and employees.


• Location:nexttotheMt.RoyalAvenueLightRailStationand0.4milesfromPennStation/Amtrak


• Averagehouseholdsize:1.25peopleor46percentlessthantheaveragehouseholdsizeof2.31peopleperunitforrenter-occupiedhousinginthecity(2010Census)

• Averagenumberofschool-agechildrenperunit:0.06or81percentfewerthantheaverage0.32forallhousinginthecityforschoolyear2012-2013

• Averagehouseholdincome:Notavailable


• Revenuesgeneratedfromtaxandnontaxsources:$1,726,045

• CosttheCityofBaltimoreforservicesfortheproject’sresidentsandemployees:$784,992

• Totalestimatednetannualfiscalbenefit:$941,053

TOD Case-Study Project Profile

Washington

The Village at Odenton Station, Anne Arundel County, Maryland

The Village at Odenton Station in FY 2014 generated an estimated $1.24 in tax and nontax revenues for Anne Arundel County for every $1 in public services the county spent on public services for the project’s residents and employees.


• Location:nexttotheOdentonMARCRailStation


• Averagehouseholdsize:1.70peopleor32percentlessthantheaveragehouseholdsizeof2.49peopleforrenter-occupiedhousingunitsinAnneArundelCounty(2010Census)

• Averagenumberofschool-agechildren:0.14or64percentfewerthantheaverage0.39forallhousingunitsinthecountyforschoolyear2013-2014

• Averagehouseholdincome:$105,053


• Revenuesgeneratedfromtaxandnontaxsources:$816,912

• CosttoAnneArundelCountyforservicesforresidentsandemployees:$659,456

• Totalestimatednetannualfiscalbenefit:$157,456

TOD

Case

-Stu

dy P

roje

ct P

rofil

e

11

[Table 4-1] Residential and Nonresidential Building Program Data: Four TOD Projects, Selected Virginia and Maryland

UrbanAnalyticsanalyzedthegeneralsocio-economiccharacteristicsofnearly10,000apartmentsin42TODandnonTODprojectsinVirginiaandMarylandandfoundthatTODunitsgeneratedalowerdemandforpublicservicesperunitonlocalgovernmentsandschoolsthannonTODapartmentunits.InFY2014,TODprojectapartmentsgeneratedbetween$1.13and$2.20intaxandnontaxrevenuesfortheirrespectivejurisdictionsforevery$1spentonpublicservicesfortheresidentsandemployees.

IfthefourTODcase-studyprojectshadnotbeenlocatedatorneartransitrailstationsbutinsteadhadbeenlocatedintypicalsuburbanresidentiallocations,theyeitherwouldhaveproducedsignificantlyfewerrevenuesorcostlocaljurisdictionsmorethantheypaidforservicesforresidentsandemployees.Atthelowend,apartmentbuildingslocatedinnonTODareaswouldhaveproducedonly$0.77inpublicrevenuesforevery$1theypaidforpublicservicesforresidentsandemployees,imposingacostforlocalgovernmentsandschoolsystemsof$0.23forevery$1ofpublicrevenuesreceived.Attheupperend,theywouldhavegenerated$1.35intaxandnontaxrevenues,producingasurplusof$0.35forevery$1spentprovidingpublicservices,includingschoolservices,toresidentsandworkersintheselocaljurisdictions.

TOD Projects Produce More Revenue for Cities and Counties

Table 4-1

Residential and Non-Residential Building Program DataFour TOD Projects Selected

Virginia and MarylandAverage Total

Total Real Estate Real Estate Estimated EstimatedResidential Uses Units7 Assessed Value5 Assessed Value5 Population7 Children7

1 The Shelby 240 $250,000 60,000,000$ 374 172 The Alaire 279 $241,000 67,239,000$ 431 183 The Fitzgerald 275 $169,000 46,475,000$ 345 164 The Village at Odenton Station 235 $147,500 34,662,500$ 398 33

Avg. Real Estate Total EstimatedTotal Assessed Value5 Real Estate FTE Jobs 6,7

Non-Residential Uses Sq. Ft. per Sq. Ft. Assessed Value5 SupportedRetail Space

The Shelby 0 n/a n/a 0The Alaire 14,800 $225.00 3,330,000$ 33

The Fitzgerald 23,728 $265.00 6,287,920$ 53The Village at Odenton Station 57,995 $150.00 8,699,250$ 129

Source:

Note:1 Location: Fairfax County, Virginia. Developer: Insight Property Group2 Location: City of Rockville, Maryland. Developer: JBG3 Location: City of Baltimore, Maryland. Developer: The Bozzuto Group4 Location: Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Developer: DOLBEN5 Current dollars.6 FTE = full-time equivalent jobs7

Building Program Data: Insight Property Group; JBG; The Bozzuto Group; DOLBEN; Urban Analytics, Inc.

At full build-out and occupancy.

Assesed and Market Value Data - Retail Space: Review of third-party market research reports and assessment data from LoopNet.com; CBRE; Lipman Frizzell & Mitchell, LLC; Valbridge Property Advisors, Municipal & Financial Services Group, LLC; and the Maryland State Department of Assessments & Taxation (MD SDAT).

Washington

[Table 1-2] Fiscal Impact Summary: Residential and Nonresidential Land Uses – If the Four Projects Selected Were NonTOD Projects, Virginia and Maryland

Table 1-2

Fiscal Impact Summary1

Residential and Non-residential Land UsesIf the Four Projects Selected were non-TOD Projects

Virginia and Maryland

Aggregate The The The The Village atResidential Shelby2 Alaire3 Fitzgerald4 Odenton Station5

Annual Revenues Generated 1,136,105$ 458,304$ 1,933,565$ 881,998$ Annual Expenditures Demanded 952,961$ 498,590$ 1,502,500$ 1,224,047$ Annual Revenue Surplus (Deficit) 183,144$ (40,286)$ 431,065$ (342,049)$

AggregateNon-residential

Annual Revenues Generated -$ 17,157$ 194,147$ 111,591$ Annual Expenditures Demanded -$ 9,265$ 77,101$ 69,271$ Annual Revenue Surplus (Deficit) -$ 7,892$ 117,046$ 42,320$

Total - All Land UsesAnnual Revenues Generated 1,136,105$ 475,461$ 2,127,712$ 993,589$ Annual Expenditures Demanded 952,961$ 507,855$ 1,579,601$ 1,293,318$ Annual Revenue Surplus (Deficit) 183,144$ (32,394)$ 548,111$ (299,729)$

Per-Unit The The The The Village atResidential only Shelby Alaire Fitzgerald Odenton Station

Annual Revenues Generated 4,734$ 1,643$ 7,031$ 3,753$ Annual Expenditures Demanded 3,971$ 1,787$ 5,464$ 5,208$ Annual Revenue Surplus (Deficit) 763$ (144)$ 1,567$ (1,455)$ Source: Urban Analytics, Inc.

Note:1 These are the revenue and expenditure figures that are estimated to have been generated (on an annual basis) if the four projects selected for analysis were non-TOD projects and had been fully built-out and occupied in FY 2014. Revenues and expenditures are based on each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). 2Fairfax County, VA. 3City of Rockville, MD. 4City of Baltimore, MD. 5Anne Arundel County, MD.

13

Figure 1-1: Net Fiscal Impact per Unit of Residential Units: TOD vs. nonTOD Projects

ThefourTODcasestudyprojectshadapositiveimpactonlocalcityandcountyrevenuesandacrossjurisdictions.InVirginia,citiesareindependentofcounties.InMaryland,citiesandtownstypicallyreceivesomelevelofpublicservicesdirectlyfromtheircountiesandsomedirectlyfromthestate.Theseservicesaresupported,inpart,byrealestatetaxescollectedfromrealpropertyinthecitiesandtowns.

ArethefiscalimpactfindingsofaTODprojectinonejurisdictionthesameasinotherjurisdictions?AproposedorexistingTODprojectwouldgeneratedifferentfiscalimpactsinotherjurisdictionsbecausejurisdictionsprovidedifferenttypesandlevelsofpublicservices,relativetotheamountoftaxandnontaxfeerevenuestheycollectannually.

TheAlaireinRockville,Maryland,forexample,generatedanestimated$1,122,030annually,including$388,817ingrossrevenuesfortheCityofRockvilleandanadditional$654,175forMontgomeryCounty,aswellas$79,038fortheStateofMaryland.TheestimatedannualrevenuesgeneratedinFY2014forthecity,county,andstateforresidentialandnonresidentiallandusesarepresentedinFigure1-2andalsoinTable6-1.

Regionwide Impacts

Table 1-1

Fiscal Impact Summary1

Residential and Non-residential Land UsesFour TOD Projects Selected


Aggregate The The The The Village atResidential Shelby2 Alaire3 Fitzgerald4 Odenton Station5

Annual Revenues Generated 1,117,400$ 371,660$ 1,531,898$ 705,321$ Annual Expenditures Demanded 752,454$ 333,684$ 707,891$ 590,185$ Annual Revenue Surplus (Deficit) 364,946$ 37,976$ 824,007$ 115,136$


Annual Revenues Generated -$ 17,157$ 194,147$ 111,591$ Annual Expenditures Demanded -$ 9,265$ 77,101$ 69,271$ Annual Revenue Surplus (Deficit) -$ 7,892$ 117,046$ 42,320$

Total - All Land UsesAnnual Revenues Generated 1,117,400$ 388,817$ 1,726,045$ 816,912$ Annual Expenditures Demanded 752,454$ 342,949$ 784,992$ 659,456$ Annual Revenue Surplus (Deficit) 364,946$ 45,868$ 941,053$ 157,456$

Per-Unit The The The The Village atResidential only Shelby Alaire Fitzgerald Odenton Station

Annual Revenues Generated 4,656$ 1,332$ 5,571$ 3,001$ Annual Expenditures Demanded 3,135$ 1,196$ 2,574$ 2,511$ Annual Revenue Surplus (Deficit) 1,521$ 136$ 2,997$ 490$ Source: Urban Analytics, Inc.

Note:1 These are the revenue and expenditure figures that are estimated to have been generated (on an annual basis) had the four TOD projects selected for analysis been fully built-out and occupied in FY 2014. Revenues and expenditures are based on each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). 2Fairfax County, VA. 3City of Rockville, MD. 4City of Baltimore, MD. 5Anne Arundel County, MD.

ThefourTODprojectsanalyzedclearly“paytheirownway”comparedtononTODprojectsthatcontainhigherresidentadultandschool-agechildrenpopulations,asshowninFigure1-1.

Washington

[Table 6-1] Revenues Generated within a Region: Residential and Nonresidential Land Uses: “The Alaire” TOD Project

Table 6-1

Revenues Generated within a Region1

Residential and Non-residential Land UsesTOD Project Selected: "The Alaire"


Aggregate City of Montgomery State ofResidential Rockville, MD County, MD Maryland Total

Annual Revenues GeneratedReal Estate Revenues 196,338$ 623,306$ 75,308$ 894,952$

All other Revenues 175,322$ -$ -$ 175,322$ Total 371,660$ 623,306$ 75,308$ 1,070,274$


Annual Revenues GeneratedReal Estate Revenues 9,724$ 30,869$ 3,730$ 44,323$

All other Revenues 7,433$ -$ -$ 7,433$ Total 17,157$ 30,869$ 3,730$ 51,756$

Grand Total 388,817$ 654,175$ 79,038$ 1,122,030$ Source: Urban Analytics, Inc.

Note:

1 These are the revenue figures that are estimated to have been generated (on an annual basis) had "The Alaire" TOD project been fully built-out and occupied in FY 2014 based on the City of Rockville's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).

[Figure 1-2] Revenues Generated within a Region: “The Alaire” TOD Project

15

Cross Jurisdictional ImpactsTheAlaireinRockville,Maryland,illustratestheadditionalfiscalbenefitsandcross-jurisdictionalrevenuesforoneTODproject,asshowninFigure1-2.:

• EstimatedgrossrevenuesgeneratedfortheCityofRockville:$388,817

• EstimatedgrossrevenuesgeneratedforMontgomeryCounty:$654,175

• EstimatedgrossrevenuesgeneratedannuallyfortheStateofMaryland:$79,038

• Estimatedtotalgrossrevenuesgeneratedannually:$1,122,030

The characteristics of TOD versus nonTOD projects arebasedonanalysisof42projectscomprising9,546existingTODandnonTODapartmentunitsinVirginia’sArlingtonandFairfaxcountiesandinMontgomeryCounty,Maryland.ThefourTODcasestudyprojectswerelocatedinFairfaxCounty,Virginia,andAnneArundel,Baltimore,andMontgomerycountiesinMaryland.

Number of Units: Atotalof5,388(56.4percent)ofthe9,546apartmentunitswerelocatedinVirginia,and4,158units(43.6percent)werelocatedinMaryland.Some45percentoftheVirginiaunitswereidentifiedasTODprojectsandwerelocatedatornearnineMetrorailstations,while34percentoftheMarylandunitswereidentifiedasTODprojectsandwerelocatedatornearthreeMetrorailstations.

Average Household Size: AverageTODhouseholdsizevariedbylocation,andrangedfrom1.6people,or16.2percentsmallerthantheaveragenonTODhouseholdsinMontgomeryCounty,to1.75people,or8percentlargerthanaveragenonTODhouseholdsinFairfaxCounty.

Average Number of School-age Children per Unit: BothTODandnonTODapartmentsgenerallyhadfewerschool-agechildreninFairfaxCounty(0.12perTODunitand0.14childrenpernonTODunit)comparedtoMontgomeryCounty,where0.14childrenlivedineachTODunitand0.35childrenlivedineachnonTODunit.ThecostofprovidingpubliceducationintheBaltimore-Washington,D.C.metroregionusuallyrankseitherfirstorsecondamongallpublicservices.TheloweraveragestudentsperunitinTODprojectsresultsinalowerper-unitpubliceducationcostinthefiscalimpactanalysis.

Median Household Income per Unit: ThemedianhouseholdincomeperunitfortheTODprojectswassubstantiallyhigher(greaterthan10percent)thanthenonTODunits.InFairfaxCounty,

General Characteristics of TOD versus nonTOD Projects

Washington

themedianTODhouseholdincomewas$106,631or12.7percenthigherthanthenonTODincomes.InMontgomeryCounty,themedianTODhouseholdincomewas$116,892or39.7percenthigherthannonTODincomes.

Median Age Range of Residents: Allprojectsinallcounties,exceptfortheFairfaxCountyTODunits,reportedamedianagerangeof31to40years.InFairfaxCounty,themedianagerangeofresidentsintheTODunitswas26to30years.Itisnotclearwhetherthehighermedianagerangeof31to40yearsreflectsalifestylechoiceorahousingaffordabilityissue.NorisitclearfromthedatawhythemedianageofhouseholdsinTODunitsinFairfaxCountywasyounger.Thereasonsforthisagedifferencecouldincludebutarenotlimitedtothefollowingfactors:

1. housingchoicesinFairfaxCountycouldbedifferentthanintheothercounties;

2. housingoptionsinFairfaxCountycouldbemorediverse,drawinginyoungerresidents;

3. recentcollegegraduatesmovingtotheWashington,DCmetropolitanareafromoutsidetheregioncouldbechoosingtoliveinFairfaxCountyandnorthernVirginiaovercountiesinsuburbanMaryland;and

4. employmentopportunitiesforyoungerworkersaremoreprevalentinFairfaxCountyandinnorthernVirginiathaninsuburbanMaryland.

17

Average Number of Cars:Onaverage,theratioofcarsperunitwas1.30fornonTODunitscomparedto1.04fortheTODunits.ThefactthatTODresidentsownedslightlymorethanonecarperunitcouldindicatetheneedformoreamenitiesaroundTODprojectsthatpeoplecanwalktoorthatmanyemploymentcentersintheregionarelocatedoutsideofthepublictransportationnetwork,resultingintheneedforatleastonememberofthehouseholdtouseacartogettowork.

Transportation to Work:PeoplewholivedinTODapartmentscommutedbypublictransitataratefivetimesgreaterthannonTODresidents(20.2percentversus4.2percent).

Average Commute Time: TheaveragecommutetimeforallnonTODresidentswasaboutevenlysplitbetween1to15minutes(26.8percent)and16to30minutes(27.06percent)forallmodes(publictransit,driving,walking,carpooling,other).Athird(33.92percent)oftheTODresidentsestimatedthatittook16to30minutestotraveltowork,andone-quarter(26.51percent)reporteda1to15-minutecommute.

Previous Residence: ForbothnonTODandTODprojects,slightlymorethantwo-thirdsofresidents(68.73percent)movedtotheircurrentapartmentbuildingfromanotherapartmentbuilding.Aboutone-quarterofresidents(23.88percent)movedtotheircurrentapartmentbuildingfromahouse.Sixpercentofresidentsmoveddirectlytotheircurrentapartmentbuildingfromtheirparents’house,andtheremainingresidents(about1.4percent)movedtotheircurrentresidencestraightfromcollege.

Washington

• ThefourTODprojectsanalyzedclearly“paytheirownway,”whilenonTODprojects,whichhavelargeraveragehouseholdsizesinbothadultandschool-agechildrenpopulations,generallyposeahigherfiscalburdenforcitiesandcounties.

• TODprojectapartmentsgeneratedbetween$1.13and$2.20intaxandnontaxrevenuesfortheirrespectivejurisdictionsforevery$1spentonpublicservicesfortheresidentsandemployees.

• IftheTODprojectswerenotlocatedatornearatransitrailstation,theywouldhavegeneratedfewerrevenues--between$0.77and$1.35intaxandnontaxrevenuesforevery$1spentonpublicservicesfortheproject’sresidentsandemployees.

• Thepopulationandschool-agechildrencharacteristicsofTODandnonTODprojectsarequitedifferent.Fewerfamilieswithschool-agechildrenliveintheTODapartments,sothereislessneedfromthoseprojectsforeducationalservicesfromlocalschoolsystems.

• ThedatadoesnotsupportthemajorconcernsofTODopponents:

• TODsdonotplaceagreaterburdenonlocalpublicschoolsystemsbecausetheygenerallyhavefewerschool-agechildren.

• TODsdonotplaceagreaterburdenonoverallcostsforservicessuchaspublicsafety,publicworks,andparksandrecreation,becauseaveragehouseholdsizegenerallyissmaller.

Conclusions

19

Thefiscalanalysisdiscussedinthisreportpromptssomequestionsforfutureresearch:

• AretheresearchandfindingsuniquetotheBaltimore-Washington,D.C.region,orcantheybereplicatedinotherlargeurbanareas?

• Iffindingsfromsimilarstudiesdonotconfirmthisreport,whyistheBaltimore-Washington,D.C.regionunique,andwhatfactorsmightcontributetothedifferences?

• Threeoftheseprojectsareinclose-insuburbanlocations.DothefiscalreturnsofsuburbanTODsdifferfromthereturnsofTODprojectsinthedowntowncore?

• Aretheloweraverageschool-agenumbersintheTODprojectsuniquetotheBaltimore-Washington,D.C.region,ordoesthisalsooccurinTODprojectsinotherlargeurbanareas?

• Doesthemedianagerangeof31to40yearsforTODresidentsreflectagenerationalorlifestylechoice,ordoesitreflectahousingaffordabilityissueintheBaltimore-Washington,D.C.region?

• Isthismedianagerangeanindicatorofafuturetrendorananomaly?

• DospecificTODfactorscontributelargerrevenuesbyattractingaspecifictenantprofile?For

example:

urbanattractivenessforyoung(age25to40)singlesorcoupleswithoutchildren? proximitytothetransitstation,encouragingwalkingandbiking? generallysmallerresidenceswithmoreaffordablerents,allowingmoredisposable

income? newerconstruction,modernarchitecturalstyles,andhigher-endamenitiesdrawing

higherincomes?

• Howdoesthecostofparking,especiallystructuredparking,aswellaszoningthatrequiresfewerparkingspacesperunittoencouragepublictransituse,affecttheaveragenumberofcarsperunitinTODprojects?

• WhateffectwouldapercentageofaffordableandworkforceTODhousingunitshaveontheoverallfiscalimpacttoajurisdictionwhenthoseunitsarepricedatmarket-rateandbelow-marketrate?

• Isthereafiscalbreak-evenpointatwhichTODhousingunitspricedbelowthefiscalbreak-evenpointgenerateanetfiscalburden(deficit)tothemunicipality,whileTODhousingunitspricedabovethefiscalbreak-evenpointgenerateanetfiscalbenefit(surplus)tothemunicipality?

Future Research

7/17/2018

COMPLIANT

COMPLIANT,

BUT NOT

PREFER

RED

NOT

COMPLIANT

MORE

INFO

RMATIO

N REQ

UIRED

COMMENTS

1 USABLE ACREAGE (20 Ac) X 11.0 acres required, 8.5 Acres provided; 6.3 usable

2 IDENTIFY 1 OR 2 STORY BUILDING X 4 story Metro ES Concept

3 CORRECT BUILDING CAPACITY X 930+/‐ students

4 CORRECT BUILDING FOOTPRINT X Revised Metro ES Concept (Gym relocated)

5 PARKING LOT ‐ 120 SP MIN. X 180 Space Structured parking required and provided.

6 FIRE LANES / PARENT DROP QUEUE X >45 passenger vehicles in queue on site

7 BUS LOOP ‐ 15 BUSES MIN. X no bus parking onsite; buses use loop road to stage

8 225x360 PE FIELD W/ 30' RUNOUT X Small Soccer Field on concept

9 WALKING TRACK X can be provided (not shown)

10 SOFTBALL FIELD X reduced size diamond field overlapped w/ PE field

11 55x55 PLAY AREA 1 X

12 60x120 PLAY AREA W/ 4 HOOPS X

13 ENCL. KINDERGARTEN PLAY AREA X

14 PLAYGROUND SITE X

15 CORRECT BUILDING ORIENTATION X

COMPLIANT

COMPLIANT,

BUT NOT

PREFER

RED

NOT

COMPLIANT

MORE

INFO

RMATIO

N REQ

UIRED

COMMENTS

A ENTRANCE ROADS X

B TURN LANES INTO SITE X

C STORMWATER FACILITIES X X own onsite quality ONLY required; underground

D BUFFER / LANDSCAPE AREAS X 25' buffer shown on concept, actual TBD

E PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ON‐SITE X

F PEDESTRIAN ACCESS OFF‐SITE X

G WALKING STUDENT POPULATION X mechanism to cross streets is unclear

H WETLAND DELINEATION X small area in floodplain

I FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARIES X assumes Floodplain Alteration approved

J TOPOGRAPHY X large grade changes to accommodate

K GRADING STUDY X

L CLEAR LINE OF SIGHT TO PLAY AREAS X

M TREE PRESERVATION AREAS X none assumed

N STEEP SLOPES X none assumed

O SOILS / GEOLOGY X no data

P ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES X study by applicant

Q WATER & SEWER AVAILABILITY X

R ELEC/GAS/COMM. AVAILABILITY X

S FUTURE BUILDING EXPANSION AREA X none horizontally or vertically

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE PLAN AUDIT (LCPS Concept #5) Silver District West

#

1

2

OTHER ELEMENTS TO CONSIDER

Silver District WestELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE PLAN AUDIT (LCPS Concept #5)

REQUIRED ELEMENTS

ITEM

COMPLIANCE W/ ED. SPEC.

ITEM

COMPLIANCE W/ ED. SPEC.

Additional Notes

180 space parking requirement is 120 for staff and visitor; additional 60 for parent kiss‐n‐ride

Parent vehicle staging areas TBD; off‐site, in garage or alternating with buses

# 4 supplemental - granicus

Documents