Imagine 2040 Final Scenario Planning Summary Document by City Explained, Inc.

ï&#x201A;§

Table of Contents   

General Overview Model Documentation Technical Appendix

Section A Section B Section C

Section A:

General Overview

In recent years, planners and community leaders across the country have observed increased public interest for reducing or reversing the trend of decentralized growth and its consequences. Their efforts are largely motivated by the impacts associated with suburban development patterns: consumption of sensitive land for development, costly expansion of public infrastructure, and increasing traffic congestion. In the Triangle Region, the physical distance between complementary land uses (e.g., between home and work, home and school, or home and shopping) and over-reliance on automobiles for meeting daily travel needs leads to several unintended consequences — increased vehicle miles traveled and energy consumption, longer commute times, increased air pollution, heightened infrastructure and public service costs, and decreased resource lands. Inadequate longterm transportation funding for the region worsens the problem as little can be done to keep up with existing and emerging decentralized growth patterns. Future year forecasts in the Triangle Regional Model, V5 confirm the unintended consequences will continue if the region does not better integrate land use (demand), urban form (design), and transportation (supply) decision-making processes. Imagine 2040 was an initiative started in 2010 by the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) and the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) to promote community-based regionalism, aimed at guiding growth and coordinating decision-making processes for a more sustainable transportation system. It brought together cities, towns, and counties in the region for the opportunity to explore and debate competing growth visions, their trade-offs, and alternative futures for a creating more efficient regional transportation system.

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative

Scenario planning, and specifically CommunityViz software, was used throughout the planning process to measure and evaluate the impacts of competing development scenarios and major investments in the regional transportation system. Data, tools, and recommendations from Imagine 2040 are now being used throughout the region, most notably for the development of the Triangle Region’s 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). The purpose of this document is to summarize the planning process for Imagine 2040 and describe the scenario planning tools created to support it. The document is organized into three main sections: General Overview – A snap-shot of the planning process for Imagine 2040; highlighting key stakeholder groups and the preferred development scenario created to support the Triangle Region’s 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Model Documentation – A complete summary of the scenario planning models created using CommunityViz and how they integrate with the Triangle Regional Model, V5; including data needs, model architecture, theory and features behind components of the region and sub-region models, data output, and calibration activities. Technical Appendix – A compilation of specific data, tables, maps, equations, and assumptions used to create the region and sub-region models in CommunityViz. Information in the technical appendix should be useful for maintaining the existing scenario planning models for Imagine 2040 and/or adapting them to other scenario planning initiatives being considered in the region.

Study Area Description The study area for Imagine 2040 included all of Wake, Durham, and Orange Counties and parts of Person, Granville, Franklin, Nash, Johnston,

Pg. 1

What is CommunityViz? CommunityViz is an extension of ESRI’s ArcGIS desktop software that facilitates the visualization and comparison of alternative development scenarios. It was originally developed by the Orton Family Foundation, a non-profit group that focuses on technology and tools for more-informed community decision-making. There are two components of CommunityViz software. The first is Scenario 360, which is a twodimensional map and data analysis component of the software. It adds the functionality of a spatial spreadsheet to ArcGIS for Desktop software, similar to how a spreadsheet program like Microsoft Excel handles numerical data. Dynamic calculations embedded in the spatial spreadsheet are controlled by userwritten formulas that change value as referenced input values change. The impact of physical development or policy decisions under consideration may be measured side-by-side in two or more growth scenarios contemplated in the software. The second component of CommunityViz software, Scenario 3D, is a visualization tool that constructs three-dimensional models of buildings, roads, landscapes, or entire communities using two-dimensional information generated in the Scenario 360 analysis. More information on CommunityViz and its capabilities for regional planning is available on their website (www.communityviz.com) or The Planner’s Guide to CommunityViz published by the American Planning Association in 2011.

Harnett, and Chatham Counties. The “Greater Triangle Region” represented by the study area also matched the boundaries used for the model area in the Triangle Region Model, V5. The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization, Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization, Kerr-Tar Rural Planning Organization, and Upper Coastal Plain Rural Planning Organization all have transportation decision-making authority in the study area. The study area is expansive, covering 3,380 square miles and 664,283 parcels in the ten counties. Forty cities and towns ― ranging in size from large metropolitan centers to rural hamlets ― are part of the region. The population was 1,668,800 in 2010. Total employment was 840,000 in the same year.

Pg. 2

Major universities and colleges in the region include: North Carolina State University, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Duke University, and North Carolina Central University. Other major employers represent state government, information technology, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, biotech, health care, and banking and financial service sectors. Research Triangle Park and other corporate headquarters throughout the region reinforce this area as a place of academic excellence, research, and innovation. Size and complexity issues for scenario planning in such a large region required the formation of subregions to facilitate the modeling process. The map to the right depicts the boundaries for all sixteen sub-region models created to support Imagine 2040.

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative

Map 1: Study Area & Sub-Region Boundaries for Imagine 2040

Final Summary Document

Pg. 3

infrastructure, making the most of land use opportunities and dedicated transportation investments.

Scenario Planning Overview Scenario planning represents the next generation of analytical processes created to evaluate the influence of different development types, patterns, and intensities on the efficiency of a proposed transportation system. Visualization of the interaction between land use, urban form, and transportation decisions, as well as the causational factors that explain the push-pull relationship between them, provides community leaders with the information they need to evaluate the consequences of potential actions. Building on this momentum, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and other federal agencies are actively promoting the use of scenario planning by state departments of transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, and local governments to better integrate transportation and land use decisions for preparing a Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). Evaluating the relationship between land use, urban form, and regional travel behavior in a scenario planning analysis produces several benefits. When considered together, decisions and investments regarding all three elements can have a significant impact on the Triangle Region: 

The impacts to sensitive land uses may be minimized when facilities identified for transportation investments are located after considering appropriate land use patterns and development intensities for the area.



Prime locations for development may be stimulated if transportation investments consider available capacity or appropriate mobility options.



Complementary activities may be placed next to existing or planned transportation

Pg. 4



The quantity and location of travel demand may be influenced by land use decisions, making the possibility of real choices for various modes of travel both accessible and attractive.

Partnerships for Imagine 2040 It was important for Imagine 2040 that the development scenarios prepared for study reflected the region’s great geography, environmental assets, academic excellence, and business-driven economy. The project team worked with several stakeholder groups to understand the challenges and opportunities facing the region, create reliable scenario planning tools, and brainstorm viable alternative growth scenarios for consideration. Regular coordination with the groups identified below occurred throughout the project. A timeline for their participation is provided on page 7. Project Steering Committees Two project steering committees were formed to provide direct oversight and counsel for the Imagine 2040 planning process. The steering committee for the DCHC MPO represented interests in Person, Durham, Orange, and Chatham Counties. The steering committee for CAMPO represented interests in Granville, Franklin, Wake, Nash, Johnston, and Harnett Counties. Those on the steering committees represented a broad base of local interests, viewpoints, and concerns in the region. Membership on the committee included local planning officials, university officials, regional planning agencies, Triangle Transit, Research Triangle Park, and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT).

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative

Seven meetings with each project steering committee were used to build the scenario planning tools and prepare alternative growth scenarios for Imagine 2040. The first meeting focused on big ideas and regional issues important throughout the scenario planning initiative. The next three meetings focused on data collection and building / testing the scenario planning tools. The last two meetings were used to identify alternative development scenarios and measure the trade-offs among them using CommunityViz and the Triangle Regional Model, V5. Focus Group Meetings The project team met with three focus groups identified for Imagine 2040. Each was very important to collecting data, validating assumptions, and calibrating results for the CommunityViz model. A brief description of each focus group and their input to the project follows. A summary of events and a list of attendees are included in the technical appendix. Business & Development Interests The focus group with business and development interests was used to capture the effect of market Final Summary Document

conditions or business site selection criteria for making one area more attractive to develop over others in the region. Participants ranked the growth drivers in order of importance and answered general questions about ‘hot spots’ in the region for future growth. General interests represented by the group included: business development, finance, developers, real estate, and business leaders. Local Utility Service Providers The focus group with local utility service providers was used to capture the influence of available infrastructure for making one area more attractive to develop over others in the region. General interests represented by the group included: water service providers, sewer service providers, electric utilities, and natural gas providers. Chief Planning Officials The focus group with chief planning officials was used to understand the effect of local land development policies and ordinances for estimating development potential in the region. Cities, towns, and counties from around the region were included in the focus group. Pg. 5

LSA Peer Review Workshop

Model Users Group

A one-day peer review workshop was held with a sub-set of the two project steering committees to discuss the land suitability analysis module in CommunityViz. The workshop was used to present initial results, solicit feedback, and discuss changes needed before releasing results for the alternative development scenarios.

A model users group worked with the project team to offer advice or recommend improvements to safeguard the technical process and data used to create the scenario planning tools. Highlights for the group included a three-day CommunityViz software training event (held twice in the region) and a test drive of the models and data sets available to local governments for their continued use beyond Imagine 2040.

Sub-Region Coordination Meetings A series of sub-region meetings were scheduled at set milestones in the planning process to share early results / findings with local governments for their feedback. The meetings were used to help calibrate place type and development status assignments in the model, and validate default values assumed for the general development lookup tables. Key assumptions and initial results from CommunityViz (i.e., carrying capacity, land suitability, build-out potential, and growth allocation modules) were presented for calibrating the CommunityViz model and building momentum for its use in the scenario planning process. Meetings were scheduled with a host city in each sub-region to maximize attendance.

The two training events demonstrated basic commands and functions in the software; including work on a case study each afternoon that used one of the sub-region models to teach students how to create their own models from initial concept idea through calibration. A training binder and general resources for building a scenario planning model with CommunityViz was provided to each student for reference following the class. Copies of the sub-region models were made available to local governments via the project FTP site following each training event.

Policy-Maker Briefings

The project team prepared three alternative growth scenarios for Imagine 2040 using information volunteered by the partnering groups. Each scenario was different enough to pose real choices for how the region could develop under one or more planning initiatives. The three alternative growth scenarios include:

The project team provided regular briefings to MPO technical committees and policy-makers to keep them involved during the scenario planning process. These meetings were used to summarize key issues for Imagine 2040 so committee members could provide their input prior to finalizing the scenario planning tools or selecting the preferred development scenario. Through these efforts, committee members had a greater understanding of how the process was evolving, which was essential before they could endorse the preferred development scenario.

Pg. 6

Alternative Growth Scenarios

  

Trend Development Scenario Community Plans Scenario All-In Transit Scenario

A brief summary of each growth scenarios is provided on pages 8 - 13.

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative

Figure 1: Timeline of Stakeholder Participation in Imagine 2040

Final Summary Document

Pg. 7

Trend Development green field development patterns, outward expansion of public utilities, and transportation investments that favor convenience for automobile users.

The trend development scenario contemplated how the region might develop if the dispersed pattern of development occurring in some areas of the Triangle Region were to continue. New growth would generally take the form of single use, low-density development that was generally isolated, or not-well connected. A limited amount of compact, walkable development would be focused in activity centers identified on the zoning map for some communities. Common features of the scenario include: low-density development,

Development types and locations assigned in the scenario followed closely existing zoning maps and ordinances or watershed policies administered by cities, towns, and counties in the region. A large-scale, printable version of the map to the right is available from either the DCHC MPO or CAMPO website.

General Land Use Profile:

100%

69%

9% Open Space

13% Rural Living

6% Suburban Neighborhoods

Suburban Centers

>1%

Walkable Neighborhoods

Walkable Centers

2% Special Districts

Notes: Open Space = Parks & Open Space Rural Living = Rural Living, Working Farms & Rural Cross Roads Suburban Neighborhoods = Large-Lot Neighborhood, Shade Tree Neighborhood, Small-Lot Neighborhood, Mobile Home Community, Multifamily Residential Neighborhood, High Rise Residential & Mixed-Density Residential Suburban Centers = Neighborhood Commercial, Suburban Commercial, Suburban Hotel, Suburban Office, Regional Employment Center, Light Industrial & Heavy Industrial Walkable Neighborhoods = Urban Neighborhood & Mixed-Use Neighborhood Walkable Centers = Mixed-Use Center, Town Center, TOD – Type I, TOD – Type II, TOD – Type III & Metropolitan Center Special Districts = Health Care Campus, Civic & Institutional, University Campus & Airport

Pg. 8

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative

Growth Forecast (2010 - 2040)

Primary Growth Drivers

Population

Growth patterns and development intensities assigned in the scenario followed closely existing zoning maps and ordinances or watershed policies administered by cities, towns, and counties in the region.

1,293,641

Dwelling Units

498,329

Employment

513,960

Legend Parks & Open Space Rural Living Working Farm Large-Lot Neighborhood Shade Tree Neighborhood Small-Lot Neighborhood

Suburban Hotel

Mobile Home Community

Suburban Office

Multifamily Neighborhood

Regional Employment

Urban Neighborhood

Light Industrial

Mixed-Density Neighborhood

Heavy Industrial

Rural Cross Roads

Mixed-Use Neighborhood

TOD, Type II

Civic & Institutional

Neighborhood Commercial

Mixed-Use Center

TOD, Type III

University Campus

Suburban Commercial

Town Center

Metropolitan Center

Airport

Final Summary Document

TOD, Type I

Health Care Campus

Pg. 9

Community Plans adopted comprehensive plan document (about 20% of the parcels in the study area changed between the two scenarios).

The community plans scenario contemplated how the region might develop if city, town, and county comprehensive plans were fully implemented. Preferred development types, patterns, locations, and intensities recommended in the local plans varied from rural to suburban to urban for different parts of the region. Comprehensive plans are not required in the State of North Carolina and only a subset of the local governments involved in Imagine 2040 asked the project team to change the parcel assignments used in the trend development scenario to match their current

Common features of the growth scenario include: compact, walkable activity centers throughout the region, transit-oriented development around light rail and commuter rail stations proposed in the TOD Assessment Report by URS Corporation, and land preserved for rural living outside some urban service areas. A large-scale, printable version of the map to the right is available from either the DCHC MPO or CAMPO website.

General Land Use Profile: 100%

100%

61%

100%

20% 10% Open Space

Rural Living

6% Suburban Neighborhoods

Suburban Centers

>1%

Walkable Neighborhoods

Walkable Centers

2% Special Districts

Pg. 10

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative

Growth Forecast (2010 - 2040)

Primary Growth Drivers

Population

Growth patterns and development intensities assigned in the scenario contemplated how the region might develop if city, town, and county comprehensive plans were fully implemented.

1,293,641

Dwelling Units

498,329

Employment

513,960

Legend Parks & Open Space Rural Living Working Farm Large-Lot Neighborhood Shade Tree Neighborhood Small-Lot Neighborhood

Suburban Hotel

Mobile Home Community

Suburban Office

Multifamily Neighborhood

Regional Employment

Urban Neighborhood

Light Industrial

Mixed-Density Neighborhood

Heavy Industrial

Rural Cross Roads

Mixed-Use Neighborhood

TOD, Type II

Civic & Institutional

Neighborhood Commercial

Mixed-Use Center

TOD, Type III

University Campus

Suburban Commercial

Town Center

Metropolitan Center

Airport

Final Summary Document

TOD, Type I

Health Care Campus

Pg. 11

All-in-Transit In total, twenty-one cities and counties would be served by the expanded bus and rail transit system (compared to eight in the community plans scenario). Common features of the growth scenario include: compact, walkable activity centers throughout the region, transitoriented development around light rail, commuter rail, and bus rapid transit stations proposed in an expanded system compared to the TOD Assessment Report by URS Corporation, and land preserved for rural living outside some urban service areas. A large-scale, printable version of the map to the right is available from either the DCHC MPO or CAMPO website.

The all-in-transit scenario contemplated how the region might develop if state, region, and community leaders favored bus and rail transit for improving the regional transportation system. Starting with the light rail and commuter rail stations in the TOD Assessment Report by URS Corporation, stakeholders in the planning process worked together to expand the rail network in all directions. Thirty-seven new commuter rail stations and ten new light rail stations were added to the system represented in the community plans scenario. Premium bus service was extended by eighteen miles compared to the community plans scenario and several route adjustments were made to the regional bus system.

General Land Use Profile: 100%

100%

61%

100%

19% 9% Open Space

Rural Living

6% Suburban Neighborhoods

Suburban Centers

Walkable Neighborhoods

Walkable Centers

2% Special Districts

Pg. 12

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative

Growth Forecast (2010 - 2040)

Primary Growth Drivers

Population

Growth patterns and development intensities assigned in the scenario contemplated how the region might develop if state, region, and community leaders favored bus and rail transit for improving the regional transportation system.

1,293,641

Dwelling Units

498,329

Employment

513,960

Legend Parks & Open Space Rural Living Working Farm Large-Lot Neighborhood Shade Tree Neighborhood Small-Lot Neighborhood

Suburban Hotel

Mobile Home Community

Suburban Office

Multifamily Neighborhood

Regional Employment

Urban Neighborhood

Light Industrial

Mixed-Density Neighborhood

Heavy Industrial

Rural Cross Roads

Mixed-Use Neighborhood

TOD, Type II

Civic & Institutional

Neighborhood Commercial

Mixed-Use Center

TOD, Type III

University Campus

Suburban Commercial

Town Center

Metropolitan Center

Airport

Final Summary Document

TOD, Type I

Health Care Campus

Pg. 13

Preferred Growth Scenario The preferred scenario was used to allocate population and employment forecasts prepared by the Socioeconomic Data Committee for the 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan in the CommunityViz model. Output from the scenario planning model was then used in the Triangle Regional Model, V5 to forecast future year travel behavior (and link deficiencies) on the regional transportation system.

The transportation coordinating committees (TCC) and transportation advisory committees (TAC) for the two MPOs created a preferred growth scenario for developing the 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Ultimately, the committees for the two MPOs decided to create a new growth scenario ― community plans plus ― based on the results of the technical analysis and comments from stakeholders. It started with the community plans scenario described on pages 10 and 11 and added new transit service consistent with the adopted transit network for the 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (fiscally-constrained).

A brief summary of the preferred growth scenario follows.

General Land Use Profile: 100%

100%

60%

100%

20% 10% Open Space

Rural Living

6% Suburban Neighborhoods

Suburban Centers

Walkable Neighborhoods

Walkable Centers

2% Special Districts

Pg. 14

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative

Growth Forecast (2010 - 2040)

Primary Growth Drivers

Population

Growth patterns and development intensities assigned in the scenario started with the community plans scenario described on pages 10 and 11 and added new transit service consistent with the adopted transit network for the 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (fiscally-constrained).

1,293,641

Dwelling Units

498,329

Employment

513,960

Legend Parks & Open Space Rural Living Working Farm Large-Lot Neighborhood Shade Tree Neighborhood Small-Lot Neighborhood

Suburban Hotel

Mobile Home Community

Suburban Office

Multifamily Neighborhood

Regional Employment

Urban Neighborhood

Light Industrial

Mixed-Density Neighborhood

Heavy Industrial

Rural Cross Roads

Mixed-Use Neighborhood

TOD, Type II

Civic & Institutional

Neighborhood Commercial

Mixed-Use Center

TOD, Type III

University Campus

Suburban Commercial

Town Center

Metropolitan Center

Airport

Final Summary Document

TOD, Type I

Health Care Campus

Pg. 15

Moving Forward The scenario planning initiative for Imagine 2040 confirmed that stronger linkages between land use (demand), urban form (design), and transportation (supply) could significantly improve the efficiency of the regional transportation system; while also promoting a variety of local planning initiatives underway ― revitalization of cities and towns, suburban placemaking, rural preservation, and protecting the natural environment ― to make the region more livable and economically viable. However, benefits associated with moving away from a more decentralized growth pattern will only be possible if the region works together and builds enough support from enough people to make change feasible. The project team hopes that the levels of coordination and cooperation exemplified during Imagine 2040 continue in future regional plans, programs, or studies. Likewise, we the coordinating committees hope cities, towns, or counties in the region consider the development types, locations, patterns and intensities depicted in the preferred development scenario when updating their locally-adopted plans or ordinances.

Visualization of the interaction between land use, urban form, and transportation decisions within the MTP update may also set expectations and/or establish commitments for linking transportation investments with appropriate land use patterns and minimum densities or intensities; especially for technology choices in major transit corridors, building more walkable neighborhoods, or safeguarding environmentally-sensitive areas. Finally, DCHC MPO and CAMPO officials plan to repeat the scenario planning initiative started under Imagine 2040 every four years to coincide with future updates to the Triangle Regional Model and Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Under this program, kick-off activities for the next round of scenario planning should begin sometime in 2013.

The first opportunity to continue the momentum from Imagine 2040 is development of the Triangle Region’s 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). The preferred growth scenario prepared under the scenario planning initiative meets federal rules and requirements for updating a metropolitan transportation plan; specifically to consider land use and development controls reflected in adopted local government plans and ordinances for preparing the document. Data and tools for the preferred growth scenario should inform the MTP planning process, and may be useful for the identification, prioritization, or scheduling of certain transportation projects.

Pg. 16

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative

Final Summary Document

Pg. 17

Section B:

Model Documentation

This section of the document summarizes the scenario planning models created for Image 2040 using CommunityViz, and how they integrate with the Triangle Regional Model, V5. General topics addressed in the section include: data needs, model architecture, theory and features behind components of the region and sub-region models, data output, and calibration activities.

two or more growth scenarios contemplated in the software. The second component of CommunityViz software, Scenario 3D, is a visualization tool that constructs three-dimensional models of buildings, roads, landscapes, or entire communities using two-dimensional information generated in the Scenario 360 analysis.

CommunityViz Software CommunityViz is an extension of ESRI’s ArcGIS desktop software that facilitates the visualization and comparison of alternative development scenarios. It was originally developed by the Orton Family Foundation, a non-profit group that focuses on technology and tools for moreinformed community decision-making. There are two components of CommunityViz software. The first is Scenario 360, which is a two-dimensional map and data analysis component of the software. It adds the functionality of a spatial spreadsheet to ArcGIS for Desktop software, similar to how a spreadsheet program like Microsoft Excel handles numerical data. Dynamic calculations embedded in the spatial spreadsheet are controlled by user-written formulas that change value as referenced input values change. The impact of physical development or policy decisions under consideration may be measured side-by-side in

More information on CommunityViz and its capabilities for regional planning is available on their website (www.communityviz.com) or The Planner’s Guide to CommunityViz published by the American Planning Association in 2011.

System Requirements CommunityViz is an extension for all levels of ESRI’s ArcGIS for Desktop software (Basic, Standard, or Advanced). The current version, CommunityViz v. 4.3, requires ArcGIS for Desktop v. 10.0 or greater. Other software requirements include Windows XP, Vista, or Windows 7 and Windows DirectX 9.0c or higher (required for running Scenario 3D only). The developer of CommunityViz publishes minimum, preferred, and ideal hardware configurations for running the software, as follows:

Table 1: Basic System Requirements for Running CommunityViz Software System Requirement Ram Processor Available Hard Disk Space 3-button standard Microsoft® mouse Dedicated graphics card with the following amount of texture memory

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative

Minimum 512 MB 750 MHz 1 GB Yes 32 MB

Preferred 1 GB 1 GHz 5 GB Yes 64 MB

Ideal 1+ GB 2+ GHz 5+ GB Yes 128+ MB

Pg. 18

Key Terms & Definitions CommunityViz uses several terms inside the software to organize data, build equations, and present results. Knowing these terms and how they relate to each other is critical for updating (or expanding capabilities) in the CommunityViz models for Imagine 2040. A brief summary of key terms used in the software is provided below. See the Help Menu in CommunityViz for more information. Analysis An analysis is the term used in CommunityViz to describe a project file; similar to a Microsoft Word document or Excel spreadsheet. It includes the map data, scenarios, calculations, and data for the work you are doing. Data Data includes all of the shapefiles, raster (grid) files, or tables referenced in an analysis. CommunityViz uses a file geodatabase structure to store data that is dynamic (all layers that contain at least one Scenario 360 formula). Non-dynamic data is stored in the analysis outside of the geodatabase. Data layers that are dynamic may refer to one or more other data layers outside the analysis geodatabase for computing attribute or indicator values.

associated with features in a data set. Each feature is assigned a value for each field in the table, which may be stored directly in the table cell or referenced from an external lookup table. Static attributes do not change values within the analysis. Dynamic attributes update automatically using formulas written in CommunityViz that respond to changes made in other areas of the analysis. Attribute data may be exported from CommunityViz to other software platforms (e.g., Microsoft Excel) for reporting or other analyses. Assumption Assumptions are used as one input to capture the values, conditions, or opinions important to the analysis. They are often referenced in the formula for dynamic attributes, which update automatically every time the assumption values change. Assumption values may be numeric, text, or a yes/no format. Assumptions may also be fixed or variable. A fixed assumption may not be changed in the analysis, and will affect all development scenarios the same way. A variable assumption may be changed in the analysis using a slider bar, choice button, or drop-down list. It can vary across different development scenarios.

Map Feature

Indicator

A feature represents the individual point, line, or polygon on a work map. Many features in the same data set depict geographic information. Features and the data associated with them are represented by rows in an attribute table.

Indicators are impact or performance measures that apply to an entire scenario. They summarize conditions using a single statistic similar to the “field summarize” function in ArcGIS. Results are displayed in charts or tables for monitoring conditions inside CommunityViz, and often become the criteria for ranking growth alternatives in a scenario planning process. Indicators update automatically using formulas written in the

Attribute Attributes are fields (columns) in a spatial or numeric table that describe the characteristics

Pg. 19

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative

software that respond to changes made in other areas of the analysis.

Switching between scenarios in the analysis is done through the Scenario 360 window.

Indicator values may be exported from CommunityViz to other software platforms (e.g., Microsoft Excel) for reporting or other analyses.

External Lookup Table

Charts Values for indicators or assumptions in CommunityViz are displayed using charts. They update automatically within the analysis and display their previous values for comparison. Data may be presented by item, active scenario, or across all scenarios. Charts may be displayed in bar, line, pie, point, doughnut, or stacked formats. Threshold lines may be used in combination with charts to determine if a goal, target, or constraint condition has been reached because of changes tested for the scenario. Categories Categories are used to organize groups of attributes, assumptions, indicators, or charts in the analysis. They may be filtered or sorted for a larger analysis to keep track of information.

CommunityViz includes a feature that links tables in Scenario 360 to external tables so when changes are made to the external table they are automatically recognized and updated in the analysis. This feature can be used for linking external tables in text (*.txt), comma separated values (*.csv), or Microsoft Excel (*.xls or *.xlsx) formats.

Data Inventory & Analysis Data collection for the scenario planning initiative began in 2010 and continued through the projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s completion in 2013. Overall, the quantity of data available in the region was a major asset for developing the scenario planning tools in CommunityViz, and the partnerships formed with cities, towns, and counties for exchanging data benefitted both Imagine 2040 and many other regional initiatives underway at the same time (e.g., school enrollment projections, water and sewer master plans, and water supply studies).

Scenarios CommunityViz is capable of analyzing one or more development scenarios simultaneously. All scenarios contain the same map layers, static attributes, and formulas for dynamic attributes, assumptions, indicators, and charts. Map features or values for dynamic attributes, assumptions, indicators and charts may vary between the scenarios. Each development scenario is displayed in the table of contents window for ArcGIS Desktop. The active scenario is displayed in the work map.

Final Summary Document

A file transfer protocol (FTP) site was set up for exchanging data in the region. Data was kept upto-date by the model development team for Imagine 2040. Any government agency, research group, or project team working in the region was allowed access to the data using a log-in and password. Data collected for Imagine 2040 is described under three general headings: GIS data, regulatory documents, and resource documents.

Pg. 20

GIS Data Geographic information system (GIS) data was essential to building models and evaluating alternative growth scenarios in CommunityViz. The two MPOs worked together to create starting data sets in 2010, and partnered with cities, towns, and counties in the region to keep files up-to-date throughout the planning process. Data was collected for three general categories: base map layers, analysis layers, and reference layers. Other data was added to the database as the project evolved. GIS data sets used in Imagine 2040 are summarized in Table 3. Regulatory Documents Regulatory documents were collected for cities, towns, and counties in the region to build the models and evaluate alternative growth scenarios; including comprehensive plans, adopted policy statements, zoning and subdivision ordinances, and zoning maps. Copies of the documents were important for creating the Place Types for Imagine 2040 document, assigning place types in the region, and developing lookup tables for the sixteen sub-region models. A list of regulatory documents used in Imagine 2040 is included in the technical appendix. Resource Documents Several resource documents were collected to create data sets, validate assumptions, and write equations for CommunityViz. A list of resource documents used in Imagine 2040 is included in the technical appendix.

Committed Development The base year for the scenario planning initiative was 2010, but the project extended well into 2012

Pg. 21

for measuring and evaluating alternative development scenarios. Stakeholders in the planning process voiced concern and asked that large, committed development projects completed or now under construction since 2010 be hardcoded in CommunityViz. An inventory was completed to alleviate these concerns in partnership with cities, towns, and counties in the region. Only large projects completed or now under construction since 2010 were included in the inventory. Projects approved but not yet under construction relied on CommunityViz for assigning future growth. New residential neighborhoods; multifamily developments; commercial, office, or industrial centers; and mixed-use projects were considered for the database. Project thresholds for each development type included: Table2: Project Thresholds for Committed Development Inventory Used for Imagine 2040 Category

Threshold

Residential Neighborhoods

> 250 d.u.’s

Multifamily Development

> 150 d.u.’s

Commercial Centers

> 250,000 s.f.

Office Centers

> 250,000 s.f.

Industrial Centers

> 250,000 s.f.

Mixed-Use Projects

> 250,000 s.f. & 150 d.u.’s

Committed developments below the thresholds noted above were identified during the inventory; however, the decision was made with stakeholders in the region to let CommunityViz assign growth for these areas. A table summarizing committed development data used in the CommunityViz models is provided in the technical appendix.

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative

Table 3: Summary of GIS Data Used in Imagine 2040 File Name

Shapefile Format

Source

Model Reference

Module Reference

Base Map Data City-County Labels

Point

Consultant

Region

Reporting

Interstate Shields

Point

Consultant

Region

Reporting

US / NC Highway Shields

Point

Consultant

Region

Reporting

Study Area Boundary

Polygon

MPO

Region

Reporting

Sub-Region Boundaries

Polygon

Consultant

Region

Reporting

County Boundaries

Polygon

MPO

Region

N/A

Parcels

Polygon

MPO

Sub-Region

Build-Out Potential

Graduated Grid Cells

Polygon

Consultant

Region

Growth Allocation

Permanent Conservation Areas

Polygon

MPO

Sub-Region

Carrying Capacity

Analysis Data

National Wetlands Inventory

Polygon

MPO

Sub-Region

Carrying Capacity

Stream Buffer Requirements

Polygon

MPO

Sub-Region

Carrying Capacity

Water Bodies

Polygon

MPO

Sub-Region

Carrying Capacity

Interchange Inventory

Point

MPO

Region

Land Suitability

Major Intersections

Point

Consultant

Region

Land Suitability

Secondary Intersections

Point

Consultant

Region

Land Suitability

US / NC Highways

Polyline

MPO

Region

Land Suitability

MTP Highway Network (2040)

Polyline

MPO

Region

Land Suitability

Premium Bus Routes (BRT)

Polyline

MPO

Region

Land Suitability

Regional Bus Routes

Polyline

MPO

Region

Land Suitability

LRT Station Area of Influence

Polygon

Consultant

Region

Land Suitability

CRT Station Area of Influence

Polygon

Consultant

Region

Land Suitability

Town Center / CBD Activity Nodes

Point

TJ COG

Region

Land Suitability

Region / Community Activity Nodes

Point

TJ COG

Region

Land Suitability

Four Year Colleges & Universities

Point

TJ COG

Region

Land Suitability

Metropolitan Centers

Polygon

Consultant

Region

Land Suitability

Existing / Emerging Growth Areas

Polygon

MPO

Region

Land Suitability

Sewer Service Areas

Polygon

MPO

Region

Land Suitability

Water Service Areas

Polygon

MPO

Region

Land Suitability

Watershed Protection Areas

Polygon

MPO

Region

Land Suitability

Flood Hazard Areas

Polygon

MPO

Region

Land Suitability

Significant / Natural Heritage Areas

Polygon

MPO

Region

Land Suitability

Polygon

MPO

Sub-Region

Build-Out Potential

Reference Data Zoning Maps / Future Land Use Maps Traffic Analysis Zones

Polygon

MPO

Region

Reporting

Points of Interest

Point

MPO

Sub-Region

Build-Out Potential

Voluntary Agriculture Districts

Polygon

MPO

Sub-Region

Build-Out Potential

Interstates / Railroads

Polyline

MPO

Region

N/A

Aerial Photography

Raster

MPO

Sub-Region

Build-Out Potential

Final Summary Document

Pg. 22

Growth Control Totals

Employee Space Ratios

County-level control totals for the thirty-year planning horizon (2010 – 2040) were provided by the Socioeconomic Data Committee for the 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Data was summarized for seven development categories: single-family residential, multifamily residential, highway retail, industrial, office, retail, and service. A table summarizing county-level controls totals used for the CommunityViz model is provided in the technical appendix.

Employee space ratios were used in CommunityViz to convert build out potential for non-residential development in the sub-region models (square feet) to available supply in the regional model (employees) for the running growth allocation scripts. Ratios used for the conversion followed information published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, Eighth Edition, the Triangle Region’s Employment GeoCoder, local comprehensive plans, and several development impact fee studies completed for similar regions in the Southeastern United States.

See the 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for more detailed information on growth control totals used for Imagine 2040; including starting data sets, key assumptions, background calculations, and a summary of the review process. A copy is available from either the DurhamChapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) or the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO).

Pg. 23

The employee space ratios used for Imagine 2040 are summarized in the technical appendix.

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative

Data Manipulation Three new GIS data sets were created specifically to support the scenario planning initiative; including development status, place types, and a graduated grid cell layer. A description of each data set and information used for populating the databases is provided on the following pages. Development Status Development status in the Triangle Region told the sub-region models which set of equations to use for estimating the development yield (buildout potential) of a parcel. And when combined with the land suitability score and place type assignment, it established the order and supply available for a grid to receive future growth in the regional model. Development Status Assignments Development status was assigned to parcels in the region using 2010 aerial photography, property appraiser data, and topic-specific GIS data sets (e.g., existing land use, farmland or vacant land inventories). Emphasis on one or more of the data sets varied by the development status category being coded, which is highlighted in the category descriptions below. Values for development status were recorded in a new column created for each parcel file named DEV_STAT (short for “development status category”). Category Descriptions Development status categories used for Imagine 2040 include: permanent open space, developed, undeveloped, under-developed, agriculture, and water. A brief description of each category follows: Permanent Open Space – Active or passive land dedicated to permanent or semi-permanent open space; including state parks, conservation areas,

Final Summary Document

parks and recreation fields, and land set aside for open space in residential neighborhoods, commercial centers, business parks, etc. Existing land use inventories for some jurisdictions and 2010 aerial photography were used to assign permanent open space status in the region. Developed – Lots or parcels largely built-out with permanent buildings or structures. Developed status was also assigned to surface parking lots that serve adjoining buildings, or to sliver lots adjacent to developed parcels (appearing to be part of the same development or home site) where size, shape, or access limitations would generally keep them from developing in the future. 2010 aerial photography supplemented by existing land use inventories for some jurisdictions was used to assign developed status in the region. Undeveloped – Lots or parcels without permanent buildings or structures. Undeveloped status was also assigned to more rural parcels with temporary structures (e.g., pole barn, large storage shed, etc.) that could simply be removed to accommodate new development. 2010 aerial photography supplemented by an existing land use inventory for some jurisdictions was used to identify undeveloped lots or parcels in the region. Under-Developed – Lots or parcels with permanent buildings or structures that occupy only a small portion of the property; leaving significant area available for future development. The test was limited to space efficiency and not a judgment on use or condition of the buildings or structures on the property. 2010 aerial photography supplemented by underutilized land inventories for some jurisdictions was used to assign under-developed status in the region. Agriculture – A regional database for working farms or forestry tracts was not available for coding development status. 2010 aerial photography supplemented by property appraiser data or voluntary agriculture district inventories

Pg. 24

for some jurisdictions was used to assign agriculture status in the region. Agriculture assignments were conservative based on available data and focused almost solely on locations that displayed visible row crops, farm buildings, etc. Water – A lot or parcel where all, or nearly all, of it is covered by a water feature. 2010 aerial photography was used to assign water status in the region. Development Status Map A composite map for development status assignments in the region for the preferred growth scenario is included in the technical appendix. A large-scale, printable version of the map is available from either the Durham-Chapel HillCarrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) or the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO). Place Types Imagine 2040 introduced the concept of place types to the region, which generalized the various development categories used by local governments to describe, measure, and evaluate the built environment. Assigning place types to parcels in the region was a very important step in the scenario planning process. It told the sub-region models in CommunityViz which set of density or intensity controls to use for estimating development potential, and built confidence with cities, towns and counties in the modeling process. Place types were combined with the development suitability score and development status assignment to allocate future growth to grid cells in the regional model.

parcels relied on 2010 aerial photography, property appraiser data, specific GIS data available for a jurisdiction (e.g., park or church locations), and fieldwork. Parcels assigned undeveloped, under-developed, or agriculture development status relied on committed development data or locally-adopted comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances. A place type classification matrix prepared for each city, town and county translated comprehensive plan land use categories or zoning districts to place types for Imagine 2040 (see Section E in the Place Types for Imagine 2040 document). Parcels assigned permanent open space or water development status were assigned ‘parks and open space’ for place type. Category Descriptions A brief summary of each place type category is provided below. See the document entitled Place Types for Imagine 2040 for more detailed information; including land use considerations, general development characteristics, and images representing typical development in each place type category. A copy is available from either the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) or the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO). Parks and Open Space – Parks and open space include active and passive land dedicated for conservation. These areas are typically undisturbed or undeveloped and have been protected from development by local, state, and federal agencies or by public, private, and nonprofit organizations. In the region, these areas include state parks, permanent conservation areas, parkland, athletic fields, cemeteries, or dedicated open space within residential neighborhoods.

Place Type Assignments Place types were assigned to parcels in the region using development status values (see discussion on pg. 24) and various GIS data sources. Developed

Pg. 25

Rural Living – Rural living areas are characterized by large lots, abundant open space, pastoral views, and a high degree of separation between buildings. Residential homes and hobby farms are scattered

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative

throughout the countryside and often integrated into the natural landscape. The lot size and separation between buildings decreases approaching areas with greater development densities. Buildings at the edge of most rural areas are generally oriented toward highways and have direct access to the adjacent highway through a private driveway. More dense development in the place type may take the form of conservationbased subdivisions (a.k.a. cluster development), which leave larger areas for permanent open space and uninterrupted views of the surrounding countryside. Working Farm – Working farms are actively being used for agriculture or forestry activities, including cultivated farmland, timber harvest, livestock, or woodlands. These areas also support the primary residence of the property owner and any outbuildings associated with activities on the working farm. Mobile Home Community – Mobile home parks are characterized by single-wide and double-wide mobile homes on individual lots, which may be clustered in an area owned and managed by a single entity. These neighborhoods are found throughout the region and often provide an affordable housing option for residents. Large-Lot Residential Neighborhood – Large-lot residential neighborhoods are generally formed as subdivisions and consist almost entirely of singlefamily detached homes. Buildings are oriented interior to the site and are typically buffered from surrounding development by transitional uses, topography, or vegetative areas. Many neighborhoods ‘borrow’ open space from adjacent rural or natural settings. Blocks are typically large and streets are rural or suburban in character. In some cases, the

Final Summary Document

Pg. 26

neighborhood is served by only one long cul-desac. Shade Tree Residential Neighborhood – Shade tree, residential neighborhoods include homes built in the post-WWII era on streets now with mature trees. They are found in close proximity to traditional urban centers, and provide the rooftops necessary to support nearby commercial and employment areas. Home architecture, building setbacks, and lot size and width may vary within the same neighborhood. Lakes, parkland, and community buildings (e.g., schools, churches, or community centers) are prevalent features in the neighborhood. Large blocks and curvilinear streets make shade-tree, residential neighborhoods typically auto-dependent. Small-Lot Residential Neighborhood – Small-lot, residential neighborhoods are generally formed as subdivisions or communities, with a relatively uniform housing type and density throughout. They are often found in close proximity to commercial and suburban office centers, and provide the rooftops necessary to support the centers. Homes are oriented interior to the neighborhood and are typically buffered from surrounding development by transitional uses or landscaped areas. Multifamily Residential Neighborhood – Multifamily residential neighborhoods are generally formed as complexes or communities, with a relatively uniform housing type and density Pg. 27

throughout. They support the highest residential density in the suburban landscape, and may contain one of the following housing types: condominiums, townhomes, senior housing, or apartments. Multifamily suburban neighborhoods are found in close proximity to suburban commercial and office centers, and provide the rooftops necessary to support various suburban commercial and office uses within the centers. Buildings are oriented interior to the site and are typically buffered from surrounding development by transitional uses or landscaped areas. Large parking lots and low street connectivity are common in multifamily suburban neighborhoods. Mixed-Density Residential Neighborhood – Mixed-density residential neighborhoods are characterized by a variety of housing types and residential densities organized in a cohesive, wellconnected community. Neighborhoods are generally designed to promote a wide range of housing choices in the region. Homes are oriented interior to the site and are typically buffered from surrounding development by transition uses or landscaped areas. Small blocks and a modified grid of streets support multiple modes of transportation. Mixed-density residential neighborhoods are found in close proximity to suburban commercial and suburban office centers, and provide the

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative

rooftops necessary to support commercial and office uses within the centers.

needs for rural residents are provided for in other suburban commercial and suburban office centers.

Urban Neighborhood – Urban neighborhoods support a mix of moderate- to high-density housing options. These neighborhoods are relatively compact, and may contain one or more of the following housing types: small lot, single family detached, townhomes, condominiums, or apartments. Buildings are generally oriented toward the street. The design and scale of development in an urban neighborhood encourages active living with a complete and comprehensive network of walkable streets. Culde-sacs are restricted to areas where topography, environment, or existing development makes other street connections prohibitive.

Neighborhood Commercial Center – Small scale, neighborhood commercial centers provide goods and services to surrounding neighborhoods. Their proximity to neighborhoods requires that operations be low-intensity, unobtrusive, and at a scale and design compatible with nearby residential development.

High-Rise Residential – High-rise residential areas support the highest residential densities in the region outside of metropolitan centers. They generally include one building surrounded by surface parking, which can easily be seen for some distance from the site. Some high-rise residential buildings may include parking decks. Apartments and condominiums occupy high-rise residential towers. Rural Cross Roads – Rural cross roads represent the small nodes of commercial activity along rural highways. Small-scale businesses, such as gas stations, convenience stores, or restaurants, serve some daily needs of the surrounding rural population. Employment and other commercial

Final Summary Document

The design of neighborhood commercial centers transitions effectively between residential and nonresidential uses, and includes safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access for nearby residents. While this is primarily a commercial category, some neighborhood commercial centers may include upper story residential. Sites also effectively minimize the impact of cut through traffic on nearby neighborhood streets by orienting vehicle access, circulation, etc. away from the neighborhood. Suburban Commercial Center – Suburban commercial centers serve the daily needs of surrounding residential neighborhoods. They typically locate near high-volume roads and key intersections, and are designed to be accessible primarily by automobile. Buildings are set back from the road behind large surface parking lots, with little or no connectivity between adjacent businesses. Common types of suburban centers in the region include multi-tenant strip centers, big box stores, and large shopping malls.

Pg. 28

Suburban Hotel – Suburban hotels provide short term lodging to the general public, and may include one or more buildings surrounded by surface parking lots. The buildings are generally oriented interior to the site and can be seen for some distance. They tend to locate near highvolume roads and key intersections, and are designed to be accessible primarily by automobile. Common types of hotels in the region include: business hotel, motel, and extended-stay hotel. Several hotels also include one or more ancillary uses such as conference centers, sit-down restaurants, or night clubs. Suburban Office Center – Suburban office centers provide opportunities to concentrate employment on normal workdays. They include both largescale isolated buildings with numerous employees as well as areas containing multiple businesses that support and serve one another. They are typically buffered from surrounding development by transitional uses or landscaped areas and are often located in close proximity to major highways or thoroughfares. Regional Employment Center – A regional employment center draws people from throughout the region (and beyond) for employment activities. The large-scale development, which includes a hierarchy of streets, large sites for a building or group of buildings, and supporting amenities and dedicated open space. Centers tend to locate near major transportation corridors and often at the intersection of two major highways or an interstate exit. Uses in a regional employment center vary greatly; however, most complement each other in some manner for increased learning, production, or other economies of scale. Light Industrial Center – Light industrial centers provide opportunities to concentrate employment in the region on normal workdays. Each center generally supports manufacturing and production uses, including warehousing, light manufacturing, medical research, and assembly operations. These

Pg. 29

areas are found in close proximity to major transportation corridors (i.e., highway or rail) and are generally buffered from surrounding development by transitional uses or landscaped areas that shield the view of structures, loading docks, or outdoor storage from adjacent properties. Clusters of uses that support or serve one another are often encouraged to locate in the same light industrial center. Heavy Industrial Center – Heavy industrial centers support large-scale manufacturing and production uses; including assembly and processing, regional warehousing and distribution, bulk storage, and utilities. These areas are found in close proximity to major transportation corridors (e.g., highways or railroads) and are generally buffered from surrounding development by transitional uses or landscaped areas that increase in size as development intensity increases. Heavy industrial centers may require larger sites because activities are not confined entirely to buildings. Conveyer belts, holding tanks, smoke stacks, or outdoor storage all may be present in a heavy industrial center. Clusters of uses that support or serve heavy industrial centers generally locate in close proximity. Mixed-Use Neighborhood – A mixed-use neighborhood offers residents the ability to live, shop, work, and play in one community. These neighborhoods include a mixture of housing types and residential densities integrated with goods and services in a walkable community that residents visit on a daily basis. The design and scale of the development encourages active living through a comprehensive and interconnected network of walkable streets. Mixed-use neighborhoods support multiple modes of transportation. Mixed-Use Center – Mixed-use centers serve broader economic, entertainment, and community activities as compared to mixed-use neighborhoods. Uses and buildings are located on small blocks with streets designed to encourage

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative

pedestrian activity. Buildings in the core of the mixed-use center may stand three or more stories. Residential units or office space may be found above storefronts. Parking is satisfied using onstreet parking, structured parking and shared rearlot parking strategies. A large-scale mixed use center may be surrounded by one or more neighborhoods that encourage active living, with a comprehensive and interconnected network of walkable streets. Town Center – Town centers are locally-serving areas of economic, entertainment, and community activity. Uses and buildings are located on small blocks with streets designed to encourage pedestrian activity. Buildings typically stand two or more stories in height with residential units above storefronts. The compact, walkable

Final Summary Document

environment and mix of residential and nonresidential uses in a town center often support multiple modes of transportation. Town centers represent the traditional downtown or courthouse area of historic towns and communities found throughout the region. Transit-Oriented Development – Transit-oriented development (TOD) represents the concentration of mixed-use, dense development around a transit center. Uses and buildings are located on small blocks with streets designed to encourage bicycle and pedestrian activity. High-density development is located primarily within ¼-mile of the transit station, with progressively lower densities spreading out into neighborhoods surrounding the center.

Pg. 30

TOD is credited with relieving traffic congestion on the surrounding street network by shifting automobile trips to transit trips and by capturing some trips on-site between complementary residential and non-residential uses. Three TOD categories were created for the Triangle Region with the help of Triangle Transit and the City of Raleigh Urban Design Center, including: TOD, Type I This version of TOD is the most intense in the region. It represents the intensity and scale of development similar to a metropolitan center (see description to the right). Transit stations may be standalone facilities or one component of a larger building. Characteristics of an “urban center” station area described in the TOD Assessment Report by URS Corporation helped define the pattern and intensity for this transit-oriented development category. TOD, Type II This version of TOD includes less intense development patterns and intensities compared to the TOD, Type I category. It should be widely used in the region’s larger cities and towns; similar in intensity and scale to a town center or mixeduse center (see pgs. 29 and 30). Transit stations are primarily standalone facilities with complementary uses nearby. Characteristics for an “urban center” and “suburban center” station area described in the TOD Assessment Report by URS Corporation helped define the pattern and intensity for this transit-oriented development category. TOD, Type III This version of TOD is the least intense in the region. It should be widely used in the region’s Pg. 31

smaller cities and towns; similar in intensity and scale to a neighborhood commercial center or mixed-use neighborhood (see pgs. 28 and 29). Transit stations are standalone facilities with surface parking lots or small-scale complementary uses nearby. Characteristics for a “suburban center” station area described in the TOD Assessment Report by URS Corporation helped define the pattern and intensity for this transitoriented development category. Metropolitan Center – A metropolitan center is the focal point of the region. It is the hub of employment, entertainment, civic, and cultural activities, with a mix of housing types and common open space for active living. As a magnet to surrounding towns and neighborhoods, the metropolitan center becomes the iconic symbol of the region, starting with very tall buildings and a traditional grid street network. The compact, walkable environment and mix of residential and non-residential uses in a metropolitan center support multiple modes of transportation. Airport – An airport supports commercial or general aviation air traffic into and out of the Triangle Region. Each may include one or more runways, a terminal, taxiways, jet fuel and storage facilities, or paved aircraft parking areas. Complimentary uses (e.g., rental car facilities, hotels, restaurants, long-term parking lots) may surround an airport. Restrictions on use, placement, and height for some forms of development are followed in designated runway airspace protection areas. Civic & Institutional – Civic and institutional facilities are focal points in the region. They typically include a building or complex of buildings that serve public purpose, including a library, school, public works complex, or town government. Visual qualities of the building and its surrounding grounds often make civic and institutional facilities a landmark within the region.

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative

Health Care Campus – A health care campus includes various medical and medical-related uses, such as primary care, outpatient surgery, birthing centers, and other specialty services. They are relatively large in scale, and may include a hospital, teaching facilities, research and rehabilitation centers, and private medical office buildings. Buildings are typically oriented in a campus-setting, with large buildings connected via walkways, structured parking, or an internal network of streets for circulation. University Campus – A university campus includes all of the academic buildings, residence halls, athletic facilities, equipment, or other ancillary needed to support an institution for higher education. Buildings are often oriented around a highly-walkable network of internal

Final Summary Document

streets and pedestrian pathways, which support several modes of transportation for reaching the campus (i.e., bicycle, transit, or automobile). Structured parking or large surface lots, dedicated areas for public gathering, and distinctive architecture also represent a typical university campus. Building uses and intensities on campus vary widely based on the school’s mission and available space, topography, etc. Complementary uses near a university may include student housing, residential neighborhoods, downtown, or private research and development buildings. Place Type Map A composite map for place types assigned in the region for the preferred growth scenario is included in the technical appendix. A large-scale,

Pg. 32

printable version of the map is available from either the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) or the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO). Graduated Grid Cells Grid cells were used as a common geography in the regional model to address size and complexity issues for scenario planning in such a large study area. They were used to aggregate parcel-level data from the sixteen underlying sub-region models, and supported a number of calculations focused on the region as a whole. The size of grid cells used in the model varied to reflect the type, pattern, and intensity of development in the region. Smaller size cells (oneeighth mile to one-quarter mile) were used for urban and suburban areas to capture quick changing development patterns and intensities common in downtowns, neighborhoods, activity centers, or transportation corridors. Larger size cells (one-half mile to one mile) were used for rural areas and land held in permanent conservation to capture slow changing development patterns and intensities over the larger geography. General rules for assigning grid

cells in the region are summarized in Table 4. The opportunity to use a graduated grid data layer for Imagine 2040 improved overall model performance and allowed stakeholders greater flexibility for reporting results. Overall, the move from parcels to grid cells for the regional model was able to reduce the number of records in the database by 85%; converting 664,283 parcels to 104,370 grid cells.

Model Architecture Imagine 2040 relied on a two-tier modeling platform to run and evaluate competing development scenarios. Sixteen sub-region models used parcel-level data to calculate buildable area and build-out potential for cities, towns, and counties in the region. Variables and values used in the calculations were linked to CommunityViz via lookup tables, which accounted for the different rules or policies local governments use to regulate development potential. Results from the sixteen sub-region models were fed directly into a regional model for the study area. It used grid cells to calculate land suitability (a score representing the desirability of one grid cell to develop over all others in the study area) and allocate future year growth forecasted for the region. Indicators in the model summarized growth totals and remaining development

Table 4: General Rules for Assigning Grid Cells in CommunityViz Grid Cell ⅛ - Mile ¼ - Mile ½ - Mile

Area 10 Acres 40 Acres 160 Acres

1 Mile

640 Acres

General Rule Land inside municipal planning boundaries Land outside municipal planning boundaries Land not likely to develop in the future (e.g., small water bodies, small conservation areas, etc.) Land not likely to develop in the future (e.g., large water bodies, state parks, military installation, etc.)

Quantity 67,254 36,853 216 47

Pg. 33

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative

potential for each city, town, and county in the region. Grid level data was also summarized in CommunityViz by traffic analysis zone and exported to a database format (*.dbf) for creating socioeconomic data in the Triangle Region Model, V5. Diagrams for the region and sub-region models are provided in the technical appendix. More information for specific components in the twotier model architecture is provided in the next section of the document.

Final Summary Document

Model Components The CommunityViz models for Imagine 2040 were represented by six major components: carrying capacity analysis, external lookup tables, build-out potential analysis, land suitability analysis, growth allocation, and reporting results. Carrying Capacity Analysis Some land in the region will never develop because of physical conditions on the site, land ownership, or the existence of state and local policies that prohibit development. These areas — referred to as “highly-constrained for

Pg. 34

development” in the scenario planning process — were removed in the sub-region models before performing the build-out calculations in CommunityViz. This feature in the model was used to more accurately estimate buildable area in the region. Internal scripts in the sub-region models removed “highly-constrained areas for development” from the build-out calculations using an overlap function. The presence of development constraints on a parcel was reported as an area statistic (DEV_CON). The area(s) of a parcel remaining for development was calculated as the difference between total land area and the DEV_CON statistic (DEV_AREA). A site efficiency factor (80 - 90%) was also applied to vacant parcels to account for land typically set aside for on-site improvements (e.g., internal streets, utility easements, storm water management, and open space) to support new development. The portion(s) of a parcel remaining after the removal of “highly-constrained areas for development” and the application of a factor for on-site infrastructure (if applicable) were used to enumerate build-out potential for the region (BUILD_AREA). Features used in the Triangle Region to represent areas highly-constrained for development include:    

Water Bodies Stream Buffers Wetlands Permanent Conservation Areas

A composite map and contributing factors map for the carrying capacity analysis are included in the technical appendix.

Pg. 35

External Lookup Tables Some variables and values used in the calculations for CommunityViz were linked to the analysis via external lookup tables, which updated automatically every time a change was made outside the software. In the sub-region models, the tables were used to capture general development characteristics associated with the different place type categories created for Imagine 2040. In the regional model, the table provided future year dwelling unit and employee growth totals required to complete the growth allocation process. General Development Lookup Table The general development lookup table for each sub-region model was tied to place type and varied by city, town, or county in the region; reflecting the small variance in characteristics or expectations for each place type specific to the jurisdiction’s local land development regulations. The sixteen external tables were set up as separate files in Microsoft Excel, but used the same data columns, naming convention, and formatting features to streamline the modeling process. The only variations in the tables were associated with the number of rows used to represent the different jurisdictions and the values assumed for those variables. Information in the lookup tables was summarized under fourteen column headings, including: General Characteristics     

Place Type Category Jurisdiction Site Efficiency Factor Percent Residential Development Percent Non-Residential Development

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative

Residential Development Characteristics   

Average Density Percent Single-Family Development Percent Multifamily Development

Non-Residential Development Characteristics      

Average Floor Area Ratio Percent Office Development Percent Retail Development Percent Highway Retail Development Percent Industrial Development Percent Service Development

The general development lookup tables for all sixteen sub-region models (representing 53 local jurisdictions) are included in the technical appendix. Growth Control Totals Lookup Table The external lookup table in the regional model was used to store county-level control totals for the growth horizon (2010 – 2040). Dwelling unit data was reported for single-family and multifamily residential categories. Data for employees was reported for office, retail, highway retail, industrial and service categories. Growth control totals from the Socioeconomic Data Committee for the 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan were modified for the lookup table before running the growth allocation wizard in CommunityViz. Specifically, adjustments were made to the statistics provided by the Committee to account for the type, intensity, and location of committed development identified in the region (see discussion on pg. 23). This step in the modeling process ensured committed development plus future growth allocated in the region did not violate the county-level control totals approved by the two MPOs for the MTP planning process.

Final Summary Document

The lookup table used in the regional model for storing county-level growth totals is included in the technical appendix. Build-Out Potential Analysis The build-out potential analysis tried to simulate the type, location, and intensity of development for a theoretical condition where all parcels in the region were developed (or redeveloped) consistent with assigned place types and lookup table values. Internal scripts in the sub-region models started with buildable area (BUILD_AREA) and applied rules for land use mix, density, or intensity from a lookup tables to estimate the maximum number of new dwelling units or non-residential square footage for a parcel. Build-out potential for the scenario was calculated for parcels with a development status assignment of undeveloped, under-developed, or agriculture. Statistics were summarized using seven development categories common to CommunityViz and the Triangle Region Model: single-family residential (MPO_DUs), multifamily residential (MPO_MFDUs), highway retail (MPO_HWY_SF), industrial (MPO_IND_SF), office (MPO_OFF_SF), retail (MPO_RET_SF), and service (MPO_SER_SF). Information was transferred from parcel in the sub-region models to grid cell in the region model using an overlap sum function. This function added together the build-out statistics for all parcels inside the grid cell. For partial overlaps, build-out statistics were weighted by the proportion of overlap (using area as the criteria) between the parcel and the grid cell. Build-out statistics for residential uses were reported in dwelling units. A factor was applied to all nonresidential build-out statistics to convert maximum allowable square feet to total employees for the growth allocation process (see discussion on pg. 23)

Pg. 36

Build-out statistics were also summarized by county in the study area for the growth allocation process (consistent with county-level control totals used for the growth forecast). This information was used to represent ‘available supply’ for the internal scripts in CommunityViz.

Environmental Features   

Watershed Protection Areas Significant Natural Heritage Areas Flood Hazard Areas

Highway System Land Suitability Analysis Land suitability analysis in a GIS environment measures the appropriateness of an area for a specific condition or use. In Imagine 2040, it was used to identify locations attractive for growth based on known physical features or policies unique to the region. Physical features in and immediately surrounding the region were layered over grid cells in CommunityViz, and calculations performed to determine either percent overlap or proximity of features to individual grid cells. A normalized scale (between 0 and 100) was used to rank the grid cells from least to most suitable for development. Factors in the LSA could have a positive or negative correlation to desirability scores. Factors used in the Triangle Region for running the land suitability analysis in CommunityViz include: Urban Footprint   

Existing & Emerging Growth Areas Water Service Area Sewer Service Area

Development Activity Centers    

Pg. 37

Metropolitan Centers Town Center & CBD Activity Centers Regional & Community Activity Centers Four Year Colleges & Universities

     

NC Highways US Highways Interchange Locations Major Intersections Secondary Intersections 2040 TRM highway network

Transit System    

Premium Rubber Tire Transit Corridors Regional Bus Routes Commuter Rail Station, Area of Influence, ½-mi Light Rail Station, Area of Influence, ½-mi

Factors were also weighted (using a scale of 0 – not important to 10 – most important) to put more or less significance on one factor compared to others in the calculation. Focus group meetings with business and development interests in the region and a workshop with members of the two project steering committees for Imagine 2040 helped set the weighted values. A summary table is included in the technical appendix. A composite map and contributing factor maps for the land suitability analysis are included in the technical appendix. Growth Allocation Growth forecasted for the region between 2010 and 2040 was allocated to grid cells using the “allocation tool wizard” in CommunityViz. The tool helped determine where growth would likely occur using a supply-and-demand approach and a series of probability-based models internal to the

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative

software. Information from previous steps in the modeling process (build-out potential analysis and land suitability analysis) was fed directly into the wizard for completing the allocation process. County-level control totals for the thirty-year planning horizon (2010 – 2040) were provided by the Socioeconomic Data Committee for the 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Data was summarized for seven development categories: single-family residential, multifamily residential, highway retail, industrial, office, retail, and service. A table summarizing county-level controls totals used for CommunityViz is included in the technical appendix. The analysis layer used for the allocation process (Triangle_Region_Graduated_Grid_Layer.shp) included a desirability score and development capacity statistic for each grid cell. The desirability score (land suitability analysis score) helped to run the allocation process using probability-based, exponential theory. This approach relied on land suitability analysis scores to determine the likelihood of a dwelling unit or employee filling each grid cell. Grid cells with a higher land suitability analysis score had a much higher probability of being filled over grid cells with lower scores. The allocation tool wizard was run 70 times to allocate future year growth in the region (10 counties x 7 development categories = 70 runs). Committed development for grid cells in the region (if applicable, see discussion on pg. 21) was added to growth assigned in the model using the allocation tool wizard. This statistic represented ‘full allocation’ for growth in each grid cell between 2010 and 2040. Data was summarized using seven development categories common to CommunityViz and the Triangle Region Model: single-family residential (SF_DU_ALLO), multifamily residential (MF_DU_ALLO), highway retail (HWY_EMP_ALLO), industrial (IND_EMP_ALLO), office (OFF_EMP_ALLO),

Final Summary Document

retail (RET_EMP_ALLO), and service (SER_EMP_ALLO). Statistics were also reported for total dwelling units (TOT_DU_ALLO) and total employees (EMP_ALLO) for map-making to support Imagine 2040. Composite maps for the distribution of new dwelling units and new employees by grid cell are included in the technical appendix. Reporting Results Grid cell data for all seven development categories was summarized by traffic analysis zone (TAZ) to use in the Triangle Region Model, V5. This was done using the “summary statistics” tool in ArcToolbox for ArcGIS. A database file (*.dbf format) was joined to a GIS shapefile for TAZs in the region (TRMV5_2010_Data.shp) and transmitted to the two MPOs for running the Triangle Region Model, V5.

Model Calibration A significant amount of time was reserved in the planning process for Imagine 2040 to calibrate the CommunityViz models and validate the data used to create them. These activities were critical to developing the final growth allocation data set; building confidence in the scenario planning tools and reaching greater consensus among cities, towns, and counties in the region for the results. A summary of key calibration / validation activities performed for Imagine 2040 is provided below. Place Type Summary Document The Place Types for Imagine 2040 document generalized various development categories used by local governments in the region to describe, measure, and evaluate the built environment. The draft document was reviewed by the two project steering committees for Imagine 2040 in three

Pg. 38

consecutive meetings. Four iterations of the draft document were prepared during their review. Additional feedback was collected on the draft document during the focus group meetings with chief planning officials and sub-region coordination workshops held with cities, towns, and counties in the region. The final document was published in July 2011. GIS Source Data Geographic information system (GIS) data was essential to building models and evaluating alternative growth scenarios in CommunityViz. The two MPOs worked together to create starting data sets in 2010, and partnered with cities, towns, and counties in the region to keep files up-to-date throughout the planning process. Three new GIS data sets were also created specifically to support the scenario planning initiative; including development status, place types, and a graduated grid cell layer. The parcellevel data for development status and place types were widely-regarded by plan participants as one of the most useful products of Imagine 2040. Three meetings with the two project steering committees for Imagine 2040 were used to validate GIS data for the CommunityViz models. Meeting participants reviewed maps and tables created for each step in the scenario planning process, and validated GIS data available on the project’s FTP site for completeness. E-mail blasts to planning directors in the region, sub-region coordination workshops, and several one-on-one jurisdiction coordination meetings were also used to review GIS data for the CommunityViz models. Approximately half of the cities, towns, and counties in the region commented on the project’s GIS database and/or volunteered new information to keep the CommunityViz models up-to-date.

Pg. 39

Nearly 80 new GIS data sets were provided to the project team over the two year project period (2010 – 2012). Land Suitability Analysis A one-day peer review workshop was held with a sub-set of the two project steering committees to discuss the land suitability analysis module in CommunityViz. The workshop was used to present initial results, solicit feedback, and discuss changes needed before releasing results for the alternative development scenarios. One variable was removed from the analysis (volunteer agriculture districts), three variables were changed from point to polygon data formats (metropolitan centers, light rail station area of influence, and commuter rail station area of influence), and the weightings for all variables were changed as a result of the workshop. Site Validation Studies Site validation studies were completed for Imagine 2040 to confirm the values used in the general development lookup tables for each place type category and jurisdiction represented in the sixteen sub-region models. For existing development, the project team completed a site analysis for the place type categories (three sample sites each) present in each jurisdiction. Data was collected for site efficiency, density, and floor area ratio. Other place type categories used in Imagine 2040 were not prevalent in the region today (e.g., transit-oriented development around light rail or commuter rail stations). Comparable development from outside the region was used to complete the site analysis for these conditions. Data was collected for site efficiency, density, and floor area ratio. Information from the validation studies was shared with cities, towns, and counties in the

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative

region, and used to adjust lookup table values for conditions unique to each place type and jurisdiction. Beta Model Results The project team for Imagine 2040 worked closely with cities, towns, and counties in the region to validate early results for the CommunityViz models. Summary maps and tables were shared at project steering committee meetings, sub-region coordination workshops, and one-on-one jurisdiction coordination meetings for comment. The CommunityViz beta models (sub-region and region) were also made available via the project FTP site for further jurisdiction testing. Comments from the jurisdictions were used to modify data sets, revise rates and calculations, and redefine reporting geographies used in CommunityViz. Internal Quality Control The project team used weekly coordination calls, e-mails, milestone web meetings, and on-site, special topic coordination meetings to calibrate the CommunityViz models and validate the data used to create them. Key quality control issues addressed by the team include: data availability, model architecture, model input data and values, rates and calculations (especially for the land suitability analysis and growth allocation modules), beta model results, and reporting geographies.

Final Summary Document

Pg. 40

Section C:

Technical Appendix

Section C:

Technical Appendix

Focus Group Meeting Summaries

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative

FOCUS GROUP MEETING SERIES Business & Development Interests in the Region Brief Meeting Summary Overview: On March 29th, April 6th, and June 13th, 2011, the project team for Imagine 2040 met with members of three focus groups for business and development interests in the Triangle Region. The meetings were used to generate a list of factors that make land more attractive to develop, rank those factors for relative importance, and answer general questions about ‘hot spots’ in the region for future growth. A brief presentation by the project team was followed by an open discussion on topics outlined in a workbook used to facilitate the meetings. Major topics of discussion included: project background, what drives growth in the region, where growth is going in the region, and general comments. The project team collected the workbooks at the end of each event. Information generated at the meetings will be shared with the CAMPO and DCHC MPO project steering committees and used in developing the computer scenario planning model for Imagine 2040. A list of meeting attendees is attached.

Growth Drivers in the Region: Growth drivers represent physical or policy conditions that make one parcel more desirable to develop over others in the region. Meeting participants worked with the project team to identify a comprehensive list of growth drivers and rank their relative importance for influencing growth. The discussion was organized around six general development categories: single-family residential, multifamily residential, general retail, general office, industrial, and mixed-use development. The initial list of growth drivers identified for Imagine 2040 included:         

size and ownership of a parcel access to water service access to sewer service proximity to transit service (i.e., bus or future rail station) watershed protection rules presence of environmentally-sensitive land access to good roads proximity to housing proximity to major generators in the region (i.e., RDU, universities, downtowns, RTP, etc.)

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative

   

access to good schools proximity to employment centers proximity to retail centers in-place zoning

There was general agreement within the groups that these physical and policy conditions were important to driving growth in the region. Other growth drivers important to the region were recommended by meeting participants, including:  

political reality / neighborhood opposition special site constraints / additional cost to develop (e.g., rock sub-surface)

The complete list of growth drivers was used in the meetings. Discussion followed about the influence (i.e., positive or negative) of each variable for attracting new development. A positive correlation represented a variable that attracted development. A negative correlation represented a variable that discouraged development. Meeting participants were then asked to rank each growth driver on a scale of 1 to 5. A score of 1 represented a strong correlation between the variable and encouraging or discouraging new development. A score of 5 represented a weak correlation between the variable and encouraging or discouraging new development. Scores were restricted to whole numbers. Workbooks for the meetings were collected by the project team for tabulation. Summary tables for each general development category are attached.

High Growth Areas: Members of the three focus groups were asked to identify ‘hot spots’ in the region expected to see new development or redevelopment during the thirty year planning horizon (2040). Meeting participants identified high-growth areas on maps included in the workbook. Meeting participants also volunteered general comments about growth and development in the region to supplement the map exercise. The project team collected all workbooks at the end of each event for reference throughout the project. This information will be used in the scenario planning computer models to calibrate the calculations and assignments used to allocate new growth in the region with trends or expectations voiced by members of the focus group.

General Comments: Several comments were voiced in the meeting to guide the planning process for Imagine 2040. A brief summary of the comments follows: 

The importance and impact of growth drivers in the region varies by sub-region (physical conditions) or town, city, or county (policy conditions). Weightings used in the sub-region

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative

scenario planning models should reflect the unique conditions noted in the meetings to determine the desirability of one parcel to develop over others in the region. 

Mixed use development is very sensitive to market conditions and surrounding development types, patterns, and intensities. The notion of mixed use development occurring throughout the region is unlikely; even though it is advocated for in most comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances.



The cost of going vertical in building construction and the need / cost for structured parking should be considered in the densities and intensities advocated for in local comprehensive plans or zoning ordinances that support mixed-use development. Generally, the development program allowed for a mixed-use site must be financially feasible.



There is a difference between a mix of uses (in close proximity) on a site and mixed-use development (integrated uses) on a site.



Proximity to transit service is generally not a strong consideration for identifying prime development sites. Several meeting participants felt comprehensive, high-quality transit service is still far off for the Triangle Region.

Announcements: Meeting participants were encouraged to stay involved in the project. Questions about Imagine 2040 should be directed to Chris Lukasina at CAMPO (919-996-4402) or Felix Nwoko at the DCHC MPO (919-560-4366).

FOCUS GROUP MEETING SERIES Business & Development Interests in the Region March 29th, April 6th, & June 13th, 2011

Meeting Attendees 1. Eric Braun

Triangle Community Coalition

2. John Kane

Kane Reality

3. Tom Anhut

Toll Brothers

4. Lee Bowman

Newland Communities

5. Mark Ashness

CE Group

6. Liz Rooks

Research Triangle Park

7. Ron Horvath

Horvath Associates

8. Ted Conner

Durham Chamber of Commerce

9. Jim Parker

Summit Consulting

10. Bill Derks

The John R. McAdams Company

11. Bruce Ballentine

Ballentine Associates

12. George Horton

Summit Consulting

13. Mark Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Neal

Pickett-Sprouse Real Estate

14. Dan Jewell

Coulter Jewell Thames, PA

15. George Sharpe

IBI Group

16. Len Sanderson

PB Americas

17. Bill Martin

Martin / Alexiou / Bryson, PC

18. Steph Hachem

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

19. Renee Daniels

Allen Tate Realtors

20. Lindsey Costello

Regional Transportation Alliance

21. Chris Lukasina

CAMPO

22. Amy Ward

CAMPO

23. Andy Henry

DCHC MPO

24. Matt Noonkester

Seven Hills Town Planning Group, Inc.

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative Focus Group Meetings with Business & Development Interests INVENTORY OF GROWTH DRIVERS IN THE REGION SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Variable Size and Ownership of a Parcel Access to Water Service Access to Sewer Service Watershed Protection Rules Presence of Environmentally-Sensitive Land Access to Good Roads /Available Capacity Proximity to Major Generators in the Region Access to Good Schools Proximity to Employment Centers Proximity to Retail Centers In-Place Zoning Political Reality / Neighborhood Opposition Special Site Constraints / Additional Cost to Develop

CorrelationA + + + + + + + + + -

Individual Workbook RankingsB, C WB 1

WB 2

WB 3

WB 4

3 1 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 4 3 -

3 1 1 3 3 2 2 1 4 4 3 -

3 1 1 5 5 2 2 2 3 2 1 -

2 1 1 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 1 5 4

WB 5 2 1 1 4 4 2 2 2 3 3 2 5 5

WB 6 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 3 3

WB 7 3 1 1 3 3 3 4 5 4 4 3 3 2

WB 8 1 1 1 3 3 3 4 2 3 3 3 3 1

WB 9 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 4 3 3 1 3

Average

WB 10H

WB 11I

WB 12F,G

WB 13J

WB 14G

WB 15G

WB 16F

WB 17

WB 18

WB 19

WB 20

WB 21

WB 22

Rank

2 3 3 4 4 2 1 4 1 3 3 1

2 3 3 3 4 2 1 4 1 3 3 3

3 2 2 1 1 3 3 3 4 4 2 1

2 1 1 4 4 2 2 1 2 2 1 2

3 1 1 5 5 2 1 1 2 2 2 -

2 3 1 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 1

3 1 1 3 2 1 3 2 3 3 2 1 2

2 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2

2 4 4 1 5 3 3 1 5 4 2 2 2

3 2 2 4 4 1 3 1 3 3 3 4 4

2 1 1 2 4 1 3 1 3 2 1 2 1

1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 5 2

2 1 1 3 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1

2 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 2

Notes: A

= Growth drivers in the region could have a positive or negative correlation to desirability scores. A positive correlation (+) represents a variable that encourages development. A negative correlation (-) represents a variable that discourages development.

= Workbooks used in the focus group meeting were collected at the end of the event to record individual scores. One workbook was returned for each meeting participant. A list of focus group participants is included in the meeting summary document.

= Meeting participants were asked to rank each growth driver on a scale of 1 to 5. A score of 1 represented a strong correlation between the variable and encouraging or discouraging new development. A score of 5 represented a weak correlation between the variable and encouraging or discouraging new development. Scores were restricted to whole numbers.

= Scores were determined using a straight average of data provided in the individual workbooks.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Chatham County.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Durham County.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Orange County.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Person County.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Granville County.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Chapel Hill and Carrboro.

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative Focus Group Meetings with Business & Development Interests INVENTORY OF GROWTH DRIVERS IN THE REGION MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Variable Size and Ownership of a Parcel Access to Water Service Access to Sewer Service Proximity to Transit Service Watershed Protection Rules Presence of Environmentally-Sensitive Land Access to Good Roads /Available Capacity Proximity to Major Generators in the Region Access to Good Schools Proximity to Employment Centers Proximity to Retail Centers In-Place Zoning Political Reality / Neighborhood Opposition Special Site Constraints / Additional Cost to Develop

Individual Workbook RankingsB, C

Correlation + + + + + + + + + + -

WB 1

WB 2

WB 3

WB 4

3 3 3 2 4 2 2 2 4 2 3 1 -

2 1 1 4 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 -

1 1 1 2 5 5 2 2 3 3 2 1 -

3 2 2 2 5 5 2 1 2 1 3 2 5 2

WB 5 1 1 1 3 5 5 1 2 1 2 2 1 5 5

WB 6 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3

WB 7 3 1 1 3 3 3 1 2 3 2 2 1 2 2

WB 8 1 1 1 4 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 1 1

WB 9 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

Average

WB 10H

WB 11I

WB 12F,G

WB 13J

WB 14G

WB 15G

WB 16F

WB 17

WB 18

WB 19

WB 20

WB 21

WB 22

Rank

3 1 1 5 4 3 2 4 4 1 4 1 1 1

2 2 2 4 1 1 4 2 4 2 4 3 2 3

2 1 1 2 4 4 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 3

3 1 1 2 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 -

2 3 1 2 2 3 2 3 4 2 2 2 -

3 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 3

1 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2

2 1 1 4 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 1 2

4 2 2 2 5 5 2 2 1 3 3 2 4 4

1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1

1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1

2 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2

Notes: A

= Scores were determined using a straight average of data provided in the individual workbooks.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Chatham County.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Durham County.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Orange County.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Person County.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Granville County.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Chapel Hill and Carrboro.

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative Focus Group Meetings with Business & Development Interests INVENTORY OF GROWTH DRIVERS IN THE REGION MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT Variable Size and Ownership of a Parcel Access to Water Service Access to Sewer Service Proximity to Transit Service Watershed Protection Rules Presence of Environmentally-Sensitive Land Access to Good Roads /Available Capacity Proximity to Major Generators in the Region Access to Good Schools Proximity to Employment Centers Proximity to Retail Centers In-Place Zoning Political Reality / Neighborhood Opposition Special Site Constraints / Additional Cost to Develop

Individual Workbook RankingsB, C

Correlation + + + + + + + + + + -

WB 1

WB 2

WB 3

WB 4

4 4 4 1 4 1 2 2 5 2 2 1 -

1 1 1 3 4 4 1 2 3 2 3 1 -

1 1 1 2 5 2 2 2 4 2 1 1 -

3 2 2 2 5 5 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 4

WB 5 1 1 1 5 5 5 1 1 1 3 2 1 5 5

WB 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 -

WB 7 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 1

WB 8 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 1 2

WB 9 5 1 1 2 5 5 1 1 4 1 3 1 5 1

Average

WB 10H

WB 11I

WB 12F,G

WB 13J

WB 14G

WB 15G

WB 16F

WB 17

WB 18

WB 19

WB 20

WB 21

WB 22

Rank

5 1 1 5 5 5 1 1 1 5 3 1 5 1

3 2 2 4 1 1 3 3 3 4 3 3 3

1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 3

2 1 1 4 5 5 1 1 3 3 1 -

1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3

3 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 5 2 1 -

1 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2

3 1 1 4 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 5 2

2 1 1 2 5 5 2 3 1 3 3 2 4 4

1 1 1 1 2 1 2 4 2 1 1 4 4 4

1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 1 4 1

2 1 1 2 4 4 1 3 3 3 3 4 2 3

2 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 3

Notes: A

= Scores were determined using a straight average of data provided in the individual workbooks.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Chatham County.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Durham County.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Orange County.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Person County.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Granville County.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Chapel Hill and Carrboro.

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative Focus Group Meetings with Business & Development Interests INVENTORY OF GROWTH DRIVERS IN THE REGION GENERAL OFFICE DEVELOPMENT Variable Size and Ownership of a Parcel Access to Water Service Access to Sewer Service Proximity to Transit Service Watershed Protection Rules Presence of Environmentally-Sensitive Land Access to Good Roads /Available Capacity Proximity to Housing Proximity to Major Generators in the Region Proximity to Employment Centers Proximity to Retail Centers In-Place Zoning Political Reality / Neighborhood Opposition Special Site Constraints / Additional Cost to Develop

Individual Workbook RankingsB, C

Correlation + + + + + + + + + + -

WB 1

WB 2

WB 3

WB 4

4 3 3 2 5 3 1 2 1 1 4 1 -

1 1 1 3 4 4 1 3 3 2 2 3 -

2 1 1 3 5 5 2 4 3 3 3 1 -

2 2 2 2 4 4 1 2 2 3 3 2 5 4

WB 5 3 1 1 1 4 4 1 2 1 3 3 1 4 5

WB 6 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 3

WB 7 2 1 2 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 3 1 1 2

WB 8 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3

WB 9 3 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 1

Average

WB 10H

WB 11I

WB 12F,G

WB 13J

WB 14G

WB 15G

WB 16F

WB 17

WB 18

WB 19

WB 20

WB 21

WB 22

Rank

3 1 1 5 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 2 2 4 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 2 4

2 1 1 2 4 4 1 2 2 3 1 2 4

1 1 1 2 5 5 3 2 2 3 1 -

3 2 1 2 2 3 2 4 2 2 2 3 2 3

2 1 1 2 2 3 1 2 4 4 2 2 5

1 1 1 3 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 1 2 2

4 1 1 5 1 2 1 3 3 3 3 1 5 2

3 2 2 3 4 4 1 3 3 4 3 3 2 2

1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 4 4 4 1 2 3

4 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 5 2 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 4 2 2 2 2 2

2 1 1 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 2 2 3

Notes: A

= Scores were determined using a straight average of data provided in the individual workbooks.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Chatham County.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Durham County.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Orange County.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Person County.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Granville County.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Chapel Hill and Carrboro.

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative Focus Group Meetings with Business & Development Interests INVENTORY OF GROWTH DRIVERS IN THE REGION GENERAL RETAIL DEVELOPMENT Variable Size and Ownership of a Parcel Access to Water Service Access to Sewer Service Proximity to Transit Service Watershed Protection Rules Presence of Environmentally-Sensitive Land Access to Good Roads /Available Capacity Proximity to Housing Proximity to Major Generators in the Region Proximity to Employment Centers Proximity to Retail Centers In-Place Zoning Political Reality / Neighborhood Opposition Special Site Constraints / Additional Cost to Develop

Individual Workbook RankingsB, C

Correlation + + + + + + + + + + -

WB 1

WB 2

WB 3

WB 4

3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 2 2 -

2 1 1 4 5 5 1 3 2 2 1 -

1 1 1 2 5 3 1 4 2 2 2 1 -

3 2 2 2 4 4 1 3 1 1 2 1 5 5

WB 5 2 1 1 1 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5

WB 6 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

WB 7 2 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 2 3 2 1 2 1

WB 8 3 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1

WB 9 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1

Average

WB 10H

WB 11I

WB 12F,G

WB 13J

WB 14G

WB 15G

WB 16F

WB 17

WB 18

WB 19

WB 20

WB 21

WB 22

Rank

1 1 1 5 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 2 2 4 1 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 1 4

2 1 1 3 2 2 1 4 1 2 2 1 1 3

1 1 1 3 5 5 2 3 2 2 2 1 -

2 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 1

2 1 1 3 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 3

1 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2

4 1 1 5 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 -

3 2 2 2 5 5 1 2 3 2 3 2 4 4

1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 5 3 2 1 4 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1

1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 4 1 1 2

2 1 1 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2

Notes: A

= Scores were determined using a straight average of data provided in the individual workbooks.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Chatham County.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Durham County.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Orange County.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Person County.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Granville County.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Chapel Hill and Carrboro.

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative Focus Group Meetings with Business & Development Interests INVENTORY OF GROWTH DRIVERS IN THE REGION INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT Variable Size and Ownership of a Parcel Access to Water Service Access to Sewer Service Watershed Protection Rules Presence of Environmentally-Sensitive Land Access to Good Roads /Available Capacity Proximity to Housing Proximity to Major Generators in the Region Proximity to Employment Centers In-Place Zoning Political Reality / Neighborhood Opposition Special Site Constraints / Additional Cost to Develop

Individual Workbook RankingsB, C

Correlation + + + + + + + -

WB 1

WB 2

WB 3

WB 4

1 3 3 3 1 2 3 4 1 -

1 1 1 5 3 2 2 2 3 1 -

2 -

WB 5 1 1 2 5 5 1 3 2 2 2 4 4

WB 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 3 1 1 2

WB 7 2 1 1 3 3 1 3 3 4 1 1 2

WB 8 1 1 1 2 3 2 3 3 2 1 1 1

WB 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 1 1

Average

WB 10H

WB 11I

WB 12F,G

WB 13J

WB 14G

WB 15G

WB 16F

WB 17

WB 18

WB 19

WB 20

WB 21

WB 22

Rank

1 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 3 2 1 4

1 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 1 1 1 2

2 1 1 5 5 2 3 3 3 1 -

2 3 1 2 3 1 4 4 3 2 2 2

1 1 1 3 2 1 4 3 3 1 1 3

1 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 3 1 2 2

3 1 1 1 1 2 5 3 1 4 2

2 3 3 4 4 1 4 4 3 2 3 4

1 1 1 1 1 1 4 5 4 1 3 1

3 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 3 1 3 3

2 1 1 2 2 3 4 4 4 1 1 1

2 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 3 1 2 2

Notes: A

= Scores were determined using a straight average of data provided in the individual workbooks.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Chatham County.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Durham County.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Orange County.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Person County.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Granville County.

= Responses provided in the workbook were aimed at development conditions in Chapel Hill and Carrboro.

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative

FOCUS GROUP MEETING SERIES Utility Service Providers in the Region Brief Meeting Summary Overview: On March 30, 2011, the project team for Imagine 2040 met with members of a focus group for local utility service providers in the Triangle Region. The meeting was used to capture the effect of available infrastructure in making one parcel more attractive to develop over others in the region. A brief presentation by the project team was followed by an open discussion on topics outlined in a workbook used to facilitate the meeting. Major topics of discussion included: project background, place type palette, utility service areas, generation rates, performance measures, and general comments. The project team collected the workbooks at the end of t event. Information generated at the meeting will be shared with the CAMPO and DCHC MPO project steering committees and used in developing the computer scenario planning model for Imagine 2040. A list of meeting attendees is attached.

Place Type Palette: The project team discussed the use of place types to generalize the various development categories used by local governments / utility service providers in the region to describe, measure, and evaluate the built environment. Normalizing terms and concepts used to describe development in the region improves communication within the regional growth forum. It also helps standardize the process for rationalizing future development scenarios and measuring their trade-offs with a comprehensive list of performance measures. Overall, the place type categories seemed appropriate to meeting participants for normalizing terms and concepts used to describe development in the region. Revisions to the form and pattern table that accompanied each place type category were requested to meet the planning needs of water and wastewater service providers. New variables requested for the table included: general water usage rate, general sewer usage rate, typical impervious surface coverage, site efficiency factor (i.e., the amount of land dedicated to on-site infrastructure needed to serve new development), average residential unit size, and average building size for non-residential uses. The project team agreed to add values for these variables in future iterations of the form and pattern table that support the place types.

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative

Utility Service Areas: The project team led a discussion about existing and planned water and wastewater service in the region and their influence on future development potential. Information from the utility providers will be used in the computer scenario planning model to determine development potential, identify desirable areas in the region for future development, and measure the impact of new development on local water and sewer systems. Meeting participants pointed to the Triangle Region Water Supply Plan as the best source of information for individual service providers in the region. The project team will work with the Triangle J Council of Governments to incorporate information from this report into the scenario planning models.

Generation Rates: The project team requested information on water and wastewater systems in the region; including current demand and remaining capacity at treatment plants, and typical generation rates to use for predicting future demand on local water and wastewater systems in the scenario planning models. Meeting participants pointed to the Triangle Region Water Supply Plan as the best source of information for existing demand, plant capacity, and generation rates in the region. The project team will work with the Triangle J Council of Governments to incorporate information from this report into the scenario planning models.

Performance Measures: The project team explained the concept of a development scenario report card that will be used to measure and evaluate the different development scenarios prepared for Imagine 2040. Some performance measures will address the general theme of maximizing the efficient use of existing infrastructure, which may include demand for new parks, demand for schools, demand for water, or demand for wastewater service. Meeting participants expressed their desire that water and wastewater demand be calculated at the parcel level and summarized by basin and sub-basin in the region. The project team will work with the Triangle J Council of Governments to confirm it has best available data for coding basin and sub-basin information into the scenario planning models.

General Comments: Several comments were voiced in the meeting to guide the planning process for Imagine 2040. A brief summary of the comments follows: ď&#x201A;ˇ

Utility service providers in the region prepare population forecasts for developing their own water and wastewater master plans. This information should be compared to forecasts prepared for Imagine 2040 to normalize growth levels anticipated for future planning studies.

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Stress on water resources in the region is caused primarily by demand for irrigation. Lot size and residential density (especially large, detached single-family dwelling units) have a much larger impact on water demand because of irrigation activities.

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative

FOCUS GROUP MEETING SERIES Utility Service Providers in the Region March 30, 2011

Meeting Attendees

1. Don Greeley

City of Durham Water Management

2. Ed Holland

Orange Water and Sewer Authority

3. David Hughes

Chatham County Public Works

4. Will Baker

Town of Hillsborough

5. Millie Chalk

Duke Energy

6. Reia Crane

PSNC Energy

7. Linoa Harris

PSNC Energy

8. Tucker Bullock

PSNC Energy

9. John McCullen

Town of Clayton

10. Robert Massengill

City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department

11. Chris Lukasina

CAMPO

12. Amy Ward

CAMPO

13. Andy Henry

DCHC MPO

14. John Hodges-Copple

Triangle J Council of Governments

15. Matt Noonkester

Seven Hills Town Planning Group, Inc.

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative

FOCUS GROUP MEETING SERIES Chief Planning Officials in the Region Brief Meeting Summary Overview: On March 31st and April 4th, 2011, the project team for Imagine 2040 met with members of two focus groups for chief planning officials in the Triangle Region. The meetings were used to understand the effect of local land development policies and ordinances for estimating development potential on parcels in the region. A brief presentation by the project team was followed by an open discussion on topics outlined in a draft version of the place type summary document used to facilitate the meetings. Major topics of discussion included: project background, place type palette, special conditions, place type assignments, homework assignments, and general comments. The project team collected comments from meeting participants for revising the draft place type summary document. Information generated at the meetings will be shared with the CAMPO and DCHC MPO project steering committees and used in developing the computer scenario planning models for Imagine 2040. A list of meeting attendees is attached.

Place Type Palette: The project team discussed the use of place types to generalize the various development categories used by local governments in the region to describe, measure, and evaluate the built environment. Normalizing terms and concepts used to describe development in the region improves communication within the regional growth forum. It also helps standardize the process for rationalizing future development scenarios and measuring their trade-offs with a comprehensive list of performance measures. Overall, the place type categories seemed appropriate to meeting participants for normalizing terms and concepts used to describe development in the region. Minor revisions will be made to values reported in the form and pattern table for each place type to better capture some of the differences among the categories (e.g., mixed-use neighborhood vs. village center). Development examples from the Triangle Region will be used for fine-tuning values in the tables. Local pictures will also be added to the final document to identify examples of each place type in the region.

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative

Special Conditions in the Region: The project team presented an initial list of special conditions inventoried for the region. These conditions, present in one or more of the place type categories, could influence the type, pattern, or intensity of development where they are present. The initial list of special conditions for Imagine 2040 included: watershed protection areas, flood damage prevention areas, historic districts, neighborhood preservation areas, airport protection areas, resource conservation areas, conservation-based subdivisions, transportation corridor overlay districts, development activity centers, mobile home overlay districts, quarry overlay district, voluntary agriculture districts, and municipal transition area overlay districts. There was general agreement at the meetings that these physical and policy conditions were important for adjusting build-out potential in the region. Other special conditions important to the region were recommended at the meeting, including:  

Poor soils that will not perk for septic systems and are not served by water and sewer service Sub-surface rock and its impediment to development

The project team will research the special conditions noted above and include a brief narrative for each in the place type summary document. New special conditions will also be added to the computer scenario planning models created for Imagine 2040.

Place Type Assignments: The project team discussed their strategy for assigning place types to parcels in the region using locallyadopted comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances, aerial photography, and fieldwork. This scenario will be named “business-as-usual” and used for measuring and evaluating alternative development scenarios. Large-format maps and GIS data layers will be shared with towns, cities, and counties in the region to calibrate place type assignments for the business-as-usual development scenario (see homework assignment section of this document). Meeting participants were also asked to review the classification matrix summarizing the correlation of local zoning districts or comprehensive plan land use categories to place type categories. Suggested additions, deletions, or edits necessary to better capture conditions in the jurisdiction should be sent to the project team.

Homework Assignments: A series of homework assignments were given to meeting participants to help validate assumptions and values used for Imagine 2040. A brief summary of each assignment is provided below along with a target data for getting information back to the project team.

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative

Place Type Palette Meeting participants were asked to review the place type palette created for Imagine 2040 and suggest additions, deletions, or edits necessary to better capture development types, patterns, or intensities prevalent in (or anticipated for) the region. Comments should be made as hand markups on the documents distributed at the meetings, which should then be scanned and e-mailed directly to the project team. We would also like photos for tailoring the development images for each place type category to examples from the Triangle Region. The target for getting information back to the project team on the place type palette is Friday, April 15th. Special Conditions Meeting participants were asked to review the inventory of special conditions noted for Imagine 2040 and suggest additions, deletions, or edits necessary to better capture those physical conditions or policies that modify the development yield of a parcel with that condition. Comments should be made as hand markups on the documents distributed at the meetings, which should then be scanned and emailed directly to the project team. The target for getting information back to the project team on the special conditions chapter is Friday, April 22nd. General Development Maps The project team will distribute data files (ArcGIS shapefile format) to towns, cities, and counties in the region with the initial set of place type assignments. Meeting participants were asked to review the place type assignments made for each jurisdiction and suggest edits necessary to better reflect development types, patterns, intensities, and locations under â&#x20AC;&#x153;business-as-usualâ&#x20AC;? conditions. (Note: Business-as-usual conditions should reflect the adopted zoning ordinance and map unless it is considered outdated for representing development conditions in the jurisdiction. Weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve currently noted requests from Raleigh and Apex to use their comprehensive plan land use categories as opposed to zoning districts for coding business-as-usual conditions.) General comments on the place type assignments should be summarized in an e-mail. Minor edits to specific areas in each jurisdiction should be made directly in the ArcGIS shapefile and returned to the project team for updating the model. The target date for getting information back to the project team on the place type assignments is Friday, May 6th. Place Type Classification Matrix Meeting participants were asked to review the classification matrix and suggest additions, deletions, or edits necessary to better capture conditions in the jurisdiction. Comments should be given as hand

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative

markups on the documents we distributed at the meetings, which should be scanned and e-mailed directly to the project team. The target for getting information back to the project team on the place type classification matrix is Friday, April 15th.

General Comments: Several comments were voiced in the meeting to guide the planning process for Imagine 2040. A brief summary of the comments follows: ď&#x201A;ˇ

The place type summary document needs to acknowledge other planning initiatives underway in the region; notably the Triangle Region Water Supply Plan, Land Use and Community Infrastructure Dialog, and Triangle Transit Station Area Studies. Place types used to describe development in the summary document for Imagine 2040 should be made available to other studies in the region.

ď&#x201A;ˇ

The project team should reassess the names used to describe the place types for Imagine 2040 and determine if more neutral names are more appropriate (e.g., Residential 1, Residential 2, Residential 3, etc.)

FOCUS GROUP MEETING SERIES Chief Planning Officials March 31st & April 4th, 2011

Meeting Attendees 1. Marty Roupe

Town of Carrboro

2. Aaron Cain

Durham City-County Planning

3. Mary Jane Nirdlinger

Town of Chapel Hill

4. David Bonk

Town of Chapel Hill

5. Jeff Brubaker

Town of Carrboro

6. Stuart Bass

Town of Pittsboro

7. Benjamin Howell

Chatham County

8. Tom King

Town of Hillsborough

9. Keith Luck

Durham City-County Planning

10. Craig Benedict

Orange County

11. Danny Johnson

Town of Fuquay-Varina

12. Ricky Barker

Town of Cary

13. Ryan Simons

Town of Selma

14. Ben Hitchings

Town of Morrisville

15. Tim Maloney

Wake County

16. John Brantley

RDU Airport

17. Mitchell Silver

City of Raleigh

18. Teresa Piner

Town of Wendell

19. Gina Clapp

Town of Holly Springs

20. Melissa Hodges

Town of Butner

21. Justin Jorgensen

Granville County

22. Scott Hammerbacher

Franklin County

23. Paul Embler

Town of Smithfield

24. Chris Hills

Town of Knightdale

25. Brad Bass

Town of Garner

FOCUS GROUP MEETING SERIES Chief Planning Officials March 31st & April 4th, 2011

Meeting Attendees 26. Mark Hetrick

Town of Zebulon

27. Dianne Khin

Town of Apex

28. Chip Russell

Town of Wake Forest

29. Chris Lukasina

CAMPO

30. Amy Ward

CAMPO

31. Ed Johnson

CAMPO

32. Andy Henry

DCHC MPO

33. John Hodges-Copple

Triangle J Council of Governments

34. Matt Noonkester

Seven Hills Town Planning Group, Inc.

Section C:

Technical Appendix

List of Regulatory / Resource Documents Used for Imagine 2040

Inventory of Regulatory Documents Referenced During Imagine 2040 Town of Angier Town of Angier Unified Development Ordinance Town of Angier Land Use Plan, 2030 Town of Apex Town of Apex Unified Development Ordinance Town of Apex Comprehensive Plan, 2025 Interactive Development Map Town of Benson Unified Development Code

Town of Bunn Town of Bunn Zoning Ordinance Town of Bunn Comprehensive Plan, 2020 Town of Butner Town of Butner Land Development Ordinance Town of Butner Comprehensive Land Use Plan, 2020 Town of Garner Town of Garner Unified Development Ordinance Town of Garner Comprehensive Growth Plan Town of Hillsborough Town of Hillsborough Unified Development Ordinance Town of Hillsborough Future Land Use Plan Town of Holly Springs Town of Holly Springs Unified Development Ordinance Vision Holly Springs Town of Kenly Town of Kenly Zoning Ordinance Town of Kenly Land Use Plan Town of Knightdale Town of Knightdale Unified Development Ordinance Town of Knightdale Comprehensive Plan Town of Siler City Siler City Unified Development Ordinance Siler City Land Development Plan Town of Smithfield Town of Smithfield Unified Development Ordinance Town of Smithfield Future Land Use Map

Town of Carrboro Town of Carrboro Land Use Ordinance Vision 2020 Town of Cary Town of Cary Land Development Ordinance Town of Cary Comprehensive Plan Chatham / Cary Joint Land Use Plan Town of Chapel Hill Town of Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance Chapel Hill 2020 Town of Clayton Town of Clayton Land Usage Ordinance Town of Clayton Strategic Growth Plan Town of Coats Town of Coats Zoning Ordinance

Town of Lillington Town of Lillington Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance

Town of Louisburg Town of Louisburg Zoning Ordinance Town of Louisburg Comprehensive Land Use Plan City of Mebane City of Mebane Unified Development Ordinance

Town of Middlesex Town of Middlesex Zoning Ordinance

Town of Morrisville Town of Morrisville Zoning Ordinance Morrisville Land Use Plan, 2035 Town of Zebulon Town of Zebulon Unified Development Ordinance Town of Zebulon Comprehensive Plan Town of Archer Lodge Town of Archer Lodge Zoning Ordinance

City of Creedmoor Creedmoor Development Ordinance City Plan 2030 City of Durham Durham City‐County Unified Development Ordinance Durham City‐County Comprehensive Plan Town of Erwin Town of Erwin Zoning Ordinance Town of Franklinton Town of Franklinton Zoning Ordinance

Town of Fuquay‐Varina Town of Fuquay‐Varina Zoning Ordinance Urban Service Area Plan, Town of Pittsboro Town of Pittsboro Land Management Codes Town of Pittsboro Land Use Plan Town of Youngsville Town of Youngsville Zoning Ordinance

Granville County Granville County Land Development Ordinance

Harnett County Harnett County Unified Development Ordinance Harnett County Land Use Plan Person County Person County Zoning Ordinance

Nash County Nash County Unified Development Ordinance

Wake County Wake County Unified Development Ordinance Wake County Land Use Plan

City of Raleigh City of Raleigh Zoning Code & Handbook 2030 Comprehensive Plan Town of Rolesville Town of Rolesville Unified Development Ordinance Rolesville Community Plan City of Roxboro City of Roxboro Zoning Code Town of Selma Town of Selma Zoning Ordinance Town of Selma Land Use Plan Town of Wake Forest Town of Wake Forest Zoning Ordinance Wake Forest Community Plan Town of Wendell Town of Wendell Unified Development Ordinance Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Wendell Chatham County Chatham County Zoning Ordinance Chatham County Watershed Protection Ordinance Durham County Durham City‐County Unified Development Ordinance Durham City‐County Comprehensive Plan Franklin County Franklin County Unified Development Ordinance Franklin County Comprehensive Land Use Plan Johnston County Johnston County Land Development Code Johnston County 2030 Comprehensive Plan Orange County Orange County Unified Development Ordinance Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan

Inventory of Resource Documents Referenced During Imagine 2040 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan Prepared by: Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Triangle Regional Water Supply Plan Prepared by: Triangle J Council of Governments Jordan Model Stormwater Ordinance for New Development Prepared by: UNC School of Government Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States Prepared by: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Growth Framework Map Prepared by: Triangle J Council of Governments TOD Assessment Report Prepared by: URS Corporation

Section C:

Technical Appendix

Committed Development Inventory

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative Committed Development Inventory for Building the CommunityViz Model Net New Dus Jurisdiction

Development Name

Site Location

Net New Employees

RET

HWY

SER

OFF

IND

Source

Orange County Unincorporated Orange County Town of Carrboro Chapel Hill Chapel Hill Chapel Hill Chapel Hill Chapel Hill

AKG Expansion 300 E. Main Street Carolina North 140 West (Downtown) 123 West Franklin Street Chapel Watch Village Apartments UNC ‐ Main Campus

7315 Oakwood Street, PIN No. 9824697043 300 E. Main Street (at Padgett Road) PIN No. 9789150184 PIN No. 9788278230.001 123 West Franklin Street GIS shapefile, 09‐18‐12 Existing Main Campus Boundary

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 428 135 144 130 0

0 0 160 0 0 0 391

0 70 160 0 0 0 391

0 60 1,596 0 0 0 1,199

0 433 1,277 0 0 0 3,127

90 0 0 0 0 0 0

837

551

621

2,855

4,837

500 200 200 200

529 32 120 60

125 0 0 0

142 0 0 0

199 0 0 0

57 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

1,100

741

125

142

199

0 0 0 208 71 97 152 40 29 0 190 900 0 0 0 0 0 215 0 0 139 137 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 260 0 196 0 0 0 0 0 356 0 300 288 142 157 0 215 0 123 495 0 170 366 250 249 145 295 0 285 0 0 2,736 0

358 453 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 720 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 186 0 10 132 368 20

406 514 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 273 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 211 0 0 0 0 20

572 724 450 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 562 0 0 0 640 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 298 0 15 198 552 87

163 206 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 213 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 0 75 988 2,758 66

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal

2,178

7,028

2,285

1,467

4,158

4,571

148

0 Town of Wake Forest Planning Department, Sarah Sheldon E‐mail / GIS Shapefile, 06‐18‐12

Subtotal

148

Subtotals

Orange County Planning Department, Brian Carson E‐mail, 04‐04‐12 DCHC MPO / Town of Carrboro Planning Department, Andy Henry E‐mail / Site Plan, 06‐13‐12 Town of Chapel Hill Planning Department, Garrett Davis E‐mail / Telephone Call / TIA Study, 10‐22‐12 Town of Chapel Hill Planning Department, Garrett Davis E‐mail / Telephone Call, 06‐18‐12 & 09‐18‐12 Town of Chapel Hill Planning Department, CH_Givens_2‐20‐12_Garrett Town of Chapel Hill Planning Department, Garrett Davis E‐mail, 09‐18‐12 Town of Chapel Hill Planning Department, Garrett Davis E‐mail / Telephone Call / TIA Study, 10‐22‐12

Johnston County Unincorporated Johnston County Unincorporated Johnston County Unincorporated Johnston County Unincorporated Johnston County

Flowers Plantation Tuscany Summerwind Plantation Cleveland Springs

NC 42 b/t Castleberry Road & Buffalo Road NC 42 at Motorcycle Road Clen Road at Cleveland Road Cleveland Road b/t Glen Road & Wake County Line Subtotals

Johnston County Planning Department, Berry Gray E‐mail / Site Plan, 06‐12‐12 Johnston County Planning Department, Berry Gray E‐mail / Site Plan, 06‐12‐12 Johnston County Planning Department, Berry Gray E‐mail / Site Plan, 06‐12‐12 Johnston County Planning Department, Berry Gray E‐mail / Site Plan, 06‐12‐12

Wake County Town of Holly Springs Town of Morrisville Raleigh Durham Airport Town of Wake Forest Town of Wake Forest Town of Wake Forest Town of Wake Forest Town of Wake Forest Town of Wake Forest Town of Wake Forest Town of Wake Forest Town of Wake Forest Town of Wake Forest Town of Cary Town of Cary Town of Cary Town of Cary Town of Cary Town of Cary Town of Cary Town of Cary City of Raleigh City of Raleigh City of Raleigh City of Raleigh City of Raleigh City of Raleigh City of Raleigh City of Raleigh City of Raleigh City of Raleigh City of Raleigh Research Triangle Park

New Hill Place Park West Apartments / Office / Retail Raleigh Durham Airport Austin Creek Bowling Green Heritage North Heritage South Heritage Wake Forest North Hampton Shearon Farms Stonegate at St. Andrews Holding Village Woodfield Creek Searstone CCRC The Townes at Twin Lakes Pleasant Grove Business Park Lofts at Weston Lakeside Highcroft Reserve Subdivision, Ph. 4/5 Manchester Park Townhomes Parkside Town Commons, Phase 1 Evans Farm Subdivision Inside Wade Woodfield Blue Ridge Apts. 425 N. Boylan West Morgan Apartments St. Mary's Square Gallery at Cameron Village Poyner Place 5401 North NCSU ‐ South Campus NCSU ‐ Biomedical Campus NCSU ‐ Centennial Campus Biogen IDEC

NC Hwy 55 Bypass / New Hill Road PIN # 0754380423 / 0754473830 / 0754389952 Raleigh Durham Airport GIS shapefile, 06‐18‐12 GIS shapefile, 06‐18‐12 GIS shapefile, 06‐18‐12 GIS shapefile, 06‐18‐12 GIS shapefile, 06‐18‐12 GIS shapefile, 06‐18‐12 GIS shapefile, 06‐18‐12 GIS shapefile, 06‐18‐12 NC 98 Bypass / US1A (Southwest Quadrant) GIS shapefile, 06‐18‐12 GIS Shapefile, 06‐22‐12 GIS Shapefile, 06‐22‐12 GIS Shapefile, 06‐22‐12 GIS Shapefile, 06‐22‐12 GIS Shapefile, 06‐22‐12 GIS Shapefile, 06‐22‐12 GIS Shapefile, 06‐22‐12 GIS Shapefile, 06‐22‐12 GIS shapefile, 06‐22‐12 GIS shapefile, 06‐22‐12 GIS shapefile, 06‐22‐12 GIS shapefile, 06‐22‐12 GIS shapefile, 06‐22‐12 GIS shapefile, 06‐22‐12 GIS shapefile, 06‐22‐12 GIS shapefile, 06‐22‐12 Main Campus, b/t Western Blvd & Avent Ferry Rd West of I‐440 South of Avent Ferry Rd. Research Triangle Park, Site 63

Town of Holly Springs Planning Department, Jeff Jones E‐mail / Site Plan, 06‐12‐12 Town of Morrisville Planning Department, Ashley Kaade E‐mail, 04‐11‐12 DCHC MPO, Andy Henry E‐mail / General Reference Map, 06‐20‐12 Town of Wake Forest Planning Department, Sarah Sheldon E‐mail / GIS Shapefile, 06‐18‐12 Town of Wake Forest Planning Department, Sarah Sheldon E‐mail / GIS Shapefile, 06‐18‐12 Town of Wake Forest Planning Department, Sarah Sheldon E‐mail / GIS Shapefile, 06‐18‐12 Town of Wake Forest Planning Department, Sarah Sheldon E‐mail / GIS Shapefile, 06‐18‐12 Town of Wake Forest Planning Department, Sarah Sheldon E‐mail / GIS Shapefile, 06‐18‐12 Town of Wake Forest Planning Department, Sarah Sheldon E‐mail / GIS Shapefile, 06‐18‐12 Town of Wake Forest Planning Department, Sarah Sheldon E‐mail / GIS Shapefile, 06‐18‐12 Town of Wake Forest Planning Department, Sarah Sheldon E‐mail / GIS Shapefile, 06‐18‐12 Town of Wake Forest Planning Department, Chip Russell Telephone Call, 09‐21‐12 Town of Wake Forest Planning Department, Sarah Sheldon E‐mail / GIS Shapefile, 06‐18‐12 Town of Cary Planning Department, Will Hartye E‐mail / GIS shapefile, 06‐22‐12 Town of Cary Planning Department, Will Hartye E‐mail / GIS shapefile, 06‐22‐12 Town of Cary Planning Department, Will Hartye E‐mail / GIS shapefile, 06‐22‐12 Town of Cary Planning Department, Will Hartye E‐mail / GIS shapefile, 06‐22‐12 Town of Cary Planning Department, Will Hartye E‐mail / GIS shapefile, 06‐22‐12 Town of Cary Planning Department, Will Hartye E‐mail / GIS shapefile, 06‐22‐12 Town of Cary Planning Department, Will Hartye E‐mail / GIS shapefile, 06‐22‐12 Town of Cary Planning Department, Will Hartye E‐mail / GIS shapefile, 06‐22‐12 City of Raleigh Planning Department, Ray Aull E‐mail / GIS Shapefile, 06‐22‐12 City of Raleigh Planning Department, Ray Aull E‐mail / GIS Shapefile, 06‐22‐12 City of Raleigh Planning Department, Ray Aull E‐mail / GIS Shapefile, 06‐22‐12 City of Raleigh Planning Department, Ray Aull E‐mail / GIS Shapefile, 06‐22‐12 City of Raleigh Planning Department, Ray Aull E‐mail / GIS Shapefile, 06‐22‐12 City of Raleigh Planning Department, Ray Aull E‐mail / GIS Shapefile, 06‐22‐12 City of Raleigh Planning Department, Ray Aull E‐mail / GIS Shapefile, 06‐22‐12 City of Raleigh Planning Department, Ray Aull E‐mail / GIS Shapefile, 06‐22‐12 TJCOG, Matthew Day E‐mail / GIS shapefile / Excel sheet, 10‐29‐12 TJCOG, Matthew Day E‐mail / GIS shapefile / Excel sheet, 10‐29‐12 TJCOG, Matthew Day E‐mail / GIS shapefile / Excel sheet, 10‐29‐12 Rearch Triangle Park, Excel Sheet and Telephone Call with Cory Liles, 10‐30‐12

Franklin County Town of Wake Forest

Richland Hills

GIS shapefile, 06‐18‐12

Chatham County Town of Cary

Carolina Preserve at Amberly, Ph. 6

GIS Shapefile, 06‐22‐12 Subtotal

143

0 Town of Cary Planning Department, Will Hartye E‐mail / GIS shapefile, 06‐22‐12

143

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

25 0 0 0 0 302 240 189 0 340 330 0 0 0 0 290 256 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 80 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 0 0 0 110 0 0 0 356 87 5 4 18 21 9

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 356 87 5 4 18 21 9

0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 467 0 0 636 60 210 60 0 0 3562 870 21 18 79 95 38

255 640 343 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 190 0 0 0 2849 696 15 13 60 73 29

0 0 0 125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1,972

814

500

6,156

5,163

125

Durham County City of Durham City of Durham City of Durham City of Durham City of Durham City of Durham City of Durham City of Durham City of Durham City of Durham City of Durham City of Durham City of Durham City of Durham City of Durham City of Durham City of Durham City of Durham City of Durham Research Triangle Park Research Triangle Park Research Triangle Park Research Triangle Park Research Triangle Park

Morris Ridge Westpoint @ 751 Diamond View III Implus Distribution Center Voyager Academy High School Erwin Square Multifamily Fairfield at Hillandale Neal Farm County Human Services Erwin Road Mixed Use Brightlead at the Park, Tract 3 Durham County Justice Building Lucas Middle School Patterson Place, Phase II Voyager Academy Elementary Durham Place Woodsfield Creekstone Duke University North Carolina Central University Compass Data Centers Bayer CropScience BASF Corporation United Therapeutics Corporation Medicago

GIS shapefile, 04‐20‐12 GIS shapefile, 04‐20‐12 GIS shapefile, 04‐20‐12 GIS shapefile, 04‐20‐12 GIS shapefile, 04‐20‐12 GIS shapefile, 04‐20‐12 GIS shapefile, 04‐20‐12 GIS shapefile, 04‐20‐12 GIS shapefile, 04‐20‐12 GIS shapefile, 04‐20‐12 GIS shapefile, 04‐20‐12 GIS shapefile, 04‐20‐12 GIS shapefile, 04‐20‐12 GIS shapefile, 04‐20‐12 GIS shapefile, 04‐20‐12 Map Provided by Andy Henry NC 54 @ Hopson Road DCHC MPO TAZ Map, Duke Campus Edits DCHC MPO TAZ Map, NCCU Campus Edits Research Triangle Park, Site 45 Research Triangle Park, Site 2 Research Triangle Park, Site 49 Research Triangle Park, Site 18A Research Triangle Park, Site 42A Subtotal

Durham City‐County Planning Department, Andy Henry E‐mail / GIS Shapefile, 04‐20‐12 Durham City‐County Planning Department, Andy Henry E‐mail / GIS Shapefile, 04‐20‐12 Durham City‐County Planning Department, Andy Henry E‐mail / GIS Shapefile, 04‐20‐12 Durham City‐County Planning Department, Andy Henry E‐mail / GIS Shapefile, 04‐20‐12 Durham City‐County Planning Department, Andy Henry E‐mail / GIS Shapefile, 04‐20‐12 Durham City‐County Planning Department, Andy Henry E‐mail / GIS Shapefile, 04‐20‐12 Durham City‐County Planning Department, Andy Henry E‐mail / GIS Shapefile, 04‐20‐12 Durham City‐County Planning Department, Andy Henry E‐mail / GIS Shapefile, 04‐20‐12 Durham City‐County Planning Department, Andy Henry E‐mail / GIS Shapefile, 04‐20‐12 & 06‐20‐12 Durham City‐County Planning Department, Andy Henry E‐mail / GIS Shapefile, 04‐20‐12 Durham City‐County Planning Department, Andy Henry E‐mail / GIS Shapefile, 04‐20‐12 Durham City‐County Planning Department, Andy Henry E‐mail / GIS Shapefile, 04‐20‐12 Durham City‐County Planning Department, Andy Henry E‐mail / GIS Shapefile, 04‐20‐12 Durham City‐County Planning Department, Andy Henry E‐mail / GIS Shapefile, 04‐20‐12 Durham City‐County Planning Department, Andy Henry E‐mail / GIS Shapefile, 04‐20‐12 Durham City‐County Planning Department, Andy Henry E‐mail / Map, 10‐24‐12 DCHC MPO, Andy Henry E‐mail, 06/20/12 TJCOG University Growth Spreadsheet, 02‐04‐12 TJCOG University Growth Spreadsheet, 02‐04‐12 Rearch Triangle Park, Excel Sheet and Telephone Call with Cory Liles, 10‐30‐12 Rearch Triangle Park, Excel Sheet and Telephone Call with Cory Liles, 10‐30‐12 Rearch Triangle Park, Excel Sheet and Telephone Call with Cory Liles, 10‐30‐12 Rearch Triangle Park, Excel Sheet and Telephone Call with Cory Liles, 10‐30‐12 Rearch Triangle Park, Excel Sheet and Telephone Call with Cory Liles, 10‐30‐12

Notes: 1. The definition for committed development includes projects either completed or under construction between 2010 ‐ 2012. Projects (or portions thereof) approved but not yet under construction were not included in this inventory. 2. Projects used to populate the database included new residential neighborhoods; large multi‐family projects; large commercial, office, or industrial projects; or large mix‐use projects. Minimum size criteria are provided in note three below. 3. The following thresholds were used for determining if a project should be added to the database: Residential Neighborhood ― > 250 dwelling units; Multifamily Community — > 150 dwelling units; Commercial, Office, Industrial Site ― > 250,000 s.f.; Mixed Use Site — > 250,000 s.f. and 150 dwelling units. 4. The following employee space ratios were used to convert square feet to employees: Retail ‐ 2.86 employees / 1,000 s.f., Highway Retail ‐ 3.25 employees / 1,000 s.f., Service ‐ 2.86 employees / 1,000 s.f., Office ‐ 3.25 employees / 1,000 s.f., and Industrial ‐ 2.08 employees / 1,000 s.f Last Revised: November 5, 2012

Section C:

Technical Appendix

County-Level Growth Control Totals

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative Region Growth Total Summary Table SF

IND

OFF

SER

RET

HWY

Orange Person Durham Chatham Granville Nash Franklin Harnett Wake Johnston

16,351 4,369 44,739 10,921 8,461 791 13,633 13,671 208,759 47,496

8,804 182 24,090 822 837 129 422 1,352 89,468 3,032

2,868 0 6,336 964 1,870 840 983 1,750 21,334 6,632

8,465 173 18,326 1,089 1,991 43 48 379 35,168 892

31,148 2,194 74,174 7,878 6,308 1,279 3,334 4,078 182,135 16,695

2,964 128 10,948 671 491 132 3 461 19,262 866

3,852 246 6,712 132 424 262 338 842 22,549 3,303

Totals

369,191

129,138

43,577

66,574

329,223

35,926

38,660

Last Revised

December 24, 2012

Section C:

Technical Appendix

Employee Space Ratios

Employee Space Ratios for Imagine 2040 Employee space ratios were used in CommunityViz to convert build out potential for non-residential development in the sub-region models (square feet) to available supply in the regional model (employees). Ratios used for the conversion followed information published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, Eighth Edition, the Triangle Region’s Employment GeoCoder, local comprehensive plans, and several development impact fee studies completed for similar regions in the Southeastern United States. A brief summary of the five employee space ratios and their key assumptions follows: 1. Highway Retail – 3.25 employees per 1,000 sq. ft. The highway retail employee space ratio started with information published in ITE’s Trip Generation Manual, Eighth Edition for ITE Codes 815, 932, and 934 (Free Standing Discount Store, HighTurnover Sit Down Restaurant, and Fast Food with Drive-Through Window). A blended statistic for these three development categories was lowered by 0.96 employees per 1,000 sq. ft. based on information from the Triangle Region’s GeoCoder and local comprehensive plans. 2. Industrial – 1.81 employees per 1,000 sq. ft. The industrial employee space ratio started with information published in ITE’s Trip Generation Manual, Eighth Edition for ITE Code 130 (Industrial Park). The statistic was lowered by a factor of 0.50 employees per 1,000 sq. ft. based on information available for developing travel demand models for similar regions in the Southeastern United States. The revised statistic was validated by the project team using employment data from the Triangle Region’s GeoCoder and local comprehensive plans. 3. Office – 3.25 employees per 1,000 sq. ft. The office employee space ratio started with information published in ITE’s Trip Generation Manual, Eighth Edition for ITE Codes 710 and 750 (General Office and Office Park). The statistic was lowered by 0.53 employees per 1,000 sq. ft. based on information available for developing travel demand models for similar regions in the Southeastern United States. The revised statistic was validated by the project team using employment data from the Triangle Region’s GeoCoder and local comprehensive plans. 4. Retail – 2.86 employees per 1,000 sq. ft. The retail employee space ratio could not be calculated using rates and equations published in ITE's Trip Generation Manual, Eighth Edition. Specifically, information was not reported by employee for the land use category (ITE Code 820, General Retail). The retail employee space ratio was based on information published in several development impact fee studies completed for similar regions in the Southeastern United States, which were validated by

the project team using employment data from the Triangle Region’s GeoCoder and local comprehensive plans. 5. Service – 2.86 employees per 1,000 sq. ft. The service employee space ratio could not be calculated using rates and equations published in ITE's Trip Generation Manual, Eighth Edition. Specifically, information was not reported by employee for the land use category (ITE Code 820, General Retail). The service employee space ratio assumed for Imagine 2040 was based on information published in several development impact fee studies completed for similar regions in the Southeastern United States, and validated by the project team using employment data from the Triangle Region’s GeoCoder and local comprehensive plans.

Section C:

Technical Appendix

CommunityViz Model Architecture

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative CommunityViz Sub-Region Model Architecture

TRM V5 Study Area Layer Identification & Data Manipulation

Imagine 2040 Sub‐Region Models

Carrying Capacity Analysis

Water Bodies

Wetlands

Stream Buffers

Permanent Conservation Areas

Areas Not Available for Development (DEV_CON)

Highly‐Constrained Areas Map

Areas Available for Development (DEV_AREA)

Developed

Data Manipulation & Coding / Review of Existing Plans & Ordinances

Build‐Out Potential Analysis

Development Status

Watershed

Place Type

Form & Pattern Table1

Max Lot Coverage for Watershed Areas Buildable Portion of a Lot or Parcel (BUILD_AREA)

Development Status (DEV_STAT)

Site Efficiency Factor2 (Parcel Size > 10 ac) Jurisdiction

Existing Development Inventory (TRM V5 SE Data – 2010)

Committed Development

Committed Development Inventory (Reported by Local Governments)

Under‐Developed

Future Year Development Yield Minus Existing Development Inventory

Development Potential (by Parcel & by Type)4 Single Family Dwelling Units Multifamily Dwelling Units

Undeveloped

TAZ

Future Year Development Yield (DEV_STAT, PT_BAU, JURIS)

Place Type (PT_BAU)

Model Lookup Table for Each Jurisdiction3

Agriculture 1

= See the Place Type Summary Document, Section B for more information on form and pattern tables.

= An allowance for on-site infrastructure needed to serve new development (e.g., streets, storm water ponds, etc.). Applied in the model only to undeveloped parcels greater than 10 acres in size. Reported as the percentage of a parcel remaining for development after the removal of areas identified for supporting infrastructure.

Industrial Employees Retail Employees Highway Retail Employees

Permanent Open Space No Development Potential

Office Employees

Water Service Employees

Legend Major Category

Model Input Data

Model Assumption

Dynamic Attribute Calculation

Resource Map

Model Output

= Two lookup tables are embedded in the model. The first summarizes general development characteristics by place type and jurisdiction for calculating build-out potential. The second summarizes household size and employment space ratios for calculating build-out potential.

= Residential and non-residential development categories in the CommunityViz model generally reflect those household and employment categories for SE data in the Triangle Regional Model V5 (TRM) . Single-family and multi-family dwelling units will be combined as households for the TRM .

Imagine 2040: Triangle Region Scenario Planning Initiative CommunityViz Regional Model Architecture Imagine 2040 Sub‐Region Models

Layer Identification & Data Manipulation

Imagine 2040 Regional Model

Interchanges

Regional Bus

Growth Areas

Watershed Areas

Major Intersections

Premium Bus

Metropolitan Centers

Floodways

Secondary Intersections

LRT Stations

Activity Centers

Natural Heritage Areas

Future Highway Network

CRT Stations

Colleges & Universities

Water‐Sewer Service Areas

Land Suitability Analysis1

Assign Weightings to LSA Variables (0 – 10)

Calculate LSA Score (0 – 100)

Land Suitability Composite Map

= Model uses the Land Suitability Wizard in CommunityViz software.

Growth Allocation Composite Maps

Development Scenario Report Card3

Growth Allocation2

Development Status (DEV_STAT)

Developed

Existing Development Inventory (DU_2010 & EMP_2010)

Committed Development

Committed Development Inventory (DU_CMTD & EMP_CMTD)

Under‐Developed

Population & Employment Control Totals from SE Data Group (2040)

Count Number of Developed Parcels in a TAZ by PT Category (No_DEV_PRCLS)

Divide TRM V5 SE Data for each TAZ by No. of Developed Parcels Identified by PT Category in same TAZ (Distribute Evenly)

Development Potential (by Parcel & by Type) Single Family Dwelling Units Multifamily Dwelling Units

Future Year Development Assignment (ALLO_2040)

Industrial Employees

Undeveloped Population & Employment Control Totals from SE Data Group (2040)

Place Type (PT_BAU)

Future Year Development Assignment (ALLO_2040)

Retail Employees

Agriculture Highway Retail Employees Permanent Open Space

Office Employees

No Development Allocated to These Categories

Water

Service Employees

= Model uses the Allocation Wizard (probability based, exponential) in CommunityViz software.

Legend Major Category

Model Input Data

Model Assumption

Dynamic Attribute Calculation

Resource Map

Model Output

= A list of variables and equations for running each development scenario through the report card will be created in partnership with the two project steering committees in later phases of Imagine 2040.

Section C:

Technical Appendix

CommunityViz Equation Dictionary

Sixteen Sub‐Region Models: Summary of Assumptions in CommunityViz CV Module Build‐Out Build‐Out Build‐Out Build‐Out Build‐Out Build‐Out Build‐Out Build‐Out Build‐Out Build‐Out Build‐Out Build‐Out Build‐Out

Common Name Jurisdiction Site Efficiency Factor Floor Area Ratio Residential Density Percent Residential Percent Non‐Residential Percent Single Family Percent Multifamily Percent Highway Retail Percent Industrial Percent Office Percent Retail Percent Service

Variable Name JURIS SITE_EFF FAR DENSITY PERCENT_RES PERCENT_NONRES PERCENT_SF PERCENT_MF PERCENT_HWY PERCENT_IND PERCENT_OFF PERCENT_RET PERCENT_SER

Units City, Town, or County Percentage Ratio Dwelling Units / Acre Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage

Model Reference General Development Lookup Table (DCHC_CAMPO_LU_TABLE.xls) General Development Lookup Table (DCHC_CAMPO_LU_TABLE.xls) General Development Lookup Table (DCHC_CAMPO_LU_TABLE.xls) General Development Lookup Table (DCHC_CAMPO_LU_TABLE.xls) General Development Lookup Table (DCHC_CAMPO_LU_TABLE.xls) General Development Lookup Table (DCHC_CAMPO_LU_TABLE.xls) General Development Lookup Table (DCHC_CAMPO_LU_TABLE.xls) General Development Lookup Table (DCHC_CAMPO_LU_TABLE.xls) General Development Lookup Table (DCHC_CAMPO_LU_TABLE.xls) General Development Lookup Table (DCHC_CAMPO_LU_TABLE.xls) General Development Lookup Table (DCHC_CAMPO_LU_TABLE.xls) General Development Lookup Table (DCHC_CAMPO_LU_TABLE.xls) General Development Lookup Table (DCHC_CAMPO_LU_TABLE.xls)

Sixteen Sub‐Region Models: Summary of Dynamic Attributes in CommunityViz CV Module Carrying Capacity Carrying Capacity Carrying Capacity Build‐Out Build‐Out Build‐Out Build‐Out Build‐Out Build‐Out Build‐Out

Common Name Areas Highly‐Constrained for Development Remaining Areas for Development Buildable Area Single Family Dwelling Units, Available Supply Multifamily Dwelling Units, Available Supply Highway Retail, Available Supply Industrial, Available Supply Office, Available Supply Retail, Available Supply Service, Available Supply

Variable Name DEV_CON DEV_AREA BUILD_AREA MPO_DU MPO_MFDU MPO_HWY_SF MPO_IND_SF MPO_OFF_SF MPO_RET_SF MPO_SER_SF

Units Square Feet Square Feet Square Feet Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Square Feet Square Feet Square Feet Square Feet Square Feet

Model Reference File Geodatabase, Sixteen Sub‐Region Parcel Files File Geodatabase, Sixteen Sub‐Region Parcel Files File Geodatabase, Sixteen Sub‐Region Parcel Files File Geodatabase, Sixteen Sub‐Region Parcel Files File Geodatabase, Sixteen Sub‐Region Parcel Files File Geodatabase, Sixteen Sub‐Region Parcel Files File Geodatabase, Sixteen Sub‐Region Parcel Files File Geodatabase, Sixteen Sub‐Region Parcel Files File Geodatabase, Sixteen Sub‐Region Parcel Files File Geodatabase, Sixteen Sub‐Region Parcel Files

Regional Model: Summary of Assumptions in CommunityViz CV Module Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability

Common Name Existing and Emerging Growth Areas (Overlap) Water Service Area (Overlap) Sewer Service Area (Overlap) US Highway (Proximity) NC Highways (Proximity) Town Centers (Proximity) Regional Activity Centers (Proximity) Metropolitan Centers (Overlap) Four Year Colleges and Universities (Proximity) Watershed Protection Areas (Overlap) Significant Natural Heritage Areas (Overlap) Floodprone Areas (Overlap) Commuter Rail Stations, Area of Influence (Overlap) Light Rail Stations, Area of Influence (Overlap) Interchange Locations (Proximity) Major Intersections (Proximity) Secondary Intersections (Proximity) Premium Bus Routes (Proximity) Regional Bus Service, 2040 (Proximity) Future Highway Network, 2040 (Proximity)

Variable Name EEGA Weight 3_WAT Weight 3_SEW Weight USHWY Weight NCHWY Weight TCAC Weight RCAC Weight MC_OVR Weight UNIV Weight WTSHD Weight HERI Weight FLOOD Weight CRT_AOI Weight LRT_AOI Weight INTER Weight M_INT Weight 2_INT Weight PR_BR Weight 40_BR Weight 40_NTWK Weight

Units Percent Overlap Percent Overlap Percent Overlap Distance (Feet) Distance (Feet) Distance (Feet) Distance (Feet) Percent Overlap Distance (Feet) Percent Overlap Percent Overlap Percent Overlap Percent Overlap Percent Overlap Distance (Feet) Distance (Feet) Distance (Feet) Distance (Feet) Distance (Feet) Distance (Feet)

Regional Model: Summary of Dynamic Attributes in CommunityViz CV Module Build‐Out Build‐Out Build‐Out Build‐Out Build‐Out Build‐Out Build‐Out Build‐Out Build‐Out Build‐Out Build‐Out Build‐Out Build‐Out Build‐Out Build‐Out Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability

Common Name Development Supply, Single Family Dwelling Units, Sub‐Region Totals Development Supply, Multifamily Dwelling Units, Sub‐Region Totals Development Supply, Highway Retail Square Feet, Sub‐Region Totals Development Supply, Industrial Square Feet, Sub‐Region Totals Development Supply, Office Square Feet, Sub‐Region Totals Development Supply, Retail Square Feet, Sub‐Region Totals Development Supply, Service Square Feet, Sub‐Region Totals Development Supply, Single Family Dwelling Units, County Totals Development Supply, Multifamily Dwelling Units, County Totals Development Supply, Highway Retail Employees, County Totals Development Supply, Industrial Employees, County Totals Development Supply, Office Employees, County Totals Development Supply, Retail Employees, County Totals Development Supply, Service Employees, County Totals TAZ_No Secondary Intersections, Minimum Distance Secondary Intersections, Raw Value of Minimum Distance Sewer Service, Raw Value of Overlap Area Water Service, Raw Value of Overlap Area Regional Bus Routes, 2040, Minimum Distance Regional Bus Routes, 2040, Raw Value of Minimum Distance Future Highway Network, 2040, Minimum Distance Future Highway Network, 2040, Raw Value of Minimum Distance Commuter Rail Station Area of Influence, Raw Value of Overlap Area Existing and Emerging Growth Areas, Raw Value of Overlap Area Floodprone Areas, Raw Value of Overlap Area Significant Natural Heritage Areas, Raw Value of Overlap Area Interchanges, Minimum Distance Interchanges, Raw Value of Minimum Distance Light Rail Station Area of Influence, Raw Value of Overlap Area Major Intersections, Minimum Distance Major Intersections, Raw Value of Minimum Distance Metropolitan Centers, Raw Value of Overlap Area North Carolina Highways, Minimum Distance North Carolina Highways, Raw Value of Minimum Distance Premium Bus Service, Minimum Distance Premium Bus Service, Raw Value of Minimum Distance

Variable Name MPO_DU_1‐16 MPO_MFDU_1‐16 MPO_HWY_1‐16 MPO_IND_1‐16 MPO_OFF_1‐16 MPO_RET_1‐16 MPO_SER_1‐16 MPO_DU_<County Name> MPO_MFDU_<County Name> MPO_HWY_<County Name> MPO_IND_<County Name> MPO_OFF_<County Name> MPO_RET_<County Name> MPO_SER_<County Name> TAZ_ID 2_INT MinDistance 2_INT Raw Value 3_SEW Raw Value 3_WAT Raw Value 40_BR MinDistance 40_BR Raw Value 40_NTWK MinDistance 40_NTWK Raw Value CRT_AOI Raw Value EEGA Raw Value FLOOD Raw Value HERI Raw Value INTER MinDistance INTER Raw Value LRT_AOI Raw Value M_INT MinDistance M_INT Raw Value MC_OVR Raw Value NCHWY MinDistance NCHWY Raw Value PR_BR MinDistance PR_BR Raw Value

Units Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Square Feet Square Feet Square Feet Square Feet Square Feet Square Feet Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Employees Employees Employees Employees Traffic Analysis Zone Distance (Feet) Distance (Feet) Percent Overlap Percent Overlap Distance (Feet) Distance (Feet) Distance (Feet) Distance (Feet) Percent Overlap Percent Overlap Percent Overlap Percent Overlap Distance (Feet) Distance (Feet) Percent Overlap Distance (Feet) Distance (Feet) Percent Overlap Distance (Feet) Distance (Feet) Distance (Feet) Distance (Feet)

Model Reference File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File File Geodatabase, Triangle Graduated Grid File

Regional Model: Summary of Dynamic Attributes in CommunityViz (cont.) CV Module Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Growth Allocation Growth Allocation Growth Allocation Growth Allocation Growth Allocation Growth Allocation Growth Allocation Growth Allocation Growth Allocation

Common Name Regional Activity Centers, Minimum Distance Regional Activity Centers, Raw Value of Minimum Distance Town Centers, Minimum Distance Town Centers, Raw Value of Minimum Distance Four Year Colleges and Universities, Minimum Distance Four Year Colleges and Universities, Raw Value of Minimum Distance US Highways, Minimum Distance US Highways, Raw Value of Minimum Distance Watershed Protection Areas, Raw Value of Overlap Area Raw Suitability Score Growth Allocation, New Single Family Dwelling Units Growth Allocation, New Multifamily Dwelling Units Growth Allocation, New Highway Retail Employees Growth Allocation, New Industrial Employees Growth Allocation, New Office Employees Growth Allocation, New Retail Employees Growth Allocation, New Service Employees Growth Allocation, Total New Employees Growth Allocation, Total New Dwelling Units

Variable Name RCAC MinDistance RCAC Raw Value TCAC MinDistance TCAC Raw Value UNIVER MinDistance UNIVER Raw Value USHWY MinDistance USHWY Raw Value WTSHD Raw Value Raw Suitability Score SF_DU_ALLO MF_DU_ALLO HWY_EMP_ALLO IND_EMP_ALLO OFF_EMP_ALLO RET_EMP_ALLO SER_EMP_ALLO EMP_ALLO TOT_DU_ALLO

Units Distance (Feet) Distance (Feet) Distance (Feet) Distance (Feet) Distance (Feet) Distance (Feet) Distance (Feet) Distance (Feet) Percent Overlap N/A Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees Dwelling Units

Region Models: Summary of Indicators in CommunityViz CV Module Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability

Common Name Weighting for the Relative Importance of the Suitability Factor "FLOOD" Weighting for the Relative Importance of the Suitability Factor "EEGA" Weighting for the Relative Importance of the Suitability Factor "3_WAT" Weighting for the Relative Importance of the Suitability Factor "3_SEW" Weighting for the Relative Importance of the Suitability Factor "USHWY" Weighting for the Relative Importance of the Suitability Factor "RCAC" Weighting for the Relative Importance of the Suitability Factor "UNIV" Weighting for the Relative Importance of the Suitability Factor "TCAC" Weighting for the Relative Importance of the Suitability Factor "WTSHD" Weighting for the Relative Importance of the Suitability Factor "HERI" Weighting for the Relative Importance of the Suitability Factor "CRT_AOI" Weighting for the Relative Importance of the Suitability Factor "MC_OVR" Weighting for the Relative Importance of the Suitability Factor "INTER" Weighting for the Relative Importance of the Suitability Factor "NCHWY" Weighting for the Relative Importance of the Suitability Factor "2_INT" Weighting for the Relative Importance of the Suitability Factor "M_INT" Weighting for the Relative Importance of the Suitability Factor "PR_BR" Weighting for the Relative Importance of the Suitability Factor "LRT_AOI" Weighting for the Relative Importance of the Suitability Factor "40_BR" Weighting for the Relative Importance of the Suitability Factor "40_NTWK" Intermediate Variable for Calculating Suitability Factor, Highest Value "EEGA" Intermediate Variable for Calculating Suitability Factor, Lowest Value "EEGA" Intermediate Variable for Calculating Suitability Factor, Highest Value "3_WAT" Intermediate Variable for Calculating Suitability Factor, Lowest Value "3_WAT" Intermediate Variable for Calculating Suitability Factor, Highest Value "3_SEW" Intermediate Variable for Calculating Suitability Factor, Lowest Value "3_SEW" Intermediate Variable for Calculating Suitability Factor, Longest Distance "USHWY" Intermediate Variable for Calculating Suitability Factor, Highest Value "USHWY" Intermediate Variable for Calculating Suitability Factor, Lowest Value "USHWY" Intermediate Variable for Calculating Suitability Factor, Longest Distance "RCAC" Intermediate Variable for Calculating Suitability Factor, Highest Value "RCAC" Intermediate Variable for Calculating Suitability Factor, Lowest Value "RCAC" Intermediate Variable for Calculating Suitability Factor, Longest Distance "UNIV" Intermediate Variable for Calculating Suitability Factor, Highest Value "UNIV" Intermediate Variable for Calculating Suitability Factor, Lowest Value "UNIV" Intermediate Variable for Calculating Suitability Factor, Longest Distance "TCAC" Intermediate Variable for Calculating Suitability Factor, Highest Value "TCAC" Intermediate Variable for Calculating Suitability Factor, Lowest Value "TCAC"

Variable Name Proportional FLOOD Weight Proportional EEGA Weight Proportional 3_WAT Weight Proportional 3_SEW Weight Proportional USWHY Weight Proportional RCAC Weight Proportional UNIV Weight Proportional TCAC Weight Proportional WTSHD Weight Proportional HERI Weight Proporitional CRT_AOI Weight Proportional MC_OVR Weight Proportional INTER Weight Proportional NCHWY Weight Proportional 2_INT Weight Proportional M_INT Weight Proportional PR_BR Weight Proportional LRT_AOI Weight Proportional 40_BR Weight Proportional 40_NTWK Weight EEGA Max EEGA Min 3_WAT Max 3_WAT Min 3_SEW Max 3_SEW Min USHWY Max MinDistance USHWY Max USHWY Min RCAC Max MinDistance RCAC Max RCAC Min UNIV Max MinDistance UNIV Max UNIV Min TCAC Max MinDistance TCAC Max TCAC Min

Units N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Model Reference File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2

Region Models: Summary of Indicators in CommunityViz (cont.) CV Module Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Land Suitability Growth Allocation Growth Allocation Growth Allocation Growth Allocation Growth Allocation Growth Allocation Growth Allocation Growth Allocation Growth Allocation Growth Allocation Growth Allocation Growth Allocation Growth Allocation Growth Allocation Reporting Reporting Reporting Reporting Reporting Reporting Reporting Reporting Reporting Reporting Reporting Reporting Reporting Reporting

Common Name Intermediate Variable for Calculating Suitability Factor, Highest Value "WTSHD" Intermediate Variable for Calculating Suitability Factor, Lowest Value "WTSHD" Intermediate Variable for Calculating Suitability Factor, Highest Value "HERI" Intermediate Variable for Calculating Suitability Factor, Lowest Value "HERI" Intermediate Variable for Calculating Suitability Factor, Highest Value "FLOOD" Intermediate Variable for Calculating Suitability Factor, Lowest Value "FLOOD" Intermediate Variable for Calculating Suitability Factor, Highest Composite Score Intermediate Variable for Calculating Suitability Factor, Lowest Composite Score Composite Weighting Value for Overall Suitability Score Growth Control Totals, Single Family Residential Growth Control Totals, Multifamily Residential Growth Control Totals, Highway Retail Growth Control Totals, Industrial Growth Control Totals, Office Growth Control Totals, Retail Growth Control Totals, Service Growth Allocation Wizard, Single Family Dwelling Units, Results Indicator Growth Allocation Wizard, Multifamily Dwelling Units, Results Indicator Growth Allocation Wizard, Highway Retail Employees, Results Indicator Growth Allocation Wizard, Industrial Employees, Results Indicator Growth Allocation Wizard, Office Employees, Results Indicator Growth Allocation Wizard, Retail Employees, Results Indicator Growth Allocation Wizard, Service Employees, Results Indicator New Single Family Dwelling Units, Reported by City, Town and County New Multifamily Dwelling Units, Reported by City, Town and County New Highway Retail Employees, Reported by City, Town and County New Industrial Employees, Reported by City, Town and County New Office Employees, Reported by City, Town and County New Retail Employees, Reported by City, Town and County New Service Employees, Reported by City, Town and County Available Supply, Single Family Dwelling Units, Reported by City, Town and County Available Supply, Multifamily Dwelling Units, Reported by City, Town and County Available Supply, Highway Retail Employees, Reported by City, Town and County Available Supply, Industrial Employees, Reported by City, Town and County Available Supply, Office Employees, Reported by City, Town and County Available Supply, Retail Employees, Reported by City, Town and County Available Supply, Service Employees, Reported by City, Town and County

Variable Name WTSHD Max WTSHD Min HERI Max HERI Min FLOOD Max FLOOD Min Suitability Max Suitability Min Total Suitability Weightings <County Name>_SF <County Name>_MF <County Name>_HWY <County Name>_IND <County Name>_OFF <County Name>_RET <County Name>_SER DU_<County Name>_ALLO MFDU_<County Name>_ALLO HWY_<County Name>_ALLO IND_<County Name>_ALLO OFF_<County Name>_ALLO RET_<County Name>_ALLO SER_<County Name>_ALLO <Jurisdiction> ‐‐ SF ‐‐ Allocated <Jurisdiction> ‐‐ MF ‐‐ Allocated <Jurisdiction> ‐‐ HWY ‐‐ Allocated <Jurisdiction> ‐‐ IND ‐‐ Allocated <Jurisdiction> ‐‐ OFF ‐‐ Allocated <Jurisdiction> ‐‐ RET ‐‐ Allocated <Jurisdiction> ‐‐ SER ‐‐ Allocated <Jurisdiction> ‐‐ SF ‐‐ Supply <Jurisdiction> ‐‐ MF ‐‐ Supply <Jurisdiction> ‐‐ HWY ‐‐ Supply <Jurisdiction> ‐‐ IND ‐‐ Supply <Jurisdiction> ‐‐ OFF ‐‐ Supply <Jurisdiction> ‐‐ RET ‐‐ Supply <Jurisdiction> ‐‐ SER ‐‐ Supply

Units N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees

Model Reference File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 County Level Growth Control Totals (Control_Totals.xls) County Level Growth Control Totals (Control_Totals.xls) County Level Growth Control Totals (Control_Totals.xls) County Level Growth Control Totals (Control_Totals.xls) County Level Growth Control Totals (Control_Totals.xls) County Level Growth Control Totals (Control_Totals.xls) County Level Growth Control Totals (Control_Totals.xls) File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2 File Geodatabase, Triangle Model P2

Section C:

Technical Appendix

CommunityViz Lookup Tables: General Development Characteristics

Lookup Table: Archer Lodge, Sub‐Region No. 12 Place Type Category POS* WF* RL MHP LLRN STRN SLRN MRN MFRN UN HRR RCR NCC SCC SH SOC REC LIC HIC MUN MUC TC MC TOD‐I TOD‐II TOD‐III AIR* CIV HCC UC

Jurisdiction 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00

Site Efficiency Floor‐Area‐Ratio Factor 0.00 0.99 0.98 0.66 0.62 0.90 0.65 0.93 0.92 0.87 0.65 0.95 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.80 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.65 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.35 0.85 0.85 0.25

0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.25 0.19 0.50 0.25 0.15 0.13 0.06 0.11 1.50 0.39 6.00 4.00 2.00 1.50 0.01 0.07 1.50 2.50

Density (dus/acre) 0.00 0.01 0.58 1.31 0.39 1.30 1.18 6.45 6.78 2.36 100.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 12.00 10.00 140.00 120.00 45.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00

Percent Residential 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.35 0.50 0.25 0.80 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25

Percent Single Family Residential 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.00 0.80 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.00 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00

Percent Multifamily Residential 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 1.00 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

Percent Non‐ Residential 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.60 0.65 0.50 0.75 0.20 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75

Percent Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.25 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.20 0.40

Percent Retail 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.10 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05

Percent HIghway Retail 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.10 0.25 0.75 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.05

Percent Industrial 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

Percent Service 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.40 0.25 0.75 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.30 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.85 0.70 0.50

Lookup Table: Apex, Sub‐Region No. 15 Place Type Category POS* WF* RL MHP LLRN STRN SLRN MRN MFRN UN HRR RCR NCC SCC SH SOC REC LIC HIC MUN MUC TC MC TOD‐I TOD‐II TOD‐III AIR* CIV HCC UC

Jurisdiction 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Site Efficiency Floor‐Area‐Ratio Factor 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.95 0.94 0.86 0.89 0.80 0.93 0.99 0.65 0.95 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.80 0.85 0.85 0.89 0.99 0.85 0.65 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.35 0.85 0.85 0.25

0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.13 0.16 0.16 0.10 0.08 0.18 0.13 1.25 1.50 0.24 6.00 2.00 1.50 1.50 0.02 0.07 0.09 2.50

Density (dus/acre) 0.00 0.01 0.52 4.11 0.45 2.50 3.00 5.08 12.00 3.04 100.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.79 2.04 10.00 140.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00

Percent Residential 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.35 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25

Percent Single Family Residential 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.00 0.80 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.00 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.15 0.80 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00

Percent Multifamily Residential 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 1.00 0.80 0.90 1.00 0.85 0.20 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

Percent Non‐ Residential 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.60 0.65 0.50 0.75 0.75 0.80 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75

Percent Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.25 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.20 0.40

Percent Retail 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.10 0.35 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05

Percent Highway Retail 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.10 0.25 0.75 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.05 0.05 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.05

Percent Industrial 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

Percent Service 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.40 0.25 0.75 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.30 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.25 0.85 0.70 0.50

Lookup Table: Angier, Sub‐Region No. 14 Place Type Category POS* WF* RL MHP LLRN STRN SLRN MRN MFRN UN HRR RCR NCC SCC SH SOC REC LIC HIC MUN MUC TC MC TOD‐I TOD‐II TOD‐III AIR* CIV HCC UC

Jurisdiction 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

Site Efficiency Floor‐Area‐Ratio Factor 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.95 0.65 0.95 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.80 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.65 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.35 0.85 0.85 0.25

0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.25 0.20 0.50 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.10 1.00 1.00 0.90 6.00 4.00 2.00 1.50 0.15 0.10 1.50 2.50

Density (dus/acre) 0.00 0.10 0.42 6.00 1.09 2.75 2.75 4.00 18.00 5.00 100.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.00 12.00 10.00 140.00 120.00 45.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00

Percent Residential 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.80 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25

Percent Single Family Residential 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.00 0.80 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.00 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00

Percent Multifamily Residential 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 1.00 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

Percent Non‐ Residential 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.60 0.65 0.50 0.75 0.20 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75

Percent Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.25 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.20 0.40

Percent Retail 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.10 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05

Percent Highway Retail 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.10 0.25 0.75 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.05

Percent Industrial 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

Percent Service 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.40 0.25 0.75 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.30 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.85 0.70 0.50

Lookup Table: Archer Landing, Sub‐Region No. 16 Place Type Category POS* WF* RL MHP LLRN STRN SLRN MRN MFRN UN HRR RCR NCC SCC SH SOC REC LIC HIC MUN MUC TC MC TOD‐I TOD‐II TOD‐III AIR* CIV HCC UC

Jurisdiction 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00

Site Efficiency Floor‐Area‐Ratio Factor 0.00 0.99 0.95 0.99 0.93 0.90 0.92 0.90 0.96 0.99 0.65 0.95 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.80 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.65 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.35 0.85 0.85 0.25

0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.08 0.17 0.50 0.18 0.15 0.20 0.13 1.25 1.50 0.42 6.00 4.00 2.00 1.50 0.01 0.08 1.50 2.50

Density (dus/acre) 0.00 0.10 0.81 2.69 0.70 3.00 2.14 10.00 6.41 3.60 100.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.00 12.00 10.00 140.00 120.00 45.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00