Mobility Fee Applications from Research Design

Transcription

1 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT D E P A R T M E N T Mobility Fee Applications from Research Design The focus of this study is Mobility Fee applications submitted during the years between 2014 and 2016, and the type of development proposed by the applicant; residential, commercial, or industrial. The development type was determined based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Land Use Code assigned to the application during the application review. Mixed-Use Development types were not present in the study data due to the few that would have been present being included into other existing parcels. Mobility Zone and Development Area boundaries were established by the City of Jacksonville s Mobility Plan. The data used in this report is collected by the City of Jacksonville s Concurrency and Mobility Management System Office (CMMSO) and the Duval County Property Appraiser s parcel data in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) shapefile format. The words development and applications are frequently used interchangeably to represent the process by which is new development is submitted for Mobility Fee Assessment by the CMMSO. This study was conducted between 12/19/16 and 1/31/17, and may not accurately reflect the exact state of development in the city during this timeframe, due to parcel records modifications that have occurred during the study period, thus causing Mobility Fee Assessment records and current Property Appraiser records to not match. Therefore these records have been omitted to maintain data integrity. 2

2 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT D E P A R T M E N T Mobility Applications by Development Type When analyzing Mobility Fee Applications based upon Development Type and Year, two trends emerge. First, commercial development is the most common development type by the number of applications, with 56% of all applications in the three year period belonging to that development type, with residential (31%) and industrial (14%) following. Secondarily, commercial and residential developments have similar patterns of growth during the study period, suggesting a direct correlation between the growth of these two complimentary sectors. Industrial development had the lowest, but consistent number of applications during the study period, as seen in Table 1 and Figures 1 through 3. Land Use by Year Table 1 % of Type Commercial, Commercial, Commercial, Total Commercial Residential, Residential, Residential, Total Residential Industrial, Industrial, Industrial, Total Industrial Total 450 Number of Mobility Fee Applications 3

3 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT D E P A R T M E N T Number of Mobility Fee Applications Number of Mobility Fee Applications Figure 1 Commercial Residential Industrial 2014 Land Use Type Figure 2 Commercial Residential Industrial 2015 Land Use Type Number of Mobility Fee Applications Figure 3 Commercial Residential Industrial 2016 Land Use Type 4

4 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT D E P A R T M E N T Mobility Applications by Development Area Overall growth during study period was positive, as seen in Table 2, with similar development amounts between 2014 and 2015 before almost doubling in Those applications that were subsequently cancelled were removed from this analysis. Further study at the end of 2017 will provide a more accurate of any cancellations that may occur for the 2016 applications. The and Rural Development Areas had the least amount of new development, less than 5%, and have been excluded from the density analysis seen in Table 3, due to their small sample size. The remaining Development Areas, the Urban Priority, Urban, and Suburban Areas, will be referred to as the Study Area. The Study Area is 567 square miles, which makes up 67% of Jacksonville s total land area, and contains 95% of all development during the studied time frame. Suburban Development Area had the most new development, 42%, followed by the Urban Development Area, 39%, then the Urban Priority Development Area, 15%. Figure 4 shows a graphical representation of Table 2 with all years and land uses combined. Of all parcels developed during the Study Period, 54.45% were in the more dense Development Areas, the (0.67%), Urban (15.11%), and Urban Priority (38.67%) Development areas, contrasted with the less dense Development Areas, Suburban (42.22%) and Rural (3.33%), having 45.55% of all new parcels developed. 6

5 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT D E P A R T M E N T Land Use Type by Year Table 2 Urban Priority Urban Suburban Rural Total Commercial, % Commercial, % Commercial, % Residential, % Residential, % Residential, % Industrial, % Industrial, % Industrial, % Total % 15.11% 38.67% 42.22% 3.33% Number of Mobility Fee Applications Total Mobility Fee Applications Figure 4 Urban Priority Urban Suburban Rural Development Areas 7

6 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT D E P A R T M E N T However, development units within these areas do not represent a Development Area s relative growth within the county, nor do they provide insight into the effects of the Mobility Plan. When accounting for density, depicted in Table 3, calculated as developments per square mile, the Urban Priority Development Area averaged 1.9 developments per square mile, followed by the Urban Development Areas 1.3, then the Suburban Development Area with 0.5 developments per square mile. If the entire Study Area were to be developed with the same density as the Urban Priority Development Area, the adjusted total development units would be 1071, more than double the 450 applications in the study. Assuming the Mobility Plan is continuing to work as intended, the trend of the Urban and Urban Priority Development Areas having higher amounts of development per square mile than the Suburban Development Area will continue, limit sprawl and intensify the areas in urban core and major transportation corridors. Table 3 % of Study Area % of Total Area Square Area 4 0.0% 0.5% Urban Priority Area % 4.2% Urban Area % 15.5% Suburban Area % 46.9% Rural Area % 31.4% Jacksonville Total % N/A Study Area Total 567 N/A 67% 8

7 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT D E P A R T M E N T Mobility Applications by Mobility Zone The data shows a logical organization, as depicted in Table 4 and Figure 5, of three groups of Mobility Zones based upon their development patterns, with the area Mobility Zone, Zone 10, removed as an outlier due to small sample size. The first group consists of Mobility Zones 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 9; shows similar overall numbers of new development applications throughout the three year period. Development units in these zones range from 45 applications in Zone 6 to 60 applications in Zone 3, with the remaining Mobility Zones averaging 51 development units. These Zones are mostly in the Suburban Development Area, and each of them has a major roadway corridor running through them that is in the Urban Development Area, with 231 of the group s 310 development units within one mile of the Urban Development Area. The second group, which consists of Zones 4 and 5, has much lower totals of new development, 18 each. These areas are decidedly suburban and rural, although Zone 4 had four large parcels developed as residential through the three year period, which could indicate an intensification of the zone s residential use. The final group consists only of Zone 8, which had 101 developments during the study period, with 22% of all new applications being filed in this Zone during the study period. 9

8 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT D E P A R T M E N T Table 4 Mobility Zone Total % Commercial, % Commercial, % Commercial, % Land Use by Year Total Commercial % Residential, % Residential, % Residential, % Total Residential % Industrial, % Industrial, % Industrial, % Total Industrial % Total % of Mobility Zones 11.3% 11.3% 13.3% 4.0% 4.0% 10.0% 11.6% 22.4% 11.3% 0.7% Number of Mobility Fee Applications 80 Figure 5 Total Mobility Fee Applications Mobility Zones Total Commercial Total Residential Total Industrial 10

9 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT D E P A R T M E N T Yearly Mobility Fee Revenue by Mobility Zone and Development Area Mobility Fees generated by the Concurrency and Mobility Management System are a sharp contrast to the overall development data, shown in Figure and 2015 had very similar amounts of fees generated, $5,225,324 and $5,917,029, with an increase in 2016 to $8,960,695. It must be noted that these fee totals are only representative of the data included in the study, and will be less than the actual amount of fees that were collected by the CMMSO during the timeframe due to potential cancellations or parcel record modifications. Zone 6 generated the greatest amount of Mobility Fee revenue, mostly due to two large developments; Harmony Farms, a 285,000 square foot shopping center, and Great Meadows, a 231 acre housing development. $4,000, $3,500, Figure 6 Mobility Fee Revenue $3,000, $2,500, $2,000, $1,500, $1,000, $500, $ Mobility Zones 11

10 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT D E P A R T M E N T Mobility Fee Revenue by Development Area Figure 7 shows that fees were generated mostly by new developments in the Suburban Development Area, 58.76% of the total, followed by the three more urbanized development areas at 39.17%, with the Rural Development Area having the least, 2.06%. The Development area did have more fees generated than the Rural Development Area, despite having smaller land area and fewer parcels developed. This has more to do with the medium to high density residential land uses of the applications filed in the Development Area compared to lower density residential and light industrial in the Rural Development Area. The rural land uses, on average, have a lower dollar per square foot land value than more dense areas. Figure 7 also depicts the tangible effects of the success of the Mobility Plan, when contrasted with Figure 4, show that Suburban Development is significantly more expensive in the form of Mobility Fees, and all other factors being equal, development will continue to funnel into the urban core areas of Duval County. Mobility Fee Revenue $14,000, $12,000, $10,000, $8,000, $6,000, $4,000, $2,000, $0.00 Figure 7 Urban Priority Development Areas Urban Suburban Rural Figures 8 through 17 show development locations both Countywide and by Mobility Zone. 12

11 I Legend Dev. Type, App. Year C, 2014 C, 2015 C, 2016 I, 2014 I, 2015 I, 2016 R, 2014 R, 2015 R, 2016 Mobility Fee Applications Figure 8: Duval County Urban Priority Area Urban Area Suburban Area Rural Area Map Generated by City of Jacksonville Planning and Development Department Transportation Planning Division

12 I Legend Dev. Type, App. Year C, 2014 C, 2015 C, 2016 I, 2014 I, 2015 I, 2016 R, 2014 R, 2015 R, 2016 Mobility Fee Applications Figure 9- Mobility Zone 1 Urban Priority Area Urban Area Suburban Area Rural Area Map Generated by City of Jacksonville Planning and Development Department Transportation Planning Division

13 Legend 3 Dev. Type, App. Year C, 2014 C, 2015 C, 2016 I, 2014 I, 2015 I, 2016 R, 2014 R, 2015 R, 2016 Urban Priority Area I Urban Area Mobility Fee Applications Figure 10- Mobility Zone 2 Suburban Area Rural Area Map Generated by City of Jacksonville Planning and Development Department Transportation Planning Division

14 I 2 Legend Dev. Type, App. Year C, 2014 C, 2015 C, 2016 I, 2014 I, 2015 I, 2016 R, 2014 R, 2015 R, 2016 Mobility Fee Applications Figure 11- Mobility Zone 3 Urban Priority Area Urban Area Suburban Area Rural Area Map Generated by City of Jacksonville Planning and Development Department Transportation Planning Division

15 I Legend Dev. Type, App. Year C, 2014 C, 2015 C, 2016 I, 2014 I, 2015 I, 2016 R, 2014 R, 2015 R, 2016 Urban Priority Area Urban Area Suburban Area Rural Area Mobility Fee Applications Figure 12- Mobility Zone 4 Map Generated by City of Jacksonville Planning and Development Department Transportation Planning Division

16 I Legend Dev. Type, App. Year C, 2014 C, 2015 C, 2016 I, 2014 I, 2015 I, 2016 R, 2014 R, 2015 R, 2016 Mobility Fee Applications Figure 13- Mobility Zone 5 Urban Priority Area Urban Area Suburban Area Rural Area Map Generated by City of Jacksonville Planning and Development Department Transportation Planning Division

17 I Legend Dev. Type, App. Year C, 2014 C, 2015 C, 2016 I, 2014 I, 2015 I, 2016 R, 2014 R, 2015 R, 2016 Mobility Fee Applications Figure 14- Mobility Zone 6 Urban Priority Area Urban Area Suburban Area Rural Area Map Generated by City of Jacksonville Planning and Development Department Transportation Planning Division

18 Legend Dev. Type, App. Year C, 2014 C, 2015 C, 2016 I, 2014 I, 2015 I, 2016 R, 2014 R, 2015 R, 2016 Urban Priority Area Urban Area Suburban Area Rural Area 6 7 I Mobility Fee Applications Figure 15- Mobility Zone 7 Map Generated by City of Jacksonville Planning and Development Department Transportation Planning Division

19 Legend Dev. Type, App. Year C, 2014 C, 2015 C, 2016 I, 2014 I, 2015 I, 2016 R, 2014 R, 2015 R, 2016 Urban Priority Area I Urban Area Mobility Fee Applications Figure 16- Mobility Zone 8 Suburban Area Rural Area Map Generated by City of Jacksonville Planning and Development Department Transportation Planning Division

20 I Legend Zone_9 Dev. Type, App. Year C, 2014 C, 2015 C, 2016 I, 2014 I, 2015 I, 2016 R, 2014 R, 2015 R, 2016 Mobility Fee Applications Figure 17- Mobility Zones 9 and 10 Urban Priority Area Urban Area Suburban Area Rural Area Map Generated by City of Jacksonville Planning and Development Department Transportation Planning Division