USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Addendum to comprehensive plan density analysis

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Addendum to comprehensive plan density analysis
Physical Description:
1 online resource (ii, 8 p.) : ;
Language:
English
Creator:
University of South Florida -- Center for Economic Development Research
Publisher:
Center for Economic Development Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Zoning -- Florida -- Hillsborough County   ( lcsh )
Land use -- Florida -- Hillsborough County   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Statement of Responsibility:
prepared by the Center for Economic Development Research, College of Business Administration, University of South Florida.
General Note:
Title from PDF of cover (viewed Sept. 16, 2009).
General Note:
"October 2005."

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 002029133
oclc - 436879537
usfldc doi - C63-00061
usfldc handle - c63.61
System ID:
SFS0000336:00001

Related Items

Related Items:
Comprehensive plan density analysis.


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Addendum to Comprehensive Plan Density Analysis Prepared by the CENTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH College of Business Administration 1101 Channelside Drive, Second Floor North, Tampa, Florida 33602 Office: (813) 905-5854 or Fax: (813) 905-5856 October 2005

PAGE 2

Preface The Tampa Bay Builders Association (TBBA) commissioned the Center for Economic Development Research (CEDR) to conduct the app lied economic research reported herein. In July 2005, CEDR published a research report, which was also commissioned by the TBBA, titled Comprehensive Plan Density Analysis. The July 2005 report compared the density of residential dwellings specified in the County s 1994 Comprehensive Plan to actual units built and projected units to be built within Hills borough Countys urban service area. The report covered rezoning cases initiated between 1997 and 2004. This report compares the findings from CEDRs July 2005 st udy with information that the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Co mmission provided to the TBBA and CEDR on August 31, 2005. The information provided was from a report titled, Effective Density Used in Population Projection Unincor p., County and Plant City by Cens us Tract and Flue Category, dated October 2004. CEDR, a unit of the University of South Floridas (USF) Co llege of Business Administration (COBA), initiates and conducts i nnovative research on economic development. The Centers education programs are designed to cultivate excellence in regional development. Our information system serves to enhance econom ic development effort s at USF, COBA, and throughout the Tampa Bay area and the state of Florida. We thank Ms. Lorraine Duffy and James Ho sler of the Hillsbor ough County City-County Planning Commission for their cooperation and a ssistance in extracting data from public records for this research. Robert Anderson, Dean, COBA, Univ ersity of South Florida (USF) Dennis Colie, Direct or, CEDR, COBA, USF Jim Snyders, CEDR Research Consu ltant and Primary Investigator Dodson Tong, Data Manager, CEDR, COBA, USF i

PAGE 3

Executive Summary In this research we re-categorizes the re sults reported in our earlier report, titled Comprehensive Plan Density Analysis dated Ju ly 2005 and compare the re-categorized results with data provided by the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission (The Planning Commission). As in our earlier repor t, this comparison relates to Hillsborough Countys 1994 Comprehensive Pla n, rezoning cases, actual and pr ojected residential land use densities in the urban service area of unincorporated Hillsborough County. Because The Planning Commission s data is categorized diffe rently from our data, we resorted our data to match their data categories. The Planning Commissi on categorized its data by 17 different Comprehensive Plan land use desi gnations, while we used categories based on units per acre density. It was not possible to reclassify The Pl anning Commissions data into the original 10 CEDR categories, becau se the data provided to us did not contain deta ils by land plot. Our findings are based on the comparison of two metrics: 1. CEDRs projected percent of acres that ar e built-out residential compared to The Planning Commissions percent of acres that are built-out resi dential, i.e. the number of residential acres divided by the total acres that included residential a nd non-residential. 2. CEDRs projected units built-out per acre a nd The Planning Commissi ons units built-out per acre, i.e. residential un its divided by total acres. CEDRs projected percent of acres that are bui lt-out residential diffe rs from The Planning Commissions percent of acres that are built-out residential, but it is not readily apparent how significant the differences are. However, in 11 out of 17 Categories we find a positive difference, which indicates that CEDRs Projected % Residentia l acres is greater than The Planning Commissions data for th at Category. Category RES-4 ha s the smallest percentage difference, + 0.49%. Furthermore, a comparison of CEDRs projected units built-out per acre and The Planning Commissions units built-out per acre shows that there are six categories for which the values are statistically equivalent, while for the ot her 10 categories that we were able to test, the values are not statistically equivalent. We also note that for Cate gories NMU-4, RES-4, RES-6, and SMU-6, which comprise 50.9% of the total land in the study, the difference between CEDRs projected units built-out per acre and The Planning Commission s units built-out per acre was more than 1 unit per acre in each category. ii

PAGE 4

I. Introduction. In this research we re-categorizes the results reported in our earlier report, titled Comprehensive Plan Density Analysis dated Ju ly 2005 and compare the re-categorized results with data provided by the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission (The Planning Commission). As in our earlier repor t, this comparison relates to Hillsborough Countys 1994 Comprehensive Pla n, rezoning cases, actual and pr ojected residential land use densities in the urban service area of unincorporated Hillsborough County. II. Information Sources. Information sources used in our July 2005 re search project involved a review of 780 rezoning cases for land in unincorporated Hi llsborough County. The land covered by these cases totaled 37,416 acres designated for 181,785 resi dential units as defined by each rezoning cases Comprehensive Plan design ated residential rate multiplie d by the number of acres. The review was limited to 1997-2004 rezoning cases that encompassed 10 or more acres in the urban service area, and originally desi gnated Residential in the Compre hensive Plan. The sources for the rezoning information are: TBBA database of rezoning cases (paper and electronic). Rezoning Commission Agenda files (elect ronic) Provided by Ed Scilex, Senior Zoning Technician, Hillsborough County Planning & Growth Management. Re-zoning case files (paper) provided by Vernon Hampton, Office Assistant File Clerk, Hillsborough County Planni ng & Growth Management. Hillsborough County GIS maps (paper & on-line) to include the 1994 Comprehensive Plan map. Integrated Realty Information System (IR IS IMAP) maps and property database. The information source for the data provide d by The Planning Comm ission is a 2-page document titled, Effective Density Used in Popul ation Projection Unincorp. County and Plant City by Census Tract and Flue Category, dated October 2004. Included in the document is a section titled Unincorp County Effective Density Method, wh ich contains an algorithm relating to a computer query. For 17 categories, the algorithm indi cates 1) the percent of acres that would be developed resident ially, and 2) the average observed residential density that was actually developed. III. Scope. We compare our July 2005 rese arch findings of projected re sidential buildout densities to the data provided by The Pla nning Commission. Because The Pl anning Commissions data is categorized differently from our da ta, we resorted our data to match their data categories. The Planning Commission categorized its data by 17 different Comprehensive Plan land use designations, while we used categories based on un its per acre density. It was not possible to reclassify The Planning Commissi ons data into the original 10 CEDR categories, because the data provided to us did not contain details by land plot. 1

PAGE 5

The CEDR data contains rezoning cases that were approved between January 1, 1997 September 30, 2004 and involved residential units on parcels of land equal to or greater than 10 acres. The Planning Commissions data contains two metrics that show: (1) % of acres in Hillsborough County that are used for residential purposes, and (2) rate / number of units builtout per acre. Their information, which was provided to us, does not in clude specific land plot details, such as actual plot size in acres or the number of units built-out on these plots. We compare the following metrics from the original CEDR report to The Planning Commissions metrics: Percent of acres that are bu ilt-out residential, i.e. th e number of residential acres divided by the total acres that included resident ial and non-residential. The built-out rate per acre, i.e. resi dential units divided by total acres. IV. Method. Initially, we combined the original CEDR data files, which were sorted by year, into one merged data file. Unnecessary data columns were deleted. Irrel evant rezoning cases, such as withdraw or denied, were eliminated. What rema ined became the new consolidated work file. This new file was then sorted by Comprehensive Plan rate and categorized like the original study into one of three groups: Residential Done, or Residential Partial Builtout or Not Developed, or Non-Residential for exampl e, schools, towers, excavations, commercial or retail structures, correctional facilities, hospitals, farm worker housing, and mobile home parks. As in the original study, because all year s (especially 2003 and 2004) have missing data and there exists a large number of Partial Buil t-out and Not Developed land we (1) estimated the migration of Partial Built-out or Not Developed land to Non-Resi dential use, and (2) projected future actual built-out from Partial Built-out or Not Developed. We expand the Comprehensive Plan categories in the original CEDR study from 10 to 17 in order to match The Pla nning Commissions categories. Table 1 on the next page, shows how the original 10 categories were e xpanded. Table 1s columns are: Column A. Lists CEDRs original study categories that arrayed the data by planned density (units per acre .2 thr ough 35). All land use categories with like density rates were combined. Column B. Indicates the categories used by The Planning Commission that arrayed the data by planned use and dens ity category. For example, CEDRs original study categories .2 and .4 are combined into The Planning Commissions AE category, and CEDRs original st udy category 20 is separated into The Planning Commissions OC-20, RES20, and UMU-20 categories. Column C. Defines the abbreviations used in Columns A and B. 2

PAGE 6

Table 1. ZONING CATEGORIES A B C Original Study Categories The Planning Commission Categories Category Definition .2 (included AE.2 and AR.2) AE (included AE.2 and AE.4) Agricultural Estate .2 (1 unit per 5 acres / .4 (1 unit per 2.5 Acres) .4 (included AE.4) AM Agricultural Mining (1 unit per 20 acres) AR (includes AR-.2 Agricultural Rural (1 unit per 5 acres) 1 (included AM/R-1, RES-1) RES-1 Residential-1 (1 unit per acre) 2 (included RES-2, RESP-2 RES-2 Residential-2 (2 units per acre) RESP-2 Residential Planned (2 units per acre) 4 (included NMU-4, RES-4) NMU-4 Neighborhood Mixed Use-4 (4 units per acre) RES-4 Residential-4 (4 units per acre) 6 (included RES-6, SMU-6) RES-6 Residential-6 (6 units per acre) SMU-6 Suburban Mixed Use-6 (6 units per acre) 9 (included RES-9 RES-9 Reside ntial-9 (9 units per acre) 12 (included CMU-12, RES-12) CMU-12 Community Mixed Use-12 (12 units per acre) RES-12 Residential-12 (12 units per acre) 20 (included OC-20, RES-20, UMU-20) OC-20 Office Commercial-20 (20 units per acre) RES-20 Residential-20 (20 units per acre) UMU-20 Urban Mixed Use-20 (20 units per acre) 35 (included UMU-35) UMU-35 Urba n Mixed Use-35 (35 units per acre) We created a new master worksheet that contains the following data fields: Status (Non-residential, Done Partial Not Developed) Case Nr. (Rezoning Case number) Development Name Acres 1994 Comprehensive Plan (Category) 1994 Comprehensive Plan Rate (0, 1, 2, 4, ) 3

PAGE 7

Calculated Comprehensive Pl an Units (Acres x Rate) Actual Units Calculated Units per Acres Rate (Actual units / acres) Acres Projected Migration (10% move from Residential Partial Not Developed to Non-residential Calculated Projected units (Comprehensive Pl an Units x actual build -out rate for that category) Calculated Projected units per Ac re (Projected units / Acres) We then (1) calculated the migration of acres to Non-Residential and (2 ) projected residential built-out units as follows: 1. Calculated migration of planned Reside ntial land to N on-Residential use The number of acres for each case in category Residential Partial Built-out or Not Developed was reduced by 10% and the same amount was th en added to Non-Residential acres. For example, in category RES-6 Partial or No t Developed, 10% of the actual 1,524 acres is 152. This 152 is then subtracted from the 1,524 equaling 1,372 (1,524 152) and added to the RES-6 Non-Residential cate gory equaling 848 acres (696 + 152). 2. Project actual built-out units of Residential Partial Built-out or Not Developed cases This projection is based on the computed al l years average from the original CEDR Study for each Residential-Done category dens ity rating factors actual built-out unit percent. Like in the original study we assume at least a 10% migration of the Not Done / Not Developed land to the Non-Residential cate gory. The projected future development of the remaining land is calculated by multiplying the average completion percentage for the applicable residential unit per acre rate by the projected total avai lable capacity units. For example, in category RES-6 actual done unit built-out was 51.21% of the planned capacity. The projected capacity equals the projected acres (adjusted down by 10% from actual) multiplied by the planned units pe r acre (1,372 x 6 = 8,232). This projected capacity is then multiplied by the build-out rate of 51.21% to obtai n the projected buildout units of 4,216 (8,232 x .5121 = 4,216). These projections are a key in both the origin al study and this add-on analysis. To be consistent we applied the same migration factor and projected builtout rate used in the original CEDR study to this add-on analysis. V. Findings. Our findings are based on the comparison of two metrics: 1. CEDRs projected percent of acres that ar e built-out residential compared to The Planning Commissions percent of acres that are built-out re sidential, i.e. the number of residential acres divided by the tota l acres that include d residential and nonresidential. We show this comparison in Table 2. 4

PAGE 8

2. CEDRs projected units built-out per acre and The Planning Commissions units built-out per acre, i.e. resi dential units divided by to tal acres. We show this comparison in Table 3. Table 2, below, summarizes our findings when comparing the percent of projected residential acres from the re-categorized CEDR data to The Planning Commissions data. Table 2s columns are: Column A. Category is the Countys Compre hensive Plan density rating categories. Column B. Sample Size is the number of rezoning cases examined in the original CEDR study and used as the basis for estimating Projected Units/Acre. Column C. Projected % Reside ntial CEDR is the total acres of ResidentialDone and Residential-Partial or Not Developed di vided by the total acreage including NonResidential acres, by Category, from the original CEDR study. Column D. % Residential PC is Th e Planning Commissions (PC) data. Column E. Diff. compares the two sets of data. The comparison indicates the raw percentage value difference between the CEDR Study and the PC result (Column C minus Column D). Column F. % Diff. shows the percent diffe rence. It is the raw percentage value difference (Column E) divided by CEDRs Project % Acres Residential (Column C). Table 2. Percent Acres Residential Comparison. A B C D E F Category Sample Size Projected % Residential CEDR % Residential PC Diff. % Diff. AE 9 15.08% 50.00% -34.92 -231.47% AM 3 100.00% 10.00% 90.00 90.00% AR 19 73.09% 20.00% 53.09 72.64% RES -1 94 58.47% 90.00% -31.53 -53.93% RES 2 33 79.48% 70.00% 9.48 11.93% RESP 2 11 62.01% 25.00% 37.01 59.68% NMU 4 8 71.16% 20.00% 51.16 71.89% RES 4 188 72.49% 72.00% 0.49 0.67% RES 6 58 74.60% 72.00% 2.60 3.49% SMU 6 45 84.39% 88.00% -3.61 -4.28% RES 9 20 58.13% 64.00% -5.87 -10.11% CMU 12 37 35.94% 27.50% 8.44 23.47% RES -12 8 52.38% 68.00% -15.62 -29.81% OC 20 26 31.55% 17.00% 14.55 46.12% RES 20 7 74.06% 70.00% 4.06 5.48% UMU 20 24 67.62% 19.50% 48.12 71.16% UMU 35 1 0.00% 30.00% -30.00 N/A 5

PAGE 9

From Table 2, we find that: A positive difference in Column E indicates that CEDRs Projected % Residential acres is greater than The Planning Commissions data for that Category. In 11 out of 17 Categories we find a positive difference. Category RES-4 has the smallest percentage difference, + 0.49%. In six out of the 16 Categories that we compared, the percentage differences, (Column F) between CEDRs Projected % Acres Residential and The Planning Commissions data are within +/-12%. These six Categorie s, which are highlighted in Table 2, are RES-2, RES-4, RES-6, SMU-6, RES-9, and RES-20. Four of the six Categories are within +/-6%. They are RES-4, RES-6, SMU-6, and RES-20. We cannot compare Category UMU-35 because the sample size is 1 and it is Non-Residential. Table 3 on the next page, summarizes our findings when comparing projected units built-out per acre from the re-categorized CEDR data to The Planning Commissions data. Table 3s columns are: Column A. Category is the Countys Compre hensive Plan density rating categories. Column B. Sample Size is the number of rezoning cases examined in the original CEDR study and used as the basis for estimating Projected Units/Acre. Column C. Projected Units/Acre CEDR is the projected number of residential units to be built-out divided by the total acreage for that category. We show this number based on the original CEDR study Column D. Units / Acre PC is The Planning Commissions (PC) data. Column E. Diff. compares the two sets of data. The comparison indicates the units per acre difference between the CEDR Study and the PC result (Column C minus Column D). Column F. % Diff. shows the percent differe nce. It is the units per acre difference (Column E) divided by Projected Units / Acre CEDR (Column C). Column G. 2 Std Dev shows the measurement of 2 standard deviations about Projected Units/Acre CEDR (Column C). Th e standard deviation is a measure of volatility. For a normal distribution there is about a 95% probability that the true measure of Units per Acre is within + /2 standard deviations of CEDRs sample estimate of Projected Units / Acre. Column F. 95% Confid. Test indicates if The Planning Commissions Units / Acre PC number (Column D) falls within + / 2 standard deviations of the CEDRs sample estimate. If it is within + / 2 standard deviations, we Accept the proposition that CEDRs estimate of Projected Units / Acre (C olumn C) is statistically equivalent to The Planning Commissions Units / Acre. Otherwise, we Reject the equivalency proposition. 6

PAGE 10

Table 3. Projected Units per Acre Comparison. A B C D E F G F Category Sample Size Projected Units/Acre CEDR Units/Acre PC Diff. % Diff. 2 Std Dev 95% Confid. Test AE 9 0.06 0.40 -0.34 -532.70% 0.359 Reject AM 3 0.66 0.05 0.61 92.38% 0.000 Reject AR 19 0.10 0.20 -0.10 -94.66% 0.149 Reject RES -1 94 0.38 0.82 -0.44 -113.81% 0.787 Reject RES 2 33 1.31 1.72 -0.41 -30.81% 1.959 Accept RESP 2 11 1.12 2.00 -0.88 -79.03% 2.671 Accept NMU 4 8 1.85 3.18 -1.33 -71.54% 5.502 Accept RES 4 188 1.95 3.18 -1.23 -63.10% 2.883 Reject RES 6 58 2.47 5.47 -3.00 -121.61% 4.605 Reject SMU 6 45 2.48 4.24 -1.76 -71.14% 3.402 Reject RES 9 20 6.04 4.36 1.68 27.78% 10.329 Accept CMU 12 37 1.39 5.88 -4.49 -322.86% 6.565 Accept RES -12 8 1.74 9.59 -7.85 -452.15% 3.606 Reject OC 20 26 3.90 4.23 -0.33 -8.46% 12.965 Accept RES 20 7 5.45 12.00 -6.55 -120.19% 7.133 Reject UMU 20 24 4.92 11.50 -6.58 -133.82% 11.782 Reject UMU 35 1 0.00 35.00 -35.00 N/A 0.000 N/A From Table 3, we find that: A negative difference in Column E indicates that Projected Units / Acre CEDR is less than The Planning Commissions data for that Category. In 15 of the 17 Categories we find a negative difference. Only for AM and RES-9 was the CEDR es timate for Projected Units / Acre greater than Units / Acre PC We also note that for Categories NMU-4, RES-4, RES-6, and SMU-6, which comprise 50.9% of the total land in the study, the difference (Column E) was more than 1 unit per acre in each category. In all categories except OC-20 the percent di fference (Column F) exceeds + or 27%. Among the largest differences are RES-12 w ith -452.15% difference and CMU-12 with -322.86% difference. We do not compare UMU-35 because the sample size is 1 and it is Non-Residential. We tested sixteen of the categories for sta tistical equivalence of Projected Units/Acre CEDR with Units / Acre PC. We treat the PC data as point estimates, because we do not have information about the volat ility of the observati ons used by the PC to generate their units per acre values. In Colu mn F, we indicate whether we Accept or Reject the statistical equivalence proposition. We find six Categories, which are highlighted in Table 3, for which we accept statistical equivalence between Projected Units / Acre CEDR and Units / Acre PC. For the othe r 10 Categories, we reject statistical equivalence. 7

PAGE 11

VI. Conclusion. CEDRs projected percent of acres that are bui lt-out residential diffe rs from The Planning Commissions percent of acres that are built-out residential, but it is not readily apparent how significant the differences are. However, in 11 out of 17 Categories we find a positive difference, which indicates that CEDRs Projected % Residentia l acres is greater than The Planning Commissions data for th at Category. Category RES-4 ha s the smallest percentage difference, + 0.49%. Furthermore, a comparison of CEDRs projected units built-out per acre and The Planning Commissions units built-out per acre shows that there are six categories for which the values are statistically equivalent, while for the ot her 10 categories that we were able to test, the values are not statistically equivalent. We also note that for Cate gories NMU-4, RES-4, RES-6, and SMU-6, which comprise 50.9% of the total land in the study, the difference between CEDRs projected units built-out per acre and The Planning Commission s units built-out per acre was more than 1 unit per acre in each category. 8


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200301Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 002029133
005 20090928182242.0
006 m d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 090916s2005 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 7 ind2 024
subfield code a C63-00061
035
(OCoLC)436879537
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us-fl
049
FHMM
090
HD266.F62 (ONLINE)
0 245
Addendum to comprehensive plan density analysis
h [electronic resource] /
prepared by the Center for Economic Development Research, College of Business Administration, University of South Florida.
260
Tampa, Fla. :
b Center for Economic Development Research,
2005.
300
1 online resource (ii, 8 p.)
500
Title from PDF of cover (viewed Sept. 16, 2009).
"October 2005."
580
Updates the Center's report: Comprehensive plan density analysis.
650
Zoning
z Florida
Hillsborough County.
Land use
Florida
Hillsborough County.
2 710
University of South Florida.
Center for Economic Development Research.
1 8 787
t Comprehensive plan density analysis.
d Tampa, Fla. : Center for Economic Development Research, 2005
w (OCoLC)436878137
773
Center for Economic Development Research (CEDR) Collection
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c63.61