AGENDA # 7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendments – Modifications to Payment-in-Lieu of Recreation Area and to Setback Language
DATE: October 10, 2005
PURPOSE
Enactment of the attached Ordinance would amend the Land Use Management Ordinance in the following manner:
1) Payment in Lieu of Recreation Area: a modification to the method used in calculating payments in lieu of recreation area. The modification to the calculation method would use a consistent appraisal value for land as assessed by Orange County and/or Durham County for property tax purposes, and a multiplier established by the Council annually as part of the budget.
2) Setback Language: a modification to the setback language of the Land Use Management Ordinance. The modification would remove the phrase, “front line setback,” in order to be consistent with the standard setback language and definitions used throughout the rest of the document.
BACKGROUND
On September 19, 2005, the Council held a Public Hearing to receive comments on the proposed amendments to the Land Use Management Ordinance regarding payment in lieu of recreation area and setback language. A copy of the September 19 memorandum is attached.
ISSUES RAISED
There were three issues raised during the Advisory Board reviews and the Public Hearing for the text amendment regarding modification to payment-in-lieu of recreation area. These issues are addressed here:
Appraisal Clarification: Council members questioned how the proposed appraisal method addresses improvements to a property.
Comment: The current method of calculating a payment-in-lieu for recreation area outlined in the Land Use Management Ordinance depends on an independent appraisal commissioned by the property owner. The purpose of the appraisal is to calculate the fair market value of the land as if the infrastructure for the subdivision is in place, which includes streets, utilities, and other related improvements. We believe that this process lacks consistency and fairness because appraisals have differed dramatically according to which appraiser is hired and what appraisal method is used.
We believe the proposed method under consideration by the Council would be more consistent. We recommend using the property values generated by Orange County and/or Durham County for property tax purposes and a multiplier established by the Council annually as part of the budget. The property values generated by Orange County and/or Durham County are based on the current condition of the property and do not consider future improvements.
Density: Council members questioned how the proposed payment-in-lieu will relate to the density level of a development.
Comment: The required amount of total land area set aside permanently for use as recreation area is a percentage of the total property square footage. The percentage changes accordingly by zoning district. Zoning districts with higher density limits must set aside a higher percentage of land as recreation area. Because the payment-in-lieu increases as the percentage of required recreation area increases, the payment-in-lieu will increase as the density limits increase.
|
Zoning District |
Maximum Density |
Recreation Area Ratio |
|
R-LD5 |
0.2 |
.040 |
|
R-LD1 |
1.0 |
.050 |
|
R-1A |
2.0 |
.061 |
|
R-1 |
3.0 |
.071 |
|
R-2A |
3.5 |
.095 |
|
R-2 |
4.0 |
.120 |
|
R-3 |
7.0 |
.170 |
|
R-4, 5, 6 and all other non-residential zoning districts |
10.0-15.0 |
.218 |
Multiplier: Questions about how the multiplier would be determined were raised during Advisory Board reviews and the Public Hearing.
Comment: In the September 19 memorandum, we stated that if the Council supported the multiplier method proposed by this text amendment, we would conduct an analysis of past projects on which to base the initial multiplier and present options to the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Planning Board, and the Council. The multiplier would be a factor that would reasonably represent the value of the property.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning Board Recommendation: On August 2, 2005, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend enactment of the attached Ordinance A. Please refer to the attached Summary of Planning Board Action. Ordinance A, Section (d) (6), addresses the Planning Board concern about how the recreation area payment-in-lieu amount would be handled if a property owner was in the process of appealing the County assessed value of the property.
Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation: On August 18, 2005, the Commission voted 7-0 to recommend enactment of the attached Ordinance A. Please refer to the attached Parks and Recreation Commission memo regarding Recommendation for Proposed Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendments.
Greenways Commission Recommendation: On June 22, 2005, the Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment to modify the payment in lieu of recreation area.
Manager’s Recommendation: We recommend that the Council enact the attached Ordinance to amend the Land Use Management Ordinance provisions regarding modifications to payment in lieu of recreation area and to setback language.
ATTACHMENT