Chester County: 2020 Land Use and Suitability Analysis

CHESTER COUNTY:

2020 Land Use and Suitability Analysis 2013 APAPASE SCHOLARSHIP

Wesley Vaughn and Shelly Zhu CPLN 501: Quantitative Methods Analysis Professor David Hsu, University of Pennsylvania Fall 2012

CHESTER COUNTY LAND USE AND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS Part 1: 2020 LAND USE PROGRAM

Chester County: Land Use and Suitability Analysis PART I: 2020 LAND USE PROGRAM

The 2020 Chester County Land Use Program projects that the county’s population, housing demand, and employment sectors will grow during the 2010-2020 period and seeks to manage this growth as sustainably as possible. Chester County is located in the Delaware River Valley region of Pennsylvania, consists mostly of farmland and forests, has a population of around 500,000, and has grown fairly regularly each decade since 1930.1 Increasing density within the county’s urban areas and conserving its rural areas constitute the two major goals of this land use program.

This program produces two different scenarios that draw from the same growth projections, but handle the growth in divergent fashions with revealing results. As Philip Berke et al suggest for land use programs, a “business as usual” scenario is contrasted to an ideal scenario to demonstrate the benefits of desired policies.2 The ideal scenario in this case encompasses the smart-growth goals of denser urban development in combination with the protection of farmland and open space. By calculating and comparing the required additional acreage necessary to accommodate “business as usual” development and ideal development, this proposed land use program also presents the impacts of allowing Chester County to continue growing at its historical rate without prescribing targeted development restrictions.

Chester County residents decidedly support this program’s goals according to a recent survey. During the county’s 2007 comprehensive planning process, the Chester County Planning Commission found that 88 percent of respondents viewed the county’s rural character as its most important asset and that 84 percent preferred that future development occur in existing urban centers.3 Therefore, this land use program’s recommendations, which are expressed in the ideal scenario, are based off community values.

The direction of the ideal scenario is also built on environmental and fiscal reasoning. With regards to the environment, John Landis argues that setting higher density requirements is necessary because the private market cannot serve alone “as a means to protect and preserve valuable resource lands, open space and habitat.”4 This land use program sets increased density standards for residential units and commercial buildings to facilitate more infill development rather than new suburban or rural development. In addition, conservation zoning, which mandates a large-minimum lot size of 20 to 40 acres per dwelling unit, serves as another regulatory tool for this ideal scenario to safeguard Chester County’s farmland from unwanted development.5

The goals of high-density urban development and rural preservation also promote fiscal responsibility.

The results of this land-use strategy would save local governments from extending infrastructure to accommodate spreading suburban growth. As Landis discusses, the cost per resident of servicing a larger population is less than a smaller population.6 Thus, this land use program seeks to constrain development within already developed areas with smaller average lot sizes for residential units and commercial properties to minimize the need to extend services into new areas with less dense populations.7 Meanwhile, the agricultural residential areas function as a conservation boundary and buffer around the areas slated for development.

2020 POPULATION PROJECTIONS

Chester County’s population has grown steadily since 1930, and each projection model forecasted varying degrees of additional growth for 2020, as shown in Appendix 1. This land use program chose to base itself off the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission’s 2020 projection, but additional models were constructed for additional information and were not used due to their respective limitations. Figure 1 on the following page presents the different projections of every model in relation to Chester County’s past growth.

3

CHESTER COUNTY LAND USE AND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS Part 1: 2020 LAND USE PROGRAM

Although the most-recent share model incorporates the county’s 2010 relationship with the region into a 2020 projection, it fails to account for the county’s historically increasing share of the region’s population – as seen in the step-down-trend model’s data. As a result, the most recent share model projects only a modest population growth relative to the DVRPC projection.

The average population change rate model found the county’s average population percentage-growth per decade since 1940 and projected 2020’s population according to the calculated average. This model serves as the high-end option relative to the other models, even though the calculated 19 percent average growth per decade isn’t unreasonable. However, it is unlikely that Chester County will grow by almost 100,00 residents in the next 10 years, which this model projects.

The time-trend model uses Chester County’s population levels from 1930 to 2010 and the Excel trend function to project 2020’s population. The county’s consistent growth over this time span and the short 10-year projection bolsters the model’s validity, but this model lacks a connection with the surrounding region and external trends.8

The step-down-trend model projects the county’s 2020 population based on a linear regression of the county’s share of the region’s population from 1930 to 2010. Other than the DVRPC population projection, this model is the most reliable since the county and region grew comparably in this time period and the county’s population share grew steadily. The step-down-trend model even projected a 2020 population only a few thousand off of the DVRPC projection. However, this land use program chose the more professional DVRPC projection.

The DVRPC projects that Chester County’s 2020 population will be 538,809, an increase of 39,923 residents from 2010.9 This land use program chose this projection because it unites several factors, trends, and models into its forecast. This population projection functions as the foundation for the additional household, housing unit, and residential acreage projections.

2020 Population Projection Models

n

Chester County Population Time Trend Most Recent Regional Share Step-Down Step-Down Trend w/ Delaware Valley Region Average Population Change Rate DVRPC Population Projection

593,544 593,544

498,886 433,501

498,886

376,396 316,660

126,629

1930

277,746

135,626

1940

1950

316,660

538,809 530,943 525,289 512,264

433,501

277,746 210,608 159,141

538,809 530,943 525,289 512,264

376,396 1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020F

Figure 1: 2020 Population Projection Models

4

CHESTER COUNTY LAND USE AND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS Part 1: 2020 LAND USE PROGRAM

2020 HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS

A 2020 household projection for Chester County was calculated in order to project housing tenure rates, housing structure type demand, and residential acreage requirements. The average household size model divided the DVRPC population projection by Chester County’s 2010 average household size, and projected a total of 203,324 households in the county by 2020, as shown in Appendix 2. This model assumes that the county’s average household size will remain constant, which is reasonable. The national average household size has only slightly shifted in past decades and this projection is only for a 10-year interval.10 2020 HOUSING UNIT TENURE PROJECTIONS

This land use program projects the 2020 split of owners and renters by applying the projected households to two tenure-rate models. The 2010 tenure rate model assumes that the 2010 owner-renter percentage split will hold constant for 2020, while the 2000-2010 tenure change-split model uses the changes in owners relative to household changes in Chester County between 2000 and 2010 to project the 2010-2020 change in owners, as shown in Appendix 2. The ownership projections of the two models only differ by a few hundred, but this land use program uses the 2000-2010 tenure change-split model because it incorporates more data within a 10-year window.

This model unfortunately includes the tumultuous housing market crash of 2007, but there is no way to know when its effects will subside or by how much. The chosen model projects a total of 154,722 owners and 48,522 owners by 2020.

2020 HOUSING STRUCTURE-TYPE PROJECTIONS

The housing structure-type projections find the 2010-2020 forecasted changes in single-family and multi-family units, as shown in Appendix 2. This model calculates these changes by multiplying the 2020 projected numbers of owners and renters by the 2010 owner and renter-occupation rates for single-family units to find the total projected number of owner and renter-occupied single-family units in 2020. Subtracting the 2010 number of single-family units in the county from this total provides the projected change in single-family units between 2010 and 2020. The projected 2020 multi-family total is found by subtracting the 2020 projected number of single-family units by the 2020 projected number of households, while also accounting for the mobile home population that comprises 2.7 percent of households in Chester County.11 Finally, the 2010-2020 changes in multi-family units is found by subtracting the 2010 number of multi-family units by the projected 2020 number of multi-family units. This model projects that single-family units will increase by 11,672 and that multi-family units will increase by 2,088 by 2020.

This model assumes that the owner and renter share of single-family units will remain constant for 2020.

However, the rates of owners and renters occupying single-family units may increase by 2020 since Chester County’s median age increased from 36.9 to 39.3 years old between 2000 and 2010, according to the 2010 Census. Older residents typically live in single-family units; thus, if this aging trend continues over the next decade, Chester County may have a larger increase in single-family units and smaller increase in multi-family units than projected by this model.

2010-2020 PROJECTED RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE REQUIREMENTS

With the projected 2010-2020 residential unit changes, this land use program projects the amount of land required to accommodate Chester County’s residential growth. Five models were developed to project varying residential acreage increases, but the net densities by unit type and alternative plan densities represent the “business as usual” and ideal scenarios, respectively. All of the models found or supplied various acres per residential unit

5

CHESTER COUNTY LAND USE AND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS Part 1: 2020 LAND USE PROGRAM

measures before multiplying these figures by the projected unit change to project the additional residential acres required, as shown in Appendix 3.

The gross residential density estimate, the net residential density estimate, and recent market net density models provide useful information, but this land use program discards them due to various limitations. The gross residential density estimate incorporates all developed acres into its acres per residential unit measure – a crude method because it accounts for non-residential uses that will be calculated separately in this land use program. The net residential density estimate applies the same concept as the gross estimate, but only includes residential acreage.

Thus, the acres per residential unit are less than that of the gross density estimate; however, the net estimate fails to separate between single-family and multi-family units, which generally have different acres per unit standards.

Lastly, the recent market net density does divide residential units into single-family and multi-family units, but it only considers the densities of two projects.12

The net densities by unit type or “business as usual” scenario represents Chester County’s current development pattern. This scenario calculates the 2010 average acres per single-family and multi-family unit by dividing the land devoted to single-family and multi-family uses by the number of single-family and multi-family units.13 This separation reveals and accounts for the high relative density of multi-family units to single-family units on average. Despite this model’s sophistication, it still doesn’t account for all types of single-family units. This oversight partially explains why this model’s average acreage per single-family unit (.59) is less than the recent market net density’s (1.7). By not including attached single-family units, the net density by unit type model groups these typically denser units with the less dense detached single-family units.14 Even still, the “business as usual” scenario still has a higher average acreage per single-family and multi-family unit than the ideal scenario.

This land use program bases its projected residential acreage requirements on the alternative plan densities model, or “ideal scenario,” because it incorporates each type of residential development and sets average acres per unit that achieve this land use program’s goals of higher urban density and rural area protection. Unlike the other models, this “ideal scenario” calculates and projects the acreage for agricultural single-family units, traditional singlefamily units, detached single-family units, and multi-family units, as shown in Appendix 3.

The complex method, as explained and cited in Appendix 3, finds the 2010 percentage breakdown of singlefamily units by the three single-family types (detached, attached, and agricultural) and calculates the proportional 2010-2020 projected unit changes from the previously projected 2010-2020 projected single-family unit change.

Then, these projected single-family unit changes and the previously projected multi-family unit change are multiplied by ideal density averages to find the projected additional required residential acreage.

The decision to include an agricultural residential section was influenced by Chester County’s composition and values. Agriculture comprises 37 percent of the county’s land and is valued by its residents.15 This method assumes that dwelling units on agricultural land are included in single-family detached unit totals, whereas the acreage amounts are kept separate. As it will be shown in the suitability analysis, this sector serves as an active form of land conservation and as a buffer between incompatible land uses. The ideal agricultural residential acres per unit stems from legally supported conservation-zoning policies that require a minimum of 40 acres per dwelling unit on farmland.16 The average farm size in Chester County is actually 88 acres, but this ideal density just serves as a conservation zoning standard.17

By also calculating and projecting single-family attached housing, this scenario allows for denser residential opportunities. Attached single-family housing comprises 22 percent of the single-family unit market in Chester County.18 An ideal density of 0.2 acres per attached-unit follows an urban residential pattern for single-family units and minimizes the land necessary for single-family unit growth, as shown in Appendix 3 and Figure 3.19

The ideal densities of this scenario for traditional single-family and multi-family units also diverge from the

6

CHESTER COUNTY LAND USE AND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS Part 1: 2020 LAND USE PROGRAM

“business as usual” scenario. The ideal 2020 Projected Density Comparison density for traditional single-family units, which encompass typical suburban homes, 6.00 5.31 is set at 0.5 acres per unit rather than the 5.00 3.87 current net density of 0.59. This half-acre 4.00 standard still supports the traditional style 3.00 Business as 1.83 of single-family units while remaining Usual Scenario 2.00 1.33 consistent with this land use program’s Ideal Scenario 1.00 (excluding agriculture) goals.20 This scenario also increases the 0.00 density of multi-family units from the New Dwelling Unit New Population Density on Additional Acres Density on Additional Acres current 0.12 acre per unit to 0.1 acre per (Residents per Acre) (DUs per Acre) unit. As a result, 10 dwelling units can be developed on an acre, which is regarded as Figure 2: 2020 Projected Density Comparison the minimum standard for supporting mass transit and walkability.21 Figure 2 contrasts the two scenarios’ residential density for the projected new population on the projected additional acres, illustrating the ideal scenario’s success in creating denser development.

2020 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERICAL EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS

To find Chester County’s projected additional acreage for businesses by 2020, this land use program first had to project the county’s employment growth for the 2010-2020 period.

This report considered four employment projection models, but ultimately chose the trend model, as shown in Appendix 4. The other three models included an external projection, a step-down model, and a shift-share analysis model, and were not chosen for a variety of reasons. The DVRPC’s 2020 employment projection for Chester County wasn’t broken down into industry sectors and was based on a faulty 2010 employment total that didn’t match County Business Patterns’ data.22 The step-down model could not be calculated because a reliable 2020 employment projection for the Delaware Valley Region or Pennsylvania with industry sector breakdowns wasn’t available. A shiftshare analysis wasn’t calculated because the model’s national growth, proportional shift, and differential shift factors would be difficult to predict accurately.

The chosen trend model assumes that the 2000-2010 rate of change for industry sector employment can be applied to the 2010-2020 period, and this assumption is fairly reasonable. The trend model projects a 2020 employment total of 265,362, an increase of 40,731 jobs from 2010. The projected losses in the construction and manufacturing industry and the large gains in the services and information and the finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE) industries are results of the 2000-2010 trends. The FIRE industry grew 217% in Chester County between 2000 and 2010, which may be the result of a headquarters or business expansion in the area. Thus, it’s realistic to assume that this growth in the FIRE sector will likely not continue at such a pace. It’s also likely that a job-losing sector such as construction will begin to recover during the 2010-2020 period once the housing market recovers from the 2007 bubble.

7

CHESTER COUNTY LAND USE AND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS Part 1: 2020 LAND USE PROGRAM

2020 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL ACREAGE PROJECTIONS

With a projected employment growth for the industrial and commercial sector, an additional acreage requirement was found for each by multiplying the growth by the current or an ideal job-density standard, as shown in Appendix 4. This land use program decided not to calculate a projection using an industry-standard density model because the national job density standards could not be found and these standards would not be stricly applicable to Chester County.

The current net densities model, or the “business as usual” scenario, found the projected additional acreage for 2020 by first calculating the 2010 jobs per acre for the industry and commercial sectors. These figures were then multiplied by the projected employment growth in each sector to find the additional acreage required to accommodate “business as usual” development. This scenario projects a large additional need for commercial land – a 30% increase from 2010 – but only a small additional need for industrial land, as influenced by the employment sector projections detailed before.

The alternative plan densities model, or the ideal scenario, found its projected additional acreage for 2020 by multiplying its ideal acres per job by the projected 2010-2020 employment growth in each sector. The ideal scenario chose to apply the same industrial density average because of the sector’s need for large properties and the relatively small growth projected for the sector. The ideal scenario did set a denser average (0.03 acre per job) for the commercial sector than the “business as usual” scenario (0.05 acre per job), though. With denser commercial development, Chester County could minimize big box stores and large office parks that consume large tracts of land outside of urban centers. Especially considering the immense growth in the FIRE sector, the county would benefit from concentrating jobs in this sector rather than allowing them to spread out away from other development. In sum, the ideal scenario conserves 917 acres that the “business as usual” scenario projects for development.

2020 COMMUNITY FACILITY ACREAGE PROJECTIONS

The projected additional community facility acreage needed in Chester County between 2010 and 2020 was calculated by finding the 2010 total number of community facilities, the 2010 average units per resident, the 20102020 community facility growth based on the DVRPC 2020 population projection, and the 2010 average acres per facility unit, as explained in Appendix 4. Due to data limitations, the projections could only be made for community facilities as a whole instead of for each facility type. Projected population demographics and detailed facility acreage data would be needed to calculate more reliable figures. Although this is a current net density model, its acreage projections are used for the “business as usual” and ideal scenarios. This model projects a need for 360 additional acres to accommodate 2010-2020 community facility growth. Because of the small size of this need and the benefits of community facilities, this land use program decided that setting higher density standards for community facilities was unnecessary.

THE SUMMARY OF THE LAND USE PROGRAM

The 2020 ideal scenario for Chester County implements the community-supported and environmentally and fiscally sustainable goals set forth by this land use program. This land use program seeks to increase development density in urban areas and protect the county’s open spaces and rural areas, and the ideal scenario demonstrates the benefits of accommodating growth with these goals in mind.

The “business as usual” scenario, on the other hand, demonstrates the projected impacts of continuing to accommodate growth with the county’s current net densities. The Summary of the Land Use Program compares the projected results and reveals the relative success of the ideal scenario in achieving its goals, as shown in Appendix 5 and Figure 3.

8

CHESTER COUNTY LAND USE AND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS Part 1: 2020 LAND USE PROGRAM

The density comparison 2010-2020F Additional Acres Required table presented in Figure 2 and Business as Usual Scenario Ideal Scenario (excluding agriculture) calculated in Appendix 6 provides 6845 a clearer picture of the ideal 4997 scenario’s success. Excluding the acres dedicated to agricultural 2548 1630 residential units, the ideal scenario 360 360 325 325 246 209 saves a projected 2,802 acres that the “business as usual” Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial Industrial Community Units Units Facilities scenario would have developed. In Figure 3: 2010-2020F Additional Acres Required addition, the ideal scenario has a higher projected residential density for the projected population growth on newly developed acres. The ideal scenario’s dense development would mostly occur in already developed urban areas – one of this land use program’s goals – with the criteria set by the suitability analysis. As a result, the cost of providing services should decrease per resident due to decreasing marginal returns, and the county’s governments should become more fiscally sustainable – another goal of this land use program.

Unlike the “business as usual” scenario, the ideal scenario also ensures the community-supported protection of rural land through the agricultural residential calculations and projections. Chester County residents value the area’s farmland, and the ideal scenario guarantees its protection from unwanted development. In sum, the ideal scenario of this land use program achieves its purpose of acting upon the community’s preferences and creating a more fiscal and environmentally sustainable future.

9

CHESTER COUNTY LAND USE AND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS Part 2: Development

Part 2: Development Suitability Analysis

A development suitability analysis determines the appropriateness areas to devote for each land use type.

Suitability modeling calculates optimal site locations by identifying possible influential factors, creating new data sets from existing data, reclassifying data to identify high-suitability areas, and aggregating these data into one logical result of optimal suitability. The basic premise is that each aspect of the landscape has intrinsic characteristics that are either suitable or unsuitable for the planned land uses. Coupled with the proposed land use program, the use of GIS analysis made it possible to consider areas for potential development based on a variety of factors and criteria such as physical location, hydrology, and slope.

To identify locations within Chester County that could serve as feasible locations for future development, the summary model examined both constrains and opportunities. The metrics for suitability preferences listed in above in Figure 4 were organized according to binary criterion in terms of constraints or opportunities for five major land use and development types: residential, agriculture, commercial, industrial, and conservation. This suitability analysis combines the goals of the land use program with Chester County’s current land-use types to create a visual representation of the ideal scenario.

Opportunities and Constraints Residential

Agriculture

Farms

C

Forest

C

Commercial O

Industrial

Conservation

C

C

C

C

O

Pastures

C

O

C

C

Urban

O

C

O

C

C

City Boro

O

C

O

C

C

Hwy 500

C

O

C

O

Hwy 1000

C

O

C

C

Lacus Wetland

C

C

C

C

O

Palus Wetland

C

C

C

C

O

Parks

C

C

C

C

O

Rail Stop

O

C

O

C

Slope >10

C

C

C

C

Slope >5

C

C

Slope <5

O

C

C

O

O

O

O

O

Stream Buff 100

C

C

C

C

Stream Buff 500

O

O

O

C

Urban Footprint

O

C

O

O

Slope <2

O

O C

Figure 4: Opportunities and Constraints Suitability Criteria

10

CHESTER COUNTY LAND USE AND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS Part 2: Development 0 2 4

8

12

Miles

16

CONSTRAINT MAPS Methodology: A binary ranking method was used to produce constraint maps. This procedure Is based on a standard principle: 1=yes, 0=no. In other words, this assumption results in two very delineated responses of criteria as either yes, a constraint, or no, not a constraint. Furthermore, each land type is assumed to be mutually exclusive, i.e. if an area is farmland, it cannot also be pasture. In this way, maps were produced through a dialogue where all criteria identified as constraints ranked as 1 for that land use or development type. This resulted in hard edges defining areas of constraints, producing highly restrictive development maps.

A binary constraint model is easy to calculate, but does not place weighted importance on the various layers; each criteria has equal influence on the final output.

Criteria: All urban areas

Conservation

Criteria Farmland Forest Pasture Urban Area City Boros Hwy Dist 1000 Wetlands Parks Rail Stop 500 Slope >10 Slope >5 Stream Buff 100 Stream Buff 500

Criteria: Farmland Forest Pastures Hwy Dist 500 Hwy Dist 1000 Wetlands Parks Slope >10 Slope >5 Stream Buff 100

Residential

Industrial

Criteria: Criteria:

Farmland Forest Pastures Hwy Dist 500 Hwy Dist 1000 Wetlands Parks Slope >10 Slope >5 Stream Buff 100

Urban Area City Boros Urban Footprint Wetlands Parks Rail Stop 500 Slope >10 Slope >5 Stream Buff 100

Agriculture

Commercial

11

CHESTER COUNTY LAND USE AND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS Part 2: Development 0 2 4

8

12

Miles

16

OPPORTUNITY MAPS Methodology: While a binary method was used to define constraints, a conditional suitability model was deemed a more appropriate method to compare areas of opportunity. In order to achieve a transect that supports our proposed land use program for Chester County, opportunities are defined primarily in terms of criteria based on location and land type, and are separated into two fundamental classifiers: urban locations and non-urban locations. For example, for non-location indicators such as highway buffers, wetlands, slope, etc. that were identified as a possible opportunity, the conditional model sets these criteria to be dependent on its preferred urban or non-urban location in order to return a value. This results in overlaying binary conditions with â&#x20AC;&#x153;if-thenâ&#x20AC;? conditions to produce a single, weighted, opportunity map. Depending on the number of non-location indicators used as criteria, resulting outputs ranged from 0-7, with 0 indicating areas not suitable for an opportunity, and the return values as areas that are suitable. These values were then reclassified back into a simple binary map showing only 0 and 1 rankings.

Rather than producing maps showing every opportunity for any given land use or development type, this approach only shows practical opportunity for development, and results in fairly restrictive, but realistic opportunity maps.

Criteria: Forest Wetlands Parks Slope >10 Stream Buff 100

Conservation

Criteria: Criteria

Urban Area City Boros Rail Stops 500 Slope <5 Stream Buff 500 Urban Footprint

Residential

Hwy Dist 500 Slope <2 Slope <5 Urban Footprint

Industrial

Criteria:

Criteria:

Urban Area City Boros Rail Stops 500 Slope <2 Slope <5 Stream Buff 500 Urban Footprint

Farmland Pasture Hwy Dist 500 Hwy Dist 1000 Slope <2 Stream Buff 500

Agriculture

Commercial

12

CHESTER COUNTY LAND USE AND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS Part 2: Development 0 2 4

8

12

Miles

16

SUMMARY MAPS Methodology: After independent analyses, both constraint and opportunity maps displayed values of 0 and 1. In order to sum both maps to produce a final summary map, constraint values were reclassified to 0 and 2. The end result are five generalized maps showing areas of the county that are ranked in a hierarchical order from 1 to 3 as either areas of high suitability (1), no suitability (2), or areas of possible tension (3) for each type of land use and development type.

Areas of tension are pixels where both constraints and opportunities are met.

Due to the method of analysis, it is unclear the magnitude of which layer (constraint or opportunity) would have more impact. This simple summary effectively shows constrained land to avoid sprawl and guides future Chester County growth in desirable patterns per the proposed land use program.

The land use programâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ideal scenario summary below demonstrates the comparability between it and the results of the suitability analysis.

Constraints: 29,750 acres Opportunities: 158,688 acres Areas of Tension: 11,938 acres

Ideal Scenario 2020 Projected Total Acreage

Residential

Agriculture

Commercial

Industrial

Conservation

96,806

184,686

9,930

3,125

186,333

Conservation

Constraints: 343,813 acres Opportunities: 25,938 acres Areas of Tension: 16,313 acres Residential

Constraints: 355,375 acres Opportunities: 3,000 acres Areas of Tension: 31,688 acres Industrial

Constraints: 80,625 acres Opportunities: 192,438 acres Areas of Tension: 47,063 acres Agriculture

Constraints: 340,875 acres Opportunities: 28,375 acres Areas of Tension: 13,875 acres Commercial

13

CHESTER COUNTY LAND USE AND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS Part 3: Allocation Discussion

Part 3: Allocation Discussion

The development suitability analysis generates suitability maps consistent with the urban-growth and rural-conservation goals of the land use program. However, due to the limitations of information and resources, the analysis maps and the land use program’s ideal scenario do not share equal calculations for the desired acreage to accommodate Chester County’s projected growth for 2020. The binary nature of the summary maps – as explained before – provides only explicit opportunities and constraints.

Consequently, the summary map results need little interpretation, other than comparisons to the results of the land use program.

Rural Rural Center Suburban Suburban Center Urban Natural Resources Residential Suitability

RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL

The suitability analysis restricted residential and commercial development opportunities to existing urban areas through location Figure 5: Chester County Livability Map indicators, as explained before and outlined in Figure 4. Thus, development is constrained to infill sites instead of being allowed on Chester County’s current suburban fringe, which can be compared to in Figure 5. The reason for this decision is because areas on the suburban fringe typically experienced uncontrolled growth and cause issues for environmental and fiscal sustainability – two goals of the land use program. Instead, the proposed land use program and suitability analysis promote and support compact, mixed use-development in areas already serviced by public infrastructure.

The suitability map calculates 25,938 acres of residential opportunity; however, due to GIS spatial data limitations, this figure does not include the current developed suburban acreage, which would likely make up for a substantial portion of the difference in the land use program’s projected 2020 residential acreage needs of 96,806.

Conversely, the suitability map finds 28,375 acres of suitable land for commercial development, well above the land use program’s 2020 projected total commercial acreage needs of 9,930. The similar constraints and opportunities for the two land use types explain the overlapping acreage totals and map locations.

AGRICULTURE RESIDENTIAL

In accordance with the land use program’s ideal scenario, the suitability analysis also planned for an agricultural residential land use. As the land use program discusses, the agricultural residential use is considered an important asset by the county’s residents and serves as an actively used buffer and conservation tool to constrain development in urban areas. This use’s summary map seems expansive, but since dwelling units on this type of land typically use on-site septic and wells, public infrastructure extensions are usually not necessary.23 Thus, this land use achieves each goal of the land use program – promoting the values of the community and planning for fiscal and environmental sustainability.

The suability analysis set the opportunity criteria as current farmland, pastures, areas surrounding highways, slope less than 2 degrees, and areas within 500 meters of streams, as shown in FIgure 4. Pastures and areas within 500 meters of streams were included to amplify the conservation role of agriculture and to provide additional growth areas. By allowing farms near highways, this suitability analysis seeks to prevent wasteful, strip commercial development on the outskirts concentrated around highway exits. The agriculture land use is only slated for areas with slopes less than 2 degrees since this slope range provides the most fertile soil for farming.24 With these criteria,

14

CHESTER COUNTY LAND USE AND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS Part 3: Allocation Discussion

the suitability analysis finds 192,438 acres suitable for agriculture. This figure is only a little higher than the projected 184,686 required acres by the land use program’s ideal scenario.

INDUSTRIAL

The land use program’s ideal scenario projects a need for 3,125 acres in Chester County by 2020. With strict criteria as outlined in Figure 4, the suitability analysis finds 3,000 acres of possible development opportunity, extremely close to the land use program’s projected acreage needs. The suitability analysis restricted industrial development to current locations within the urban boundaries but outside the urban core to avoid incompatibilities with adjacent residential, commercial, or agricultural uses. Furthermore, a policy of compact industrial development supports fiscal growth, since the benefits of industrial agglomeration include access to current transportation infrastructure – such as highways – as well as substantially more productive workers.25 CONSERVATION

The suitability analysis sought to conserve sensitive landscape features such as parks, wetlands, and steep slopes and all land unsuitable for development, shown in Figure 4. Land conservation serves two purposes for this suitability analysis and the proposed land use program. First, conserved land functions as a buffer between incompatible uses and as a boundary to manage growth in currently developed areas. Second, conserved land promotes the land use program’s goal of environmental sustainability. Conserving land guarantees the long-term future of Chester County’s land and its biodiversity. As the summary map reveals, large chunks of land are conserved, which help connect areas and avoid further habitat fragmentation.26

The land use program’s ideal scenario projects 186,333 acres of conservation, while the suitability analysis finds approximately 160,000 acres set for conservation. The opportunity criteria for conservation included forests, wetlands, parks, and stream buffers. The small discrepancy can be explained by limitations in both data sets.

Conclusion

The 2020 Land Use and Suitability Analysis for Chester County presents the opportunity and the need for the county to follow smart growth policies over the next decade. By doing so, Chester County can sustain itself both financially and environmentally through strategies supported by its residents.

This report developed a land use program to project the county’s needs into the future and compared an ideal scenario against the current “business as usual” scenario. The suitability analysis of this report used GIS to visualize the smart-growth policies of the ideal scenario over Chester County’s current land-use types. The numerical and graphical results, despite different input data and techniques, have remarkable similarities that further demonstrate the opportunity for Chester County to follow smart growth policies.

15

CHESTER COUNTY LAND USE AND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS End Notes

Endnotes “Community Profiles,” Chester County Planning Commission, 2012, http://www.landscapes2.org/ccpc/profiles/communitypro files.html#.

2 Philip Berke, David Godschalk, Edward Kaiser and Daniel Rodriquez, Urban Land Use Planning, 5th edition (Champaign, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 2006), 216-217.

3 Robert E. Walker, “Land Use Plan for Chester County” (steering committee meeting, Chester County Planning Commission, 2007), 3-5, http:// www.landscapes2.org/pdf/Land101807.pdf.

4 John Landis, “Characterizing Urban Land Capacity,” in Land Market Monitoring for Smart Urban Growth, ed. Gerrit Knaap (Cambridge: Lincoln Institute, 2001), 5.

5 Thomas Daniels, The Small Town Planning Handbook (Chicago: American Planning Association, 2007), 220.

6 Landis, 8.

7 Daniels, 326.

8 Philip Berke and David Godschalk, Urban Land Use Planning, (Champaign, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 2006), 124.

9 “Report for Population Projections,” Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, 2012, http://www.chesco.org/DocumentCenter/ View/6674.

10 MarketingCharts Staff, “Average US Household Size Declines to 2.6,” Marketing Charts, 2009, http://www.marketingcharts.com/topics/de mographics/census-data-average-us-household-size-declines-to-26-10679/.

11 “Community Profiles,” http://www.landscapes2.org/ccpc/profiles/communityprofiles.html#.

12 “Yearly Subdivision and Land Development Proposals,” Chester County Planning Commission, 2011, http://www.chesco.org/index.aspx ?NID=1227.

13 “Community Profiles,” http://www.landscapes2.org/ccpc/profiles/communityprofiles.html#.

14 Dan Reed, “More Homebuyers Want walkable, Transit-served Communities,” Greater Greater Washington, 2011, http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/11722/more-homebuyers-want-walkable-transit-served-communities/.

15 “Community Profiles,” http://www.landscapes2.org/ccpc/profiles/communityprofiles.html#.

16 Daniels, 220.

17 “Chester County, Pennsylvania (PA),” City-Data, 2012, http://www.city-data.com/county/Chester_County-PA.html.

18 “Community Profiles,” http://www.landscapes2.org/ccpc/profiles/communityprofiles.html#.

19 Daniels, 326.

20 Daniels, 326.

21 John Holtzclaw, “Community Characteristics Promoting Transit and Walking,” The Sierra Club, 2007, http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/arti cles/characteristics.asp.

22 “Chester County, PA: 2040 DVRPC Forecasts,” Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, 2012, http://www.dvrpc.org/asp/CountyPro files/Chester.aspx.

23 Daniels, 109.

24 “Examination and Description of Soils,” National Resources Conservation Service, 2012, http://soils.usda.gov/technical/manual/contents/ chapter3.html.

25 Diego Puga, “The Magnitude and Causes of Agglomeration Economies,” Journal of Regional Science 50, no. 1 (2009): 1.

26 Lenore Fahrig, “Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Biodiversity,” Annual Review of Ecological and Evolutionary Systems 34, (2003): 496.

1

16

Chester County 2020 Population Projections Model

Source

DVRPC Population Projection Step-down with the Delaware Valley Region (Most Recent Share)

Average Population Change Rate

Time Trend (1930 - 2010)

Step-down Trend with the Delaware Valley Region

Appendix

538,809

DVRPC

Chester Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 2010 Share of Region

8.9%

Census, DVRPC

2020F Region Population

5,777,060

DVRPC

Chester County 2020F

512,264

2010 Share * 2020F Region

Chester County 1940 Growth

107%

Census

Chester County 1950 Growth

117%

Census

Chester County 1960 Growth

132%

Census

Chester County 1970 Growth

132%

Census

Chester County 1980 Growth

114%

Census

Chester County 1990 Growth

119%

Census

Chester County 2000 Growth

115%

Census

Chester County 2010 Growth

115%

Census

Chester County 2020F Growth

119%

Average

Chester County 2010

498,886

Census

Chester County 2020F

593,544

2010 * 2020F Growth

Chester County 1930

126,629

DVRPC

Chester County 1940

135,626

DVRPC

Chester County 1950

159,141

DVRPC

Chester County 1960

210,608

DVRPC

Chester County 1970

277,746

DVRPC

Chester County 1980

316,660

DVRPC

Chester County 1990

376,396

DVRPC

Chester County 2000

433,501

DVRPC

Chester County 2010

498,886

DVRPC

Chester County 2020F

525,289

Trend Function

Chester County Share 1930

3.8%

DVRPC

Chester County Share 1940

4.0%

DVRPC

Chester County Share 1950

4.1%

DVRPC

Chester County Share 1960

4.6%

DVRPC

Chester County Share 1970

5.4%

DVRPC

Chester County Share 1980

6.3%

DVRPC

Chester County Share 1990

7.3%

DVRPC

Chester County Share 2000

8.0%

DVRPC

Chester County Share 2010

8.9%

DVRPC

Chester County Share 2020F Share

9.2%

Trend Function

2020F Region Population

5,777,060

DVRPC

Chester County 2020F

530,943

2020F Share * 2020F Region

1

Chester County 2020 Household Projections Model

Source 2020F Population

2010 Average Household Size

538,809

2010 Avg. Household Size

DVRPC Projection

2.65

2020F Households

2010 Census

203,324

2020F Population / Avg. Household Size

Chester County 2020 Housing Unit Tenure Projections Model

Source

2010 Tenure Rate

2000-2010 Tenure Change Split

2020F Households

203,324

From Above

2010 % Owners

76.2%

2010 Census

2020F Owners

154,933

2020F Households * 2010 % Owners

2010 % Renters

23.8%

2010 Census

2020F Renters

48,391

2020F Households * 2010 % Renters

2000-2010 Change in Owners

18,900

2000 & 2010 Census

2000-2010 Change in HHs

24,995

2000 & 2010 Census

2000-2010 Tenure Change Split (owners)

75.6%

2000-2010 Change in Owners / Change in HHs

2010-2020F Change in HHs

20,424

2020F HHs (from above) - 2010 HHs (Census)

2010-2020F Change in Owners

15,444

Tenure change split * 2010-2020F Change in HHs

2010 Owners

139,328

2010 Census

2020F Owners

154,772

2010 Owners + F-Change in Owners

Chester County 2020 Housing Structure-Type Projections Model

Source 2010 Single-Family Units

149,205

2010 Census

2010 Multi-Family Units

34,869

2010 Census

2010 % Owners occupying SF-Units

94.2%

2010 ACS Table B25032

2010 % Renters occupying SF-Units

31.1%

2010 ACS Table B25032

2020F Owners

154,772

From Above

2020F Renters

48,552

2020F Households (from above) - 2020F Owners

2020F Owner-Occupied SF Units

145,754

2020F Owners * 2010 %owners in SF-homes

2020F Renter-Occupied SF Units

15,123

2020F Renters * 2010 %renters in SF-homes

2020F Single-Family Units

160,877

2020F Owner-occupied + Renter-occupied SF Units

2020F Multi-Family Units

36,957

2020F HUs - (2020F SF Homes + (2010 Mobile Home 2.7% * 2020F HHs))

2010-2020F Change in SF-Units

11,672

2020F SF homes - 2010 SF homes

2010-2020F Change in MF-Units

2,088

2020F MF units - 2010 MF units

2010 Tenure Splits

Appendix

2

Chester County 2020 Residential Acreage Requirements Model

Source 2010-2020F Unit Change

Gross Residential Density Estimate

12/11/2012 DVRPC estimates, 2010 Census

2010-2020F Additional Residential Acres

567,671,495 2010-2020F Unit Change * 2010 Total Acres per Unit

Net Residential Density Estimate 2010 Net Acres per Unit

Sum of 2010-2020F Unit Changes Above DVRPC estimates, 2010 Census

2010-2020F Additional Residential Acres

6,848

2010-2020F Unit Change * 2010 Net Acres per Unit

2010-2020F SF Unit Change

11,672

From Above

Recently-built Acres per SF-Unit

1.7

2010-2020F SF Additional Acres

19,379

2010-2020F SF Unit Change * Recent Acres per SF-Unit

2010-2020F MF Unit Change

2,088

From Above

Recently-built Acres per MF-Unit

0.01

220 Chestnut Associates, West Chester Borough

21

Ridgecrest Subdivision, East Fallowfield Township

2010-2020F Unit Change * Recent Acres per MF-Unit

2010-2020F Additional Residential Acres

19,400

2010-2020F SF + MF Additional Acres

2010-2020F SF-Unit Change

11,672

From Above

2010 Average Acres per SF-Unit

0.59

2010-2020F SF Additional Acres

6,845

Net Densities by Unit Type 2010-2020F MF-Unit Change (Business as Usual Scenario) 2010 Average Acres per MF-Unit 2010-2020F MF Additional Acres

DVRPC, 2010 Census

2,088

From Above

0.12

DVRPC, 2010 Census

246

2010-2020F Additional Residential Acres

7,091

2010-2020F SF + MF Additional Acres

2010-2020F SF-Unit Change

11,672

From Above

2010 % of SF Homes that are Detached

78%

Chester County Planning Commission

2010-2020F SF-Detached Unit Change

9,139

Calculated

2010 Agricultural Acreage 2010 Average Acres per Farm 2010 SF-Detached Farm Residential Units

178,344 88 2,027

Chester County Planning Commission Chester County City-Data 2010 Farm Acreage / Average Acres per Farm

2010 % of SF-Detached that are Farms

2%

Calculated, Chester County Planning Commission

2010-2020F Farm Residential Unit Change

159

2010-2020F SF-Detached Unit Change * 2010 % of SF-Det. that are Farms

Ideal Agricultural Residential Acres per Unit

40

Conservation Zoning Standard

2010-2020F Ideal Ag. Residential Acreage Increase

6,342

2010-2020F Farm Unit Change * Ideal Acres per Unit

2010 % of SF-Detached that are Traditional Units

98%

Chester County Planning Commission

2010-2020F SF-Detached Traditional Unit Change

8,981

2010-2020F SF-Detached Unit Chang * 2010 % of SF-Detached that are Traditional Units

Ideal SF-Detached Traditional Acres per Unit

0.5

Dense Suburban Standard

4,490

2010-2020F SF-Detached Traditional Unit Change * Ideal Acres per SF-Detached Traditional Unit

2010 % of SF-Units that are Attached

22%

Chester County Planning Commission

2010-2020F SF-Attached Unit Change

2,533

2010-2020F SF-Unit Change * 2010 % of SF-Units that are Attached

2010-2020F Ideal Traditional SF-Detached Acreage Increase

Ideal SF-Attached Acreage per Unit

0.2

2010-2020F Ideal SF-Attached Acreage Increase

507

2010-2020F MF-Unit Change

2,088

Urban Residential Standard From Above

Ideal Acreage per MF-Unit

0.1

Mass Transit Supporting Residential Standard

2010-2020F Ideal MF-Unit Additional Acres

209

2010-2020F MF-Unit Change * Ideal Acreage per MF-Unit

2010-2020F Ideal Additional Residential Acres Appendix

13,760 0.50

2010-2020F MF Additional Acres

Alternative Plan Density (Ideal Scenario)

Sum of 2010-2020F Unit Changes Above

2010 Total Acres per Unit

2010-2020F Unit Change

2011 Market Net Density

13,760

11,547

Ideal Acreage Increase: SF-Farms + SF-Attached + SFDetached + MF-Units

3

Chester County 2020 Industrial and Commercial Employment Projections DVRPC Employment Projection

312,460

2000 Chester County Employment

Trend Model

2010 Chester County Employment

190,152

Total

2000-2010 Rate of Change

224,631

Industrial

2020F Chester County Employment 118%

2010-2020F County Change

265,362

40,731

47,696

Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction

5,539

207

98

Construction

11,051

8,986

Manufacturing

19,509

14,971

Wholesale trade

10,548

14,302 9,339

161%

15,001

Transportation & Public Utilities

5,814

Commercial

-52

47%

46

81%

7,307

-1679

77%

11,489

-3482

136%

19,392

5,090 5,662

177,046

54,341

Retail trade

25,175

26,312

105%

27,500

1,188

Finance, Insurance, Real Estate (FIRE)

11,594

25,210

217%

54,817

29,607

105,697

125,524

119%

149,070

23,546

Services & Information Source

County Business Patterns

County Business Patterns

2010 Employment * 2000-2010 Rate of Change

2020F Employment - 2010 Employment

2010-2020F Employment Change

2010-2020F Additional Acreage

2010 Employment / 2000 Employment

Chester County 2020 Industrial and Commerical Projections Current Net Densities (Business as Usual Scenario)

2010 Acres

2010 Employment

2010 Acres per Job

Industrial Development

2,800

47,696

0.06

5,539

325

Office and Retail Development

8,300

177,046

0.05

54,341

2,548

Source

DVPRC, Chester County Planning Department

County Business Patterns

Alternative Plan Densities (Ideal Scenario)

2010 Acres / 2010 Employ2010 Acres per Job * 2010Employment Trend Model ment 2020F Employment Change 2010-2020F Employment Change

Ideal Acres per Job

2010-2020F Additional Acreage

Industrial Development

0.06

5,539

325

Office and Retail Development

0.03

54,341

1,630

Source

Ideal

Ideal Acres per Job * 2010Employment Trend Model 2020F Employment Change

Chester County 2020 Community Facility Acreage Projections Current Net Densities (Business as Usual Scenario and the Ideal Scenario) Total Colleges/Universities Public Schools

2010 Units per Resident

2010 Units

2010 Public Schools and Community Facility Acreage

2010-2020F Unit Growth

258

0.001

21

12

0.000

1

110

0.000

9

Public Libraries

21

0.000

2

Fire Stations

50

0.000

4

Hospitals

16

0.000

1

Police Stations

49

0.000

Source

Appendix

Chester County Education Dept., Polic Dept., and Planning Commission

2010 Census

4,500

2010 Average Acres 2010-2020F Addiper Unit tional Acreage

17

360

4 External projection change * Units per Resident

DVRPC

2010 Acres per Unit 2010 Acreage / 2010 * 2010-2020F Unit Units Growth

4

Appendix

5

0.2 507

40

6,342

0%

184,686

Ideal Density (acres per unit/job)

2010-2020F Additional Acres Required

Reserve Level

2020 Projected Total Acreage

2533

159

Additional Housing Units or Jobs

Activity or Residential SF-Attached Development Type Agricultural Units

SF-Detached Traditional Units

4,490

0.5

8981

94,345

92,497

0%

4,997

4,309

0%

209

0.1

2088

9,930

0%

1,630

0.03

54341

Single Family Units Commercial (Office (Attached and Multi-Family Units and Retail) Detached)

10,848

0%

2,548

0.05

54,341

Commercial (Office and Retail)

Ideal Scenario

4,346

0%

0%

Reserve Level

2020 Projected Total Acreage

0.12

2,088

246

0.59

11,672

Single-Family Units Multi-Family Units

6,845

2010-2020F Additional Acres Required

2010 Average Density (acres per unit/job)

Additional Units or Jobs

Activity or Development Type

Business as Usual Scenario (Current net Densities)

3,125

0%

325

0.06

5539

Industrial

3,125

0%

325

0.06

5,539

Industrial

The Summary of the Land Use Program

17

21

17

21

4,860

0%

360

Community Facilities

8,660

0%

360

Community Facilities

299,407

0%

13,863

Total Developed Land

121,323

0%

10,323

Total Developed Land

186,333

471,877

Conservation (Undeveloped Land)

2020 Projected Density Comparison 2010-2020F Additional Acres Required

Acres Saved

New Population Density on Additional Acres (Residents per Acre)

New Dwelling Unit Density on Additional Acres (DUs per Acre)

Business as Usual Scenario

10,323

-

3.87

1.33

Ideal Scenario (excluding agriculture)

7,521

2,802

5.31

1.83

From Above

Additonal Acres: Ideal - Business as Usual

2010-2020F Population Growth / Additional Acres

2010-2020F DU Growth / Additional Acres

Scenario

Source

Appendix

6