The Development Authority is taking public comments on an urban redevelopment plan for a commercial area along Washington Road in Columbia County. A copy of this plan is available below for review.
Return comments to keyink@choosecolumbiacounty.com, or leave a post below.
West Town Market Area Urban Redevelopment Plan
DRAFT, June 2011
NOTE: Information for this report was compiled by the staff of the Development Authority of Columbia County (DACC), with statistical assistance from the Central Savannah River Area Regional Commission (CSRA RC) and the county’s Development Services Division.
To minimize bias on the part of the DACC, the final report will be distributed to the following entities, all of whom will be asked to contribute comments to the final document:
· Susan Caldwell, Small Business Development Consortium in Augusta
· Gordon Maner, formerly with the Carl Vinson Institute of Government at the
University of Georgia
· Reagan Williams, Field Representative to U.S. Congressman Paul Broun
Further, several local institutional partners have been approached for additional comment and suggestions on the “Findings of Necessity” section of the report (Chapter Two), given their familiarity with the study area. They include:
· Columbia County Family Connections Partnership
· Columbia County Convention and Visitor’s Bureau
· Columbia County Chamber of Commerce (and its Industry Council)
· Columbia County Board of Education
One final comment: This report has been prepared in accordance with the guidelines stipulated for urban redevelopment plans under Georgia’s Urban Redevelopment Act (O.C.G.A. 36-61-1 et. seq.). In accordance with that Act, certain discretion is provided to the local jurisdiction in determining what does and does not constitute economically distressed sections, or “slum or blight areas” (to reference the language of the Act), within the jurisdiction. Given that these terms can have negative connotations, it should be understood that neither the DACC nor the county wishes to portray the study area for this urban redevelopment plan as unsuitable for development.
Furthermore, due to society’s use of such terms in recent decades, the DACC and the county are not required by law to use such terms to describe the “detrimental conditions” which might exist to impede growth and development. Indeed, the existence of inadequate infrastructure only – such as the lack of sanitary sewer service – may be enough to characterize an area as possessing a detrimental condition which could impede growth.
While mindful that statistics must be presented to illustrate the area’s economic reality, the report will endeavor to avoid the use of phrases, euphemisms, or characterizations that might adversely affect the ultimate success of future plans for the area. Subsequently, resolutions and documents required for adoption of this urban redevelopment plan will avoid the use of such phrasing.
For additional clarification on this matter, please refer to the state’s Urban Redevelopment Act (O.C.G.A. 36-61-1), or to the publication, A Guide to Using Georgia’s Urban Redevelopment Act, produced by the state’s Department of Community Affairs, and available on-line at www.dca.ga.gov.
Table of Contents and Exhibits Listing
The report that follows consists of the following chapters:
Page 5 Chapter One: Introduction
An overview of the study area and purpose for conducting the inquiry;
Page 12 Chapter Two: “Findings of Necessity” Report
An examination of existing conditions within the study area that form the basis for a declaration of pre-blight and blight, and hence the reason/need for creating a re-development plan;
Page 21 Chapter Three: Existing Land Use
A review of current zoning and land use rules/restrictions governing the subject area and the objectives for the redevelopment process. It should be noted that a large part of this section will originate from work undertaken by the county and the CSRA RC in connection with the GMP update.
Upon the completion of the “Findings of Necessity” Report (Chapter Two) and the identification of Existing Land Uses (Chapter Three), public comment was sought for assistance in forming the overall goals and strategies of the redevelopment plan. This was accomplished with help from an advisory committee or “council” and a series of public forums.
Page 26 Chapter Four: Public Input
Structure and procedures for including public comments and suggestions;
Page 30 Chapter Five: Goal Statements and Strategies for Plan Implementation
A listing of objectives of the plan, along with action items for implementation, following the guidelines set forth under the Georgia Urban Redevelopment Act.
Attachments related to the narrative are located at the conclusion of this report, and are listed in the following order, by tabbed section:
Exhibit 1 Advisory Committee’s Invitation and Meeting Schedule
Exhibit 2 Excerpts from county’s Growth Management Plan Update, 2010
Exhibit 3 Excerpts from Martinez Area Study Plan, 2005
Exhibit 4 ESRI demographic analysis of study area
Exhibit 5 Local employment statistics
Exhibit 6 Household income statistics
Exhibit 7 Aerial mapping of the study area
Exhibit 8 Pictures of structures in the study area
Exhibit 9 Property valuation analysis
Exhibit 10 Absorption of commercial space in the study area
Exhibit 11 Crime statistics in the study area
Exhibit 12 GIS map of infrastructure
Exhibit 13 Pictures of structures in the study area
Exhibit 14 Boundary map of the study area
Exhibit 15 Zoning map of the study
Exhibit 16 Materials on public comments
Exhibit 17 Addendum “A” – Property valuation issue
Exhibit 18 Microsoft PowerPoint presentations to Advisory Committee/Forums
Exhibit 19 DCA’s Guide to Using Georgia’s Urban Redevelopment Act
Exhibit 20 Example of authorizing resolution from City of Roswell
Exhibit 21 Excerpts from West Law Review
Chapter One – Introduction
Sub-Heading: Overview
Based upon comments received from local officials within the Development Services Division of Columbia County and from members of the elected Board of Commissioners for Columbia County, the county’s local economic development entity – the Development Authority of Columbia County (DACC) – undertook in late 2010 a redevelopment study for the commercial area known as “West Town Market” in central Martinez. The key parcel in this area is a strip shopping plaza labeled West Town Market Square.
Although not an incorporated jurisdiction, the Martinez area is considered a community within the county that maintains a distinct “sense of place” from other areas in the county. This sense of place dates to the early 1970s, as the area began to experience housing and commercial development with the northwestern migration of population from the nearby city of Augusta.
Today, however, a particular section of this community – that section centered around West Town Market Square – risks falling into disrepair and neglect, as both the population and commercial activity shifts to other, more recently developed areas of the county. The purpose of this study, then, was to address the concerns of economic vitality, and identify any pre-blight or negative conditions in existence, in hopes of ultimately developing strategies for implementation to curb these conditions and position the area for housing and commercial redevelopment.
The West Town Market Area Urban Redevelopment Plan (West Town URP) is the product of the DACC’s field observations and statistical compilation, along with the efforts of an advisory committee to identify the goals and action items necessary to redevelop the area. The West Town URP Advisory Committee was formed by the DACC, with endorsement from the Columbia County Board of Commissioners; members were chosen based upon each Advisory member’s connection (or that of the business/institution represented by the individual) to that particular section of central Martinez. Many of the participants invited to be a part of this committee were also involved in the recent update to the county’s Growth Management Plan (GMP), which considered several planning issues connected with the future of the West Town area.
West Town URP Advisory Committee:
Sonny McDowell Grayco
Rhonda Banks Keystone Homebuilders
Sylvia Humphrey Augusta Iron & Steel Works
Richard Harmon County Development Services Division
Nayna Mistry County Development Services Division
Dave Van de Weghe County Development Services Division
Rick Evans, CPA SME
Mark Wills Georgia Bank & Trust
Phil Gaffney Gaffney Management Services
Pat Goodwin Georgia Health Sciences University (formerly MCG)
Stan Shepherd AT & T
Doug Batchelor Hull Barrett, PC
George Duehring Sauer-Duehring, LLC
Pete Brodie University Health Systems
Sharon Greene Georgia Military College – Columbia County campus
Harold Crawford Crawford Cabinets
Yvonne Meeks SRP Credit Union
Michael O’Neill Wells Fargo (formerly Wachovia)
Julie Kenny Columbia County Board of Education
Rick Donaldson Mass Media
Larry Lynn Allegra Print and Imagining
William Edwards Georgia Power
Scott Johnson Deputy County Administrator
Tammy Shepherd Columbia County Chamber of Commerce
Keith Hedgspeth APEXX
Reagan Williams Congressman Paul Broun’s office
In addition, the volunteer members of the Columbia County Planning Commission were invited to participate in all Advisory Committee discussions, along with the two the public forums. That body includes:
Jean Garniewicz Columbia County Planning Commission
Jim Cox Columbia County Planning Commission
Thom Tuckey Columbia County Planning Commission
Gary Richardson Columbia County Planning Commission
Robert Newkirk Columbia County Planning Commission
The Advisory Committee has announced a schedule for meetings to take place over the next two months, during which time comments and suggestions will be requested for incorporation into the plan. A copy of the committee’s schedule is attached to this report as EXHIBIT “1.”
Sub-Hearing: Study Area
The West Town URP study area consists mainly of property located within Census Block Group No. 301.01-1, which is an approximately four-square mile rectangular area; this area consists primarily of commercial/retail building stock and single-family housing. According to the 2000 Census, there were 1,244 people living within the block group, of which 57.6% were living in owner-occupied housing. [This contrasts with a Year 2000 home ownership rate of 82.1% among all persons living in the county, and a home ownership rate of 67.5% among all persons living within the state of Georgia during the same period.] The 2000 Census figures showed a residential decline in this block group; in the previous decennial census, the block group was the home to 1,362 persons in 1990. [For further reference, the study area lies within the 10th U.S. Congressional district, and within Georgia State Senate District 24 and Georgia State House District 118.]
Most of the area south of Washington Road is commercial, consisting largely of individual parcels with stand-alone structures. The retail mix in this area consists of fast food restaurants, car lots, title companies, pawn shops, nail salons, barber shops, and similar enterprises. There is one large, multi-tenant development, known as West Town Market Square, which is anchored by a K-Mart store. The development formerly housed a Harris Teeter grocery store (decades earlier); one 40,000 sq. ft. retail space remains vacant in this development.
Most of the housing in the study area consists of single-story, ranch-style homes. Very few of these structures have an enclosed garage; some, however, have a carport. The typical age for these structures is 40 years; no historical property (more than 75 years old) has been identified within the study area.
Two apartment complexes are located within the study area, the Petersburg Square units and Applecross Apartments. From field observations, it appears that each development has approximately 30-to-40 units, most likely featuring one-or-two bedroom floor plans. Judging from the number of cars parked in each complex at night, and based upon listings in area real estate magazines, the level of occupancy at each development is estimated at 60-to-70%.
Using public roads to form its “border,” the study area also includes land located on the eastern side of Settlement Road (which incorporates both sides of Bobby Jones Expressway in the county) and the eastern side of Washington Road; it includes the area between Washington Road and Old Evans Road in Census Tract No. 306.03, Block Group 3, extending down to the Martinez Postal Park, a light industrial/office complex located off of Martinez Boulevard. The area between Martinez Boulevard and the county line (to the south, along Rose Street) is included in the study area, along with the land between Twin Lakes Drive and the portion of Riverwatch Parkway that extends into the county from neighboring Richmond County. A map showing the study area is provided below.
NOTE: The geographic boundaries of the initial study area (identified during a series of meeting in Fall 2010) extended down Old Evans Road and along a portion of Washington Road, to a northwestern terminus that included the site of the current Club Car, Inc., plant location. However, after reviewing demographic information on households in adjacent neighborhoods, it was determined by the Advisory Committee that a smaller geographic area (as described above) would be a more appropriate target for redevelopment, hence reducing the size of the study area to the dimensions contained within the Census Block Group 3 of Tract 306.03.
West Town URP Study Area
Sub-Heading: Consistency with County’s Growth Management Plan
Over the last year (2010), the county has been working with the CSRA Regional Commission (RC) to update its 2005 Growth Management Plan (GMP). This review, labeled 2011-2016 Columbia County Growth Management Plan: Partial Update, received public input on a variety of planning issues, including how best to address the issues of retail decline in the West Town area of Martinez.
In fact, the subject of the economic vitality of the central Martinez area became a re-occurring topic during several of the public forums conducted under the GMP review. Below is a quotation from the final report (which will be available on-line in 2011), highlighting the economic reality and concern for the area:
“Commercial growth has been a function of automobile accessibility, with the largest concentrations located at major thoroughfare intersections and along established commercial corridors that tie into 1-20; Washington Road, Belair Road, and Bobby Jones Expressway. Unfortunately, much of the earliest commercial development in the county occurred in the form of ubiquitous strip centers, fast food restaurants, and gas stations that sprawl along major arterial roads.”
GMP Partial Update, pg. 23
The GMP update, along with the need to develop a redevelopment plan for the West Town area of Martinez, follows the intent of the Quality Community Objectives adopted by the Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for communities to preserve its natural and historic resources while developing the county to its fullest potential. Although the Martinez study area does not contain any historically significant sites or structures, it is recognized by the county that attention and focus on the commercial viability of the study area can ensure that the county’s other undisturbed resources and assets remain intact, thus limiting the debilitating effects of urban “sprawl” and uncontrolled growth – all of which runs counter to the county’s desire to achieve sustainable development.
In particular, the West Town Market Area Urban Redevelopment Plan addresses the following objectives that were cited in the GMP update as goals that the county should strive to attain, namely:
· “Infill Development” objective – communities should maximize the use of existing infrastructure and minimize the conversion of undeveloped land at the urban periphery by encouraging development or redevelopment of sites closer to the downtown or traditional urban core of the community.
· “Sense of Place” objective – traditional downtown (in this case, the central Martinez area) should be maintained as the focal point of the community or, for newer areas where this is not possible, the development of activity centers that serve as community focal points should be encouraged. These community focal points should be attractive, mixed-use, pedestrian friendly places where people choose to gather for shopping, dining, socializing, and entertainment.
· “Growth Preparedness” objective – each community should identify and put in place the prerequisites for the type of growth it seeks to achieve. These many include housing and infrastructure (roads, water, sewer and telecommunications) to support new growth, appropriate training of the workforce, ordinances to direct growth as desired, or leadership capable of responding to growth opportunities.
· “Appropriate Business” objective – the businesses and industries encouraged to develop or expand in a community should be suitable for the community in terms of job skills required, linkages to other economic activities in the region, impact on the resources of the area, and future prospects for expansion and creation of higher-skill job opportunities.
Excerpts from the county’s GMP update are attached to this report as EXHIBIT “2.”
Sub-Heading: Consistency with 2005 Central Martinez Area Study Plan
In 2005, the county contracted with the firm Research Atlanta, Inc. to create a plan for growth of the commercial area along Washington Road and Bobby Jones Highway. That plan, titled the Central Martinez Area Study Plan, undertook an inventory of conditions in the area, including a SWOT analysis identifying the potential strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to the area as a commercial center for the county. In proposing a redevelopment plan for the older, neglected areas of the Martinez study area, that earlier report and its recommendations will be cited and examined in later sections of this report. Some elements of that earlier inquiry could still have applicability to the study area being examined in the redevelopment plan, although the 2005 report did reflect a larger geographical area and was limited to commercial development proposals only.
In the course of planning workshops held with local businesses and residents in the Martinez area in 2005, four major goals were identified:
1. Distinguish Central Martinez by creating a unique destination
2. Provide a balanced, economically viable mix of uses
3. Provide a transportation system supporting desired land uses
4. Ensure adequate water and sewer facilities to support future growth
The overarching goal of the 2005 plan was to strengthen the prospect for commercial growth of the central Martinez area by transforming its under-utilized commercial property into a more modern shopping area, much in the mode of today’s “life-style” centers, which de-emphasis large, uninterrupted parking areas (as opposed to parking adjacent to a store) and introduce more pedestrian friendly spaces (such as walkways and “green” space).
However, comments received from a few businesses and government observers who were present during the 2005 planning sessions noted that the scope of improvements advocated for the area was too large, given the financial cost involved. For this reason, chiefly, many of the planned improvements recommended in the 2005 plan were not implemented.
Though mindful of the pitfalls encountered by the 2005 plan, some elements of that earlier effort may prove useful in the final recommendations of the West Town URP.
[Excerpts from the 2005 document are attached as EXHIBIT “3.” A copy of the full report (which approximates 100 pages, sans exhibits) is available upon request.]
Chapter Two – “Findings of Necessity” Report
Sub-Heading: Initiation of the Planning Process
In the course of working with Columbia County and its Development Services Division on an update of the county’s Growth Management Plan, the Development Authority of Columbia County (DACC) was approached to help the county with efforts to stimulate investment and re-investment in the central Martinez commercial corridor. Given its statutory authority to advance commerce in the county, the DACC indicated its willingness to assist, beginning with the conduct of a “Findings of Necessity” Report to determine the level of economic neglect and/or under-utilization of assets within the subject area.
Study Area Boundary. The West Town URP study area includes all of U.S. Census Block Group 301.01-1 (within Census Tract 301.01), along with small portions of Block Group 302.02-2 (the western side of Bobby Jones Highway) and Block Group 306.03-3 (the northern side of Washington Road). Bobby Jones Highway represents the demarcation line between Block Groups 301.01-1 and 302.02-2, while Washington Road represents the dividing line between Block Groups 301.01-1 and 306.03-3.
U.S. Census Tract Map of West Town URP Study Area
Early field observations by both the DACC and the county’s Development Services Division led both staffs to suspect the existence of issues that could plague or hinder development within the study area. This was further confirmed during public discussions held as part of the county’s GMP update. However, it was noted that not all areas of the Martinez commercial area showed signs or indications of blight. Rather, within a limited geographic area of that commercial corridor, there were properties exhibiting signs of pre-blight, based upon a property’s current use or level of maintenance. Thus noted, it was understood by both groups that the intent of creating a redevelopment plan for the area most affected by the presence of those properties would be to prevent a further deterioration of those properties and encourage more capital re-investment to stem this trend and create a more prosperous market area for the county and its residents.
Sub-Heading: Indicators of Pre-Blight Conditions
Using a methodology similar to that of the Central Savannah River Area Regional Development Center (CSRA RDC) in like studies of other redevelopment areas around the region, the following indicators were chosen to determine the level of pre-blight and blight conditions within the West Town URP study area:
Household Characteristics:
· Poverty Level
· Unemployment
· Per Capita Income
· Household Income
· Transportation Accessibility
Property Characteristics:
· Housing Conditions
· Vacancy among Housing Units
· Property Value (residential and commercial)
Business Characteristics:
· Private Investment and Retail Mix
· Existence of Brownfields
General Characteristics:
· Crime Statistics
· Infrastructure Deficiencies
· Visual Pre-Blight or Blight
· Street and Parcel Layout
In the sections of this report that follow, each of these indicators is examined in more detail.
Poverty Level. According to Year 2000 Census data, 15.6% of the 520 households living within Block Group 301.01-1 were living below the poverty level; 2.9% of those total households were below the poverty level with a female head of household. By contrast, only 6.8% of the entire county was living below the poverty level in 2000; the figure was 14.3% statewide for the same time period. This relatively high rate of persons living below the poverty level within the block group represents a dramatic departure from the perception that exists throughout the region, that of an affluent Columbia County, one that enjoys a higher standard of living than many of its neighboring counties.
The poverty level within the block group is a critical indicator that the area should be targeted for redevelopment; it underscores the extent of economic distress among residents within the study area. Despite the prosperity that appears to surround it, persons living within the study area have not experienced the same level of affluence that the rest of the county has felt.
It should be noted that the key threshold requirement under the Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA) “Opportunity Zone” or OZ program designation is that the potential “zone” area must be adjacent to a census block group with 15% or more of its residents living below the poverty level. Since an OZ can be a vital economic development tool for a redevelopment plan, and noting that the poverty threshold stipulated under the program is exceeded for this particular census block group, the DACC and the county’s Development Services Division will propose to the West Town URP Advisory Committee that the group include a request for OZ designation for the area for use in stimulating business investment and re-investment.
[A more detailed summary of this U.S. Census statistical analysis is attached as EXHIBIT “4” to this report.]
Unemployment. Unfortunately, employment data in Georgia through its Department of Labor is not tracked below the city or county level. Since the central Martinez area is not part of a separate incorporated municipality, only county-wide data exists. It should be noted, however, that employment data for the six-county Aiken-Augusta Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) reveals that 9.6% of its labor force is currently unemployed and seeking employment (September – revised, 2010). Ranking the state’s 14 metro areas (in terms of which regions are experiencing the highest level of unemployment), the September 2010 figure places the Aiken-Augusta MSA in the 5th position, with the remaining 9 MSAs in the state posting healthier employment totals.
[A more detailed summary of these employment statistics is attached to this report as EXHIBIT “5” to this report.]
Census statistics do indicate, however, those residents who reported working and those who were not working in Year 2000. [NOTE: The statistics do not indicate, however, which residents not working were actively seeking employment, a key determinant in compiling unemployment statistics.] Of the 1,006 in the block group who reported being 16 years of age or older, 188 females (or 18.7% of the BG population) reported working full-time; another 203 females (or 20.2%) reported not working. Among males within the BG, 222 (or 22.1%) reported working full-time, with 112 (or 11.1%) not working.
Per Capita Income. Within Block Group 301.01-1, the year 2000 Census listed the per capita income at $15,018. Contrasted with the county-wide statistic for the same period (that of $23,496), it is evident that residents within the study area were living with less disposable income.
Further, this figure greatly contrasts with the county-wide statistics for neighboring Richmond County, which lists a per capita income of $20,653. Richmond County, it should be noted, is considered a “Tier 1” community by DCA, based upon its relative level of unemployment and income characteristics.
Household Income. Median household income within Block Group 301.01-1 in year 2000 was $32,896. According to the county-wide statistics, the block group significantly lags behind the rest of the county as a whole, which shows a median household income of $68,224.
A more detailed listing of household income characteristics, along with other U.S. Census data, is provided under EXHIBIT “6” to this report.
Transportation Accessibility. Of the 648 residents within the block group that were aged 16 years or older, 505 reported driving alone (or 77.9%); this contrasts with the county-wide percentages of 83.3%. Statistics on the block group also show that 89 residents “carpooled” (via car, truck, or van), or 13.7% (contrasting with only 10.6%. In both statistical computations, the study area lagged behind the county as a whole on transportation accessibility. [Also with the study area, 303 (or 46.8%), reported working in Columbia County (the county of their residency); this contrasts with just 34% of county-wide residents who worked within the county.]
Although many of the residents in the study area have a means of transportation, it should be noted that the high volume of traffic along the study area major roadways – Bobby Jones Highway and Washington Road, in particular – poses a unique set of problems for persons living and working with the study area. There are numerous ingress and egress issues connected with the manner in which commercial development has evolved within the area, with access points off the major roadways sometimes separated by only ten to twenty feet. Many of these observations have been noted in the county’s Growth Management Plan. Along stretches of Washington Road, there are no de-acceleration lanes, adding to traffic congestion and accident potential. The combination of these issues makes transportation accessibility for persons within the study area problematic.
NOTE: A request has been made to the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office to determine the number of traffic incidents occurring along Bobby Jones Highway and Washington Road. Once received, the information will be made a part of this report.
Housing Conditions. Based upon a field report (a “windshield” tour) conducted during the month of October 2010, the DACC noted the presence of approximately 600 housing units within the study area. Aerial mapping data obtained from the county’s GIS division (which is attached to this report as EXHIBIT “7” appears to substantiate this number.
NOTE: Year 2000 Census data indicated 537 housing units present within the Block Group 301.01-1. Since that time, it is possible that a few structures have been demolished or removed, or that a few new structures have been added (although the DACC’s field observation noted none of the latter category). However, since the study area expands slightly beyond the boundaries of the block group, the DACC’s approximation of housing units is considered valid. [For the entire census tract (301.01), there were 10,935 people living in occupied housing units in year 2000.]
Residential properties surveyed by the DACC were divided into four classifications, based upon their appearance and upkeep:
1. Standard condition –with no visual signs of maintenance neglect)
2. Slightly deteriorated condition – with the presence of one or two issues of maintenance neglect, such as a roofing defect or an insufficient paint coverage
3. Severely deteriorated condition - with the presence of several maintenance neglect items
4. Dilapidated or blighted condition – with the structure appearing unsafe for occupancy
Pictures documenting the exterior appearance of a sample of these structures can be found under EXHIBIT “8” to this report (resulting from the DACC “windshield” tour of the study area).
This field observation of approximately 600 housing units noted the following existing conditions:
Housing Units in Standard Condition: 450 units
Housing Units in Slightly Deteriorated Condition: 90 units, or 15% of 600 units
Housing Units in Severely Deteriorated Condition: 50 units, or 8% of 600 units
Housing Units in Dilapidated or Blighted Condition: 10 units, or 2.5% of 600 units
It should be noted that during the survey, multi-family housing units (contained within the two apartment complexes located in the study area) were counted as one structure. No mobile home communities were discovered within the study area.
The presence of “severely deteriorated” housing units in such close proximity to neighboring areas in the county – where residential property values are among the region’s highest – underscore the dichotomy that exists between the study area and the rest of the county. Unless steps are taken to offset the economic decline of the study area, the gap between this community and the rest of the county will continue to widen.
The field observation noted that the greatest area of these “severely deteriorated” housing units occurred near Rose Street (the southern boundary of the study area), a residential community that has witnessed continued encroachment by commercial users. This was most apparent in the area surrounding the Georgia Military College’s Columbia County campus on Davis Road.
Vacancy Rates. According to information distributed by the CSRA RDC, a healthy housing market will possess a vacancy rate of three percent for owner-occupied housing, and five percent for rental units.
During the field observation conducted by the DACC in October 2010, survey data suggested that the vacancy rate could be as high as ten percent in the owner-occupied housing, particularly around the neighborhood of Rose Street, where the vacancy rate could be much higher. A further indication of this vacancy was the high number of residential real estate “FOR SALE” signs listed, particularly on Davant Street and Twin Lakes Drive, indicating a more transient population with the study area. Among the two apartment units in the study area, the vacancy rate was suspected to be close to ten percent as well, judging from the availability of parking spaces in those units during select times during the day and night.
Property Value. Given the current economic crisis affecting the nation, it is difficult to accurately pinpoint real estate values. Recent years have witnessed great fluctuation in valuation, sometimes resulting in percent changes greater than 20%. While it is possible that residential property values will rebound slightly from the low levels that affected property holdings in 2009, it may take more time to accurately understand the current market situation.
Given this, the DACC has made an effort to document changes in property valuation within the study area. Working with the Columbia County Tax Assessor’s Office, it has been able to pinpoint a few, key properties (identified by address) – both residential and commercial – and compare the current year’s valuation to those values reported years earlier. A summary of those changes in real estate valuation can be found under EXHIBIT “9” to this report.
The study area has witnessed some private investment in the recent years, but this trend has slowed over the last two years (2008-2010). Exceptions would include the new McDonalds on Washington and the new Stanton Optical at the corner of Washington and Old Evans Road.
Real estate appraisers often use the “allocation method” when approaching property valuation, a tool that compares the market value of the land to the market value of the improvements upon it (building or other, fixed structure). When the value of the land is equal to or greater than the value of the improvements, then redevelopment of the property should be considered. A high land-to-improvement ratio (of at least 1 to 1) assumes that the property is located in a high demand area but contains deteriorated buildings or structures.
The DACC has determined, based upon field observations, that the approximate land-to-improvement ratio for the entire study area is .8 to 1, indicating that the value of the land is closely associated with value of the improvements upon it. There are, however, certain parcels (largely commercially developed properties) where the value of the improvements greatly exceeds the value of the land, as would be expected for this highly developed area of the county. For the most part, this situation is prevalent only along the major roadways in the study area, such as Washington Road and Bobby Jones Highway. In the residential sections of the study area, the land-to-improvement ratio is skewed to higher land-valued parcels.
In addition, a substantial portion of the commercial area – including the West Town Market Square shopping center – is owned by out-of-town (more accurately, out-of-state) investors, which may be unwilling to invest in the area without strong incentive from the local governing authority. The presence of out-of-town owners can often be a major barrier to redevelopment efforts.
Private Investment and Retail Mix. Although commercial property within the West Town area has a high level of occupancy, the type and mix of retail tenants has created an environment in which an under-utilization of property is apparent. In one case, for example, a former fast food building was observed being used as a car dealership (Omar’s Used Cars on Washington Road). In another case, a former fast food building was observed being used as a title/pawn operation (Title Max on Washington Road).
The “mix,” or diversity of business types within the study area is another area of concern. In one section of the study area approximating one square mile, there were noted to be an inordinate number of tattoo shops (5), pawn dealers (6) and title shops (8). While these are legitimate business enterprises, the fact that all are located in such close proximity to one another generates a limited pool of customers attracted to the area, which can discourage other business enterprises from locating in the study area.
An analysis of major commercial areas in the Martinez area – including sections of the study area – reveals an occupancy rate of approximately 70%. A chart listing the square footage of occupied and unoccupied space in this geographic region of the county is attached as EXHIBIT “10.” While the occupancy rate exceeds that of the neighboring counties in the region, the rate of vacancy in this area of Martinez is higher than other commercial areas of the county, which typically boast an occupancy rate of 80% or greater.
Existence of Brownfields. On a positive note, there were only two potential “brownfield” (sites which may have environmental/health concerns impacting the site itself and surrounding properties). The first identified site was a former gas station located at the intersection of Old Evans Road and Old Petersburg Road, at the northwestern tip of the initial study area. However, it has been determined that the station was idled as part of a planned Georgia Department of Transportation road-widening project, and that the state and county officials have mitigated any potential environmental issues connected with the site.
The second potential brownfield site is a former dry cleaning establishment located on Washington Road, in the vicinity of the Applecross Apartment complex, near the southern border of the study area. The site is not listed on any EPA reference document, however, indicating that no adverse impact from the site has been previously noted.
Crime Statistics. According to the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office, incidents of crime have risen within the study area over the last few years. In 2008, the number of reported crimes totaled 206 within the study area, out of a reported 8,961 crimes county-wide. The study area, then, witnessed 2% of all incidents of crime committed within the county. In 2009, the number of reported crimes within the study area rose to 429 separate incidents, out of a reported 10,002 crimes committed county-wide. In that year, the study area represented 4% of all crimes committed within the county.
While the number of violent crimes (such as assault) reported was not large, the number of thefts and burglaries continued to increase. Local police enforcement officials report a greater level of thefts and burglaries around the study area’s commercial corridor, particularly crimes such as breaking and entering vehicles.
[Attached to this report, as EXHIBIT “11,” is a listing of all crimes reported by the Sheriff’s Office for 2008 and 2009. Data on 2010 is expected by February 2011.]
Infrastructure Deficiencies. Given its development age, much of the area is served by the county’s water system, which maintains coverage of approximately 85% of the study area. However, there are sections of the study area near Rose Street (in the southern portion of the study area) that are not part of the county sanitary sewer system. A map supplied by the county’s GIS division (and attached to this report as EXHIBIT “12”), shows the lack of coverage in this area, which can and will continue to hamper development. Indeed, staff within the county’s Development Services Division has reported unsuccessful attempts in the past to attract more private sector investment have been hampered by a lack of sanitary sewer in this area.
Visual Pre-Blight or Blight. As has been noted previously, the field observation by the DACC identified several properties that it characterized as “slightly” and “severely” deteriorated. Photographs of some of these properties are contained in EXHIBIT “13” to this report.
Street and Parcel Layout. In addition to the volume of traffic on major roadways, several businesses in the area have noted potential traffic issues due to a road system that existed decades before commercial development of the area began. One such area exists along Rose Street, which is sometimes used as a “short-cut” route between Bobby Jones Highway and Davis Road. The road, however, is not a direct route between the two roads; rather, it takes several “twists and turns,” according to one observer, as it extends past both residential and commercial property.
One objective of the redevelopment plan could be the creation of a plan to address these deficiencies over time, in hopes of alleviating the potential for traffic accidents and improving accessibility.
Chapter Three – Existing Land Use Patterns
Sub-Heading: Overview
A requirement set forth by the State of Georgia in conducting an urban redevelopment plan is to describe the land use objectives for the study area. In keeping with the area identified in the “Findings of Necessity” Report (Chapter Two of this document) on the central Martinez commercial district, the West Town Market Area Urban Redevelopment Plan (West Town URP) study area includes most of the area described in that report. The boundaries of the area are more precisely outlined on the attached map in this section, which is referred to as EXHIBIT “14.”
This chapter of the West Town URP examines the current land use and zoning of the study area. Included in this section is a listing of the zoning categories or classifications within the study area, along with their definitions (that is, eligible uses permitted under the zoning classification). A zoning map of the study area is also provided, as EXHIBIT “15.”
As cited in the introduction of this document (Chapter One), the county has recently completed a five-year update to its Growth Management Plan (GMP), as also required by state law. The existing land use patterns in the county was a key topic reviewed under that GMP update process. NOTE: The West Town URP exercise is not an attempt to change or alter any of the recommendations or findings of the GMP process. Rather, the intent of the West Town URP is to address some of the concerns raised during the GMP update about the Martinez area, in hopes of identifying specific objectives to help improve commercial development in the area and the overall appearance of the area. No land use changes are being proposed under the West Town URP.
Sub-Heading: A Tier 1 Node
Most of the West Town URP area falls under a “node” classification by the county. During the recent GMP update, the use of nodes as development tools by the county was noted. According to the GMP report, a node is defined as:
“… a concentrated activity center with a balance of commercial, office, and residential uses. The Nodal Development Concept is a plan to organize these more intense land uses into nodes, thus protecting existing neighborhoods, lessening sprawl, and making the most efficient use of existing infrastructure. Most new commercial, office, and mixed-use developments are planned for designated nodes and the corridors that connect them. Nodes have been placed predominantly where major infrastructure exists and in the more developed parts of the county, while corridors (emphasis added by the C-MURP report) have been located in places where development has already taken root between the nodes. All nodes are placed at existing intersections, usually of two major roads.”
The Martinez area (including the West Town URP study area) is considered a Tier 1 Node to Columbia County. It is the largest of the tier designations. Again, according to the GMP report, a Tier 1 Node contains:
“ … the widest variety of land uses – retail, office/professional, civic, and multifamily residential. Tier 1 Nodes should contain the largest amount of development in terms of acreage and square footage, and are generally about two miles in diameter. Commercial development within Tier 1 Nodes can be very large in scale, including “big box” national chains, and attract a market from the entire county, and possibly beyond from neighboring counties. Major destinations within the county, including major civic facilities, are best located within Tier 1 Nodes.”
Generally, the Tier 1 Node designation means that permitted uses can include strip centers along with other, single-lot commercial development. Additional uses under the Tier 1 Node could include professional/office buildings (including medical clinics), institutional structures (housing schools, for example), and high-density residential (particularly apartment complexes). The Tier Node designation is not a zoning classification.
Sub-Heading: Current Land Uses
A large percentage of land that falls within the West Town URP study area contains general commercial (a C-2 zoning classification), making the Tier 1 Node designation appropriate. Single-family housing (R-3 zoning, for smaller houses) is represented in the area off of Baston Road and along Old Evans Road. A small section of light industrial (M-1 zoning) is located along Martinez Boulevard, in an area called the Martinez Postal Park; approximately three or four single-tenant lots are zoned for “heavy” commercial (C-3), including the parcel that is occupied by Augusta Iron & Steel, a steel fabrication shop. There is also a small professional office district (P-1 zoning) to the east of Davis Road.
Just outside the study area – to the north – is a portion of general industrial zoning (M-2 classification) exists around the former Kennametal site. This company, which at one time employed more than 400 workers, announced a relocation of several divisions of the local operation in 2009, which has resulted in the loss of over 300 jobs.
Near the eastern tip of the study area, and adjacent to the Richmond County – Columbia County boundary line, lies a small tract of apartment-residential zoning (A-R classification). This is the property occupied by the “Applecross Apartments” development, one of two identified such properties in the West Town URP study area.
The other apartment complex, the Petersburg Square units, is situated within a planned unit development zoning (PUD classification). There are several more PUD scattered around the study area, including one to the west of Settlement Road (near Bobby Jones Highway), and a PUD parcel located along Martinez Boulevard.
Definitions of Zoning Classifications found in the West Town URP study area
C-2 – General Commercial District. The C-2 district provides for highway commercial and planned commercial shopping or service centers. The district is for those commercial uses which cater to community and regional shoppers, as well as the traveling public, and those uses that occupy large sites requiring access to major thoroughfares.
R-3 – Single-Family Residential District. The R-3 district provides for high-density single family residential development. Uses within the district must be served by public water and sewer. The minimum lot size is 7,500 sq. ft.
M-1 – Light Industrial District. The M-1 district provides for that industry requiring service by major transportation facilities and access to adequate facilities, which are not feasible for conventional industrial development due to proximity to residential, recreational, commercial, or related developments. The M-1 district permits development compatible with the uses of residential property adjoining or surrounding the district, with suitable open spaces, landscaping, and parking areas.
C-3 – Heavy Commercial District. The C-3 district provides for distribution, sales, service or storage activities involving goods or equipment that necessitates large indoor or outdoor spaces, large or specialized handling equipment, or significant truck or rail transportation. These uses generate limited emissions and noise, which make them incompatible with other commercial or residential uses.
P-1 – Professional District. The P-1 district provides for the development of structures for professional services which do not generate large volumes of traffic, noise, or other harmful effects on adjoining residential areas. The district may serve as a transition between more intensely developed commercial districts and residential districts.
M-2 – General Industrial District. The M-2 district provides areas for manufacturing, assembling, fabricating, warehousing, and related activities. These uses generate some emissions and have some adverse effects on surrounding properties, and are not compatible with primary commercial, institutional, and residential uses.
A-R – Apartment Residential District. The A-R district is for multi-family residential dwellings at a density of not greater than fourteen (14) units per acre, which have ample open space, recreational areas, and off-street parking. Uses in this district must be served by public water and sewer. The intent of this district is to locate such developments along arterial streets and be adjacent to existing commercial zoning districts or high-density residential uses, or adjacent to areas designated for commercial or high-density residential development in the GMP.
PUD – Planned Unit Development. The PUD district permits greater flexible, creative, and imaginative design for the development of residential, commercial, and industrial areas that may be possible in other zoning districts. It is intended to promote a harmonious variety of housing choices, a higher level of amenities, and the preservation of open spaces. Within a PUD, there can be a variety of housing types and land uses that exist in relationship to each other and existing land uses, and well as with due regard to comprehensive planning within the county. Uses in this district must be served by public water and sewer.
Sub-Heading: Public Streets and Facilities
Development standards for streets and other public facilities are addressed in the Columbia County Code. Standards for rights-of-way, pavement widths, gradients, curves, and other design elements are specified in this code. In the case of roadways maintained by the state Department of Transportation (DOT), the county adheres to those standards set by the state.
The code regulations also address lot and block dimensions for new developments. A copy of the code can be requested by the public through the county’s Development Services Division.
Utilities are required to be designed in accordance with the standards established by the appropriate entities involved in utility management and service.
Sub-Heading: Property Maintenance and Nuisance Codes
Construction standards for new buildings (residential and commercial) are addressed in the Columbia County Code, along with standards for improvements to existing structures. The county adheres to the International Building Code, as approved by the International Code Congress.
Property nuisances such as weed abatement, the disposal of abandoned cars, and other similarly-identified “nuisances” are also addressed in the county’s building standards code.
Sub-Heading: Land Use Objectives
Based upon input received via a series of Advisory Committee meetings and public forums (the schedule of which is attached to this document as EXHIBIT “1” and referenced in Chapter One), several land use objectives were established for the West Town URP. This section provides a general overview of those recommended land use objectives. Further information related to their application and planned implementation can be found in later chapters of this document.
During the second Advisory Committee session, the group assembled discussed several land use objectives and the necessity for those objectives in the study area. Briefly, those objectives included:
· Land development ordinance – necessary? Or does the current code provide sufficient enforcement?
· Design guidelines – Should special design guidelines be instituted for the C-MURP area, especially governing new development?
· Land use pattern – stays the same? Or changes proposed?
· Reduction of abandoned/dilapidated structures – beyond county’s current practice?
· Creation of more “open space” – is more needed?
· Improved Traffic Ingress/Egress – is a traffic study required?
Following the final Advisory Committee meeting, some of these land use objectives were deemed of primary concern for the study area.
Chapter Four – Public Involvement and Comment
Sub-Heading: Overview
Participation from the public sector is a vital part of an urban redevelopment plan process. Through the request for public comment, a local government can determine if its designs for redevelopment are shared by the citizenry. Periodically during this process, comments and suggestions were sought from both the leadership of the community – elected and non-elected officials – and from the general populace. Some of those comments are noted in the summary reports of the three advisory committee meetings conducted in late 2010 and the two public forums held in early 2011.
In this section of the urban redevelopment plan, an overview of the methods used to obtain public comment is detailed. Attached as evidentiary material – found under EXHIBIT “16” to this plan – are the notes from each meeting, the sign-in sheets executed by the participants, and newspaper articles documenting the public sessions.
Sub-Heading: Columbia County Officials
In October 2010, staff from the Development Authority of Columbia County (DACC) meet with the county’s division (department) directors, the County Administrator, the County Deputy Administrator, and the chairman of the Columbia County Board of Commissioners (BOC) – an elected official – to discuss the concept of the urban redevelopment plan, and a possible goal emanating from the effort, that of the Opportunity Zone designation from the state.
The development authority staff met again with a portion of this leadership group in early January 2011, a meeting which reviewed the “Findings of Necessity” report (contained within Chapter Two of this plan) along with the goals and objectives set by the Advisory Committee during its three public sessions. It was during this session that concerns over the property valuation within the proposed plan area was broached; these concerns were addressed, and are detailed in the attached Addendum “A” to this report, found under tab section EXHIBIT “17.”
As a result of this discussion and a subsequent communication with the Advisory Committee via electronic messaging, the size of the study area was slightly modified (reduced) to include only those portions of the Martinez area that were deemed to be in the greatest need of redevelopment.
Sub-Heading: Advisory Committee
The West Town Market Area Urban Redevelopment Plan (West Town URP) was developed in large part with assistance from a group of approximately 25 advisors, key stakeholders from the Columbia County community. The DACC took the lead in identifying this group of leaders, along with input from the county’s Development Services Division and the local Columbia County Chamber of Commerce.
Consistent with the state’s Urban Redevelopment Act, the West Town URP Advisory Committee represented a broad cross-section of interest groups including residents, business owners, lending institutions, real estate, community service, and other non-profit organizations, along with officials/representatives involved in housing delivery. In particular, the DACC used its best efforts to recruit persons who had a vested interest in the central Martinez area, either through the ownership of a business or residence in the study area, or the ownership of land within said area.
The list of West Town URP Advisory Committee participants is contained within the introductory section of this report (Chapter One).
At each meeting (a total of three sessions were held), the concept and purpose of a redevelopment plan was presented at the outset. Following this, the first meeting went into detail on the entire planning process, describing the “Findings of Necessity” report; expectations of the group were presented.
The second meeting concentrated on the existing land use in the study area, along with initial suggestions/ideas on how to address the problems and deficiencies noted within the study area. Participants were also given “homework,” in the form of generating the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (a SWOT analysis) of the commercial district and its surrounding neighborhoods.
At the final session, the group chose the most pressing goals and objectives – based on information gleamed from the SWOT analysis – needed for the study area. Those objectives are detailed in the following section of this report (Chapter Five).
Attached to this report – as EXHIBIT “18” – are the Microsoft Powerpoint presentations used at each of the three Advisory Committee meetings.
Sub-Heading: General Public
Through the local press, notification was given to the public for comment and input into the findings and recommendations of the Advisory Committee.
The first public forum was held at the county’s Government Center Building, the chambers where the elected commission meets on a bi-monthly basis. Although public attendance at this session was not large, the initial draft document of the plan was published on the development authority’s website; this was advertised to the public through the local press. All who attended the public forum expressed support for the plan.
The second public forum was held at a shopping center facility in the study area. The West Town Market Square is currently anchored by a K-Mart discount store, but has been characterized by some vacancy in recent years. At the time of the Advisory Committee sessions, the largest unoccupied space in the center measured approximately 40,000 sq. ft.
For this forum, copies of the draft plan were on display for an entire day, allowing the public to stop and review the plan. Approximately 30 individuals took with them a brief synopsis of the plan, printed at the courtesy of the development authority. Since the plan contained no exterior building design elements for the redevelopment area, no charrettes (architectural renderings and proposed building elevations) were prepared.
Advisory Committee – SWOT observations
· Strengths include location (near large population center of metro area), volume of traffic, the infrastructure for new business, skills/professionalism of county’s building services division (permitting help)
· Weaknesses include older infrastructure in some areas, non-existence infrastructure in others, poor mix of businesses represented (gaps in retail choices), the presence of a rail line through commercial corridor (leads to transportation, development issues)
· Opportunities include some vacant property in the affected area – potential for new development, strong anchors already in area (Lowe’s, K-Mart), proximity to high income neighborhoods, and proximity to interstate
· Threats include funding issues (state and Federal barriers), some neglect (as evidenced by condition of some structures in affected area), roads under state DOT control (viewed as more inflexible, difficult in solving ingress, egress issues)
Public Comment Summary – Session #1 (Select Comments)
· “Would like to know why (sanitary) sewer does not extend into areas behind K-MART. That’s ripe for development, if the sewer were there.”
· “Don’t change existing zoning ordinance. It’s working.”
· “There are some bad looking houses on a few streets, but most of the homes can be good starter homes. We need to market this to young people.”
· “Some recreational space would be nice. Maybe a new park in this area, although that may not add a lot to the businesses down there.”
Public Comment Summary – Session #2 (Select Comments)
· “The goal with this plan shouldn’t be to change existing zoning. Some recent changes came from last plan (2010 Growth Management Plan), so we should stay away from that. “
· “Signage issues continue to be a problem. Too much signage along Washington Road, for the most part.”
· “More emphasis should be on entrances into Columbia County, like on Washington Road (from Richmond County) and on Bobby Jones (road, also from Richmond County).
Sub-Heading: Formal Presentation of the Plan and Adoption
[THIS SECTION TO BE COMPLETED FOLLOWING PASSAGE of AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION]
Chapter Five – Planning Goals and Strategies for Implementation
Sub-Heading: Overview
As a result of a series of Advisory Committee sessions, several goal statements were generated to further the redevelopment of the central Martinez area. These statements took into account the land use objectives identified by this group, and the “reality of implementation” – that is, the feasibility of putting projects/ideas into action. For each goal statement, a series of action steps were developed, to aid in implementation.
Sub-Heading: Land Use Objectives
As previously identified in this report, the committee selected four primary objectives for land use in the study area. Those objectives were:
· To create design guidelines for the exterior appearance of commercial properties within the study area, particularly as it relates to signage and landscaping;
· To reduce the number of dilapidated and/or abandoned buildings in the study area;
· To induce the creation of more open space in the affected area, particularly as it relates to recreational space for surrounding neighborhoods or “green” space in commercial areas; and
· To improve traffic ingress/egress at commercial strip shopping centers, and within certain residential areas.
In its leadership capacity, the Advisory Committee then set forth to identify specific goals that could be used to make headway toward the land use objectives. The group was also charged with suggesting timelines for goal implementation, detailing possible action steps to accomplish the goals, and creating a mechanism for evaluation and feedback from the public.
Sub-Heading: Redevelopment Plan Objectives
Although several possible goals were discussed, the Advisory Committee settled on three goal statements that were deemed “realistic” for implementation. The three goals for the redevelopment plan were:
1. To stimulate greater private investment in the study area, particularly among existing businesses located there;
2. To improve the mix or diversity of businesses within the study area, as made evident by gaps within the area’s retail, service, and industrial sectors; and
3. To create more entrepreneurial opportunities for residents and businesses within the study area.
To accomplish these goals, the group identified several “action steps” or tasks for the development authority, the county, the local chamber of commerce, and other such service providers to work on, such as:
· Application for an Opportunity Zone designation, thus enabling the creation of a revolving loan fund (RLF) for businesses. The zone designation, with its state tax credit benefits (the maximum allowable credits under state law) for all nature of enterprises at the lowest job creation threshold (a minimum of two new jobs created per project), was viewed by the group as a prime tool in helping to stimulate greater private investment in the area. The use of a revolving loan fund or RLF, the inception of which could be made possible by the securing of state or Federal grant funds, was also viewed as an important tool for inducing business investment.
Partnerships for implementation: locally, Columbia County, the Development Authority of Columbia County, the Columbia County Chamber of Commerce, and the Martinez Merchants group. At the state level, the Georgia Department of Community Affairs.
· Initiation of a business plan creation program, possibly involving the participation of area universities and technical schools. The concept of offering more entrepreneurial programs – such as FastTRAC business training, or a business plan “contest” – were seen as projects that could advance entrepreneurial development within the study area.
Partnerships for implementation: locally, the Development Authority of Columbia County, Georgia Military College, Augusta State University, and Augusta Technical College. At the state local, the Small Business Development Consortium.
· Exploration of feasibility for a “retail” business incubator, located in a former commercial building in the study area. The possibility of returning retail to an unused property appealed to the group, along with the chance to improve the diversity of businesses in the area by targeting and nurturing more unique types of retail. The prospect of business survival – typically enhanced due to the nature of a business incubation program – merited the need to push such a project along.
Partnerships for implementation: locally, the Development Authority of Columbia County, the Georgia BioSciences Center (existing incubator in Augusta), and the business school at Augusta State University. At the national level, the National Business Incubation Association.
Sub-Heading: Evaluation Process and Concluding Remarks
To monitor progress toward the goals established by the group – assuming adoption of the urban redevelopment plan by the county’s elected body – the Advisory Committee suggested an annual review of each goal statement, with an opportunity to amend the action steps identified if significant barriers surfaced to prevent those tasks from being completed in a timely fashion. It was also suggested, in an attempt to provide accountability to the public, that the plan be available on-line at several different county agencies (beyond just the development authority’s website), to ensure greater exposure. Further, it was suggested that an Internet “blog” be started to give updates on plan implementation, thus tapping into the social media outlets that are witnessing great use, particularly by younger generations.
In conclusion, it is evident that, in a time when local economies have contracted due to issues nationally and internationally, the focus should be – appropriately – on re-using and redeveloping established commercial and residential areas. The West Town Market Area Urban Redevelopment Plan, though limited in scope and geographic size, can help to showcase to the county and the region the value and rewards of focusing on previously-developed areas.
ADDENDUM “A”
Redevelopment Plans, Opportunity Zones (OZ), and Local Property Values
Near the conclusion of the public input process to form the urban redevelopment plan for central Martinez, a concern was raised by local tax assessment and board of equalization officials: namely that the adoption of an urban redevelopment plan – with its state-mandated requirement that such a designation label the affected area as containing negative elements that could prevent growth and development – might actually undermine existing property values. This, it was suggested, could in turn have repercussions for the county, if property owners felt that monetary assessments of their property could be challenged.
To determine if this concern had merit, the development authority canvassed several communities across the state during the first half of 2011. None of the communities contacted (the cities of Marietta, Roswell, and Sandy Springs, and the county of Gwinnet County) reported such a consequence of implementing an urban redevelopment plan or an OZ. This was largely due to the fact that property values in those affected areas – overall – were already lower than in other parts of the community. Indeed, once the designation was made, the ability to use the OZ incentive was seen as a means for improving property and property use, with the expectation of increasing property values in the affected area.
It should be noted that the urban redevelopment study does not assign new property values; it merely relies upon property values already present in the affected area. Some of those property valuations may fall below market values for the county (on average), while others may be above such values. What the redevelopment plan seeks to do instead is to point out the detrimental conditions that exist – such as poor road layout or lack of infrastructure – factors that are contributing to the current valuation of the property, whether the area is labeled as a redevelopment zone or not. The designation alone should not equip property owners with any means to contest values.
As for one comment from a Columbia County official – that the redevelopment process would require characterization of the affected area as “slum” or “blight,” which might adversely affect property values – it is important to note that the urban redevelopment legislation in the state does not specify a definition for conditions which might prevent economic growth and development. Rather, it is left solely to the local jurisdiction to determine what it believes constitutes an area in need of redevelopment, relative to the overall condition of its community. To that end, it must identify those “detrimental conditions” that exist within the proposed study area (and zone), but it can do so without referencing terms that have become synonymous with urban decay, societal malaise, and hopelessness.
It is also important to note that the state – through its Department of Community Affairs – has become sensitive to this issue of the use of “slum” and “blight,” and has included, in its Guide to Using Georgia’s Urban Redevelopment Act (a copy of which is attached to this Addendum as Exhibit “19”) several pages on how a community should avoid such characterizations when undergoing the redevelopment planning process.
Below are a sample of comments received on the matter of Urban Redevelopment Plans and Opportunity Zone designations and the impact of such on property valuations which attempt to address the concerns noted above.
From John Cheek (General Manager of Sandy Springs Revitalization, Inc and member of the Georgia Economic Developers Association), the following questions were posed: did characterization of the redevelopment area as “blight” lead to concerns over decreasing property values? Did local tax officials express such a concern?
“I’ve put together a number of Urban Redevelopment Plans and TAD plans conforming to O.C.G.A. 36-44 and O.C.G.A. 36-61 and have been involved in others. Both statutes require a finding of slum or blight conditions, although the definitions of slum and blight conditions are a bit different in the two. The TAD definition is more flexible but both allow them to be defined by other factors, such as inadequate street network, inadequate utilities, fragmentation of ownership, high vacancy, and others that are not based on condition of structures. DCA now also looks at area crime rates as part of the finding.”
“There always seems to be a property owner or two who worry about this, but this is the first time I’ve heard of it coming from a tax official. I have never seen or heard of anyone contesting their taxes on this basis after we have put one of these plans in place, and if the assessors have valued properties accurately, it shouldn’t be an issue, anyway. An area’s relatively lower values are a necessary part of the finding for a TAD district.”
“Sandy Springs is an example of this as a non-issue. Last year, the City of Sandy Springs adopted an Urban Redevelopment Plan. In the process, some property owners got stirred up over this very issue, yet they seemed to be completely unaware that seven years earlier, the Fulton County Commission had already made a finding of slum or blight for the same area as part of adopting the Sandy Springs TAD Redevelopment Plan. The only effect it had either time was to improve the community’s competitive position.”
From Beth Sessoms, the Economic Development Manager for the City of Marietta, an Atlanta-metro community known for its relatively high median household income figures, which adopted an urban redevelopment plan in 2009, and subsequently applied for and received several Opportunity Zone designations for portion of the city.
Question: Was a concern ever raised about an adverse effect on property values within the area(s) targeted for redevelopment?
“The issue did not come up. Most of the areas in Marietta that received the Opportunity Zone designation are blighted and it is evident to the public and tax assessor, so the values were already low. We do have a few nice properties in the zones, but the businesses are happy because it helps keep them leased to tenants. We stressed the value of the OZ with the public to encourage re-investment back into some aging commercial corridors.”
“To my knowledge, the Urban Redevelopment Plan did not affect the valuation of the properties. The City of Marietta does not assess property values, it is done by the Cobb County Tax Assessors office. I am not sure they paid any attention to the plan.”
“The zones have been very beneficial to the City of Marietta.”
In addition to these comments, a phone interview was conducted with Stefanie Dye at the City of Roswell. Ms. Dye works as a planner for the city, and helped create the city’s urban redevelopment plan that lead to an Opportunity Zone designation in 2010.
Question: Was concern raised by tax officials over the characterization of the area targeted for redevelopment as “slum” or “blight?”
“We did not have that problem in our community. However, we did recognize that there is often a public perception over the use of such terms. So we did our best not to use those terms often, preferring instead to reference the area as distressed. For our resolution (authorizing the adoption of the redevelopment plan) we cited the plan as a means to prevent the development of slums, instead of characterizing existing properties as such.”
[NOTE: A copy of the authorizing resolution used by the City of Roswell is attached to this addendum, as Exhibit “20”.]
“If local tax officials are concerned about a challenge to their property valuations, they can adjust their income approach (method of real estate appraisal) to account for those properties in a zone that are not deteriorated, and are, in fact, contributing the local economy. In most of these zones (around the state), you might have only about twenty-five percent that could truly be called blighted. Redeveloping those properties should only help to increase the existing property values for all holdings.”
Regarding Stephanie Dye’s point about valuation processes, attached to this addendum is a copy from West Law Review (Exhibit “21”) discussing property valuation procedures in the state of Georgia. Regardless of whether an urban redevelopment plan has been adopted or an Opportunity Zone designation created, Georgia law sets forth clearly the method by which appraisals of property are to be conducted (using approaches such as cost, sales history, and income generation).
Provided that local valuation officials have followed the tenets of the state’s law, the mere existence of a redevelopment plan overlay or Opportunity Zone designation should not be sufficient to invalidate a valuation.
DCA’s Verification of Block Group 3 (CT 301.01) as Eligible for OZ designation
|
City
|
|
|
|
County
|
|
|
|
Block Group 2000
|
|
|
|
Approved Opportunity Zone
|
|
|
|
|
Interstate Highway
|
|
|
|
US & State Highway
|
|
|
|
Local Road
|
|
|
|
Railroad
|
|
|
|
|
Stream
|
|
|
|
Water Body
|
|
|
|
GE 15-Pct Poverty
|
|
|
|
