ICI Analysis Email from DOT

Draft �
����\uu �r���X��K0r����xoDDm
TO: Piie [)otc: May 22, 2012
From: Michael Baker Buginccdog, Inc. Sn6icu1: Review and Assessment ufIndirect
SoudckrVVugg, Chris Roessler and [umu|oJive ElOec(sfhrWestsNe
Bypass Extension (A,Z240)
Ill March 20l2, Michael Baker F"oAinochng(Bukc,) was asked to review the indirect and cumulative
impacts to water mawum*u from the proposed \Ycstsido Bypass Extension, TIP R-2246. /\ prcviouo |C|
Study and Quantitative Assessment of Sediment and Nutrients report had been prepared by Buck
Engineering (now part nfBaker) in Scp\embcro[2O03 (hereafter referred tooatile |C| Report). This
memorandum documents tile review ofthe previous study, the review of existing land Use conditions
(2012 Base Year) and a qualitative review of potential indirect and cumulative impacts from the proposed
YVca{widc Bypass Extension.
The p,evimum [Cl Report assessed the impacts for the following projects:
• TIP U-20O9C(VVcmimidcBypass)
• TIP 8-2246 (VVey{oide Bypass Extension)
The Westside Bypass(TIP tJ-2009(,,) has been built from Weddington Road north to Mooresville Road
(NC 3), iuo|uding the interchange with 1-85. This section of the Bypass traverses the more undeveloped
areas of the otody area and provides the greatest increase ill access tu tile study area, by virtue ofits
interchange with 1-05. As such, many of tile accessibility hcncOtm of the project have already been
conferred on areas north of[-V5. I"orthcrmore, some accessibility improvements have already been
uonfenudonthcareamnorthwfYVeddin01noKnodbyviMucof(h* cono1ruohonof\he0ypuee. Therefore,
many of tile indirect and CLIMUlative effects of the overall Bypass and Bypass Fxtension identified in the
previous report are already likely (onuoorxi<houithe Bypass Extension.
TaWc | is ucopy of—Fable i from ihc previous [Cl Report and details the land use changes anticipated
Under the NoBui\d and Build scenarios for the year 2Ol5 compared (othe 2003 land uses. Some
additional commercial development was forecast to OCCUr Under both the No Build and Build scenarios
both north and south ofNC73, hu|u greater oruwun( north o[MC7]. 'File largest increases in
development were forecast tobe increases from Low Density Residential to Medium Density kcsidcnhui
1

both north and south ofNC73 but the greatest increases south ofNC73. Specifically, under the No
Build an increase from 2.O\ k/ 2.34 square miles ofM4cdium Density Residential was forecast,
representing 16Y6 increase. Under the Build, ao ionncumc hnm 2.01 W4.q6was fhrccas\, m 147Y6
increase. A review of the original GIS data indicates that most of this was the reSLIlt of forecasting the
conversion o[Lovv Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. Also, approximately one-third
o[this shift appears k/ occur in the areas north o[VVeddiugtonRoad. Therefore, about one-third ofthis
espcoicd indirect effect is already likely tu occur based on the previously constructed roadway.
Table 1. Land Use Conditions Above and Below NC 73 (Original ICI Report Results)
Current Conditions(2003)-Area "No Build"Option(2015)- "Build"Option(2015)-Area
Above Below Above Below Above Below
Land Use Tota I NC 73 NC 73--Total NC 73.- r NC 73 Total NC 73 NC 73
Commercial/industrial 5.28 030 4.57 5.42 0.71 -_ 4.71 5.77 1.07 4.71
Cultivated OA1 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
High Density
Low Density Residential 13,81 10.06 3.75 1137. 8.23 3.54 7.16 6.30 0.85
Med Density
Residential 5.37 3.36 2.01 8,65 6.30 234 12.79 7.83 4.96
Pasture/Mngd Herb 0.62 0,51 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.11
Total 28.58 16.47 12.11 '28.58 16.47 12,11 28.58 16.47 12.11
Current Conditions-(2003)-Area Area(%) M) -
Above NC Below NC Above NC Below NC
High Density
Med Density
Total 100% 100% 1
The purpose of this qou|itutivu umsemmncn( is to uMcrnp\ to determine the omtco<o[ony indirect and
cumu|ativo impacts that are on|c|y attributable to the 13ypaym l',uiensiou. Tn address this, comparisons
2

were made between the land use forecasts for 2015 from the previous ICI Study and the existing land use.
The existing land use was determined using aerial imagery and parcel data provided by the local
jurisdictions. Using the GIS shapefile from the previous study, a new attribute was added to input the
existing(2012) land use. The resulting shapefile had attributes for the four following land use
conditions:
• 2003 Historical (Based on Previous ICI Report)
• 2012 Current(Based on Aerial Imagery)
• 2015 No Build (Based on Previous ICI Report)
* 2015 Build (Based on Previous ICI Report)
This comparative analysis was employed to see how much new development has occurred since the 2003
report,and to therefore evaluate how much of the expected indirect effects have actually been realized.
This proved somewhat challenging due to coding of the previous land uses. It appears that the previous
land use had been coded primarily based upon parcel attributes or other GIS datasets from local
jurisdictions at the time, without comparisons to aerial imagery. This was likely due to the data
availability of the time. Therefore, some farms were previously coded as commercial in all three
scenarios. In particular,the areas along Concord Farms Road, were coded as commercial in the 2003 and
both 2015 scenarios, despite the fact that those parcels are clearly farms on aerial imagery. To address
this discrepancy in a manner than would make the 2012 land use comparable, the 2012 land use coding
was completed in a manner to maintain as much continuity as possible between the four versions of land
use(2003,2012, 2015 No Build, and 2015 Build). Therefore, areas that were commercial in the 2003 and
both 2015 Scenarios were kept as commercial even if aerial imagery indicated they were farm use. While
this means that the 2012 land use coding is not as accurate as it could be relative to what is oil the ground,
it is more accurate for comparisons to the 2003 and 2015 land use values.
A review was conducted to determine if there were any regulatory changes that had taken place since the
2003 land use forecast. The Cabarrus County Subdivision Ordinance was revised in September 2007,
and added protections for intermittent streams(class 2 streams)that were missing from the earlier
regulations. "For existing Class 2 streams,other than those identified in Sec. 4-2, the minimum width of
the undisturbed buffer shall be thirty (30) feet from the normal high-water elevation. The additional ten
(10)-foot vegetated non-built upon setback shall also apply." Slight changes were also noted in the
special intensity allocations(SIAs)areas associated with water supply reservoirs. In these areas, the
Watershed Review Board is authorized to approve SIAs to allow new,non-residential development up to
70 percent of the built upon area. The 2007 document slightly reduced the areas eligible for SIAs for
Lake Concord and Lake Fisher.
The Concord Unified Development Ordinance was revised in 2007, and included new protections for
intermittent streams (class 2 streams). The Cabarrus County Zoning Ordinance was also updated in 2009
and contains protections for intermittent streams. The Rowan County Zoning Ordinance was also
updated in 2007; however, there are no substantive changes in stream protection policies. Based on the
review of past and current development regulations, it is not anticipated that underlying development
patterns would be substantively affected by the development of new regulations.
3

The Cities of Concord (2005) and Kannapolis(2007)obtained NPDES Phase 11 Stormwater permits.
Wasterwater Treatment Plant(WWTP)operations were discontinued for facilities on Kannapolis Creek
and Lake Concord. In 2003,the only 303(d) listed waterbody in the study area was Coddle Creek for
impaired benthos from 0.2 miles upstream from NC 73 to Rocky River. This section is below Coddle
Creek Reservoir,which is now called Lake Don T Howell (Yadkin, Pee Dee Basinwide Plan, NCDENR,
2003).
Coddle Creek appears on the North Carolina EPA-approved 2010 303(4) list for impaired fish (source to
0.5 mile downstream from E. Coddle Cr), impaired benthos(E. Coddle Creek from source to Coddle Cr.
and Coddle Cr. from 0.2 miles upstream from NC 73 to Rocky River),and turbidity (also Coddle Cr.
from 0.2 miles upstream from NC 73 to Rocky River).
Figures 1 through 4 show the land use values for the study area for each of the time periods. Meanwhile,
Table 2 shows the raw square miles by each land use category. Table 3 shows a comparison of the
differences between the 2012 land use and the three other time periods.
Table 2.Land Use by Base or Forecast Year(Square Miles)
2003 Land Use Current 2012 No Build 2015 Build 2015
Commercial/Industrial 5.29 5.34 5.41 5.77
Cultivated 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00
Forested/Wetland 1.61 1.47 0.80 1.11
High Density Residential 0.06 0.14 0,06 0.06
Low Density Residential 13.78 13.63 11.76 6.84
Med Density Residential 5.37 5.61 8.65 12.78
Pasture/Mngd Herb 0.62 0.51 0.11 0.11
Road 1.65 1.69 1.65 1.77
Water 0.13 0.13 0.16 0.16
Total 28.62 28.62 28.62 28.62
4

Figure 1. 2003 Land Use
5

l'l asda C u xlrr Creek
N
I
ffi /.
Watershed
CoMIle Creek
Watershed
r
r �f
t
s
l '
Figure 1
6,«, ,
" t
Westside Bypass Extension
Watershed Boundaries
2003 Land Use
i
Cultivated
IM Commercial/industrial
IM Forested/Wetland
High Density Residential
Med Density Residential �
Low Density Residential
Pasture/Mngd Herb
Road
0 0.5 1 2
Water M Miles

Figure 2: 2015 No Budd Land Use
6

i
Irish Bqf
Wcrlfrrs/7C'd
1 i 1
� f
PKaf."!^he
e.
ll �
,
a s
�4
..�. y �(7
��� S,
s< � C
,r
u
r
1
o
Figure 2
Westside Bypass Extension
.w
Watershed Boundaries
No Build 2015 Land Use y
jS Commercial/Industrial
,Fey
Forested/Wetland w�
High Density Residential
Med Density Residential s`=-
Low Density Residential
Pasture/Mngd Herb
ffM Road
0 0.5 1 2
Water Mmes

Figure 3: 2015 Build Land Use
7

J.
kish Bre f' Cr l""IVek
Wbleryhed
t t i
('oeNA, f.lverl
%alersdar^rl - 4
Ilk
a
i
zs
t
df
s
„m
OI
" J�w r
m, l
e
Figure 3
1
Westside Bypass Extension
C Watershed Boundaries
Build 2015 Land Use
IM Commercial/Industrial
Forested/Wetland
High Density Residential
Med Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Pasture/Mngd Herb
IM Road
0 0.5 1 2 -
Water Mies.

Figure 4: 2012 Land Use
8

t
w
f w
Irish Buffi'do ("'reek
r ti0r�r,;l l
J-1 r�
Watershed
Coddle
f
rr ,
4
f 1
ww.
S
' ✓
i
i
'..
{ r
� j 4
Figure 4
TM
ED
Westside Bypass Extension v '�
01
Watershed Boundaries '
2012 Land Use
w
Cultivated
Commercial/Industrial
I
Forested/Wetland � � r
� Nigh Density Residential /
Med Density Residential `r
Low Density Residential
Pasture/Mngd Herb
Road . C;
0 0.5 1 2
FM Water Mites

Table 3. Land Use Differences 2012 Compared to 2003 and 2015 No Build and Build "o 4�
Current vs No
Current vs 2003 Build 2015 Current vs Build 2015
Commercial/Industrial 0.06 -0.07 -0.43
Cultivated 0.00 0.11 0.11
Forested/Wetland -0.14 0.67 0.36
High Density Residential 0.07 0.07 0.07
Low Density Residential -0.15 1.86 6.78
Med Density Residential 0.24 -3.04 -7.17
Pasture/Mngd Herb -0.10 0.40 0.40
Road 0.04 0.04 -0.09
Water 0.00 -0.04 -0.03
Overall, these comparisons indicate that the current land use in the study area is not substantially different
than the 2003 land use. Compared to 2003, there has been an increase in High Density Residential of
0.07 square miles, in Medium Density Residential of 0.24 square miles and in Commercial/Industrial of
0.06 square miles. Compared to the previous forecasts of No Build and Build development, Medium
Density Residential is far below the forecasted level of development and Commercial/Industrial is
somewhat below the forecasted level of development. Low Density Residential is higher than forecasts,
mainly because the forecasted conversion of Low Density to Medium Density Residential has not
occurred. These suggest that both the No Build and Build forecasts of 2015 land use are too high relative
to what has actually occurred since 2003. The main reason for such a large difference between the
forecasted development and the actual development level is the significant and unanticipated change in
economic conditions since 2003. These forecasts were developed during the peak period of the most
recent housing construction boom and the recent housing construction decline is historically deep. As
such, these marked differences between forecasted growth and actual growth are not unexpected.
These reasons behind these differences are confirmed based on discussions with local planners. Baker
contacted the following local officials to discuss development in the study area:
• Kris Kridder, Planning Director,City of Kannapolis
• Boyd Stanley, Planning and Development Administrator, City of Concord
• LeDerick Blackburn, Community Development Manager, City of Concord
In all three cases, local planners indicated that the downturn in the economy had lead to a substantial
slowdown in development over the last six years. While some development interest has begun to resume,
the pace is not expected to return to pre-recession levels very soon.
In the Kannapolis area, land use development expectations are similar to what were forecast in the 2003
study; it will simply be a slower process to reach the build out forecast for 2015. There has been some
development along the Bypass(called Kannapolis Parkway today). In addition, there has been some
9

office development near Mooresville Road. Meanwhile, a new apartment complex has been built near
Rogers Lake Road. The Kellswater Bridge residential subdivision is still underway and the developer has
recently proposed to build additional units. Near Trinity Church Road,there have been some scattered
commercial buildings and single family development. Near the Afton Ridge Shopping Center, a new
industrial building was recently completed. For expected development, there is one new proposal for an
apartment building complex near Afton Ridge. At Kannapolis Parkway and NC 73,there is a large tract
for sale that would likely become a commercial, office or industrial development. Overall, the northern
sections remain largely undeveloped today due to lack of water or sewer infrastructure while the southern
sections are building out at a slower pace than anticipated.
In the Concord portion of the study area,there has been some development along the existing portion of
the Kannapolis Bypass(called George Liles Parkway) but again, not as much as was expected before the
recession. Also, since the portion built out in Concord is shorter and does not create as significant an
increase in accessibility, less development would be expected in this area. The only area of development
noted by staff since 2003 is commercial development along the frontage of George Liles Parkway.
Discussions with Concord staff did indicate that the construction of the Bypass extension would have
some indirect effects. Specifically,the area between Weddington Road, Concord Parkway (US 29),
Coddle Creek and the proposed Bypass Extension has been the focus of a detailed small area planning
effort called the Concord Parkway/Roberta Church Road Small Area Plan. This plan was developed
because Concord staff expects the construction of the Bypass will allow for additional development over
and above what would occur without construction of the Bypass Extension in this area. This 780 acre
area is largely undeveloped today, but the small area plan envisions the following development:
• 90 Residential Lots
• 1,390 Urban Residential Units
• 190,400 square feet of Retail
• 227,400 square feet of Small Office
• 476,500 square feet of Flex Space
• 558,000 square feet of Office(Class A)
• 1,634,600 square feet of Mixed-Use
• 309,400 square feet of Civic/Institutional
Figure 5 shows the Conceptual Plan of the development. This conceptual plan was developed by the City
and its consultants, not a developer,therefore the actual build out may differ. Local planners, however,
do anticipate some form of this plan to be built in this area if the Bypass Extension is built. Expectations
are that without the Bypass Extension, little development will occur along Concord Church Road. Some
aspects of this conceptual plan, however, would mitigate the water quality impacts of this induced
development. Specifically,the conceptual plan calls for the incorporation of low impact development
approaches, such as the complete protection of the Coddle Creek floodplain,a linear rain garden in the
mixed use campus,and substantial open space in the neighborhood zone. In addition to this development,
Concord planners felt the areas fronting US 29 on the north side of the road would likely see induced
commercial development as a result of the construction of the Bypass Extension.
10

The conceptual plan area and the areas along US 29 are shown as commercial in the 2003 and 2015 land
use scenarios,even though they remain largely undeveloped. This is likely because of inaccuracies in the
input data sources used to develop the original 2003 and 2015 forecasted land use scenarios. To maintain
consistency with those land use scenarios,the 2012 land use discussed above shows those areas as
commercial as well, despite being largely undeveloped. Therefore,the induced impacts of this potential
development were not accurately captured during the previous analysis. As noted above, the current
forecast is for a mixed use development that is more likely to be constructed if the Bypass Extension is
built.
Further south along the proposed bypass, Concord planners felt some induced industrial development
would occur along NC 49 around the existing industrial park. This expected induced development does
appear in the previous 2015 forecasts.
One final issue noted by Concord planners is the uncertainly regarding the Philip Morris plant. The
company owns a largely closed plant on approximately 2,000 acres of land on the south side of US 29
west of the proposed Bypass Extension. During the previous study,the plant was in operation and
expected to remain as it was for the foreseeable future. Given that Philip Morris has closed the plant, it is
likely that the company will eventually sell the property. Reuse of the factory is unlikely given the
specialized nature of the manufacturing involved. Therefore, redevelopment of the site is likely. The
timeframe for that redevelopment is highly speculative, however, since Philip Morris maintains
ownership and has not indicated any timeframe for its sale of the property.
Overall, based on discussion with local planners,the type of induced development forecasted in the
previous ICI Report largely captured the expected induced development attributable to the construction of
the Bypass and Bypass Extension,however the development has simply been delayed due to economic
conditions. The one major induced land use impact not captured is the impact of the Concord
Parkway/Roberta Church Road Small Area Plan recommendations. Some of the impacts to water quality
from that development could be mitigated if recommendations for use of low impact development
techniques are implemented during build out. Based on the discussions with local staff regarding the
overall level of development since 2003,a reasonable estimate is that the 2015 forecasts are more
appropriately a 2020 to 2025 forecast today.
12

Figure 5:Concord Parkway/Roberta Church Road Small Area Plan Map
11