PARKERS FERRY AREA COMMUNITY NEEDS SURVEY RESULTS • Atte nde e s live d in the c o mmunity fo r a lo ng time (a ve ra g e : 36 ye a rs) • Wa nt to pro te c t c o mmunity histo ry a nd c ulture • Co nc e rne d a b o ut: • Ab ility to sub divide pro pe rty • Ac c e ss to pub lic se rvic e s, re ta il, a nd me dic a l se rvic e s • Wa nt mo re e mplo yme nt o ppo rtunitie s in the c o mmunity
APRIL 24 COMMUNITY MEETING PLANNING & ZONING SOLUTIONS • Compre he nsive Pla n • Rura l Cultura l Co mmunity Pro te c tio n F uture L a nd Use de sig na tio n • Zoning • Ne w zo ning distric t • Sc he dule d to ho ld a no the r c o mmunity me e ting in la te summe r 2013
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN • Cre a te a ne w F uture L a nd Use de sig na tio n: Rura l Cultura l Community Prote c tion • Prote c t a nd promote the c ulture • Allo w mo re fle xibility to subdivide pro pe rty • Pe rmit se rvic e , b usine ss, o ffic e , a nd e mplo yme nt opportunitie s • Applic a b le to o the r Rura l pa rts o f the Co unty (Jo hns I sla nd, E a st Co unty)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION RURAL CULTURAL COMMUNITY PROTECTION • I nte nde d to prote c t a nd promote the c ulture a nd unique de ve lopme nt pa tte rns a nd susta in the strong se nse of c ommunity • Co mmunity de ve lo pme nt pa tte rn • L e ss de ve lo pe d due to la c k o f o ff-site wa te r a nd se we r • Mo stly re side ntia l • Ma ny c hurc he s • Ve ry fe w b usine sse s to da y • Histo ric a lly ha d sma ll ne ig hb o rho o d b usine sse s • Stro ng tie to na tura l re so urc e s • Ma ny e a rthe n ro a ds c o nne c ting to sta te ro a ds
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION NEW COMMUNITY DESIGNATION (CONT’D) • F uture de ve lo pme nt sho uld b e c o mpa tib le with the e xisting c o mmunity • Re side ntia l de nsity: one unit pe r a c re • Re side nc e s, a g ric ulture , fo re stry, c hurc he s, c e me te rie s, c ultura l a nd histo ric b uilding s, sc ho o ls, po st o ffic e s, e tc . sho uld b e a llo we d • Co mpa tib le b usine sse s a nd o ffic e s sho uld b e a llo we d to o ffe r se rvic e s a nd e mplo yme nt o ppo rtunitie s fo r lo c a l re side nts • No t lo c ate d o n Wadmalaw I sland o r E disto I sland o r within a Planne d De ve lo pme nt o r F o rm-Base d Z o ning Distric t
APRIL 24 COMMUNITY MEETING IDENTIFICATION OF COMMUNITY BOUNDARIES • Wilto wn Co mmunity inc luding : • Pa rke rs F e rry • Ada ms Run • Osb o rne • Je ric ho • Ma uss Hill • Sug a r Hill
F uture L a nd Use De sig na tions: Pe rc e nt of Ac re a g e Rura l E c o no mic De ve lo pme nt Rura l Co mme rc ia l 1% 1% Ag ric ultura l Pre se rva tion 39% Ag ric ultura l Re side ntia l 59%
FUTURE LAND USE (FLU) DESIGNATIONS: URBAN/SUBURBAN AREA
SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL/RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY • “…pro vide s fo r sing le fa mily de ve lo pme nt o n typic a l sub urb a n lo ts. Mo re inte nse la nd de ve lo pme nt re q uire s o ff-site utilitie s.” Co mpre he nsive Plan, pag e 40 • De nsity re c o mme nda tio n: 2 to 4 dwe lling s/ a c re • No te : Ve ry lo w in c o mpa riso n to a dja c e nt jurisdic tio ns
MIXED STYLE RESIDENTIAL/ RESIDENTIAL MODERATE DENSITY • “…pro vide s fo r sma ll-lo t sing le fa mily de ve lo pme nt, a s we ll a s fo rms o f a tta c he d a nd multifa mily de ve lo pme nt suita b le fo r c lo se -in, hig h a c c e ss a re a s. T ra ditio na l ne ig hb o rho o d style de ve lo pme nts inc luding a mix o f re side ntia l, c o mme rc ia l, institutio na l a nd o ffic e de ve lo pme nt c ha ra c te rize mixe d style de ve lo pme nt…” Co mpre he nsive Plan, pag e s 40-41 • De nsity re c o mme nda tio n: 5+ dwe lling s/ a c re • No te : Ve ry lo w in c o mpa riso n to a dja c e nt jurisdic tio ns
F uture L a nd Use De sig na tions: Pe rc e nt of Uninc orpora te d Ac re a g e in the Urba n/ Suburba n Are a Mixe d Style Re side ntia l COM 1% I NDU Spe c ia l 3% 9% Ma na g e me nt 20% NT RE S 14% Suburba n PD 10% Re side ntia l 39% RE SMG 2% RURAG 1% RURAL 1%
URBAN/SUBURBAN AREA RESIDENTIAL FLU DESIGNATIONS - ISSUES • Re c o mme nde d de nsitie s a re ve ry lo w a nd, c o mb ine d with the F L U de finitio ns, do no t pro mo te mixe d use de ve lo pme nt • Co nflic t with Co unty po lic ie s to dire c t g ro wth to the Urb a n/ Sub urb a n Are a whe re infra struc ture e xists • E nc o ura g e a nne xa tio n (a dja c e nt munic ipa litie s ha ve muc h hig he r de nsitie s) • Ma ke it diffic ult to e nc o ura g e a ffo rda b le / wo rkfo rc e ho using a nd pub lic tra nsit a lte rna tive s
URBAN/SUBURBAN AREA NON- RESIDENTIAL FLU DESIGNATIONS - ISSUES • Do no t a ddre ss o r pro mo te mixe d use de ve lo pme nt • Civic / I nstitutio nal, Offic e , Co mme rc ial, and I ndustrial F L U de sig natio ns
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN • Co mb ine the two re side ntia l F L U c a te g o rie s into a sing le “Urb a n/ Sub urb a n” F L U de sig na tio n: • “…e nc o ura g e s mixe d use de ve lo pme nt a nd a g e ne ra l la nd use pa tte rn tha t inc lude s a va rie ty o f ho using type s, re ta il, se rvic e , e mplo yme nt, a nd c ivic use s, a s we ll a s o pe n spa c e a nd linka g e s to pub lic tra nsit in a wa lka b le e nviro nme nt.” • De nsity re c o mme nda tio n: 4+ dwe lling s/ a c re • Add simila r la ng ua g e to no n-re side ntia l F L U c a te g o rie s
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS: ZONING • Annua l wo rk pro g ra m: • Re vie w/ re vise a ll Urb a n/ Sub urb a n Are a zo ning distric ts fo r de nsitie s, dime nsio na l sta nda rds, & use s • Add a ne w mixe d use zo ning distric t • I nc o rpo ra te de nsity b o nuse s fo r inc lusio n o f a ffo rda b le / wo rkfo rc e ho using with pe rfo rma nc e c rite ria (Minimum pe rc e nt fo r a ffo rda b le / wo rkfo rc e units, de e d re stric tio ns, e tc .) • I mple me nt the Pla n with a me ndme nts to the e xisting Multiple Use F lo a ting Zo ne
LAND USE ELEMENT GOAL, NEEDS, & STRATEGIES
LAND USE ELEMENT GOAL E xisting L a nd Use E le me nt Go a l (with pro po se d re visio ns): “L and re so urc e s will A c c o mmo date hig h quality g ro wth in a way that re spe c ts the unique c harac te r o f diffe re nt parts o f the Co unty, pro mo te s e c o no mic o ppo rtunity whe re appro priate , re spe c ts private pro pe rty rig hts, is c o o rdinate d with the pro visio n o f c o mmunity and public fac ilitie s, and pro te c ts c ultur al and natural re so urc e s.” L a nd Use E le me nt Go a l fro m 1999 Pla n: “Ac c o mmo date quality g ro wth in a balanc e o f land use s and de nsitie s while pre se rving the sc e nic be auty, natural re so urc e s, and c ultural he ritag e o f Charle sto n Co unty”
LAND USE ELEMENT NEEDS • Ado pting a de fine d Re inforc ing the Urb a n Gro wth Bo unda ry throug h inte r- jurisdic tiona l c oordina tion • Pre se rving the rura l c ha ra c te r o f the Co unty • E nc o ura g ing c o mpa c t g ro wth in a lre a dy de ve lo pe d a re a s whe re infra struc ture a lre a dy e xists • Pro viding g uida nc e fo r the lo c a tio n, c ha ra c te r, a nd inte nsity o f la nd use s in the Co unty • Autho rizing inno va tive pla nning stra te g ie s tha t re spo nd to e me rg ing la nd use po lic y ne e ds, with fo c us o n the fo rm a nd mix o f la nd use s in la nd use pla ns
LAND USE ELEMENT STRATEGIES U 1. Pro te c t a nd e nha nc e the • L e nviro nme nta l q ua lity o f c re e k, ma rsh a nd rive r fro nt la nds, b e a c he s, a nd a c c e ss to b e a c he s a nd wa te rwa ys U 2. I mple me nt de sig n c ha ra c te r tha t • L e nha nc e s the q ua lity o f de ve lo pme nt a lo ng c o mme rc ia l c o rrido rs, e sta b lish sc e nic c o rrido rs a nd e sta b lish a re a s o f e nviro nme nta l a nd c ultura l sig nific a nc e
LAND USE ELEMENT STRATEGIES (CONT’D) U 3. F o ste r the rura l c ha ra c te r o f la nd • L o utside sub urb a n c o mmunitie s, the Urba n Growth Bounda ry, e nc o ura g ing lo we r de nsity de ve lo pme nt U 4. Co o rdina te la nd use pa tte rns with • L tra nspo rta tio n, ho using , e mplo yme nt a nd re ta il de ve lo pme nt to pro vide c o mmunitie s a nd ne ig hb o rho o ds whe re pe o ple c a n live a nd wo rk
LAND USE ELEMENT STRATEGIES (CONT’D) U 5. E nc o ura g e c o mpa c t g ro wth in a lre a dy • L de ve lo pe d a re a s inside the Urb a n Gro wth Bo unda ry a nd in de sig na te d b usine ss a nd industria l c o rrido rs Institutiona lize the loc a tion of the Urba n Growth Bounda ry a nd the c rite ria to c ha ng e its loc a tion throug h inte r- jurisdic tiona l c oordina tion with the Citie s of Cha rle ston a nd North Cha rle ston, the T own of Mount Ple a sa nt, a nd se rvic e provide rs U 6. Suppo rt E • L nc oura g e c ompa c t g rowth in a lre a dy de ve lope d a re a s inside the Urba n Growth Bounda ry a nd infill o f e xisting va c a nt site s in urb a n a re a s o ve r de ve lo pme nt in lo w g ro wth a re a s, g iving hig h prio rity to a re a s o f g re a te st e mplo yme nt a nd re side ntia l de nsity
LAND USE ELEMENT STRATEGIES (CONT’D) U 7. E sta b lish a Co unc il dire c te d a nnua l • L wo rk pro g ra m fo r the Pla nning De pa rtme nt with a de q ua te re so urc e s Continue the imple me nta tion initia tive s a dopte d by County Counc il in the Compre he nsive Pla n U 8. E sta b lish pro g ra ms a nd po lic ie s whic h • L e nsure ne w g ro wth c o ntrib ute s its fa ir sha re to the c o sts a sso c ia te d with g ro wth
LAND USE ELEMENT STRATEGIES (CONT’D) U 9. Re q uire tha t a ny a pplic a tio n a ffe c ting • L Co unty re so urc e s b e re vie we d b y the Co unty fo r c o nsiste nc y with the a dopte d future la nd use pla n U 10. Ado pt inno va tive pla nning a nd zo ning • L te c hniq ue s suc h a s F o rm-b a se d Zo ning Distric t re g ula tio ns to a utho rize a c o mb ina tio n o f la nd use s within c o mmunitie s, inc luding re side ntia l, se rvic e , a nd e mplo yme nt la nd use s
LAND USE ELEMENT STRATEGIES (CONT’D) • L U 11. De nsity bonuse s be yond the ma ximum de nsity of the re c omme nde d future la nd use de sig na tion ma y be a pprove d whe n a fforda ble a nd/ or workforc e housing units a re inc lude d in propose d de ve lopme nts in the Urba n/ Suburba n Are a . • Add de finitio n o f “wo rkfo rc e ho using ” to the Pla n: Ho using a ffo rda b le to lo w a nd mo de ra te inc o me fa milie s (tho se e a rning up to 120% o f the Cha rle sto n-No rth Cha rle sto n Me tro po lita n Sta tistic a l Are a (MSA) me dia n fa mily inc o me , a s de fine d in the sc he dule pub lishe d a nnua lly b y the U.S. De pa rtme nt o f Ho using a nd Urb a n De ve lo pme nt)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEFINITION (FROM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) • Dwe lling units for sa le : Ho using in whic h mo rtg a g e , a mo rtiza tio n, ta xe s, insura nc e , a nd c o ndo minium o r a sso c ia tio n fe e s, if a ny, c o nstitute no mo re tha n 28% o f the a nnua l ho use ho ld inc o me fo r a ho use ho ld e a rning no mo re tha n 80% pe rc e nt o f the a re a me dia n inc o me , b y ho use ho ld size
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEFINITION (FROM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) • Dwe lling units for re nt: Ho using fo r whic h the re nt a nd utilitie s c o nstitute no mo re tha n 30% o f the a nnua l ho use ho ld inc o me fo r a ho use ho ld e a rning no mo re tha n 80% o f the a re a me dia n inc o me , b y ho use ho ld size
POPULATION & HOUSING ELEMENTS
REVIEW OF POPULATION & HOUSING ELEMENTS • Incorporating leading trends and issues that are currently affecting Charleston County or will affect the County in the near future • Updating statistics using data from the 2010 Decennial Census and 2007-2011 American Community Survey • Reviewing the goal, needs, and strategies
POPULATION GROWTH, 1990-2035 The County’s total population increased 13% from 2000 to 350,209 residents in 2010 Charleston County 396,640 350,209 309,969 295,044 1990 2000 2010 2035 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000, 2010; 2035 projection by BCDCOG
AGE DISTRIBUTION, 2000 TO 2011 The aging population will most likely increase in Charleston County as residents “age in place” and more retirees are attracted to the area; however, the majority of the population is still working age (19-64 years old). 2000 2000 201 011 Seniors Seniors (65+), Youth (65+), Youth 12% (0-19), 13% (0-19), 24% 24% Working Age (20- Working Age (20- 64), 63% 64), 64% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000; American Community Survey, 2007-2011
RACIAL COMPOSITION, 1990-2011 70% 60% 50% 40% 66% 64% 62% 30% 38% 20% 36% 34% 10% 0% 1990 2000 2011 White, non-Hispanic African-American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, American Indian, and two or more races Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000; American Community Survey, 2007-2011
RACIAL COMPOSITION, 2011 Charleston County has a more diverse population than both South Carolina and the United States. 76 76% 80% 69% 69% 66% 66% 70% 60% 50% 40% 34% 34% 31% 30% 24% 20% 10% 0% United States South Carolina Charleston County White, non-Hispanic African-American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, American Indian, and two or more races Source: American Community Survey, 2007-2011
HISPANIC POPULATION DISTRIBUTION, 1990-2011 18% 16% 16% 13% 14% 12% 9% 10% 8% 5% 5% 6% 4% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 0% United States South Carolina Charleston County 1990 2000 2011 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000; American Community Survey, 2007-2011
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT, 2000-2011 The percentage of residents with Bachelor degrees or higher increased 24% between 2000 and 2011 in Charleston County. High school graduate or higher Bachelor’s degree or higher 88% 88% 82% 82% 38% 38% 14 14% 2000 2011 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000; American Community Survey, 2007-2011
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT, 2011 Over one-third of the County’s population has a bachelor’s degree or higher. 100% 88% 88% 85% 85% 84% 4% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 38% 38% 40% 28% 28% 24% 30% 20% 10% 0% United States South Carolina Charleston County High school graduate or higher Bachelor’s degree or higher Source: American Community Survey, 2007-2011
HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION, 2011 Nonfamily households continue to increase, and it is expected that single-person households will soon equal family households as marriage rates continue to drop. 80% 67% 67% 67% 67% 70% 59% 59% 60% 50% 41% 41 40% 33% 33% 33% 33% 30% 20% 10% 0% United States South Carolina Charleston County Percentage of Nonfamily Households Percentage of Family Households Source: American Community Survey, 2007-2011
AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE, 1970-2011 As marriage rates and birth rates decrease, the average household size continues to decline in Charleston County. Charleston County United States 3.5 3.35 3. 35 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.1 .11 3 2.86 2. 86 2.9 2.8 2.61 61 2.7 2.59 2. 59 2.75 2. 75 2.6 .6 2.6 2.5 2.63 2. 63 2.4 2.42 2. 42 2.41 41 2.3 1970 1980 1990 2000 2011 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000; American Community Survey, 2007-2011
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 1990-2011 Median Household Income (Charleston County) $60,000 $50,000 $49,253 $50,133 $40,000 $46,253 $37 37,81 810 $30,000 $26,875 $20,000 $10,000 $- 1990 2000 2011 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000; American Community Survey, 2007-2011
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 2011 Median Household Income $52, $52,762 $50, $50,133 $4 $44, 4,587 United States South Carolina Charleston County Source: American Community Survey, 2007-2011
EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR, 2011 The three industries that employ the most County residents are Government, Trade, Transportation & Utilities, and Professional & Business Services. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Government 20% Trade, Transportation, & Utilities 19% Professional & Business Services 15% Leisure & Hospitality 14% Health Services & Private Education 12% Manufacturing 6% Financial Activities 5% Construction 4% Other Services 3% Information 2% Natural Resources & Mining 0% Charleston County Source: Charleston Regional Competitiveness Center via Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011
AVERAGE WAGE PER HOUR BY SECTOR, 2011 With the exception of Government, Health Services and Private Education, and Manufacturing, the County is below the national average wage per hour by sector. $- $10 $20 $30 $40 Manufacturing $32.41 Financial Activities $27.09 Information $24.12 Government $23.73 Health Services & Private Education $22.00 Construction $21.58 Professional & Business Services $21.14 Trade, Transportation, & Utilities $15.88 Other Services $14.20 Natural Resources & Mining $9.76 Average Wage/Hr Leisure & Hospitality $8.84 Source: Charleston Regional Competitiveness Center via Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011
POVERTY LEVELS, 2011 In 2011, the poverty guideline was $18,530 for a family of three, as determined by the US Department of Health and Human Services. 18.0% 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 17. 7.0% 16. 6.8% 8% 8.0% 14. 4.3% 3% 12. 12.7% 7% 6.0% 11.8% 11 10. 0.5% 5% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% United States South Carolina Charleston County Percentage of Households with Incomes Below Poverty Level Percentage of Individuals with Incomes Below Poverty Level Source: American Community Survey, 2007-2011
COMMUTER-ADJUSTED POPULATION, 2010 Charleston County is home to many of the region’s major employers. As a result, the County’s commuter-adjusted population is significantly larger. In 2010, the daytime population increased by 16% or about 53,000 people. 450,000 403,209 350,209 16% (53,000) 375,000 300,000 225,000 350,209 150,000 75,000 - Population (2010) Commuter-Adjusted Population (2010) Charleston County Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010; American Community Survey, 2006-2010
TOTAL HOUSING UNITS, 1980-2011 Total Housing Units (Charleston County) 180,000 160,000 168,768 140,000 141,031 120,000 123,550 100,000 99,240 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 - 1980 1990 2000 2011 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980, 1990, 2000; American Community Survey, 2007-2011
HOUSING TYPES, 2011 Approximately 169,000 housing units exist in Charleston County. Manufactured Housing, 7.1% Multi- Family, 25.2% Single- Family, Detached, 58.5% Single-Family, Attached & Duplexes, 9.2% Source: American Community Survey, 2007-2011
HOUSING SIZE, 2011 The majority of housing units in Charleston County have 2 or 3 bedrooms. 20% of homes have 4 or more bedrooms. 5 or more bedrooms 4% 4% 4 bedrooms 16% 16 3 bedrooms 43% 43% 2 bedrooms 28% 28% 1 bedroom 9% 9% No bedroom 1% 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Source: American Community Survey, 2007-2011
AGE OF HOUSING STOCK BY YEAR BUILT, 2011 In the BCD Region, Charleston County has the largest percentage of older housing stock (built 1959 or earlier); however, compared to the national housing inventory, the County’s housing stock is relatively young. 54% of the housing was built post- 1980. 1959 or 2000 or later, earlier, 21% 20% 1960 - 1979, 1980 - 1999, 26% 34% Source: American Community Survey, 2007-2011
HOUSING TENURE, 1990-2011 In 2011, vacant units increased while both owner-occupied and renter-occupied units decreased slightly. Owner- 53% 53% Occupied 51 51% 50% 50% Units Renter- 37 37% 34% 34% Occupied 32% 32% Units Vacant 18% Units 13% 13% 19 1990 90 2000 20 00 2011 20 11 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000; American Community Survey, 2007-2011
HOUSING TENURE, 2011 United Charleston Vacant States County Units, Renter- 12% Occupied Vacant Units, 30% Units, Renter- 18% Occupied Owner-Occupied Units, Units, 58% 32% BCD Owner- Region Vacant Occupied Units, Renter- Units, 15% Occupied 51% Units, 29% Owner-Occupied Units, 57% Source: American Community Survey, 2007-2011
MEDIAN & AVERAGE SALES PRICE, JAN 1 – MAY 31, 2013 BCD Region Charleston County $362, $362,613 $274,325 325 $259, $259,450 0 $1 $198, 98,206 06 Median Sales Price Average Sales Price Source: Charleston Trident Association of Realtors, May 2013
MEDIAN GROSS RENT, 2000-2011 Median Gross Rent increased 48% from 2000 to 2011 in Charleston County. 2000 2011 $1,000 $895 $895 $871 $900 $800 $728 $728 $700 $605 $605 $602 $602 $600 $51 510 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $- United States South Carolina Charleston County Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000; American Community Survey, 2007-2011
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY • Housing is affordable when no mo more t than an 3 30% of a household’s annual income is spent on housing costs. This includes mortgages, rent, utilities, insurance, and other associated housing expenses. • When housing costs exceed 30%, households are cost burdened and ma may st struggle t to af afford o other b basi asic n needs ds such as food, clothing, and transportation. • The traditional definition of housing affordability does not factor in transportation costs, which can add an addit itio ional al 1 15% to the cost of housing. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, (OWNER-OCCUPIED) 2011 43% of home mes wit with mo mortgages ar are u unaf affordable in in Ch Char arleston Co County. Affordable (less than 30%) Unaffordable (30% or more) 33% 33% 38% 38% 43% 43% 67% 67% 63% 63% 57% United States South Carolina Charleston County Source: American Community Survey, 2007-2011
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, (RENTER-OCCUPIED) 2011 Rental units tend to be more unaffordable. 55% % of of re rental u units ar are u unaf affordab able in in Ch Char arleston Co County. Affordable (less than 30%) Unaffordable (30% or more) 51 51% 52% 52% 55% 55% 49% 49% 48% 48% 45% 45% United States South Carolina Charleston County Source: American Community Survey, 2007-2011
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY Ch Charleston Co Coun unty Average Industry wage/hour Manufacturing $32.41/hr Financial Activities $27.09/hr Information $24.12/hr Governm nment nt $23. $23.73/hr Health Services & Private E He Education on $22. $22.00/hr Construction $21.58/hr Professional & Business Services $21.14/hr Trade, Transportation, & & U Utilitie ies $15.88/ 88/hr Other Services $14.20/hr Natural Resources & Mining $9.76/hr Leisure & Hospitality $8.84/hr
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY Source: Charleston Regional Development Alliance (CRDA) Economic Scorecard, 2012
COST OF LIVING COMPARISON, 2013 City, y, S State Co Compo posite I Ind ndex Apartment R Rent Home ome P Price New York, NY 225.6 $3,902 1,303,421 Washington, DC 144.8 $1,852 $746,549 Boston, MA 140.0 $1,755 $459,744 San Diego, CA 131.9 $1,752 $554,436 Seattle, WA 115.3 $1,436 $370,966 Charleston, SC 98.5 $895 $242,000 Orlando, FL 97.7 $815 $209,095 Atlanta, GA 97.0 $888 $231,965 Charlotte, NC 94.8 $815 $224,594 Huntsville, AL 93.2 $775 $219,782 Durham, NC 92.7 $784 $210,494 Wichita, KS 91.4 $658 $232,651 Savannah, GA 91.0 $760 $198,028 Raleigh, NC 90.8 $635 $206,825 Source: The Council for Community and Economic Research (formerly the American Chamber of Commerce Research Association), 2013; American Community Survey, 2007-2011
POPULATION TRENDS • Inc Increas easing p ing popul ulat atio ion • 52.4% of the US population will live in the South by 2030. • Diversifying po popu pulation • By 2043, there will be NO majority population in the United States due to declining birth rates among the white, non- Hispanic population and consistently higher birth rates among the Hispanic and Latino populations. • Gra Graying o of f Am Ameri rica • The population, age 65 and older, is increasing and having new implications on local economies. By 2030, one in 5 Americans will be over the age of 65.
POPULATION ELEMENT GOAL “A socio-economically diverse and growing population will be accommodated by Charleston County in an environmentally and fiscally sustainable manner with particular attention to low to moderate income residents.”
POPULATION ELEMENT NEEDS • Monitoring population and cultural shifts and national trends • Developing policies to meet the needs of the County’s population • Encouraging diversity within communities
POPULATION ELEMENT STRATEGIES P 1. 1. Monitor population growth trends and demographic shifts as indicators of population change and use this information to guide future updates to the Comprehensive Plan. P 2. 2. Continue to monitor and update the Demand Analysis to identify how the County will accommodate growth in the future. (Add ddresse ssed i in P1 P1) P 3. 3. Develop land use strategies and implementation measures that address the needs of the aging population.
POPULATION ELEMENT STRATEGIES P 4. 4. Support a diverse population through land development regulations which accommodate a range of housing, , tran ansp sportat atio ion, and employment options opportunit itie ies. P 5. 5. Continue to monitor and evaluate population and cultural shifts and national trends for their potential impacts on land use and development patterns. P 6. 6. Adopt innovative planning and zoning techniques, such as Form-Based Zoning District and M d Multipl iple U Use se F Floatin ing Z Zone Dist strict regulations that focus on the form and mix of land uses in land use plans to support encourage diverse communities and r d resp spect c culture a and h d history .
HOUSING TRENDS • Household S ld Size & & Composition • Nonfamily households, specifically single-person households, are increasing and will affect home preferences in the future. By 2025, single-person households are expected to equal family households nationally, and by 2050, they will exceed the number of family households. • Chang anging ing Pr Pref efer erenc ences es d due ue to Gener enerat atio ional nal D Dif iffer erenc ences es • Inventory in Charleston is largely single-family, detached residences – there will be a need for more diverse housing options to accommodate urban lifestyle preferences.
HOUSING TRENDS (CONT’D) • Homeo eowner nership ip v ver ersus us R Rent enting ing • The aging population and younger generations are both more likely to rent, but for different reasons. Older residents do not want the onus of home maintenance that comes with homeownership; younger residents want the mobility afforded by renting. • Lack o of Housing t that i is Afforda dable le • Discrepancies between wages and salaries and the cost of housing in Charleston County are leading factors resulting in unaffordable housing.
HOUSING ELEMENT GOAL “Quality and housing t that is is affordable housing will be encouraged for people of all ages, incomes, and physical abilities.”
HOUSING ELEMENT NEEDS • Meeting the projected demand for 12,000 new homes by 2020 a di diversifying p popula lation • Promoting affordable and workforce housing th that i t is afforda dable le • Ensuring a supply of safe and structurally sound homes
HOUSING ELEMENT STRATEGIES H 1. 1. Coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions, the Lowcountry Housing Trust, and other affordable housing agencies in pursuit of supplying affordable housing that is is af afforda dable. H 2. 2. Continue to support funding for affordable and workforce housing agencies such as the Lowcountry Housing Trust. H 3. 3. Continue to identify solutions for obstacles to creation of affordable housing in the County ZLDR, development approval processes, and fee structures. (Duplica cate o e of H11) 1)
HOUSING ELEMENT STRATEGIES H 4. 4. Develop incentives in the ZLDR such as density bonuses, transfers of density, and mixed-use development provisions to promote a variety and diversity of div diverse affordable an and d workfo forc rce housing types optio ions t s that at p promo mote w walkab abil ilit ity to to servic ices, s, r retail ail, a and public ic t transpo sportat atio ion, particularly in the Urban/Suburban Area. H 5. 5. Continue to allow density bonuses in planned developments and the use of accessory dwelling units in the Rural Area to promote affordable housing for low and moderate income households that at is af is afforda dable. H 6. 6. Establish special management areas to support existing communities and maintain existing housing stock.
Recommend
More recommend
