The URL can be used to link to this page

CPPC 02-14-05 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM TO: Comprehensive Plans and. Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) FROM: Susan K. Eddy, AICP, Senior Planner 5K (✓ RE: February Meeting and Agenda DATE: February 7, 2005 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 The Frederick County Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) will be meeting on Mondale, February 14th, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. in the first floor conference room of the County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. The CPPS will discuss the following agenda items: AGENDA 1) Introduction to the Urban Development Area Study 2) Other. Please contact the department if you are unable to attend this meeting. Access to the County Administration Building for night meetings that do not occur in the Board Room will be limited to the back door of the four-story wing. I would encourage committee members to park in the county parking lot located behind the new addition or in the Joint Judicial Center parking lot and follow the sidewalks to the back door of the four- story wing. The door will be locked; therefore, please wait for staff to open the door. SKE/bad Attachments -1- 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 ITEM #1 Introduction to the Urban Development Area (UDA) Study At the Planning Commissioner's Annual Retreat on February 5, 2005, the Board of Supervisors considered the Urban Development Area (UDA) Study to be a top priority of the long-range planning program. Staff will undertake the UDA Study with the CPPS as its principal comprehensive planning activity for the next several months. As a prelude to the UDA study, staff will provide an introduction to the issues and trends characterizing urban land in Frederick County. The intent of this overview is to ensure a shared understanding of background information amongst committee members. The attachment contains information on the UDA and relevant reading material that was distributed at the Annual Retreat. (Note; CPPS members who are Planning Commissioners will not be sent an additional copy of the attachment. They may want to bring their 2004 Annual Report and their 2005 Retreat Agenda Package to the CPPS meeting.) The study introduction will be followed by a discussion of study objectives, methodology, and time frame. The outcome of this discussion will enable staff to develop a work plan and begin developing materials necessary for future CPPS meetings. The UDA Study will be a comprehensive study of the urban areas. Staff encourages committee members to think beyond just boundary adjustments. This study should result in a comprehensive vision for our urban areas. What do we want our urban areas to look like? How do we want our urban areas to function? What is lacking in our urban areas that would enhance our quality of life? Should you have questions concerning this item, please contact Mike Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director, via email at mruddykeo.frederick.va.us or telephone at (540) 665-5651. -2- Annual Report 2004 Population Trends Frederick County continues to experience steady population growth. Since 1990, the annual population growth has maintained an average rate of 2.6%. The population in 1990 was 45,723 people and was estimated at 52,000 in 1995. In 2000, Frederick County's population was 59,209, a 29% increase from 1990. Frederick County was the fourteenth (14th) fastest growing county out of ninety-five (95) in Virginia in the 1990's. According to population projections since the 2000 census, Frederick County is now the fifteenth (15th) fastest growing county in the Commonwealth. Projections Using the 2.6% population growth rate, the 2004 population of Frederick County is around 66,321. The Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service projects that the 2010 population of Frederick County will be 72,300. This figure suggests a slowing of population growth in the future. Current Population and Population Proiections for Frederick County 1990-2030 Area 1990 2400 2010 2020 2036 Frederick County 45,723 59,209 72,300 84,300 96,100 Winchester 21,947 23,585 26,000 27,700 29,300 Area Total 67,670 82,794 98,300 112,000 125,400 Source: U..Y. census, vrrgmra Bnaproymenr uonmuss:on, weiaon cooper center)or,-uoUc,)erv[ce FREDERICK COUNTY Annual Family and Household Income 2004 According to the US Census Bureau, Frederick County was home to 16,718 families in 2000. The median income for these families was $52,281. This was $1,888 less than the median income for Virginia as a whole. Median household income differs from median family income in that it includes the income of all persons 15 years or older, living in a single household, whether they are related or not. The median household income in Frederick County according to the 2000 Census was $46,941. Households The average number of persons within a household in Frederick County has declined over the past couple of decades. In 1980, the average household consisted of 2.98 people. In 1990, the average household size dropped to 2.78. In 2000, the average household size further declined to 2.64. The estimated average household size in 2003 remains consistent with 2000 at 2.64. This is slightly above the state average of 2.54. Number of Households and Average Household Size (1960-2008) Year Population . j floweholds Average Household Size 1960 21,941 6,045 3.63 1970 24,107 8,570 2.81 1980 43,150 11,467 2.98 1990 45,723 16,470 2.78 2000 59,209 23,319 2.64 2003 64,640 24,527 2.64 2008 72,983 1 28,395 2.57 Source: US Census Bureau, DentographicsNOW, Winchester Frederick Count) Economic Development Commission "Please note that the numbers for 1960-2000 are Census Bureau figures while 2003 and 2008 are estimates. FREDERICK COUNTY W111 Annual Report 2004 Residential Lots Created The number of residential lots created in rural and urban areas of the County is determined by the number of lots created as a result of subdivision applications (urban) and administrative subdivisions (rural) that were. approved in 2004. The number of residential lots created in the rural areas of the County has increased considerably from the 2003 figure of 226 lots. In 2004, 292 lots were created in the rural areas. The year 2004 rural lots also represent a larger percentage of the total number of residential lots than the 2003 rural lots. The number of residential lots created in the urban areas of Frederick County also increased from year 2003. 507 urban residential lots were created in year 2004 as opposed to 456 in 2003. Residential Subdivision Lots Created by Year - RP & RA Zoning Districts Year Residential, Performance (RP) Zoning District Rural Areas (RA) Zonmg District # of Lots Created % of Total Lots Created # of Lots Created % of Total Lots Created 1999 310 69% 137 31% 2000 311 57% 235 43% 2001 571 73% 206 27% 2002 536 70% 226 30% 2003 456 67% 226 33% 2004 507 63% 292 37% TOTALS 1 2692 1 67% 1322 33% Lots Created in 2004 by Magisterial District by Zoning District Magisterial District RA RP i R5 i B2 B3 M1 M2 - Total Back Creek 123 84 0 0 0 0 0 207 Gainesboro 93 0 0 10 0 0 0 103 Red Bud 0 132 0 0 0 0 0 132 Shawnee 15 221 0 0 0 0 0 236 Stonewall 44 13 0 0 0 2 0 59 O e uon 17 57 0 0 0 0 0 74 Totals 292 507 0 10 0 2 0 811 Source: Prederick County Department of f laTning and Ueve[opnnent FREDERICK COUNTY -11- Annual Report 2004 Residential Building Permits Building Permits Issued in Frederick County for New Residences from 1999 to 2004 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year 0 Mobile Home ® Multi -Family 13 Single Family A total of 1081 building permits* (resulting in 1136 residential units**) were issued in 2004, which is a 25%*** increase from 2003. New Residential Units From Issued Building Permits (1990-2003) Year t j Single Family Multi -Family Mobile Dome ; Total Units 1990 486 119 134 739 1992 385 63 87 535 1994 448 73 181 702 1996 417 132 141 690 1998 529 73 92 694 1999 509 34 70 613 2000 506 52 81 639 2001 632 113 108 853 2002 777 163 64 1004 2003 731 107 67 905 2004 945 120 1 71 1136 The multi family figure shown in the table is based upon the number of individual residential units irithin a multr family structure. * * Multi family can result in multiple residential units for a single building permit. Source: Frederick County Department of Inspections *** Erosion and sediment control code requires that significant site improvements to made prior to the issuance of building permits. This new regulation may have resulted in an artificial drop in 2003 building permits because some developments did not obtain building permits until 2004 when all site improvements had been completed. FREDERICK COUNTY -12- Annual Report 2004 Schools 2003-2004 Frederick County School Enrollment 4F P O �-Ari Schools Grade L --v s t-apacity 'I 2003-2004 r,nrollmen I nt of p;.a �i,�al Capacity Apple Pie Ridge Elem. K-5 563 510 91% Armel Elem. K-5 644 727 113% Bass -Hoover Elem. K-5 662 547 83% Gainesboro Elem. K-5 234 165 71% Indian Hollow Elem. K-5 528 531 101% Middletown Elem. K-5 644 498 77% Orchard View Elem. K-5 528 483 91% Redbud Run Elem. K-5 644 699 109% Senseny Road Elem. K-5 495 542 109% Stonewall Elem. K-5 528 461 87% Total Elementary School i K-5 5 ,4? 5,163 94% Robert E. Aylor Middle 6-8 850 991 117% Frederick County Middle 6-8 730 822 113% James Wood Middle 6-8 915 1,151 126% Total Middle School 6-8 2,495 I 2,964 119% James Wood High 9-12 1,400 1,223 87% Millbrook High 9-12 1,250 1,011 81% Sherando High 1 9-12 1,400 1,318 94% Total High, School 9-12 4,050 ( 1552 1 88% NREP Ages 2-21 56 49 88% Total K -I? 12,071 11,728 97% Source: Frederick Couno� Public Schools November 30, 2004 Enrollment Data FREDERICK COUNTY -13- FREDERICK COUNTY 2005 UDA ANALYSIS vim:❖ L?J ♦ r ♦++ ♦ ♦rte Raven Pointe MDP r ♦, + nter Estatt ♦ •* �' •[SDP Wakeland Manor ♦� i` ' MDP •P ";� ♦� Tasker Land Bay •' + r MDP ; •+ • � rr ♦ ♦ yr .° RdcQr Tract ` - \ ♦ ♦'+ $oern HilJs� M � + Village V '• _ '�. Bud Run East ointe rwoodMDPaven w♦ ■ MDD{ne + FuShep ♦ , ,, i MDP r .• ■ I' + Eastern Frederick County Landuse Plan Rural Community Center Residential Business Industrial Institutional Recreation Historic ® Mixed -Use ®Planned Unit Development Parks r City / County Libraries rl r � ■ County � t2 Cit, Park MDP Parcels ❑ Middle School State■ Frederick County Proposed High School p New & Proposed Schools p C� 1 r s ■ R♦ + f , ■ ♦ r ♦++ ♦ ♦rte Raven Pointe MDP r ♦, + nter Estatt ♦ •* �' •[SDP Wakeland Manor ♦� i` ' MDP •P ";� ♦� Tasker Land Bay •' + r MDP ; •+ • � rr ♦ ♦ yr .° RdcQr Tract ` - \ ♦ ♦'+ $oern HilJs� M � + Village V '• _ '�. Bud Run East ointe rwoodMDPaven w♦ ■ MDD{ne + FuShep ♦ , ,, i MDP r .• ■ I' + Eastern Frederick County Landuse Plan Rural Community Center Residential Business Industrial Institutional Recreation Historic ® Mixed -Use ®Planned Unit Development GolfCoursesE Parks Abrams P City / County Libraries rl MDP SCHOOLS Bria County � t2 Cit, Park MDP Parcels ❑ Middle School State■ Frederick County Proposed High School Eastern Land Use Plan New & Proposed Schools ,a GolfCoursesE Parks Projects City / County Libraries rl Neighborhooda SCHOOLS UDA' SWSn County � t2 Cit, Park Elementary School Parcels Middle School State■ Frederick County Proposed High School Eastern Land Use Plan New & Proposed Schools FREDERICK COUNTY 2005 UDA ANALYSIS Building Permits & COs d2 -Certificate of Occupancy Permits 2000 - 2004 AV " s s u e Mftilding Permits 2000 - 2004 . UDA Parcels OCountyPoly 4. SWSA Total Building Permits Issued : 3905 / Total Cert. Occupancy Permits Issued : 3366 `mom, '.i- � r � � ; � ♦ � � •1' #jE fe An \ A''PIP ' 4 s � �� ♦ • t �� I %� r 4 # ♦ � 04* - fir. w� + i A ``# ; `I.♦M♦. A. ♦ i` l ti 'VIP S'• j i « low. ` ter_ - , A WW + . i 4 ♦ 410, FREDERICK COUNTY 2005 UDA ANALYSIS •. lb 'fid � � � ♦°�,�r.r�••♦ � a� i1' 1 • ♦ + ♦ 4P■ 0 rrar■�• r 1 •♦ ✓rrr r' ♦ � i ■ * Building Permits & COs ► �� Issued 2000 - 2004 44? ♦ ♦ . Certificate of Occupancy Permits 2000 - 2004 j i ♦ + ♦' `Building Permits 2000 - 2004 • • ♦ Parcels • # .� SWSA �•- `�, Permit Counts INSIDE the UDA Building Permits : 2398 `� Cert. Occup. Permits : 2040 by ■ b +Y j y• \— ■ ♦ / l ♦ -_ ■ N. ♦ ■ �♦; � Nra t � • •♦r♦ •�" • }a,♦ of Ir 1 1 • .�•'t r♦r++ /1 • ♦♦+♦ • ♦r r■ ♦ D ♦ � i ■ * Building Permits & COs ► �� Issued 2000 - 2004 44? ♦ ♦ . Certificate of Occupancy Permits 2000 - 2004 j i ♦ + ♦' `Building Permits 2000 - 2004 • • ♦ Parcels • # .� SWSA �•- `�, Permit Counts INSIDE the UDA Building Permits : 2398 `� Cert. Occup. Permits : 2040 Innovative Planning Concepts Other community's efforts to manage growth and create community. Throughout the Country and the Commonwealth n,any communities are, with varying degrees of success, managing growth and its associated impacts. Frederick County would like to take this opportunity to recognize and discuss the efforts of two other Virginia jurisdictions, Hanover County and Albemarle County. These two communities may be considered generally similar in size and character to Frederick County and are experiencing comparable pressures associated with growth. It may be helpful to consider the approaches of Hanover and Albemarle Counties when evaluating and defining the future of the Urban Development Area of Frederick County. Community Development (Planning) -The Neighborhood Model & Related Zoning Text ... Pagel of 2 ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOOD MODEL Albemarle County's Neighborhood Model is a guide for developing the County's designated Development Areas. It was appended to the Comprehensive Plan on May 16, 2001. Subsequent changes to the Land Use Portion of the Comprehensive Plan to reinforce the ;Neighborhood Model were adopted on July 10, 2002. CLICK HERE OR SEE BELOW FOR PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMNENDMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE NEIGHBORHOOD MODEL What is in the Neighborhood Model ? The Neighborhood Model describes the more "urban" form of development desired for the Development Areas. It establishes the 12 Principles for Development that should be adhered to in new development proposals. These principles are: . Pedestrian Orientation . Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths . Transportation Networks and Interconnected Streets . Parks and Open Space . Mixed Uses . Neighborhood Centers . Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale . Relegated Parking . Affordability with Dignity . Redevelopment . Site Planning that respects terrain . Clear boundaries with the Rural Areas The document illustrates the several different ways that each of these principles can be achieved in design of developments. It also describes how the master planning process should be used to set the context for new development. What is the Neighborhood Model doing for the County? The Neighborhood Model is providing direction for new land development in the County's designated Development Areas. It is the basis on which a new master plan is being developed for the Community of Crozet . And it is providing a "recipe book" of design solutions to some of the County's challenges for more urban development. It is also the basis on which ordinance revisions and community facilities planning are taking place. What ordinance amendments have taken place so far to implement the Neighborhood Model? Several ordinance amendments to implement the Neighborhood Model have been made or are in the public review process at this time. In January of 2002, alleys and shared driveways were made permissible by -right in subdivisions in the Development Areas. A new set of parking standards was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in February 2003. A new Neighborhood Model zoning district was adopted in March 2003. Other amendments to the Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance are under development. Click HERE to see the proposed changes to http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=planning&relpage=2457 10/8/2004 Community Development (Planning) -The Neighborhood Model & Related Zoning Text ... Page 2 of 2 the Zoning Ordinance regarding relegated parking. Click HERE to see the other Zoning Text Amendments that are being proposed for implementation of the Neighborhood Model. How can I get a copy of the Neighborhood Model? You may download it from the Neighborhood Model webpage. You may pick up a black and white version from the Department of Community Development for $8.00. Or you may send a check to the County for $8.50 for a copy to cover the printing and mailing. For more information, contact Elaine Echols at (434) 296-5832 ext. 3252. Neighborhood Model Slide Show Presentation. http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=planning&rell)age=2457 10/8/2004 The Future of the Urban Development Area (UDA) of Frederick County. A review of development activity within Frederick County indicates that this activity is at its highest level in the history of the County. The rate of development activity is likely to continue, if not increase further, and the growth pressures associated with this activity will continue to be felt. The County's ideal geographic location in the Northern Shenandoah Valley and Interstate 81 corridor in addition to its position adjacent to the National Capital Region are key factors driving this activity. Another factor associated with this activity and growth is the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan which addresses residential and economic development and provides policy guidance for the future land use of Frederick County. The opportunity presently exists to ensure that the future of Frederick County, in particular the future of the Urban Development Area, is positive and successful and that development occurring in the UDA fulfils and implements the vision of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. It is important to first ensure that the vision for the Urban Development Area is appropriate. Further, that the goals for the Urban Development Area in general, and more specifically for the residential and commercial elements of the Plan, are all that they can be and seek to achieve the vision for the Urban Development Area. Materials presented during previous retreats have offered that development in Frederick County should support economy, community, and environment, and preserve quality of life. The size and location, the density and mix of uses, and the design of the UDA are important considerations when creating a sustainable vision for the Urban Development Area. Included with this years retreat materials is an article pertaining to Urban Growth Area Boundaries and a couple of articles relating to Place Making, a concept promoted by the planning profession and others. Place Making seeks to promote successful mixed use projects that are integrated into more urbanized areas and which provide communities with a sense of place and secure the long term economic vitality of the community. The concept is a particularly successful approach for suburban communities that often lack a sense of identity and character. The Urban Land Institute (ULI), an organization representative of the Real Estate and Development Community, is a key proponent of Place Making and has provided a great deal of information on the topic. Urban Growth Boundaries and Place Making, along with concepts developed by other communities may provide Frederick County with some ideas that would assist in the evaluation of the Urban Development Area. In addition, the following questions may generate additional thoughts and concepts that could guide the study of the Urban Development Area. ■ Does the boundary of the UDA make sense? ■ Is the size of the UDA sufficient? ■ Are the land use designations within the UDA appropriate? ■ Do the densities and land use designations promote an efficient use of resources in the UDA? ■ Is there a desired mix of uses in the UDA? • What is the identity of Frederick County's UDA? ■ Should Neighborhood Community Centers be promoted in the UDA similar to the Rural Community Center concept of the Rural Areas? ■ Are the Commercial and Industrial to Residential ratios acceptable? ■ Are a full and appropriate range of community facilities and services and transportation options provided for in the UDA? ■ If the UDA boundary needs to be expanded, what criteria should be used to determine expansion areas? Right -sizing Urban Growth Boundaries lttttericml Viannirtg .Ass cial,ioll February 2003 Right -sizing Urban Growth Boundaries How to figure out what's best for your community. By Uri Avin, FAICP, and Michael Bayer, AICP Pagel of 6 ,, Print Now Urban growth boundaries are an increasingly popular approach to growth management. Oregon, Washington, and Tennessee mandate their use (although with very different sets of "teeth"); Florida encourages them; and Maryland and California have been doing them for decades. Drawing a line in the sand seems like a simple way to implement a smart growth program or, more cynically, for beleaguered politicians to satisfy their constituents' qualms about excessive growth. Arthur Nelson, FAICP, of Virginia Tech and Casey Dawkins of Georgia Tech .„ recently attempted to identify all UGBs or similar development lines for all counties and cities with populations over 50,000. By the beginning of 2003 they had found 146 examples of counties with multiple UGBs or UGBs surrounding cities of over 50,000 population where the county is not involved. U.S. Despite this flurry of boundary setting, our impression was that UGBs, once fixed, are rarely expanded. Unless states require jurisdictions to review their UGBs periodically, the boundaries tend to get set in stone. To explore this hunch, we called places with long-term UGBs (Lexington/Fayette County, Kentucky; Montgomery and Baltimore counties, Maryland; and Sarasota County, Florida). With the exception of Lexington/Fayette, which added eight square miles to its urban service area in 1996, we found no significant expansions, especially with the more strictly defined UGBs. To corroborate our anecdotal information, we surveyed more than 180 places known to have adopted UGBs. The 35 responses received so far, while only a small sample, reinforce our initial impression: Communities are not expanding their UGBs in any significant way (see box on survey findings). Nor do communities appear to be densifying their undeveloped land within the UGBs as an alternative to expansion. Oregon and Florida are exceptions. Oregon requires that cities with UGBs consider this alternative every five years when reviewing their land supplies. Florida cities and counties with urban containment plans (which may or may not include UGBs) must re-evaluate urban development needs periodically. For planners, the bottom line is that if UGBs are typically a one-shot deal (i.e., where there is no requirement to reconsider UGB size on a regular basis), then their initial size and dimensions are crucial. Is there an empirically based, substantiated method for sizing UGBs? The answer is no. Our inherited rules -of -thumb are not based on the dynamics of land supply and demand. Nor have UGBs been analyzed to see how varying sizes or implementation strategies affect housing costs, growth patterns, and economic segregation. While a fair bit of research has been done on growth management and its effects on housing prices, UGBs typically have not been isolated from other measures. In theory, the UGB — a bright line dividing urban development from rural areas — is a rational way to phase the expansion of urban growth; it promises to provide discrete amounts of contiguous and relatively compact development as demand warrants. In some places, a tiered approach is mapped and future expansions of the UGB are identified to broadcast the community's long-term intentions (as in Florida's Sarasota and Palm Beach counties and in San Diego County, California). We see a need to apply some planning logic to UGBs, and offer the following approach as an option. htt-D://www.Dlannina.ora/Dlanning/member/2003feb/ugb.htm?proiect=Print 1/6/2005 Right -sizing Urban Growth Boundaries Page 2 of 6 An approach to right -sizing As planners, we should try to right -size UGBs so that housing remains available and affordable; growth is not simply squeezed from second- to third -tier suburbs (as locals optimize their own jurisdiction's future but compromise the region's); economic growth and development is not stunted through lack of an accessible labor force; and rural areas are not encapsulated by growth areas and scattered suburban development, effectively frozen in amber, so that they lose their critical mass and economic rationale. We do not believe that right -sizing will ever be as simple as, say, "providing for your projected 20 -year growth plus 25 percent as a safety valve" or as technocratic as "this multi -variate simulation model, once fed, will churn out the right UGB multiplier." Rather, we believe that the best one can do with wicked problems of the UGB kind is to work within a proper framework. In proffering a framework, then, we rely mainly on what little research is available, as well as our professional experience, judgment, and, we hope, common sense. Our approach assumes that a county or sub -county jurisdiction initiates a growth boundary within a larger metropolitan area, but it does not address municipal annexation as the rationale for the UGB. We also do not assume any regional (or statewide) growth management regime in which development outside the boundaries is uniformly discouraged or in which "fair share" growth allocations are required by individual jurisdictions. Although a fair share approach certainly is desirable, it is very difficult to achieve because of political, institutional, and conceptual hurdles. Our approach is based on a multiplier of population projections (incorporating employment and other land needs) that is converted to acres. The multiplier assumes a constant proportional relationship between population (or housing units) and jobs over time. This is an important oversimplification and should be handled with caution. Where jobs/housing ratios likely will change significantly over time, planners should disaggregate population from employment projections and address their land needs separately. Our approach also assumes local planners will have data on current land use and the capacity to analyze land markets. Our system also attempts to use data and analytical tools that are readily available to planners. (Ding, Knaap, and Hopkins at the University of Illinois at Urbana -Champaign have developed an economic model for assessing the efficiency of UGB size, but it requires a complex analysis of marginal versus average costs for infrastructure expansion and public services, data on development costs, land rights, and so forth.) We identify eight factors, in three sets, that planners should consider when delineating UGBs. The first three factors — growth pressures, potential deflection, and fiscal strength — are the big drivers in sizing the UGB. These factors are deep forces that determine a jurisdiction's future but are not under the control of a single jurisdiction and not readily susceptible to change. Once you understand these three factors, you can make a first cut at sizing your UGB. Then, with the second set of factors, which address the status of land ownership around your jurisdiction, you can refine your UGB size estimate. These factors, unlike the first set, may respond to policy or regulatory interventions (either controls or incentives) and can be influenced over time. Finally, you will need to assess your jurisdiction's future infrastructure capacity and its institutional capacity to sustain a UGB of any given size. These final factors are the most open to intervention and change. Each factor in our process can be assigned a value on a continuum. How you synthesize these scores depends on your interpretation of the relative importance of any factor in your jurisdiction. You can use the framework quantitatively and assign weights and scores to the factors, or qualitatively, as the basis for a persuasive narrative. In the end, the adoption of the UGB is a political act, but if you have done your homework right, it can be informed by a responsible planning logic. Our framework continuum goes from a minimum UGB (at the bottom of the diagram) to an expansive UGB (at the top). We have set the minimal UGB at 125 percent of 20 -year projections, following bttp://www_planning.org/planning/member/2003 feb/ugb.htm?pr of ect=Print 1/6/2005 Right -sizing Urban Growth Boundaries Page 3 of 6 conventional wisdom (and APA's Growing SmartSM model statutes). If the prospects for expanding the UGB over time appear slim, however, this approach would be too rigid and invite negative consequences over time. (This should not be the case where state or regional requirements or local custom lead to plan updates every five to 10 years, however.) Accordingly, we have set the upper limits of our bar at 250 percent of 20 -year growth projections, or a 50 -year time frame. You could var=y this upper limit based on local conditions. However, a larger boundary may have little effect and would require substantial growth management within the UGB. We have purposely expressed the UGB size as a multiplier of projected growth, rather than as a multiplier of land area. Obviously, you must translate projected growth into acreage needs using assumptions about density, intensity, infrastructure, and so forth. The actual area and extent of the UGB, therefore, could be very large compared to an existing community's land area if low-end densities are assumed, even with a "tight" 1.25 multiplier. Conversely, a liberal multiplier at high density could yield a tight UGB. A word of caution here. You should not simply extrapolate existing land -use acreage ratios. Densities may change, driven by demographic shifts, or excess commercial parking ratios could be re -balanced in an effort to "recapture" infill or mixed-use opportunities. In any case, assumptions will vary in each locale. However, the UGB concept is predicated on a smart growth view that more compact, dense development is better than extensive, low-density development. Research suggests you get the most substantial benefits when moving from very low gross residential densities (say two dwelling units per acre, the gross residential density of many suburban areas) to, say, five dwelling units per acre (the typical gross residential density of the 1970s generation of new towns). A few caveats In a smart growth world, forecasts tend to be policy -driven rather than market-driven. In other words, jurisdictions with growth management targets can simply say, "This is as much as we choose to grow right now for various reasons," regardless of market pressures. Although smart growthers might say they are simply "managing growth" and accommodating their fair share in the right way, rather than controlling or stopping it, in reality, this line is blurred. To be of use, our UGB framework requires realism about the local market, even if a later decision is made to accommodate only a portion of anticipated growth. This argues for a reality -based regional forecasting framework within which a jurisdiction's projections are set. Off-the-shelf projections that are based on econometric models — and that disregard local land -use policies and land supply — provide this kind of framework. Factors in sizing UGBs DRIVING FACTORS Growth pressures: This is the most important factor in sizing the UGB. Assuming that growth forecasting is done responsibly and the jurisdiction's "fair share" of development will be accommodated, a forecast of rapid growth requires a roomy UGB. Rapid growth can be characterized as twice the national average or greater, moderate growth as three-quarters to less than twice the national average, and slow growth as less than three-quarters of the national average. Rapid growth can be characterized as twice the national average or greater (less than 2 percent), moderate growth as three-quarters to less than twice the national average (0.75 to 2 percent), and slow growth as less than three-quarters of the national average (less than 0.75 percent). Potential for growth deflection; Studies in California by John Landis and Ned Levin indicate that UGBs and similar measures will push growth elsewhere — typically, farther out onto cheaper land and into a less - regulated climate. Our experience in Maryland suggests a similar pattern. Where growth is managed at a countywide scale, this need not necessarily occur. Boulder County, Colorado, has guided growth away from the city of Boulder and toward the city of Longmont. In general, however, outward deflection also leads to scattershot, leapfrog growth throughout the region. httD://WWW.Dlannin2.ore/planning/member/2003feb/ugb.htm?project=Print 1/6/2005 Right -sizing Urban Growth Boundaries Page 4 of 6 To act responsibly, a jurisdiction that is adjacent to relatively undeveloped, "unprotected" municipalities should draw its UGB loosely. If this situation doesn't apply, the UGB can be drawn more tightly. (The current official projections for adjacent jurisdictions should not, of course, be the sole basis for this evaluation; you should conduct an independent assessment.) Fiscal capacities and fiscal strength: Typically, a moderate -income bedroom community cannot support a massive population expansion unless that expansion brings major economic benefits. Typically, wealthier communities will be more successful in coping over time with the economic stresses of a major expansion. One indicator of fiscal capacity might be the proportion of the town's assessable tax base that is non- residential. An assessable base that is 25 percent or more non-residential would be doing well. A non- residential base under 10 percent would be a fiscal red flag. SECONDARY FACTORS Land monopolies within the potential UGB: UGBs should be drawn to minimize distortions from land monopolies. If a UGB is drawn generously but the lands within it are held by only a few landowners who opt to keep the land off the market, limiting the supply of developable land will result in exclusionary housing effects. If half of the undeveloped land within a potential UGB is in the hands of less than 20 owners, say, a jurisdiction should cast a larger net. This also should be done if one or a handful of landowners can prevent the extension of critical utilities to serve a large portion of a UGB. Fractured ownership pattern outside the potential UGB: Land outside a potential UGB, if broken into small parcels and unprotected by any highly restrictive agricultural zoning, can spawn a pattern of rural estates outside the boundary. After all, these locations benefit from proximity to urban amenities but provide rural lot sizes and "open space" — for many, the best of all worlds. Conversely, an ownership pattern of large land holdings, even if "unprotected" by restrictive zoning, may be less likely to subdivide rapidly into rural estates. Owners of these lands may hold out in order to be included in the UGB and thus receive higher returns, or they may continue to farm or lease their land. Therefore, say, if more than half the parcels outside a potential UGB are larger than 100 acres, the edge condition will be more stable than if half the parcels are 20 acres or smaller, in which case the UGB should be drawn to include these "fractured" lands. Deferral areas outside the UGB: If a jurisdiction's hinterlands are subject to very low-density zoning or are otherwise limited in development potential (for example, by regulations that require subdivisions of more than five lots to be served by public utilities, compared to policies that do not allow utility extensions into those areas), then a UGB can be drawn tighter because it is theoretically possible to expand it later on, since it will not be dotted with new rural homeowners. Conversely, if no protective zoning or subdivision rules limit the conversion of outlying areas, the UGB should be drawn more loosely. Sufficiently protective zoning begins around one dwelling unit per 20 acres in strong land markets. Zoning of less than one dwelling unit per five acres is permissive and warrants inclusion of more such lands within the UGB. TERTIARY FACTORS Potential for changes in infrastructure capacity: Understarrding whether areas can be served by public sewer and water is key to establishing meaningful growth boundaries. Sewer and water planning is typically done on a very long time horizon because of the cost and investment in treatment plants and distribution systems. Because UGBs tend to be one-shot deals, they also need a long-term horizon. If existing supply, treatment, and conveyance systems cannot serve the potential UGB, the UGB should be tightened, or an adequate long-term facilities plan should be developed and budgeted. Roads are less critical than sewer and water systems because rural areas usually have some underused two-lane roads. Without public water and sewer, however, density development is impossible. Nevertheless, responsible jurisdictions will identify and reserve land for future roads inside the UGB. Institutional capacity: Managing growth requires sophisticated governing structures, policies, and httn://wvww.nl anning.org/nl Winning/member/2 003 fPb/i 2gh.htrn 7nrnj eCt=Print 1/6/200_5 Right -sizing Urban Growth Boundaries Page 5 of 6 procedures. The capacity to monitor land, produce and integrate a comprehensive plan with sewer, water, and thoroughfare plans, develop a realistic interagency capital improvements program, and implement this entire package through appropriate zoning, subdivision, and other tools requires institutional sophistication. Part-time commissioners or supervisors, unsupported by professional staff and lacking a capital improvements program, will be hard-pressed to maintain a credible UGB-based growth management system. Where institutional capacity is limited, a tighter UGB is warranted. A few final words A large UGB will require planners to manage growth in a concerted way within the UGB. This can be done by phasing utilities, applying variable Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance standards or impact fees, interim zoning, selective incentives, and so on. Even a right -sized UGB will require some level of growth management and land supply and price monitoring. As with any tool, however, how the UGB is crafted and carried out will be critical to its success. At the very least, we hope this approach leads to further discussion on right -sizing and prompts planners and academicians to develop an empirical basis for UGBs Uri Avin is the national leader for community planning with HNTB, a national planning, architecture, and engineering firm. Michael Bayer is a community planner at HNTB. Both work in Columbia, Maryland. Frederick, Maryland, Sizes a UGB What follows is a hypothetical example of how the UGB framework might be applied in the city of Frederick, Maryland (pop. 53,000; land area 20 square miles). In reality, Frederick has not committed to a UGB, and while Maryland requires that jurisdictions designated "priority funding areas," the state does not mandate a methodology for sizing UGBs. Our UGB framework diagram (above), marked up for Frederick, shows how our eight factors would rate in our analysis. A simple averaging of our rankings produced a multiplier of 1.8 times the 20 -year projections. Current average residential densities in the city are high: 12 dwelling units per gross acre. We assumed that gross densities within the UGB would be lower but would still be higher than Maryland's smart growth threshold of 3.5 units per (gross) acre. Using a density of four units per acre, we generated an acreage for residential needs. We assumed residential acres would be 50 percent of future land (a national average) and then added another 50 percent for all other land uses plus infrastructure. This produced a gross acreage need from which we subtracted existing vacant lands within the city. We made no assumptions about redevelopment. The remaining acreage need is shown on the map as an abstract square overlaid on the city. In reality, of course, the UGB's actual shape would be governed by current development, constraints on utility extensions, watershed boundaries, and so on. Moving the Line — a Parcel at a Time Urban growth boundaries aren't always inflexible. But even when communities amend their UGBs, they tend to focus on small areas — hundreds, not thousands, of acres — and they tend to do it one parcel at a time, according to a new survey. This also appears to be true of older, established UGBs, as well, so it may not be a function of newness. For this story, we surveyed more than 180 communities across the country. Of the 35 jurisdictions that have responded so far, only two — Portland and Medford, Oregon — have added 1,000 acres or more to their UGBs since the boundaries were enacted. The boundaries were changed in Oregon in response to the state's requirement that land supply be reviewed every five years. One community we surveyed expanded the boundary for a few properties to extend water and sewer service. Others added land to provide large lots for a major industry, and two communities actually http: /lNxn,,,AAi.nf arming. orcl,llnl annin o,lmemberl2OO' L-bli,Igh,htm?prop ect=Print 1/6/2005 Right -sizing Urban Growth Boundaries Page 6 of 6 decreased the size of their UGBs. But most had not amended their boundaries. Despite these findings, 80 percent of the communities surveyed considered their UGBs flexible. The survey is ongoing. If you would like to participate, contact Michael Bayer at mbayer@hntb.com. Resources Images: Along the edge of the urban growth boundary in Portland, Oregon. Portland's Metro Council wants to expand the boundary by over 18,000 acres, making it the biggest expansion in the state to date. Photo by Metro Creative Services. @Copyright 2004 American Planning Association All Rights Reserved http://www.planning.org/planning/member/2003 feb/ugb.htm?proi ect=Print 1/6/2005 7 Rer��ntpng -0b bqn xomm�ities a senset r _ Pt Fl ia a �� r �t 5 c,. �, ��., �-� :. .3'� •�4k ,+ . t - � � K � � Ll "~ �r f `� $ K3 t� 1 � , 5 � f r �- 3 .i:Y,��+++".�k�„�&t. .. � A. � ,. _.,a �`f.. '� ��y��.. �t-�. ,�, �:,� �i k� .L�{.��.� , i�-- "�:�`U- t�o-.,�4.a. �a �•-...—"„u..;�'.t:��;'�,k ..a?�^t'�a§�? _ ^:, .':'� Atlanta. "If the vision doesn't catch your breath, its too dull." But he adds an important caveat "If the vision isn't founded in reality, it won't work You've got to walk the fine line between the two, "Balancing vision. and practicality is essential" to place making, says George de Guardiola, president of de Guardiola Development Ventures of West Palm Beach, which is building Abacoa Town Center in Jupiter, Florida. "Vision should guide the place -making master plan, but practicality must structure and sell it:' When de Guardiola was leasing buildings at Abacoa Town Center, he did not meet any prospective tenants who asked questions about town plan- ning issues. They wanted to know about traffic counts, circulation, and parking just as they would about any conventional development. The following criteria must be met for successful place making: Location. Place malting may be a new development trend, but it has not supplanted that tried-and-true real estate axiom: location, location, location. Whether the town center is in a new communi- ty or in a reinvented inner suburb, its location must be easily ac- cessible and best serve the community and the market. Ideally, the location should be underserved by retail, office, and other uses in order to lure tenants. "Reston [Virginia] is eight miles from Tysons Corner, the largest retail concentration in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, which meant we faced tremendous competi- tion,"points out Thomas D'Alesandro, vice president of Terrabrook, which owns Reston Town Center. "Yet there is little retail between Tysons and Reston. We couldn't get anchor department stores," he adds, "but we could offer something else, like distinctive retailers and entertainment, to a market that didn't have many nearby options." The place -making location also can fill a niche. In Valencia, Cal- nia, outside Los Angeles, Valencia's Town Center Drive com- .,vents the regional mall, which anchors the eastern end of the 74 Urban Land October 2000 half -mile -long street, by creating a pedestrian -friendly main street environment; providing more upscale retail stores and restaurants, and including offices, a hotel, a conference center, and housing. Site Plan and Streets. A town center should not stand in splen- did isolation, surrounded by surface and structured parking lots. To be successful, the site plan must integrate the town center into the surrounding community, both visually and physically, through compatible massing and scale, roads, and transit lines. The town center streets, for example, should connect with the existing street and sidewalk layout and actively encourage pedestrian uses, not just move cars as quickly as possible, which means avoiding overly wide streets. Anything wider than 60 feet usually encourages high-speed traffic, which creates a pedestrian -intimidating atmosphere, de- feating place making at its most basic level. To calm through traf- fic, streets should be designed for two-way, single -lane traffic. One- . ne- way streets encourage faster traffic, no matter what the posted speed limit, and that can destroy a street's pedestrian -friendly character. On -street parking should be included. Wiether angled or par- allel, on -street parking buffers pedestrians from traffic and also serves to calm traffic. Bike lanes should be set aside to encourage greater bicycle use and to slow traffic. In addition, streets should be designed so that they can be closed for several hours twice a week to accom- modate a farmers' market and remain open the rest of the time. Sidewalks. Sidewalks, like streets, knit buildings and open space into a public realm that people can share. Therefore, a town cen- ter's sidewalks should be wide enough to allow groups of people to stroll together and to stop and gaze into shop windows without blocking others. They also should be wide enough to accommo- date sidewalk cafes in good weather. Flashy, expensive sidewalk treat- ments that require considerable maintenance should be avoided in favor of simple, durable, high-quality paving materials that wear well and provide a simple backdrop for the buildings, people, and activity on the street. Dark paving materials should be avoided, par- ticularly in northern locations, since they create a gloomy atmos- phere in winter. Plentiful shade trees, planters, and flower boxes are important place -making components, bringing color and a touch of nature to the street throughout the year. In the winter, trees can be strung with lights to create a cheerful and inviting street scene. In se- lecting street furniture, the latest, trendiest benches, kiosks, and transit shelters are not always the best. They maybe eye catching, but they are not always comfortable or useful, and they can quick- ly begin to look dated. Simple, durable street furniture that serves its purpose well and complements the overall design of the street, sidewalks, and buildings should be selected instead. Particular at- tention should be paid to the placement of street furniture. Kiosks and transit shelters that block pedestrian activity and shop win- dows can defeat the place -making design. Pedestrian patterns and sightlines should be studied carefully and kiosks and shelters placed accordingly. Buildings. When people think of a place, one of the first things that comes to mind is its characteristic buildings, like the steepled white frame church on a New England village green or a courthouse on a Southern town square. As a result, a number of municipali- ties and developers are constructing one or more signature build- ings in their town centers to create a stronger identity. The Cele- bration Company, for example, invested heavily in icon architecture for its new town, Celebration, Florida: Philip Johnson designed the town hall; Cesar Pelli designed the movie theater; and Michael Graves designed the post office. At the same time, successful and profitable place making requires more than architectural landmarks. To reflect its region, a town cen- ter should use local architectural designs, some regional materials, and local scale and massing, but it is not necessary to have a uni- form design. Buildings on the older main streets and town squares are not of a single hand, but instead were built over the years in a variety of styles, notes Richard Heapes, a partner at Street -Works, a development and consulting group in Alexandria, Virginia. A sin- gle hand, no matter how skillful, will create a town center that feels overdesigned, he adds. A new town center therefore needs several different architects to create a variety of regionally appropriate styles that, together, create a genuine place. Because town centers will be in constant flux as tenants, users, and markets come and go, buildings should be designed to antici- pate change and redevelopment. Some developers are constructing buildings flexible enough to accommodate housing, offices, or re- tail, depending on market demand. Landscaping also is important and can serve to unite the disparate elements of a town center in- to an attractive whole. Again, landscaping should be appropriate to the geographical area, as well as durable and easy to maintain. Design and Development Guidelines. Because town centers are so complex, developers must set strict design guidelines to create— and protect—the all-important sense of place. Poorly planned streetscapes and buildings can harm both a project's popular ap- peal and the developer's bottom line. In Schaumburg, Illinois, near Chicago's O'Hare Airport, for example, the retail and office build- ings on the south side of the several -year-old town square are not double -loaded. The building fronts, with their large, pedestrian - pleasing windows, face the parking lot behind the town square. Tht less appealing building backs—which have windows, blank walls, Urban Land October 2000 75 and somewhat intimidating steel service doors and emergency exits—face the town square. To avoid such mistakes, master plans should require the ground floors of all buildings to have retail uses, including restaurants, to maintain a continuous level of activity and visual interest and to generate the street energy to attract pedestrians. The master plan also should focus on "build -to" lines, rather than setbacks, to allow pedestrian -friendly window shopping and to create a true town center ambience. Parking. A true place is filled with people, not cars. But since most people are going to drive their cars to a town center, careful- ly located and designed parking is an essential component of place making. Although street parking can be used to slow traffic and provide immediate access to shops and other uses, most parking areas should be tucked away behind the buildings. Both surface and structured parking lots have their advantages and disadvantages. Although surface lots are much easier, faster, and cheaper to construct than structured parking, they consume valuable land that could be devoted to buildings and open space. They also create large, empty spaces that separate buildings and uses, leaving holes in the town fabric that can disrupt its coherence. Some developers, however, use surface parking as land banks to be redeveloped later into structured parking and other uses. Parking structures can hold many more vehicles than surface lots, and they can be integrated into the town center's everyday life. For example, the ground floors of parking structures can contain low-cost retail spaces for shoe repair shops, pet groomers, and ap- pliance repair shops, thereby providing a location for these services and enlivening the otherwise dull parking garage. The Right Uses. "A town center is not two strip malls facing each other," comments Gary A. Bowden, senior vice president at RTKL in Baltimore. A successful town center must have a wide variety of uses if it is going to create a true public realm that attracts people from early morning until late at night. Basic guidelines for plan- ning town centers include the following: P Civic Uses. Libraries, post offices, educational institutions, and town halls are essential for building a genuine place. They can bring legitimacy and strong pedestrian traffic to a town center, and they -e permanently popular, points out Terry Shook, president of .,nook Design Group of Charlotte, North Carolina. Unlike retail- ers and other users, they will not pack up and leave in a few years, 76 Urban Land October 2000 creating holes in the overall development. But not all civic uses are created equal. A post office, for example, will be used primarily dur- ing the day. Libraries may be the best civic use of all, attracting a broad spectrum of residents and workers at all times of the day and into the evening. Some suburban libraries attract more than 1 mil- lion users a year, making them excellent anchors for town centers. ■ Retail Uses. Retail, ideally a mix of local and national retailers, is "the glue that holds a place together, says Donald Hunter of Hunter Interests of Annapolis, Maryland. For Southlake Town Center in Southlake, Texas, for example, project developer Cooper & Stebbins programmed a 60/40 split between national and local retailers when leasing space to avoid creating a "chain row." While not discounting the importance of local retailers, de Guardiola believes that it is vital to sign national anchors for a town center project at the start. Nationally known stores make de- velopment financing easier to obtain, attract other national retail- ers and local merchants, and lure customers to the town center. To help establish an upscale identity for Phillips Place in Charlotte, North Carolina, and to differentiate its town center from nearby shopping centers, Peter A. Pappas, president of Pappas Properties of Charlotte, says he lured national restaurateurs and retailers that wanted only one outlet in the Charlotte market, including the high- end Palm restaurant and the Dean & Deluca gourmet food store. Not all national retailers work in a town center. The typical big box is anathema to this pedestrian -oriented environment, because the huge building and its acres of surface parking destroy the hu- man scale that is the center's foundation. Still, with careful site plan- ning and building design, some larger retailers can successfully fit hybrid stores into town center developments and reap the benefits of a strong customer base. When Crate & Barrel considered locat- ing in Soutblake Town Center, the retailer originally wanted a stan- dard 40,000 -square -foot building. Cooper & Stebbins, however, persuaded the national retailer to compromise on a two-story build- ing with several distinct facades to break down the otherwise over- whelming building mass. ■ Entertainment and Culture. Say the word "entertainment" to town center developers, and they immediately think of movie theaters. Cinemas generate significant pedestrian traffic, but they are just one form of entertainment, and one that is now standard in most shopping malls. Other forms of entertainment, such as cultural fa- cilities, need to be included as well. J re r - a �d il- -s. is er in ns °n .n - fit its A- .n- er, ld- 2r- Nn .rs. ast ost fa - C A new town center needs several different architects to create a variety of regionally appropriate styles that, together, look as if they were built over the years, like buildings found on older main streets and town squares. Shown here is an architectural rendering of the storefronts of Bethesda Row in Bethesda, Maryland. Like civic uses, cultural facilities legitimize a place and put peo- ple on the street both day and night. A new town center does not need a Carnegie Hall, but it can benefit from live theaters and stu- dio spaces for actors, artists, dancers, and musicians. Similarly, a town center does not need a major museum, but it can take part in a new trend that is putting branch museums in towns across the country. For example, Silver Spring, Maryland, will soon have a branch of the American Film Institute. (See "The Synergy of Mixed Uses," page 36, July Urban Land.) ■ Offices and Hotels. Office tenants provide jobs for nearby resi- dents and daytime customers for town center restaurants and stores. Offices also bring many people to a town center to conduct business who might otherwise not venture there. Some forward -thinking com- panies already have discovered that town centers offer the ideal com- bination of a close -to -home suburban location and a pedestrian - friendly, mixed-use environment. During lunch hours, employees can walk—not drive—to a restaurant, a bookstore, a dry cleaner, or a doctor's office. AT&T Wireless, for example, was attracted to Redmond Town Center near Seattle because of the development's pedestrian -oriented mixed uses. And for round-the-clock activity, a town center needs a hotel. A hotel is a destination unto itself, and guests create an important spillover effect, especially in the evening. ■ Housing. Housing in or near a town center supplies customers and workers for retail and commercial uses. It also provides that 4, y `Li S►'A 1' TOWN 4 CENTER """ tit t ,�� •.., •, nr all-important pedestrian traffic, which creates a feeling of safety and of movement and excitement on a street. Market demand is growing for housing in new town centers, particularly from young singles, childless couples, and seniors. In Celebration's town cen- ter, second -floor apartments above retail stores are popular. The high-end Montecito apartments that anchor one end of Valencia's Town Center Drive leased up faster than originally expected, and at the highest rents in the area. Financing Because place making is a new trend, many developers have had prob- lems arranging financing from cautious lenders. Two banks in Char- lotte, North Carolina, refused to provide financing for Phillips Place's specialty retail component. Pappas kept looking and finally found a willing bank in Alabama. De Guardiola offers some advice for pitch- ing a town center to a potential financial source: keep the financing separate from the place making vision. "Make sure that someone who understands the project inside out presents the concept to the fi- nancing source. Then, have the financial people make a separate pre- sentation about everything that lenders need to know" He says that he followed his own advice when he successfully pitched Abacoa Town Center to GMAC, which previously had never backed a town center. Most lenders are not used to making loans for mixed-use de velopments, so it is best to create several plats in a site plan. In e. `¢��a pc suc� essiuy a sae p;an musu ��aegrate me toWq{fF_nter- ` mto the surroun�mg community, Math v1sually and piiysiIca E 3� ly; thraugtt campattbi'e massing errd acate, -rows, end tran s� Imes, Shown'�ere is fire srte pTa�i for ACwaeaa ratvn Can- F to m J1iPiter, Fior7da a1 .. ;� � .� rte, "' "�7 iw►� ON vy ,atj 5-A J J FLORIDA A7 ANIC lINIY6RSrT 1 � &}IONufL$ OLLL iE j bEMT!RSiDFN~5� 114 0 Urban Land October 2000 77 fect, platting can be used to create a series of comfort zones for the lender. For Abacoa Town Square, de Guardiola says that he had a plat for the common areas, including parking decks; a plat for stand- alone apartments; and a plat for each commercial building. Thus, the lender was asked to lend money to particular plats, not a com- plex place -making development. Overcoming Hurdles One-half to two-thirds of planned place -making projects even- tually will fail because developers choose bad locations or a bad X of uses, spend too much money on the development, or have , much ego, according to Robert J. Gibbs, president of Gibbs Planning Group in Birmingham, Michigan. Even if developers 78 Urban Land October 2000 can avoid those problems, they still must overcome a number of other hurdles: Development Codes. Many building and zoning codes require projects that create the antithesis of place. Initially, Cooper & Stebbins was told that all of the buildings in its 130 -acre Southlake Town Center had to be set back from the street as if they were lo- cated in a suburban office park, every building had to have berms, and the land adjacent to two existing roads had to be developed with the highest value, leaving 60 to 70 percent of the site in an in- terior location with limited use. First, "town center developers should go to the appropriate of- ficials and tell them why this project is different from others in the community," advises Steve Kellenberg, a principal in the Irvine, Cal- SIZE!' alai sYra3 s�A f�h�t ifo "If na ca: do co sh be ci< st. ;f atonal downtown center far Boca Raton Ffohda 41b ,.'al and nt;;CtQU square. feet of retail uses and provil the expansroit: of its carparata fiOadquarters, The un - year aid mall was redeveloped ;as a village rn the< trig adequate parking was a challenge The tleve,idper saes: While the.desrgn vehicle among cars has been fQr different uses peaks at different times, and if the have been fequired of a standard development, the city," with buiidings of streetfrdrn retailand horxsng relatively since the earl 1990s, the rowin y y g g parking is ova:labte to all the same space can do .; project was'abre to build only: 2,315: The project's share of light trucks and sport uUlrfy vehicies has re tlouble (ortriple) duty' A shared- arkng model wa; rnilced use.nature saved some parktr g, as did the, suited in an increase of three nches 3r,'width during 'employed', for Atbtna`Place, a residenf�al, and retail hulii:4n,Iniarket of downtown Workers, who could'leave fio add spaces at a ratter of 2.1 per 1000 square feet that same period IndUstn� reports suggest drat the pralect in Portland, Oregon, to reduce the:. number of +hest ear at the office and walk tb. the center. a 1;20 space; Gurface lot %cause this was still not trend totivard ovetsiietl spot iuttlity vehicles sucft:as parking spaces the project wa�s:reglttred.tt provide, ,Coming furl circle from rr qir nn each deveio g fr ample on Street parking infront orthe stfres and . enough to meet parking needs the developer the F6rd.Exp6dltbrl ohd Excursiari alreaU} has the parking lot provitles space for residents at nights trent to prourde rte i)Wn parkrrtg;roan commanitiPs Y ' arranged to use 45.spaces in a nearby municipal lot.' eakeii, wnhl nn iniJirat�gn ant+h+ r n ease p of ` y A and o , ee en and fa bu " W . U d& �rrje5 e� during wc�', interesiPd in bane been willing to pro Ing, haying buildings' located ot1 the street makes.. orad fire city:atlowed a:variance to the normal parking side in the foreseeah(e future;lwntch In the auto iii days An analysts of apartmen€ building parking lots rn .redeveiaprrrent vide the . arlri themselves; {h Old Town Pasa p g Jena, them much more accessible topedestrians it aisc regirirernents dustrq is fess than five ymars) On the atner hand,. the the area retiealed thatthey were vtrtually;empty doling creates a pattern .that can besemd by transit, which Circle Center a lr ed -use dPvefapmerit n Inde . ; ;.precipitous decltne1of the s'alss of smafl vehicles ren tfte day, cptivincing lenders thk'- Nang parl<rng was the city took: on ate reSponsibtirty; making parking JS yirtually impossible with a Wrote traditional setback an*Us, wase able to take advantage of the shared` acts the:debate aver tt,e vtabill of smell car��nl y feasible There rs a total of2.'stret t ` par!<Ing : ; auarlable as part of development approvals: The X UU developed'the concept of shared t parking advantages of a private mixed use•;,prolect as spaces dead A on64ueuflts4fl module which i>x.> spaces for the 48. unrL� and 12.OWsgitare feet of county parking authanty in Befliesda Maryland, core parking as,an element of mixed -Use development 1h well as the avarlabiRly 'af public parking off site, eludes agive arse with cars Parked an`e¢harside of comtnerdialspace 5trucfed a ,C}QQ tar garage, an ir7 portant ingredient the 1980s. The pdneipte rs simple If parlsmg demand Rather than the E,000' parking'spaces tttat'might' r? 5 feet by 6 feet.works fine in a lowtutnover situs Off sae sftared parking works too, as'10 as, the in the succ s Bethesda Row main street a sfw,l t project #ran, such as eomrnuter parkrr{g parking facilities vnthtf area convenient walking die- devetoped by Eederai Realty Investment Trust. Use: the street. This sounds like I�eresy to a brans -: tante cf the: devetoprrieht in downtowns;' well4ocated lnereasix Density Structured parking has the ad portatlan°englneeC.for whnr tfie standard procedure private and pubhe parking facilities have served tfris oar tage cfi a sma,lerfootpnnt; making the Parking has been is provide afl parkrrig of¢ street to preserve riurppse However tfte trend hasbeen toward report less obtrusive and crea2tng a more urban feel. The ad - the trade capacity rjf the arCeda! In place making, 161 ori -site; par rking,"rather than1allowtng the developer ditional cost•makes this a wable option,in areas with howevei, the streetitself takes bh a new function,` be to take advantage of nearb� suppip An exeeptiori was higher-pnced land & at'ieast for owners willing to ac, camnga"welitnai nered part of a place Where`access an adaptive'uise project on ttie site of the former f h h `'d i ce t er eve agmen cysts. Anexam pie ol the fat- to adjacent land parcels bypedestrrans bacomes` Arnencan Can Cempany th ffia' anton'neighborhood ter is the Safeco Insurance Company of Redmond; pararpaunt Such a:strategy pias used In Misner Park of Baltimore: The project involved a rnrx of140 000 ' Washington; whmh bitilt three underground parking Nn a mixed use development carifrgured as a neotracii square feet of office, 30o odo,square feet of ndustri structures; ata -c of'$18 OQp per space as part of e gh of Ire .ke Io- ns, ed in- of - :he al - ifornia, office of EDAW, a planning and landscape architecture firm. "If you show people that it's a new conceptual approach and that it's focused on the pedestrian experience, you can often get alter- native design standards approved. If that doesn't work, developers can go to the planning commission itself and work from the top down to get the commission to buy into the project." Traffic codes also can wreak havoc with the best -planned town centers because they usually insist on overscaled streets that dis- courage pedestrian use and diminish the quality of life for residents, shoppers, and workers. Changing traffic codes is doubly daunting because they are enforced by both traffic engineers and fire offi- cials; however, developers often can secure alternative street design standards by negotiating with these authorities. If that does not work, they can designate the town center's streets as private thor- oughfares, which often have more flexible standards. Complying with traffic codes soon could become less difficult. The influential Institute of Transportation Engineers (JTE) recently released new street design guidelines for traditional neighborhood developments (TNDs), including town centers. These proposed guidelines, notes de Guardiola, have been issued for discussion, though not adopted formally by the ITE. Disfinctiveness. Many town centers will have some of the same retailers, restaurant chains, and entertainment venues that fill shop- ping malls. The challenge is making town centers distinctive ane keeping them fresh so that people will return to them again and See PLACE MAKING, page 112 U: b a n = 2 n d October 2000 79 atonal downtown center far Boca Raton Ffohda 41b ,.'al and nt;;CtQU square. feet of retail uses and provil the expansroit: of its carparata fiOadquarters, The un - year aid mall was redeveloped ;as a village rn the< trig adequate parking was a challenge The tleve,idper dergroufid parkng preserved green space and facili- city," with buiidings of streetfrdrn retailand horxsng 'adapted the first and second floors of t4,g m scar . tafied'wafkin::araund.the: campus. Ir, additiar the' p h above facing, each other across a centraf park The Can building •Into a 17a space garage dedicated fi of company s trartsportation management pian. allowed central space contains two pUl�hc streets designed to provr"de vehicle acct s and pin -street parking Cars tee use bitting the day During tfje evening, the park- ing m open to servo the retailers in addition, there is% fio add spaces at a ratter of 2.1 per 1000 square feet can be. parked ori poth sides; of both streets affr rding a 1;20 space; Gurface lot %cause this was still not of additional space, rather than the normal three ` ample on Street parking infront orthe stfres and . enough to meet parking needs the developer spaces Mcireove; struotunng the parking allowed the restaurants in addition to using the street for park arranged to use 45.spaces in a nearby municipal lot.' designers to rethink fine development. concept.' Ing, haying buildings' located ot1 the street makes.. orad fire city:atlowed a:variance to the normal parking With proper planning and design, parking can be them much more accessible topedestrians it aisc regirirernents made to serve a development plan rather than dnve creates a pattern .that can besemd by transit, which Circle Center a lr ed -use dPvefapmerit n Inde . ; rt, belong do create lively organ places 'rather than di JS yirtually impossible with a Wrote traditional setback an*Us, wase able to take advantage of the shared` mFnfsh their vitality .;Robert T. Dunphy, senior res -i- X UU developed'the concept of shared t parking advantages of a private mixed use•;,prolect as dent fellow urban 1 -and institu[e. (Excerpted from a parking as,an element of mixed -Use development 1h well as the avarlabiRly 'af public parking off site, presentataon given at the ITE annual meeting in the 1980s. The pdneipte rs simple If parlsmg demand Rather than the E,000' parking'spaces tttat'might' 1Vasfivilie, Tennessee, 9, 2COO.j ifornia, office of EDAW, a planning and landscape architecture firm. "If you show people that it's a new conceptual approach and that it's focused on the pedestrian experience, you can often get alter- native design standards approved. If that doesn't work, developers can go to the planning commission itself and work from the top down to get the commission to buy into the project." Traffic codes also can wreak havoc with the best -planned town centers because they usually insist on overscaled streets that dis- courage pedestrian use and diminish the quality of life for residents, shoppers, and workers. Changing traffic codes is doubly daunting because they are enforced by both traffic engineers and fire offi- cials; however, developers often can secure alternative street design standards by negotiating with these authorities. If that does not work, they can designate the town center's streets as private thor- oughfares, which often have more flexible standards. Complying with traffic codes soon could become less difficult. The influential Institute of Transportation Engineers (JTE) recently released new street design guidelines for traditional neighborhood developments (TNDs), including town centers. These proposed guidelines, notes de Guardiola, have been issued for discussion, though not adopted formally by the ITE. Disfinctiveness. Many town centers will have some of the same retailers, restaurant chains, and entertainment venues that fill shop- ping malls. The challenge is making town centers distinctive ane keeping them fresh so that people will return to them again and See PLACE MAKING, page 112 U: b a n = 2 n d October 2000 79 PLACE MAWNG, from page 79 again. Regional architecture, civic institutions, and cultural facilities are three ingredients. Developers also must create a truly local identity that makes their town center differ- ent from formulaic shopping malls. A real place has space for local professionals such as doctors and la. -gets, local entrepreneurial shopkeepers, and local everyday services like hair salons, dry cleaners, and pet groomers. These local uses should not be relegated to one end of the street or around the corner. They should be interspersed among the national us- es to avoid a could -be -anywhere chain row. Phasing. Most developers and municipali- ties do not have the luxury of building every- thing at once, as the Disney Co. did in Cele- bration's town center. Instead, they usually must develop the town center in phases to meet market demand and budget require- ments, thereby stretching the development process over several years or more. Of course, phased development sets up an immediate challenge: how can the initial crit- ical mass necessary to launch a town center successfully be created quickly? Some devel- opers subsidize initial retail tenants through various measures, such as substantially reduced rents. Above all, developers should not be over- ly ambitious in the first phase of their town center. "Your first priority is creating continu- ity at the sidewalk level, so that you have a wel- coming pedestrian connectivity from place to place," says Kellenberg. "If you must trade off a skyline or density to have that village feel, it's worth it. Many great pedestrian streets hav one- and two-story buildings. So, in the be ginning, it's better to be modest and go loN rise—and create a successful critical mass— than to attempt a higher density, have lots o gaps in your town center, and fail to achieve; pedestrian scale and critical mass." Another challenge is holding back prim( sites in anticipation of future growth, thereb) allowing the developer to respond to chang- ing markets and keep a town center fresh b) bringing in new buildings and uses. One ap- proach is to structure a joint venture with the site's original landowner or the project lender, says Brian R. Stebbins of Cooper & Stebbins. "We have legal control over the entire 130 acres at Southlake Town Center, but we don't have to take down the parcels for the next 15 years until we are ready, through an agreement with the original land owner," he explains. "We are driven by the marketplace, but we don't have to do things because of interest pressures' Place making is the very essence of a real estate development. As people choose one place over another, the place of choice attracts a higher valuation and sells at a premium. Desired places are ones that appeal to all of the senses—sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch. It is a rich mix of aesthetic design, the activities offered, the quality of providers, and price. Successful place making is therefore about meeting the demand from the local community. It is not a formula- ic real estate product or the latest fad. There- fore, developers should exercise a high level of conceptualization and market matching in their place -making activities. Remember the fate of festival market- places? Once a red-hot trend, many quickly declined or died after they became formula- ic and the fad wore off. If developers build a fad, rather than a true town center, they will fail. If, however, they build for the communi- ty, if they focus on people and place, they will create a lasting legacy, not to mention reap greater profits. ■ A sustaining member of the Urban Land Institute Beck Architecture / Cini • Little International David Evans and Associates Inc / HLW International LLP KPS Group Inc / Morris Architects / OWP&P Architects Inc Renaissance Design Group / RMW Architecture + Design Inc Shen Milsom Wilke/Paoletti Inc / Sypher:Mueller International Meeting all of your design needs through one source How will we live? Where will we live? How will we get there? Building Livable Communities Building Regional Agreements I Building Success Changing where and how we grow — by building around historic town centers in walkable, village scaled development patterns - could save $500 million in transportation system investments over the next 50 years. It would also preserve more forests and farms, provide better access to jobs, reduce congestion, save energy, and protect water quality. ; THOMAS JEFFERSON PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION Sustainability Accords of 1998 These Sustainability Accords - or principles to guide regional growth - were "plugged into" the EPI comput- er model and used to compare how differentgrowth patterns would affect our environment and quality of life. (see results in table on p.4) • Encourage strong ties between urban and rural areas • Strive for a size and distribute the human population in ways that preserve vital resources • Retain the natural habitat • Ensure water quality and quantity are sufficient to support people and ecosystems • Optimize the use and re -use of developed land and promote clustering • Promote appropriate scale for land uses • Retain farm and forest land • Develop attractive and economical transportation alternatives • Conserve energy • Provide educational and employment opportunities • Increase individual participa- tion in neighborhoods and communities Downtown Charlottesville, an urban -mixed use community, is one of nearly twenty community types in the EPI study area Flow will we live? BUILDING LIVABLE COMMUNITIES The small city and rural areas that make up the Charlottesville, Virginia region are growing rapidly. While growth stimulates new economic and cultural resources, many are concerned that the natural beauty of the Blue Ridge Mountains and the historical ambience of Monticello are being encroached upon by strip commercial develop- ment and dispersed subdivisions. These con- cerns prompted the Sustainability Council of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) to develop the broadly supported 1998 "Sustainability Accords" listed to the left. In January 2000 the TJPDC launched the Jefferson Area Eastern Planning Initiative (EPI) with a grant from the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) Transportation & Community & System Preservation (TCSP) program. The EPI Advisory Committee, made up of elected officials, residents, and leaders from business, development, environmental and community groups, met eleven times and host- ed four public workshops during the two-year study, focusing on three key questions: • How will we live? — In what types of com- munities do we want to live and work by the year 2050? • Where will we live? — What areas in the region are suitable for urban development and what areas are off limits? • How will we get there? — What steps are needed to move the region from where it is now to the desired types of communities and growth patterns? HOW WILL WE LIVE? COMMUNITY ELEMENTS How can community design improve everyday quality of life? The project team developed drawings and spreadsheets describing the physi- cal characteristics of 17 existing community types or "elements" throughout the region, from Charlottesville neighborhoods to small towns like Stanardsville and Palmyra. Each element was scaled to a% mile circle, about a 5 -minute walk from edge to center, which made it easy for participants to visualize and compare them. Residents evaluated the community elements based on personal perspectives and the regional Sustainability Accords. The team then developed enhanced urban and suburban community elements, showing how more com- pact growth could occur over time. DESIGNING DESIRABLE COMMUNITIES These design principles were developed by observing our region's historic commu- nities, and can be applied to downtown neighborhoods, growing suburbs, or rural small towns. • Create a focal point that establishes community identify • Provide a variety of activities to encourage interactions and improve convenience • Design buildings and distances at a pedestrian scale • Provide options to walk, bike, drive, and use transit • Make open spaces accessible and available NOTE: The EPI is called "The Eastern Planning Initiative" because our funding required us to study the faster -growing, or Eastern, portions of the five -county region. Although not part of the original study, Nelson County has recently adopted a new Comprehensive Plan based on the EPI principles. 2 THOMAS JEFFERSON PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION Urban Mixed-use East Market Street The "community element" diagrams were based on a variety of existing downtown, suburban, and small town neighborhoods. The Urban Mixed -Use element at right combines a healthy mix of housing, work places, shopping, culture and recreation within a 5 -minute walk. According to the US Census, over 16 % of Charlottesville residents walk to work. Ennenced auourbani Mixed-use The diagram on the left shows a typical Suburban Mixed -Use development, with shopping, offices, apartments and homes separated and "buffered"- and too far apart to make walking possible or transit workable. At right, the Enhanced Mixed -Use diagram shows how the same neighborhood could be developed more compactly, over time into a walkable, workable "transit target': How it is Today..... - t 1 480, Swbutan Mixed-Uae Urban ?&xad-We How it Could Develop THOMAS JEFFERSON PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION 3 Clusteringgrowth in strategically placed, high quality communities allows the region to preserve rural vistas and historic areas. Small town businesses thrive when land developrmnt and transporta- tion are designed to ensure villages are the focal points for rural areas. Where will we live? REGIONAL GROWTH SCENARIOS Through games developed by the project team, residents created maps of possible future develop- ment patterns by clustering community ele- ments. Using the CorPlan model, the team con- verted the maps into three scenarios that com- pared impacts on transportation, land consump- tion, and other factors from the Sustainability Accords. The reaction from the public at the workshops was clear: residents rejected a dis- persed, low-density pattern, and preferred clus- tered enhanced communities along major corri- dors and key crossroads. The Dispersed Scenario to the right shows what can happen by the year 2050 if recent develop- ment trends continue. Suburban communities (yellow) will continue to spread north along US 29 and east along US 250. A large network of wider roads and bypasses costing about $1 billion will be needed, and transit will not be feasible outside the core city. HOW THE SCENARIOS COMPARE PERFORMANCE MEASURE/ sustaraurryaccord(s) Goets (m iters) Percent Farms & Forests Retain resources/habitat/farms/forests Percent Developed Retain resources/habitat/farms/forests Percent Living in Clustered Communities Optimize use/human scale Percent Non -Auto Trips Transportation Alternatives Annual Gallons Gas Consumed (billions) Conserve Energy Percent Travel Congested Employment/Education Access Water Quality & Quantity Water Quality & Quantity The Town Centers and Urban Core scenarios, by contrast, feature urban (red) and enhanced suburban (blue) community elements as the building blocks for development. Growth would be concentrated in and around Charlottesville, with varying options for growth at major cross- roads (Town Centers) or around existing vil- lages and towns (Urban Corel, and CoreM). The transportation system for the alternative sce- narios is based upon a pedestrian -friendly street network in the development areas and allows for extensive expansion of the transit system, includ- ing rail or bus rapid transit if the community wishes. Targe freeways around the city would not be necessary. The street system would cost about $500 million, half as much as the network required by the Dispersed Scenario. The table below shows some real differences in the scenar- ios. While all would accommodate the same antic- ipated growth of people and jobs, the alternative scenarios would consume much less land and reduce overall roadway congestion significantly. DISPERSED TOWN CENTERS URBAN CORE 55% 64% 65% 45 36 35 13 61 68 4 15 18 155 121 110 44 27 20 Poor Good Good 4 THOMAS JEFFERSON PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION _2'0 2r , Eapras b°, - 15%offmm,s ` Dispersed Scenario N Priority Business As Usual and of - "' ' lost $1 billion The Dispersed "a" oad - invested in ,f area° 16 million Scenario assumes NWd.a pe66Way' bypasses and miles l wider roads, not "business as usual" transit driven 44% of S°burban �r y - daily miles driven growth sprawling �rban ■r _. ! is across large parts of Enhancatl = ■ ' __.-- _congested r , the landscape, shown > in bellow. It would also require $T billion in investment for new v ' bypasses and wider roads. Even with the J. new roads, nearly Aff naw development is suburban .ir twice as much travel t �,/ ~ development1 1 - r-, would be congested as in the alternative . �:. 180000 existing; 720,000 new SCenaYlOS. Z - .280,000 total acres developed . Eapreaa Eua !' Town Centers Scenario NPra.iry 5%offirms and forests Half billion $ 12 (vs. 16) 27% (vs. 44%) r r d lost - r ,. invested in million miles of travel is In the Town Centers N' Witlan roatl ■A roads, local driven daily congested scenario, more compacta aim Y transit (before priority transit) newgrowth covers less Su bu,ban land and provides Urban ? r t �::- Enhancatl ry `js" more real choices far getting around. Simply shifting one I out of six car trips to ��y+ walking, biking or transit would reduce i the need for another New + development tb $500 million in rs anhaneed 4 suburban, urban, or roadway investments. small town '' L U jC !`� AddmgPnON '� ` i Trenad 7f million . miles ddvan daily, 1 '�- •' k 2 %oftraval •,,'-'�,�. is congested R\. The Urban Core Scenario (not shown) in which development was clustered more intensely around the existing City and one or two towns, took slightly less land area and resulted in less congestion and more non -auto trips than the Town Centers Scenario. Both more compact scenarios performed far better than the Dispersed Scenario - see `How the Scenarios Compare" on page 4. THOMAS JEFFERSON PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION 5 New roadway design standards ran help create more walkable communities, an enhanced busi- ness environment, and still move lots of cars efficiently. Boulevard Streetscape Four -lane cross section Two-lane cross section Featuring sidewalks and amenities such. as landscaped medians, boulevards have design speeds of 35 mph or less and daily traffic volumes of 30,000 or less. From Livable Communities to Regional Agreements WILL THE REGION GROW? The VA Employment Commission forecasts study area growth from 180,000 now to 330,000 by the year 2050. This was the target used for the EPI, but no one can predict with any certainty how much the region will grow. The important point is for a region to prepare for the future by agreeing on where and how growth should occur. Well-designed, strategically located growth allows a region to increase mobility and reduce congestion while preserving rural areas and cultural resources. WHAT IS A COMMUNITY, AND HOW DOES ITS DESIGN AFFECT TRANSPORTATION? Physically, communities are small places, about a quarter mile in diameter, where buildings, streets and activities are interconnected. The EPI scenarios were created by clustering urban or enhanced suburban communities to form a variety of distinct areas about a mile in diameter. These community clusters feature vibrant commercial cores surrounded by walkable residential communities, like downtown Charlottesville is today. Because the cluster features a variety of activities close together, walking, bicycling, and transit are pleasurable and practical. The EPI model predicts that walkable communities can shift one in six car trips to a walk or bike trip, which reduces roadway congestion noticeably. The preferred scenarios also include bus routes to all developed areas which can be expanded to bus rapid transit or rail as the region grows. WHAT KINDS OF COMMUNITIES ARE BEST? It's about choice. Some people like urban areas, some prefer small towns, and others want wide-open spaces. Regardless of size, well-designed communities include gathering points, clear boundaries, and a mix of activities close enough to encourage walking. When livable communities are located strategically around a region, more people have the choice to live near jobs and community activities while enjoying a high quality of life. WITH MORE PEOPLE WALKING, BIKING AND USING TRANSIT, ARE NEW ROADS NEEDED? Some new roads will be needed to support the preferred scenarios, but the proposed urban street net- works are highly cost-effective and have few environmental impacts compared to the major bypasses required by the dispersed scenario. An urban network can be created by enhancing, connecting and adding some new suburban and urban streets in strategic places to set a walkable framework. The sys- tem includes main streets in town centers, avenues in smaller communities and local streets in neigh- borhoods. The centers are connected by boulevards lined with shops and restaurants and designed for cars, buses, bikes, and pedestrians to share. HOW CAN EACH LOCALITY THRIVE IN A GROWING REGION? The urban, enhanced suburban, and small town clusters in the preferred scenarios feature a balance of jobs and housing in each locality, generating a mix of business and residential tax revenues. The Dispersed Scenario, by contrast, projects that rural areas will fill up with suburban housing but few other activities. This situation ultimately puts localities into a "catch-22" cycle: they compete with their neighbors to attract businesses that help pay for the services triggered by bedroom growth — but then find that the new jobs and shopping draw even more residents. Alternatively, regions that agree upon a vision for strategically located, high-quality development can work together to ensure that each community attracts a healthy mix of jobs and population. 6 THOMAS JEFFERSON PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION Dispelling the Myths MYTH 1 — WE CAN BUILD OUR WAY OUT OF CONGESTION Building new freeways and widening roads encourages development to spread, making trips longer and causing growth in overall vehicle miles traveled. The net result is more congestion. The EPI found that the number of congested miles driven under the Dispersed Scenario is nearly twice that of the Town Centers and Urban Core Scenarios despite adding twice the number of roadway lane miles. MYTH 2 — DENSITY CAUSES CONGESTION It is logical to think that more density leads to more congestion. But combining local trips into well- designed compact development areas actually reduces congestion for two reasons: 1) typical trips are shorter, resulting in fewer vehicle miles driven, and 2) people can choose to walk, bicycle or take transit at least some of the time. The EPI analysis confirms this. The more compact Town Centers and Urban Core Scenarios result in half the congestion of the Dispersed Scenario with far fewer road investments, MYTH 3 — DENSITY IS UNATTRACTIVE AND NOT MARKETABLE The EPI scenarios, in response to strong preferences expressed by local residents, don't call for any new or existing communities to exceed the density of downtown Charlottesville (buildings up to four stories high and five or fewer single family homes per acre). The urban and enhanced suburban communities are able to accommodate more people and jobs by organizing streets, parking, public spaces and build- ings more efficiently so suburban places can gradually fill in with attractive, livable amenities. It is pri- marily the proximity and improved connectivity of the enhanced elements that allows more people to live and work in them, not always bigger buildings or smaller yards. Nationally, these types of commu- nity designs are faring quite well in the marketplace. MYTH 4 — CONTROLLING GROWTH CAUSES HOUSING PRICES TO INCREASE Limiting the amount of developable land would raise housing prices if demand exceeded supply. But all of the EPI regional scenarios allow enough land for the anticipated growth. The amount of land needed for new development under the Dispersed scenario is twice what is needed for the other scenarios because virtually all new development would spread into suburbs and rural areas. The alternative sce- narios assume that new development would be focused in urban centers, enhanced suburban communi- ties, small towns and villages. These mixed -used community clusters naturally feature a variety of housing types and prices, just as they do today in downtown Charlottesville and the village of Palmyra. Localities can further boost a variety of housing in targeted areas through incentives such as location - efficient mortgage programs and regulations such as inclusive zoning. MYTH 5 — EVERYWHERE WILL LOOK LIKE DOWNTOWN CHARLOTTESVILLE Participants at EPI workshops and the Advisory Committee agreed that a wide variety of community types and land uses were desirable. The key to improving future development is to make enhancements to several community types, especially in suburban areas, such as giving them focal points and making them walkable. The alternative scenarios feature a variety of community types including urban, enhanced suburban, and traditional suburban areas as well as small towns and villages. Many people will also choose to live in rural areas, but the convenience and attractiveness of the targeted develop- ment centers willhelp localities target most new growth to community centers and preserve open spaces rather than having no choice but to spread out into farm and forestland. THOMAS JEFFERSON PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION Small, usable parks are a key element of compact development. Compact neighborhood development can help preserve rural character. Walkable neighborhood streets make it easier for kids to get around safely. "Wisdom holds that land use and transportation planning go together like a horse and cart, but this is the first planning effort that hitches them together." Sally Thomas; Membe? of EPI Adviso?y Committee, WO rbluyBourd & Alhemark County Board of supervisors Thomasje(f mon — America's father of sustainability and innovation — charged us with considering the needs of future generations as we plan for our communities'growth. How will we get there? BUILDING SUCCESS The Advisory Committee and the public agree that business as usual is not a preferred course. They also agree that changing course could be quite a challenge. They asked questions such as: Is it possible to build walkable communities in our auto -oriented society? Is it possible to cluster communities in areas where growth makes sense? Is it possible to change the way roads are planned and built? Is it possible for all localities to agree on a coordinated approach? What happens if not everyone buys into this new approach? To address these challenges, the Advisory Committee recommends that the localities in the region work together to achieve the keys to success listed to the right. Some have already been initiated or are under consideration. Albemarle County has defined designated development areas in its comprehensive plan and recently incorporated the Neighborhood Model, a blueprint for livable communities, into its plan. Fluvanna County is updating its zoning ordinance; Nelson County is incorporating community elements into its comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. Charlottesville recently completed a Com- mercial Corridor Study to promote livable com- munities and is rewriting its zoning code, and Greene County is now embarking upon a com- prehensive plan update. TJPDC just completed a Regional Economic Development Plan and is developing the UnJAM 2025 transportation plan that meshes the MPO's goals for the urban area with new visions for the rural areas. The Advisory Committee lauds the region's localities for all their efforts to work toward a sustainable future and presents this study as an important resource in taking another important step forward. KEY SUCCESS FACTORS: A REGIONAL AGENDA FOR CHANGE • Build in designated development areas • Maintain viability, character, and scale of small towns • Maintain development area boundaries • Build quality communities by using urban or enhanced suburban designs in development areas. • Preserve rural areas • Coordinate investments so infrastruc- ture supports and directs desired development • Ensure regional equity so that the ben- efits and fiscal impacts of development are shared fairly among the localities in the region • Ensure affordability with incentives such as inclusionary zoning and location -efficient mortgage programs. The CorPlan model can be downloaded from FHWA free to any interested parties. Other EPI products available from FITWA include detailed reports from the study, and a handbook for other communities interested in trying a similar approach. For more information, visit wwwfhwa.dot.gov/tcsp or contact Felicia Young of the FHWA, felicia.young@fhwa.dot.gov; (202) 366-1263. For more information on the TJPDC's ongoing work in sustainable transportation and land use planning, visit www.tjpdc.org or contact Executive Director Harrison Rue at hrue@dpdc.org, (434) 979-7310. THOMAS JEFFERSON PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION Implementing Smart Growth Plans Page 1 of 7 6 Print Now f n L-11 ;lnxtiricaFd Institute r; l' C:ee•tiliee3 Piaotiiyt�r, !'lir Pjr„ trr.rfunl frr!i!u!� rE Nir.3rr:fri��an fjParrurrra.�+��rrahrrr Implementing Smart Growth Plans: Subdivision Regulations Get Smart by Chris Brewster, AICP Planners have underemphasized, or in some cases overlooked, subdivision regulations as a primary tool for implementing smart growth plans. When closely coordinated with local comprehensive plans, subdivision regulations can help achieve local agendas for smart growth. I contend that practicing planners don't have to wait for statutory reform. The Standard City Planning Enabling Act — and the state enabling statutes that followed — authorizes tools that can be used to foster quality growth. This article underscores the importance of subdivision regulations properly tied to the comprehensive plan and describes several subdivision design concepts and standards that can be injected into subdivision regulations to better meet common principles of smart growth. Smart Growth Begins With Properly Planned Land Subdivisions There is much discussion in the planning and development communities lately about smart growth. Zoning ordinances commonly are used to gauge how well or poorly local governments are regulating for smart growth. However, the ability to meet most smart growth goals in a meaningful and long-term fashion will be determined at the first stage of development: the subdivision of land. A comprehensive plan implemented by subdivision regulations is critical in determining any community's smart growth agenda. The meaning of the term smart growth is debated in local political processes and the media. Consequently, smart growth is often subject to contrasting interpretations or even dilution by special interests. Yet there is a common theme that often emerges among all participants in smart growth debates: Growth should attain the fiscal, environmental, and quality -of -life goals of the community. This common theme is, admittedly, an imprecise oversimplification of the concepts of smart growth. Whatever one's definition of smart growth, a good place to start is the development of a comprehensive plan with clear vision and specific goals. Communities faced with growth pressures often find themselves ill-prepared to address smart growth issues. A critical first step in any smart growth agenda is the development of a comprehensive plan. Comprehensive planning helps communities establish the framework to address smart growth issues in advance of development proposals. Planning should be an exercise whereby citizens visualize an ideal future community and build consensus among all stakeholders on how to work toward implementation of concrete components of that vision. Establishing a vision and consensus for the plan, however, is only half the battle for planners. A plan without specific implementation tools — including subdivision regulations — will merely lose momentum in the community. Worse yet, without the tools to implement it, the plan can lose legitimacy in a maze of standards and requirements that frustrate both the plan's purpose and the participants in the development process. The comprehensive plan is an important medium for communities to better define how their regulatory powers will be exercised. Comprehensive planning must be followed by or in conjunction with a careful analysis of the community's subdivision regulations. Planners must recognize the role of subdivision regulations in achieving a community's development -related goals. Although the individual subdivider may see his particular subdivision as a complete unit, the planning agency or commission must necessarily view it as a segment of an entire community. It is therefore apparent that the initial facts that should encourage the interest of the community in effective subdivision control is the permanence of the development http://www.pl inning. org/nracti ri ngpl an-Ter/nri nt/nasi-Mmer/smartgrowt-h _htm 12/29/2004 Implementing Smart Growth Plans Page 2 of 7 itself. — Iowa Supreme Court 1 Historical Context of Subdivision Regulations The authority for local governments to regulate subdivisions of land originates from a different statutory source than zoning and has subtle but significant differences in purpose, application, and effect than its regulatory cousin, zoning. Historically, subdivision regulations were used as a mechanism to facilitate the marketability of land and protect buyers and sellers.2 Growth in cities occurred on the edges as cities annexed new territory, and the inclusion of "additions" to the plat map was a way of maintaining records.3 The urban form and impacts of development were not nearly as complex as they are today, and the idea that these additions must fit into a larger context (as described in the excerpt above from the Iowa Supreme Court) was either presumed or was not as critical. However, the patterns that were established leave valuable lessons on the landscape — mainly that while land uses, site designs, and zoning districts may come and go with emerging markets, political agendas, or development technologies, but platted lots and the resulting infrastructure patterns will not easily change. Recognizing this lasting impact of land subdivision, the role of subdivision regulation grew in importance from a record-keeping tool to a plan -implementation tool. The Standard City Planning Enabling Act (SCPEA) first established subdivision regulations as a means of implementing a comprehensive plan.4 The SCPEA was published by the U.S. Department of Commerce in 1928 as a model for states to authorize their municipalities to plan and address growth and physical development. It incorporated the power to adopt subdivision regulations into the planning -enabling legislation, and it empowered the planning commission rather than the legislative body to draft subdivision regulations to achieve specific planning goals.5 Significantly, and unlike local governments' authority to zone property, the authority to adopt subdivision regulations is an instrumental part of planning -enabling legislation. While zoning decisions and recommendations should be in "accordance with the plan," the authority to adopt subdivision regulations was recognized as a foundation for implementing a plan. Subdivision regulations and the platting of property according to subdivision regulations are planning in action. The SCPEA also authorized several alternative techniques such as extraterritorial jurisdiction over land subdivisions. The application of extraterritorial jurisdiction of subdivision regulation is more prevalent in state statutes than is extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction. This further emphasizes the importance that subdivision regulation has in implementing plans and managing growth in a comprehensive manner. Subdivision Statutes Are Smarter and More Visionary Than We Think Many states still follow — to different degrees — the language of the SCPEA and delegate to planning commissions the authority to draft subdivision regulations.6 Original state planning -enabling statutes created an intimate relationship between comprehensive planning and subdivision regulations that has heretofore gone largely unrecognized or underappreciated by planners. The planning -enabling legislation still applied in most states is now under great scrutiny by professionals and legislators. Some of the critical evaluation of state planning -enabling statutes has been spawned by the American Planning Association's Growing Smart project. While modernization is a worthy goal and not disputed here, I argue that state enabling statutes modeled on the SCPEA can be quite effective in implementing a smart growth agenda, especially when extraterritorial jurisdiction for regulating subdivisions is authorized and applied. Rather than being quick to criticize arcane statutory language from the 1920s or waiting for state legislatures to address smart growth in a comprehensive manner through revisions of enabling statutes, planners need to roll up their sleeves and make the old legislation work for their community. In the process, planners might find that the authors of the SCPEA were far more visionary than many currently believe, and that communities in the states that follow the model legislation still have powerful planning and implementation tools. http://�VWwplanning.nrg/practieinaplant er,/prir_t/03sum?r_er/smartgrov th.htm 12/28/2004 Implementing Smart Growth Plans Page 3 of 7 The origin of property platting as a mere technical requirement may be partially responsible for the lack of planning concepts in many regulations. However, the statutory scheme of the SCPEA intended a far different role for subdivisions much more consistent with today's smart growth movement. State statutes fostered under the SCPEA authorize some of the tools needed to meet agendas for smart growth. Planners have the opportunity — but largely have failed — to link subdivision regulations to plan goals in a manner authorized and intended by the SCPEA. In states influenced by the SCPEA, subdivision regulations can coordinate development sequentially and spatially with the proper street design, open space access, distribution of population and traffic, provision of utilities, and other features of a master plan. Too often this is not the case, and blocks and lots are designed to fit a particular use or building rather than having subdivision regulations that require site-specific designs to fit the formal city pattern and plan. Implementing Smart Growth With Subdivision Regulations Comprehensive plans, and implementing plans through subdivision regulations, provide an opportunity to give local and contemporary significance to the vague and seemingly outdated language of the state enabling legislation. For example, state planning and zoning statutes based on model enabling legislation are characterized by purposes such as "providing adequate and convenient open space" or avoiding undue "congestion of population." There is no reason why a community's comprehensive plan cannot further define what is adequate open space or undue population concentration for that local community. Subdivision regulations are one of the primary plan -implementation tools available to local governments. Location and design of streets, open space, distribution of population and traffic, provision of utilities, and other features of a master plan are all essential components of subdivision regulations, and the standards for these components make lasting impacts. Therefore, it is essential to incorporate design -related elements into subdivision regulations to ensure that communities can attain goals of the smart growth plan. Although several principles can emerge, I focus here on four smart growth criteria. The following discussion provides principles that can be included in subdivision regulations to meet some of the common smart growth goals. 1. Transportation Options, Including Walkable Neighborhoods 2. Cost -Efficient Extensions of Utilities 3. Better Access to a Variety of Open Spaces 4. Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Land Each of these criteria is discussed in some detail in the following sections. 1. Transportation Options, Including Walkable Neighborhoods Subdivision regulations are an initial step in forging the critical link between transportation and land use. The block pattern is probably the single greatest determinant of whether transportation choice goals will be met, because connectivity fosters walkability (see Figure 1). Pedestrian activity is encouraged by short blocks because the pedestrian perceives the trip is shorter when street connections serve as travel milestones. Shorter blocks also reduce physical distance by providing direct connections to destinations. Figure 1 Walkable Streets ---bb 2��htt .//Nxn�Vn.wn-nrpracticianner/pr.t/(µr/ rnrner/Sma tro:xJl.ltm 12/28/2004 Implementing Smart Growth Plans Page 4 of 7 The patterns and connections created by block designs also affect the available street design options. Shorter blocks increase choice by providing multiple travel paths. Block patterns with multiple alternate routes make it easier to assimilate multiple users of the street — such as pedestrians, bicyclists, and automobiles — through a greater range of street options, including transit -friendly designs. By planning rights -of -ways as public spaces that meet the needs of most or all potential users, street designs can adapt to changing land uses and densities. Once the opportunity for connections is lost due to subdivision patterns, the potential for current and future transportation choices is greatly diminished. Without connections, street widening and expansion for automobile traffic becomes the only apparent alternative to meet changing transportation needs. Subdivision regulations can foster transportation choice by applying the following principles: Keep the blocks short. As the fundamental unit of subdivisions, the block should be short. Short block standards, generally not exceeding 400 to 700 feet depending on the land uses, are essential for creating walkabilty. Maximum blocks sizes, unfortunately, often result in blocks that are too large or do too little to facilitate overall connectivity of the street system. Consider block perimeter or flexible block standards. Block sizes also can be measured as a perimeter distance of public streets. Regulating block size with block perimeter specifications can give developers flexibility to experiment with various configurations of the block. Flexibility in standards for block patterns and street design is important in adapting to natural site conditions. Flexibility also allows for accommodating land uses or districts that are atypical or need a larger block size. Reduce street widths and curb radii. Street widths (see Figure 2) and standards for curb radii (see Figure 3) also must be closely scrutinized to determine if they contribute to or detract from the walkability of neighborhoods. Figure 2 Street Cross-section o Figure 3 Curb Radii Require bike and pedestrian amenities. Incorporate bicycle lanes and enhanced pedestrian amenities into standards for public streets. Calm the traffic. Traffic on local streets should be "calmed" so that vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles comfortably share the space. This can be achieved with narrow right-of-way cross sections or physical traffic -calming measures that ensure safe vehicle speeds. Traffic calming is far more practical in an interconnected street system. Allow varied street designs. Provide a broad menu of street designs from lanes to boulevards. The connectivity offered by a system of shorter blocks opens up many more possibilities for various street designs. Move away from or jettison altogether the hierarchical local -collector -arterial street system. A more expanded street menu gives developers a choice of street standards more appropriate to their project and can allow many streets to be designed as multi-user public spaces rather than exclusively for automobile traffic. 2. Cost -Efficient Extensions of Utilities Subdivision regulations also establish standards for connection and service for municipal services and utilities. Standards for system capacity, easements, and future extensions must ensure expenditures on utility infrastructure are done in accordance with the goals of the comprehensive plan. Unplanned or http://www.pl anning.org/practi ri ngpl ap-p-er/pri nt/03 summer/smartgro,,Ab.htm 12/28/2004 Implementing Smart Growth Plans Page 5 of 7 inefficient extensions can lead to future maintenance problems for landowners and also add potentially prohibitive costs to future infill and redevelopment projects. Utility installations should not occur until long-term needs are carefully studied. Subdivision regulations can get smart by observing the following recommendations: Cluster the lots. Allow clustering of lots and more intense development in areas of high public expenditure on utilities. Upsize now rather than retrofit later. Upsize initial utility installations to the ultimate planned capacity in order to avoid a later return for costly retrofitting. Upsizing can be facilitated through development agreements in some states or through subdivision regulations that require coordination of private utility improvements with public capital programs. Equity in terms of cost burden can be assured by regulatory provisions that limit developer contributions to the extent that they generate the need for the facilities. Limit extension to certain areas. Prohibit the expansion of utilities in areas where utilities and growth are not planned in the short term, regardless of who is offering to finance the construction. Isolated expansions of utilities into unplanned areas are likely to become a maintenance burden and fiscal liability for the public in the future. Vary the levels of service. Levels of service should not be uniform across a community if a plan aims to preserve a rural and urban balance. •mow k , -p i iij Figure 4 Neighborhood Open Space 3. Better Access to a Variety of Open Spaces Subdivision regulations tend to rely on requirements that establish uniform minimum percentages of open space. For example, when a subdivision reaches a certain threshold number of lots, subdivision regulations sometimes require that 20 percent of the total land area be set aside as open space. Open space requirements based on uniform percentages are artificial or unnecessary. Subdivision regulations can get smart by recognizing there is a hierarchy of open space and by improving access to a variety of open spaces. When tied to goals of the comprehensive plan, subdivision regulations can be used to establish a hierarchy of open space based on location, design, and function, rather than relying on uniform percentage requirements. Differing standards based on function, rather than a flat percentage of open space per site or per development, allows communities to better meet their open space goals while giving developers more flexibility. An effective open space hierarchy can assure that open spaces dedications are not reduced to the remnant parcels. Open space design standards in subdivision regulations should adhere to the following principles: Establish a hierarchical system of open spaces. Open space requirements should be recast in terms of regional, community, neighborhood, and local parks, and open space requirements (see Figure 4). Give equal credit to small plazas or squares in more compact or urban areas as is given to larger undeveloped open space in rural areas. Link open space through corridors. Stream corridors and floodplains are particularly suitable opportunities to make connections among open space networks. 4. Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Land The developer's goals of urbanization contemplated by the subdivision of land must be balanced with the ht-tp://www.plan_ning.nrg/practicinonlapper/rnrint/Q�ciimrr Pr/cmartgrn�zrtlZ htm 12/28/2004 Implementing Smart Growth Plans Page 6 of 7 environmental goals of the comprehensive plan. Urbanization of one area, particularly in more compact forms, creates opportunities to preserve other areas. Comprehensive plans identify environmentally sensitive areas and sometimes prioritize them based on community preferences. To be effective, these preferences for protecting environmentally sensitive areas must be translated into subdivision regulations. Goals of the comprehensive plan should be specifically stated in the subdivision regulations to ensure an intimate relationship hetween plans and regulations. Environmental goals can be better addressed when more performance -oriented approaches and additional flexibility are built into the regulations. Subdivision regulations can get smart by adhering to the following principles: Incorporate best management practices. "Best practices," or the principles of applying environmental science to the management of land development, are evolving rapidly. Create mechanisms for landowners to employ the latest "best practices" to address unique site conditions. Waive design standards to save the environment. Specify appropriate circumstances when design standards or other criteria can be waived. For example, by not adhering rigidly to block patterns or street connectivity standards, an important natural resource such as a riparian corridor can be preserved (see Figure 5). On-site stormwater detention requirements might be waived in exchange for participation in a regional or watershed -based stormwater management program. A' L ai Figure 5 Protecting Environmentally Sensitive Areas Adopt performance standards. Allow nonstandard design techniques if a developer can clearly prove they will maintain the same performance levels but produce better environmental results. One example is to permit the use of porous hard surfaces or open drainage with shallow street -side swales that better infiltrate stormwater back into the ground. If alternative design techniques provide the community with the same performance, then allowing nonstandard treatments can produce win-win results. Summary The standards in subdivision regulations shape the building blocks of communities. Land patterns resulting from decisions about subdivisions will be in place far longer than the results of other regulations such as zoning. While modernization of our planning -enabling statutes is still a laudable goal, this article argues that planners should not wait to implement their communities' smart growth objectives. Planners operating under the model statutes can achieve smart growth objectives by tying their subdivision regulations more closely to the goals specified in the comprehensive plan. Accomplishing the link between comprehensive plans and subdivision regulations is an important first step for any local smart growth agenda. This article has provided specific suggestions on how principles of smart growth can be incorporated into subdivision regulations. Subdivision regulations should create patterns that enhance walkability and increase travel choice, provide for efficient utility extensions, ensure access to a variety of open spaces, and protect environmentally sensitive lands. Chris Brewster, AICP, is a planner and attorney with eight years of experience. Chris joined Gould Evans, a 200 -person multidisciplinary planning and architecture firm, in December 2000, and since that time has worked on a wide range of planning and urban design projects. He served for two years as a staff attorney for the City of Lee's Summit, Missouri, focusing on land use, planning and development, and http://WWW.planning.org/practicingplan-ner/print/03sur mer/smartgrowth.htm 12/28/2004 Implementing Smart Growth Plans Page 7 of 7 public works projects. He was a special projects coordinator for Johnson County Transit for four years. X011 4-t 1. Oakes Construction. Co. v. City of Iowa City, 304 N.W.2d 797, 799 (Iowa 1981), Uhlenhopp, I (quoting Note, Subdivision Regulation in Iowa, 54 Iowa Law Review 1121, 122-23 (1969). 2. Robert H. Freilich and Michael M. Schultz. Model Subdivision Regulations, Second Edition. 1995. Chicago: Planners Press. 3. Sales of land through a uniform system and by reference to a recorded plat map help to easily identify land and reduce the potential for title conflicts. Many states enacted platting statutes prior to, and distinct from, planning -enabling statutes that authorize subdivision regulations See Revised Statutes of Missouri, §§ 445.010, compare 89.410; Code of Alabama §§ 35-2-50, compare 11-52-31; Kansas Statutes Annotated, §§ 12-401, compare 12-749; Arkansas Code Annotated, §§ 14-41-201, compare 14-56-417; and Illinois Compiled Statutes, §§ 65-5/11-15-1, compare 65-5/11-12-5. 4. See Code of Alabama, §§ 11-52-31 and 11-52-32; Kansas Statutes Annotated, § 12-749; City Code of Iowa, Section 354.9. Interestingly, Iowa statutes regarding subdivision of land still maintain the links between subdivision regulations and planning goals inherent in the SCPEA despite removing several years ago the formal and specific statute sections on local government planning. 5. Standard City Planning Enabling Act (SCPEA), § 14. See SCPEA, official footnote 8, regarding the planning commission's role in implementing a plan. 6. See also Revised Statutes of Missouri, § 89.410; Code of Alabama, § 11-52-31; Kansas Statutes Annotated, § 12-749; Arkansas Code Annotated, § 14-56-417; and Illinois Compiled Statutes, § 65-5/11- 12-5. 7. See Roberson v. City of Montgomery, 233 So.2d 69, 72 (Ala. 1970), stating that unlike zoning, subdivision regulations relate to a systematic and orderly development of a community with particular regard for streets, parks, industrial and commercial undertakings, civic beauty and other kindred matters properly within the police power"; See also, Revised Statutes of Missouri, § 89.410; Code of Alabama, § 11-52-31; Kansas Statutes Annotated, § 12-749; Arkansas Code Annotated, § 14-56-417; and Illinois Compiled Statutes, § 65-5/11-12-5. ©Copyright 2004 American Planning Association All Rights Reserved n CLY.//�x7lxT[x7.7'�1�111 12/28/2004 Yl�rlg (�Y'g/p Y'�l�t�f`.11'lg��l Yl l"1 P�'I Yl Yli�n�Cjlrl"2�Y1PY/CYY1?rtgY�l\x7t11.i1tYn Project for Public Spaces (PPS) I Creating Community Places: An Antidote to Sprawl Home About PPS Placemaking Tools Services Projects Products Home > Placemaking Tools > Issue Papers > Creating Community Places: An Antidote to Sprawl Cases for Places Issue Papers Placemaker Profiles Downloads & Tools In the News Great Public Spaces Image Collection Links City Commentaries Community Websites Creating Community Places An Antidote to Sprawl The problems of sprawl are by now familiar to most Americans: its propensity for eating up our land, destroying our environment, and creating neighborhoods with little or no sense of place. On a macro level, one of the most important steps in counteracting sprawl is to improve existing built- up areas with compact patterns of development. There are thousands of communities like this throughout the United States; even suburban areas not known for compactness offer intact infrastructure that can be reshaped. By building livable, sustainable communities upon this existing framework, we can give people a good reason to stay put in - or come back to - older areas, and provide development opportunities that reduce the need to spread Out. On a micro level, communities are successfully combating sprawl by creating and restoring special places that bring people together and energize community life. These places - plazas, central squares, transit stations, main streets and downtowns - can both support and spur the renewal of compact communities that many people have begun gravitating to, searching for the comfort, convenience and connection they find missing in spread -out, isolated developments. Compact communities allow people to mingle in parks and other public spaces; walk to shopping, schools, and other daily destinations on attractive, lively streets; and use public transit instead of constantly bucking stop -and -go -traffic. Pagel of 4 Get Involved 7 emai Memb Makin News[ Listse Regisi PPS Si The third an Other issue Safety & Se Space Health and c Design Looking for combat spra through the! publications How to Turn Gettin Bacl The Role of Creating Liv Communitie Improvements at the micro level are the How-Transp( Community essential yeast for rebuilding sprawl -contrary Shaping am "old town" communities. Cities Back 1 By Roberta j At Project for Public Spaces, our a Norman Min J p approach to creating anti -sprawl, community -building places involves looking at, listening to, and asking questions of the people in a community. We learn about Sprawi Pla al—wnc their problems and aspirations, and work with them to create a vision around the places they view as important, both to community life and their daily experience. We then help them to httD://WWW.r)DS.org/info/placemakingtools/issuepapers/sprawl 1/21/2005 Project for Public Spaces (PPS) j Creating Community Places: An Antidote to Sprawl Page 2 of 4 implement their ideas, beginning with short-term, often experimental improvements that can quickly add value to a place while demonstrating its future potential. Our experience has consistently shown that if the community is asked to define its problems from the start - rather than merely review a solution to an externally defined problem - the process becomes meaningful and efficient. The outcomes of this approach are many and varied: • streets and transit facilities that increase pedestrian activity, economic development and community livability goals • parks, plazas and central squares that become focal points for a community • commercial districts enlivened with local business opportunities, public markets, vending and other entrepreneurial activities and events • libraries, courthouses and other public buildings that can serve as centers of community life and activity More traditional approaches to eliminating sprawl include land use plans, land preservation through acquisition, growth boundaries and development of new traditional neighborhoods. These tools are important, but they bring us only halfway to a solution. As writer Jane Holtz Kay said, "For all the far-flung new-towning, it is old- towning we need." This "old-towning" must start at the basic, human -scale, daily life level: the street corner or transit plaza, a neighborhood park or downtown main street. Improvements at this micro level - the establishment of public markets selling local products, redesigned streets, rejuvenated parks - are the essential yeast for rebuilding those sprawl -contrary "old town" communities. One of the most important things we can do to combat sprawl is to reclaim our existing communities and rejuvenate public environments. What are the substantial obstacles we face in re -building our communities? • Entire communities and downtowns are choked by traffic, which makes neighborhoods less safe for residents and pedestrians, less conducive to walking, and discourages easily accessible destinations. • Privately controlled environments such as shopping centers and malls are replacing parks, town squares and genuinely public spaces, which accommodate a wide range of activities important to the civic, economic and social life of communities. • Fragmentation and disconnection in the siting and http://www.pps.org/info/placemakiDgtools/issuepapers/sprawl 1/21/2005 Project for Public Spaces (PPS) I Creating Community Places: An Antidote to Sprawl Page 3 of 4 planning of community institutions, such as post offices, museums and retail centers, creates more traffic and less convenience and access for the residential communities that they serve. 0 Public transit facilities are disconnected from the needs of the communities in which they are located - less convenience means less ridership. • Bland and lifeless -looking architecture in downtown areas, which often replaces well -scaled historic buildings and places having real life and vitality. • A lack of opportunities to incubate new businesses and encourage entrepreneurial activity in communities, especially disadvantaged ones. In combating sprawl, one of the most important things we can do is reclaim our existing communities and rejuvenate crucial public environments. By restoring a basic people -friendly infrastructure, creating walkability and attractiveness and promoting "mixed-use" activities - living, working, playing - we can create communities where people want to be. It's a much more livable alternative to the search for "greener pastures" that turn out to be not so green - or great - after all. Resources Smart Growth and Sprawl www.smartgrowth.org The concept of Smart Growth stems from an increasing awareness that growth and development, although inevitable, can be channeled to contain sprawl. In this view, growth, rather than being cut off completely, needs to be planned from the bottom up and balanced within a regional context. This requires the recognition that development can be economically viable and at the same time protect the environment, promote livability, and preserve open space and natural resources. It also requires government policies that support this view, such as regulations that allow for greater density, brownfield development, recycling of existing infrastructure and development of transportation alternatives. The Smart Growth Network, by bringing together national, regional and local coalitions, is building an alliance of diverse stakeholders who can effect Smart Growth change in their own communities and coalesce to broadly influence new directions in public policy. Other links: SprrawlWatch Sierra Club Challenge_to,.Spra_wl_Campa__.g_n Sprawl -Busters http://www.pps.org/info/placemakingtools/issuepaperS/sprawl 1/21/2005 Project for Public Spaces (PPS) I Creating Community Places: An Antidote to Sprawl Page 4 of 4 Sprawl Guide from Planning Commissioners ]ournal Sprawl Net Sprawl City EPA's "Antidotes to Sprawl" PBS Store Wars: Sprawl Walmart Watch Contact Us Ph: (212) 620-5660 Email: pps@pps.org Newsletter Listserves Membership/ Donate @ 2005 Project for Public Spaces. All Rights Reserved. http://www.pps.org/info/placemakingtools/issuepapers/sprawl 1/21/2005 I � N "4 L rip. N Z7 n the infancy of the Internet, many observers predicted that the proliferation of electronic communications and commerce would render human interaction superfluous. The conse- quences for cities were considered particularly dire, at a time Via= when urban cores were just beginning to enjoy a renaissance following 50 years of suburbanization and the attendant 5-s "malling" of America. Now, in the 21st century, such predictions have proven grossly overblown; the proverbial sky is not falling in on American cities. In fact, some of the Internet and technology-based businesses pred- 36 Urban Land March 2001 ghat may be needed is a built environment flexible enough to allow the quality of experience to evolve overtime. icated on the "place is dead" theory of capitalist evolution have, themselves, dissolved into nothingness, victim of their own lack of sustained (or in some cases, initial) revenue -generating capacity and the resultant plummeting of artificially inflated stock values and evaporation of second -wave infusions of venture capital. to venture capital, but because they offer their residents and visi- tors the quality of experience desired. ,I America's preoccupation with the new has been heightened to an almost feverish pitch with the exponential rate of technological advancement This fascination, unfortunately, has not been con- I fined to cars, stereos, computers, and other consumer -oriented gad- getry. The exaltation of the new—as distinguished from the truly innovative—applies equally to how the places where Americans work, live, and play have been shaped since the mid-1980s. In par- ticular, the last decade's emphasis on place making has been most acute in the creation of new towns and single -purpose projects lo- cated outside the urban core, rather than in the revitalization of ur- ban centers. These new projects often have more in common with a three-dimensional version of virtual reality than with the kind of real community that urban sociologist Jane Jacobs, in her seminal Il 1961 book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, described in detail. Jacobs's intent at the time was to halt what she considered 1 Robert Moses's senseless and rampant destruction of her beloved (; New York City in the name of urban renewal. Her observations about the underlying qualities of inner-city neighborhoods and their relationship to other neighborhoods and to NewYork City at lar e—to which suburban development remains, some 40 years lat- g 'I er, anathema—are equally applicable to all inner cities and urban today as they were when areas. And these insights are as relevant 1. first published. Creating—from whole cloth—a new place that conveys the feel- ing of authenticity seems eerily removed from honoring and build- ] ing on those things that actually contribute to a sense of place. Iron- ically, modem place making regards the movie The Truman Show less a parody of new urbanism than a how-to video. The meaning of place has much more to do with substance and far less to do with style; yet stylistic concerns and imperatives continue to dominate discussions about place. This stylistic approach to place making, fostered by a seemingly endless supply of design and real estate in- I i! dustry conferences, symposia, and workshops, contrasts sharply with an understanding of the true meaning of place. The true meaning of place is grounded in theories of cognition, the physiology of memory, the complementary disciplines of an- thropology and sociology, and—perhaps most important—the ba- znmunit}' and social interaction. These fac- Of equal relevance to the future of urban places are the myriad sic human need for co q tors may be contrasted with the latest urban planning principles and sometimes subtle byproducts of the ever-increasing Integra- and architectural designs advocated by a handful of self-appointed tion of technology into daily life, such as the expectation—although it is unclear whose expectation it is—of 24 -hour -a -day, seven-day- place makers, primarily architects and urban planners, who create a -week connectivity and accessibility and the continued hyper- new built environments premised almost exclusively on canned specialization of talent in the marketplace. These trends, however, nostalgia and excessive control of the built environment. They do may portend the opposite of what the last century's technophiles, this with incredible hubris and an almost arrogant disregard for at the early futurists, and self -professed visionaries predicted for cities. Certain real human needs and values, in much the same way th cities will flourish during the Information Revolution, not because disciples of the International Style, derided by many new urban - they have the best fiber-optic infrastructure or the greatest access ists, imposed a cold and dispassionate in on the world in Ij j Urban Land March2001 37 I 79nts'prof�cc' ting ikp�l a N,�,hcq r e , Q , 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T C111111 un ........... Jictah[e happL�W� Tht� t'69f �'rb_sl crioiji- i6eT, i�jrc ate F -C P: �iouol Vley oG arc,, r6,�,' and ol" 'E�IonE iS rl:)t rierlory b',WF'_X�Ctarl� —a'n.a d, Thc, Ir,L* 'Ila n Ply, a r o v s4t a I ld, for Dft)� pas�� N )M dric Walling U) it 17 re r, . CL dnC, hi[, A,�jtiO� throqh tht��T. 1mls and fcAe I T[17 j's PoF1 D is nia"qi'tLy, !r t lem nD. 11 n6 ono 1 PF C t Irl, Is wh S fatind in t I be N C PDP�P act r',9nr, �nleri 6 t incruisingly tr,-n abotif p] ir; s to wrii t, 11 V.Mgs anc� pnce�s '��jrtUjjj� J1 t jjr,�, t 't ip P p �a p2op1c r-ff-: t4 P,. :'c, di, 6� TIC, �nd j)� bpl'u,�: i pe i Iott )AInte hcz'il tti�� 'd t poof I ?C[)Dl[_,) 1 40 io�,e .9 1 al Jr storic k)r I d V, a! that .066p�.havu.yoith,the o`JDSjLjjjL� t I , ppr[-�N, c) L;Apj�,, jr,� lrj�! js a Tet*� rul uvi�ri Lh' rr, n,, c os, agan- geir jhcir J)r�rlcl,!' Vqlp %,Ith d Dec� e,4 1� L)J�Cjc" I r� at �Yhw! Hicy e r r.� in !be -Z&W1 dri developing place�; 6W�io�t* *W I �� o Uh 'I those' U eh -low t �kfio may or -bdfti�dbvt _Wry U��Ueef, CC- D ver dn the first half of the 20th century. The cultural and sociological dan- dering meaning and a sense of place from a societal and cultural, gers; of supplanting cultural context with false memories should not be dismissed in the name of creating "instant comfort"by em- ulating architectural styles of the past. This approach champions contextualism without context and creates an architecture of con- formity, nostalgia, and, quite subtly, repression. While openly acknowledging the important and healthy role the built environment can play in the evolution of place to help make it meaningful, planners, architects, and builders must assign ap- propriate emphasis to those characteristics without which human beings will form few real connections to a place. For example, true community gathering places—as contrasted with public spaces, re- gardless of how well designed—are critically important in engen- 38 Urbaill Land March2001 not a profit-making, perspective. However, there is a remunerative dimension to imbuing place with meaning: the real estate industry has the opportunity to "do well by doing good ' ' A place that is meaningful, to which the participant develops a deep emotional connection, is a place that win be visited again and again. To borrow a term popularized byWeb site developers and e-commerce gurus, meaning makes a place "sticky"; a place that is meaningful calls the participant back repeatedly, with great anticipation of each return visit. That deep, meaningful connection to a place can translate into increased retail sales, more nights spent in hotels, more frequent and larger food and beverage purchases, and increased visibility of and de- mand for residential products. These indicators of profitability will be long-lasting, not short-lived, if the nature of the place is not contrived but genuine and the meaning of the place is not virtual but real. Human beings attach meaning to place through experience and memory; the two are inextricably tied together (see "Finding a `Real' Place," on opposite page). Experience has less to do with the design of the buildings than with the activities that occur within and around them. While the street is arguably the most visible pub- lic place, the quality and frequency of its use depends almost en- tirely on the uses that line it, with its design coming in a distant sec- ond in importance. Moreover, some of the most memorable places are those that have been adapted to preserve the existing building stock—which often already has independent meaning for local residents—in new and creative ways. The nature of that reuse will do more to determine the meaning of a place than the quality of the architecture or the integrity of the restoration. The saying "It's what's on the inside that counts" applies as much to places as to people: the design, color, and tectonics of the wrap- per have less to do with the resulting experience than the nature II and quality of its contents. While the semiotic power of architec- ture, design, and street -level appointments should not be over- looked, neither should they be allowed to become substitutes for what takes place within—or for the juxtaposition of varied expe- riences that may collectively comprise—a place. A fundamental flaw in the design and development of new places is that they tend to be planned within an inch of their thoroughly contrived and overly controlled existences, orchestrated down to the smallest detail, leaving absolutely nothing to chance. Such con- trol certainly makes these projects far more "bankable" on the front end. However, the comprehensiveness with which their future is preordained is the fundamental problem; over time, the pre- dictability of activities and the orderliness of the overall design erode the quality of the experience offered and the underlying value of the asset. The same fate that has beset the enclosed shopping mall ultimately may befall new towns and themed shopping venues. Urban Land March 2001 39 ,, ; andtoday again.we hear the same cry for "progres rr,,, habitants,, and higher incomes do not`have a monvp• sive" reforms as public ha:asing is erased from our oly on CTE the joys of life 2ind a sense of place low-income neighborhood does not :need to . _ urban -landscapes: and cohi��ctive memories are re placed by "heatthrer m Ke; of incomes in Place is a state of nSind. net a real estate coo " be a seen as a sorry sightthat nef tis major projects bedeciicd with the cure nt;i,ch,tectural images of cept or ori architectural innova a. r'!a E is a hur»an = that redevelopment or as a bli hted me by g id6dib ;lass propriety, pike �;o many nostalgic .stage ;�ublect to all that er tails, .ineiudiri trig b, 7s� s ofthose defining it,�r cause the housing stock exhibits years of dtsm passing juggmen# vestmeriL Such communities never exhibit on their on it. When one sees the residue of fiep market" architectural surfaces the rich social and personal economies in the orm of t fued::auddings and a wont histories that have grown there over the years and public realm, one must look closely rnio the lives of continue to be nourished in sprte. of the lack of Iry-. i ;, those still there, who bong at.meaning,and purpose , able wages, discretionary income, and home repair. ' and fol whom rt rs an extension of themselves If , Yet elected officials, aty housing staffs; devei I r r, i these circumstances are disturbing, there shouid.be opers, the press and.the . _ planning and architectur- second' thoughts about demolishing the place and :' h al professions continue to pass judgmen# or such sets from Norman Rockwell's version of the Amen further thinkingabout how to bong economic justice to its inhabitants Midhael Pyatok; an architect places and their contemporary denizens as breed ing grounds for came and depraved behavior can way of life, with Pyarok Associates which is involved in housin:.. g and as unhealthy environments for raising children. De There is no doubt that a thoughtful display of what the human hand can createcontnbute to and mixed use' protects for low-income, inner -c >0'resr- rnolition and dispersal have been the order of the day for .can a sense of pride among residents of any. place. but - dents,' Oakland and Seattle, and a professor in the Behoof otArchitectUre at the Uniuerstty of.Washington such planes since the turn :of the century places are hollow shells without the rife of their in in Seattle ; Shopping malls started to become passe during the last decade, to the point that an industry has arisen almost overnight to repo- sition and redevelop them. Their defining characteristic, which ini- tially differentiated them from the traditional downtown shopping district, is an enclosed, controlled, and often sterile environment. The shopping experience at the Gap, for example, is indistinguish- able from store to store across the country, as if the exact same teenagers had been cloned to fill all available sales and cashier po- sitions. Similarly, the ubiquitous Starbucks, the "McDonalds" of coffee, provides the consumer with a nearly identical experience, with modest variations in interior design and decor, whether one is sipping a frosty Frappuccino® in Reston, Virginia; San Francis- co; or Overland Park, Kansas. While it may be comforting to know that one can go almost any- where in the United States to purchase stone -washed jeans, foamed - to -perfection caffe latte, or crispy french fries, this ubiquity and lack of diversity among product types—as well as patrons --erodes any quality that the experience might otherwise have. Is it any wonder that the frequency of visits to enclosed shopping malls, as well as the amount of time spent there, has declined precipitously over the past ten years? Many people say that they no longer go to the mall for the experience of shopping; they go to get their shopping done as effi- ciently as possible, in order to leave the mall as quickly as possible. Conversely, main street shopping districts—that is, real com- mercial corridors in an urban context, as contrasted with the latest variation of the shopping mall, the main street—themed retail en- vironment that caricaturizes a real retail venue by providing quaint turn -of -the -century storefronts for national chains—are becom- 40 Urban Land March 2001 ing increasingly popular with consumers and more profitable for tenants. These places often are characterized by locally and regionally owned businesses selling unique products and services that cannot be found elsewhere—certainly not at the mall—in idiosyncratical- ly designed shops. The customer is, more often than not, greeted by the business owner or a long-time employee who actually knows the merchandise rather than by an indifferent college student home for the holidays, who could not care less whether he or she is sell- ing button -fly jeans, books, or beef barbeque. The combination of a local customer base, augmented by a clien- tele drawn from outside the community by virtue of the unique- ness of the products offered and the quality of customer service (or the mere existence of customer service), creates a milieu in the store that further contrasts with the sameness and banality of the mall experience. The chance of running into someone one knows is just as good as that of meeting someone interesting and actually con- versing with them. These true urban places magically dissolve the barriers that otherwise keep people from conversing with total strangers; they exponentially multiply opportunities for surprise, delight, and genuine human exchange, instilling in participants an immediate desire to return as soon as possible, in great anticipa- tion of what the next encounter may bring. These are places in which to see—and to be seen—for the pure joy of the experience. There is a diversity and dynamism among the patrons that make each visit exciting and memorable. If one wants to see the same kinds of people, over and over again, with whom one will develop no desire whatsoever for human interaction, the answer is to go to an Applebee's or a Chili's or a TGI Friday's any - L A place that is meaningful, to which the pafticipant develops a deep emotional connection, is a place that will be visited again and again. where in the country, anytime of the day or night. There is a mind - numbing, excitement -killing consistency in the "experience" these establishments offer that is the antithesis of meaningful places. One could be anywhere; if one has a pulse, one would rather be any- where else. However, if "being there" is just as important as the underlying mission—getting a cup of coffee, buying a book, browsing for an interesting gift—the main street experience cannot be replicated, no matter how nostalgic or quaint or Disney-esque the exterior aes- thetics may be. In fact, some of the most interesting places are those that have reused the existing building stock in an almost humble yet individualistic fashion, at least as compared with the excess of peri- od ornamentation with which many new main streets are festooned. For example, Misha's, a purveyor of coffee in Old Town, Alexan- dria, just outside Washington, D.C., is devoted to two things: the quality of the coffees—which owner Misha Elmendorf imports from around the world and roasts throughout each day in an Ital- ian roaster on the premises—and the quality of the experience of being in an eclectic, bohemian, and, most important, inclusive place. That sense of belonging is enhanced by Mishas manager, who knows by heart most regular customers and their favorite beverage. At any given time of the day or evening, a variety of patrons repre- senting a wide range of ages, ethnicities, socioeconomic strata, and ed- ucational levels can be found conversing, reading, playing backgam- mon or chess, and even having meetings of various magnitudes. This is where briefcases, ties, and cell phones mingle in harmony z with backpacks, tat- s toos, and body pierc- ings, where construc- tion workers and 9 street people queue up for coffee with lawyers, doctors, ar- chitects, and politi- c cos. While a small percentage of Misha s clientele linger for hours on end, most ® stand in line for something to go—but there are those who visit Misha s for the people watching alone. Stores like Old Town's Misha's offer an example of the funda- mental difference between real places and the imitations conjured up to create "atmosphere" in themed retail environments and en- closed malls. This does not mean, however, that places with real meaning cannot be developed in new, mixed-use environments or strategically interwoven into the existing urban fabric. What it does mean, however, is that design and control may have to take a back seat to creating a built environment that allows the quality of the experience to evolve over time. Moreover, much more time may need to be devoted to understanding the existing context and cul- ture of the surrounding area, as well as the characteristics of the residents, customers, commercial tenants, and other users that a place is intended to attract—the much -coveted target market. The same basic concepts and principles apply to all components of a mixed-use environment, including residential neighborhoods, live/work enclaves, and commercial establishments. When it comes to making a place that is meaningful, the essen- tial ingredient is people. Places that are meaningful and memorable must be able to accommodate the stranger as comfortably as the reg- ulars or the locals, a fundamental quality that Jacobs identified in 1961 as differentiating cities from other physical forms of social or- ganization. More important, to have meaning and vitality, places must be able to evolve over time, and they must be adaptable enough to enable local entrepreneurs to create environments that counteract the monotony and ubiquity of the mall, that avoid the contrived and controlled image of themed retail venues and new towns, and that defy the banal and the boring—the inevitable byproducts of an over- ly homogenized environment. PETER E. $MIRNIOTOPOULOS, AN URBAN STRATEGIST WITH PETER'S GROUP/ CONSULTING IN ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA, TEACHES IN THE MASTER OF SCIENCE IN REAL ESTATE PROGRAM AT JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY. Urban Land March 2001 41 GROWTH PROJECTIONS Rapid Growth Expected in Coming Decades Over the next two decades, residential and com- mercial development will eclipse anything seen in pre- vious generations as the nation accommodates rapid population growth, according to a Brookings Institution report. Nearly half the homes, offices, stores and factories that will be needed by 2030 don't exist today, says report author Arthur Nelson. The U.S. population is expected to increase 33% to 376 million by 2030. To serve the additional 94 million people, almost 60 million housing units will have to be built, includ- ing 20 million units to replace destroyed or aging homes. Likewise, 50% of the largest metropolitan areas will have to add as much or more commercial and industrial space as existed in 2000. For a nation already struggling with sprawl, traffic congestion and environmental degradation, the projec- tions are startling. Explosive growth in the South and West has converted deserts and fields into cities. These water -starved regions are expected to experience the greatest surge in construction in the next 25 years. If development patterns don't change, subdivisions will continue to sprout on farmland farther from metro- politan areas, requiring more roads and sewer lines. "We need to get this message out to planners so that they see the big numbers," says Nelson, director of urban affairs and planning at the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech in Alexandria, VA. "There may be no better time than now to plan the shape of the landscape." There are signs that people want more choices than traditional sprawl. Frustration with long com- mutes is mounting, while downtown housing is enjoying a revival. Even suburbs are creating town centers that combine stores, offices, condos and town- houses in a walkable environment. But change is coming slowly, says John McIlwain, senior housing fellow at the Urban Land Institute. "We're going to wind up with anywhere between 60% and 70% of development occurring where it's always occurred since World War II: on the outer edge," McIlwain stated. EPA IDs Counties Failing Air Standards The Environmental Protection Agency found that 223 counties in 20 states and the District of Columbia don't meet new air quality health standards because of micro- scopic soot from diesel trucks, power plants and other sources. All but three of the states — Missouri, California and Montana — are east of the Mississippi River. The regulations affected an estimated 95 million people in the United States and are meant to help relieve respiratory and cardiovascular ailments from breathing fine soot. The counties have until 2010 to come into com- pliance, but before then may have to take steps to meet the government standard, such as modifying transportation plans, requiring new pollution controls when factories expand or enacting stricter vehicle emission and inspection programs. The largest concentrations of noncompliant coun- ties are in the Los Angeles basin and interior central California; the urban corridor from New York City to Washington, D.C.; the region extending from Cincinnati to Pittsburgh; the Ohio River Valley; Atlanta; St. Louis; Chicago; and Detroit. The only other Western area was a small corner of northwestern Montana, list- ed because of mining activities near Libby. "This is not a story about the air getting dirtier. It is a story about higher, more stringent standards and healthier air," EPA administrator Mike Leavitt stated. "We're going to implement over the course of the next few months new national tools. In essence we're going GROWTHINOGROWTH 02005 BY EVANs PUBLISHING. MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED 1N WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT CONSENT OF THE PUBLISHER. GROWTH/NOGROWTH (IISN #1529-4226) is published 12 times a year by Evans Publishing. Subscription (payable in US funds): US & Canada: $195 per year, others, $249. Back issues: $20 each, $15 for subscribers. To order a subscription or change your mailing address, call 503 335-0183. Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for unauthorized photocopying or faxing of this newsletter, includ- ing for internal use. Copyright infringement is investigated by the FBI. Evans Publishing offers a Photocopying Permission Program for occasional copying of individual articles for internal distri- bution. Bulk subscription discounts and reprint services are also available. Evans Publishing 2207 NE Broadway #300 Portland, OR 97232-1608 503 335-0183 / FAX 503 335-3451 E-mail: info@GrowthNoGrowth.com Page 2 GROWTH/NOGROWTH January 2005 HanAedk o t q+ OVs Kec- w�5 oj, Z[ l 4 I 6s RESOLUTION Action: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: February 9, 2005 XI APPROVED ❑ DENIED DIRECTING STAFF TO UNDERTAKE A LAND USE STUDY OF THE TASKER WOODS UDA EXPANSION REQUEST WHEREAS, The property owners of approximately 89 acres are seeking the incorporation of their properties into the Urban Development Area (UDA). The properties are located on the west side of Front Royal Pike (Route 522), north of Tasker Road, and east of Macedonia Church Road, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 76-A-49 and 76 -A -48A (only the portion north of Tasker Road), in the Shawnee Magisterial District: WHEREAS, The request for consideration of this UDA expansion was sponsored and presented to the Board of Supervisors by the Shawnee Magisterial District Supervisor on January 26, 2005; and, WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors supported the Shawnee Magisterial Districts Supervisor's request to place a Resolution on the next available Board of Supervisors' agenda; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the Board of Supervisors directs the Planning Commission to study and return to the Board of Supervisors a land use plan and recommendation regarding the inclusion of the subject 89 acres into the Urban Development Area (UDA). Passed this 9th day of February 2005 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher PDRes. 406-05 Board Resolution No.: 033-05 Aye A COPY ATTEST Jo - Riley, Jr. Fre erick County 7nistrator /\/ Roads 0 B1 (Business, Neighborhood District) MS (Medical Support District) CD Parcels B2 (Business, General District) R4 (Residential, Planned Community District) SWSA B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) ♦ of) Urban Development Area "#' EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) Q RA (Rural Areas District) HE (Higher Education District) Q RP (Residential Performance District) M1 (Industrial, Light District) y M2 (Industrial, General District) MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) Allden, LLC 76 - A - 49;48A U DA Expansion N 0 500 1,000 W E Feet S C_." O,%- MPRE HE N SIV F. POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PACKAGE TASKER WOODS FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 PHONE: (540) 665-565 _FAX: (540) 665-6395 Website: www_co.frederick.va.us/PIanningAndDevelgpment/PlanninizAndDev htm (REVISED 02/25/04) COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT INITIATION REQUEST FORM (Please type all information. The application will not be deemed complete unless all items listed below have been submitted.) A. Owner or Authorized Agent Information:, Name: PHR+A c/o Chuck Maddox 2. Project Name: Tasker Woods Mailing Address: 117 E. Piccadilly Street Winchester, VA 22601 4. Telephone Number: 540-667-2139 B. Legal interest in the property affected or reason for the request: I The UDA adjacent to this site is built out and established uses surrounding this site are primarily residential C. Proposed Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment — please provide the following information. 1. For a map amendment: Note: this application is for the Tasker Woods parcels only, however, the applicant suggests the consideration of UDA changes include properties with boundaries to Route 522 as shown on attached exhibits. a. GPIN(s): 76-A-49, 76 -A -48A, 87-A-31, 34, 34A, 34B, 65, 36, 37 b. Parcel size (approximate acres): 133 acres c. Plat of area proposed for CPPA amendment, including metes and bounds description. d. Existing Comprehensive Plan land use classification(s): rural areas e. Proposed Comprehensive Plan land use classification(s): Urban Development & SWSA Area 165 acres SWSA areas 45 acres f. Existing zoning and land use of the subject parcel: See attached g. What use/zoning will be requested it amendment 'is approved? Mixed uses — single family detached, single family attached and commercial h. Describe (using text, photos, and maps as necessary) the existing zoning, Comprehensive Policy Plan designations, and/or approved uses and densities along with other characteristics of are within: • 1/4 mule from the parcel(s) perimeter if the parcel is less than 20 acres in size; mile is 21— 100 acres in size; or • 1 mile if more than 100 acres in size. i. The name, mailing address, and parcel number of all property owners within 200 ft. of the subject parcel(s). see attached 2. For a text amendment: Not applicable a. Purpose and intent of amendment. b. Cite Plan chapter, goal, policy and/or action text that is proposed to be amended. c. Proposed new or revised text. (Note: Please attach and specify text changes with additions underlined and deletions crossed through.) d. Demonstrate how the proposal furthers the goals, policies/objectives, and action strategies set forth in the Comprehensive Policy Plan chapter(s) relative to the amendment request and why proposed revisions to said goals, policies, and action strategies are appropriate. e. Demonstrate how the proposal is internally consistent with other Comprehensive Policy Plan components that are not the subject of the amendment. f. What level of service impacts, if any, are associated with the request? 3. For all amendments: I a. Justification of proposed Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment (provide attachments if necessary). Describe why the change to the Comprehensive policy Plan if being proposed. The UDA in adjacent portions southeast development area is fully developed. This is a logical comprehensive plan expansion which increases housing stock in UDA and provides needed expansion of business zoning for economic development in Frederick b. How would the resultant changes impact or benefit Frederick County relative to: (See attached) 1. Community Design Cultural Resources Economic Development 4. Environment 5. Fire and Rescue 6. Housing 7. Land Use 8. Libraries 9. Parks and open Space 10. Potable Water 11. Schools 12. Sewer 13. Telecommunications 14. Transportation A. Other information as may be required by the Director of Planning, the Planning Commission, or Board of County Supervisors during the review of the initiation request. The applicant will be notified, in writing if additional information is required. All applications must also contain the following items: 1. Special Power of Attorney Affidavit 2. Application Review Fee of $2,000 (payable to the Frederick County Treasurer) Applicants should consult the Comprehensive policy Plan to identify goals, policies or action strategies which are applicable to individual Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment requests, Attachments Tasker Woods Property Owner Designation (within % mile radius of property) Tax ID # Name Address Zonin2 Use 76 -A -31A Macedonia Cemetery Assoc. 1941 Macedonia Church Road, White Post, VA 22663 RA Reli ious 76-A-32 Macedonia Cemetery Assoc. 1941 Macedonia Church Road, White Post, VA 22663 RA Religious 76-A-86 George E. Bagley 2000 Macedonia Church Road, White Post, VA 22663 RA Residential 76-A-85 Lane M. Reed 2456 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, VA 22602 RA Residential 76 -A -49D Isabelle Kastak 2490 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, VA 22602 RA Residential 76-A-84 Harry E & Phyliss J. Saville 2492 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, VA 22602 RA Residential 76 -A -49B Minnie Mae Butler 2584 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, VA 22602 RA Residential 76 -A -49C Roger L. & Joan F. Strosnider 2606 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, VA 22602 RA Residential 76 -A -49A David S. & Pamela B. Lehr 2678 Front Royal Pike, -Winchester, VA 22602 RA Residential 76-A-51 C Clifton R. Strosnider 173 Armel Road, Winchester, VA 22602 RA Residential 76-A-48 Betty J. Tinsman 1804 Macedonia Church Road, White Post, VA 22663 RA Residential 76 -A -47B William & Loretta Heflin 113 Tadpole Lane, White Post, VA 22663 RA Residential 76-A-36 Richard & Catherine Palmer 1789 Macedonia Church Road, White Post, VA 22663 RA Residential 76-A-35 Wa e E. Wilkins 1847 Macedonia Church Road, White post, VA 22663 RA Residential 76-A-34 Gary E. Whitacre 1861 Macedonia Church Road, White Post, VA 22663 RA Residential 76-5-55 Glen M. & Hattie P. Borrer 1873 Macedonia Church Road, White Post, VA 22663 RA Residential 76-5-59 Elizabeth Properties, LC P.O. Box 480, Stephens City, VA 22655 RA Residential 76-5-61 Elizabeth Properties, LC P.O. Box 480, Stephens City, VA 22655 RA Residential 76-5-62 Elizabeth Properties, LC P.O. Box 480, Stephens City, VA 22655 RA Residential Comprehensive Plan Amendment Tasker Woods Addendum Page 1 of 2 Addendum 3b. How would the resultant changes impact or benefit Frederick County relative to: 1. Community Design — The community design as shown on the attached exhibit is an extension of existing urban development area which has "built out" to the north and east of this site. Canter Estates is near complete and the residential portion of the Tasker Woods project is adjacent to and connected with the Canter Estates project. The project will offer improvement of the roadway systems, open space and neighborhood recreational facilities. The sewer and water service area change to the south is a logical extension to the business and industrial zoning district. The new roadway constructed as a part of the Home Depot distribution project has provided access to this property. . 2. Cultural Resources — There are no known impacts on cultural resources as a result of this project. The residential contingent next to business office and business retail uses at Eastgate will provide for good neighborhood design with an interconnectivity by pedestrian systems. 3. Economic Development — The 43.01 acres of proposed rezoning to business use will provide economic development advantages to Frederick County. 4. Environment — The environmental impacts created by this project are primarily along the stream channel which passes through the residential portion of the site. This channel will be disturbed in very minor ways having to do principally with utilities and pathways. There are no other significant environmental impacts identified as a result of this project. 5. Fire and Rescue — There will be impacts on fire and rescue services and a proposed mitigation of these impacts will be by proffer in accordance with the Frederick County Impact Model. 6. Housing — This project expands the housing stock and inventory in Frederick County within the urban development area which helps implement the comprehensive plan. The proximity of housing to business, churches and schools provides excellent quality of life conditions for this expansion. 7. Land Use — The geologic and topographic conditions are ideal for the proposed uses and do not result in the elimination of bona fide agricultural uses in exchange. The business and residential mix provides a balance which is considered to be in keeping with the comprehensive plan. 8. Libraries — A proffer will be extended to help fund libraries in accordance with the Frederick County Impact Model. 9. Parks and Open Space — Open space will be provided within the development as well as active recreational uses i.e. soccer fields. In addition, proffers will be extended to help fund County parks and recreation development. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Tasker Woods Addendum Page 2 of 2 10. Potable Water — Potable water lines owned and operated by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority extend through the site at this time. Site pressures and water availability are considered adequate for the proposed uses. 11. Schools — The location of this site is proximate to schools provided by the Frederick County School Board. Armel Elementary and the new middle school are to the north on Route 522 and Sherando High School is located with easy access from Tasker and Warrior Drives. Additionally a school proffer will be extended as a part of the rezoning in accordance with the County's fiscal impact model. 12. Sewer — Sewer services exists in the Eastgate Industrial Park (a new sewage lift station will be provided which will service all the residential contingent for this project). Individual B-3 uses will have sewer pumps that will pump to the existing Eastgate sewer collection system. Sewer access is considered acceptable and manageable for the proposed UDA and SWSA extensions. 13. Telecommunications — Telecommunication systems are available in the Eastgate Industrial Park and in Canter Estates adjacent to the site. There are no known adverse impacts as a result of this project on telecommunications. 14. Transportation — The proposed expanded UDA and SWSA areas have excellent road transportation capacity with principle access to an improved Macedonia Church Road, U.S. Route 522 and Tasker Road. The proposed business uses will have very satisfactory access to U.S. Route 522 by the new roadway constructed as a result of the Home Depot warehouse construction. Transportation systems created by these expanded uses will be acceptable and manageable for Frederick County. 7 x. .-76 M 4mi s si Ma- wm rmel 27 "e EASTGATE PROPERTIES 97wt W. afford & associates 0 division of o EXISTING ZONING PLAN Patton, Hands, Rust do Associates, pc o O � 117 E Pioadliy St Winchestef, 'firginio 22661 r L-Al FREDERICK COUNTY, 14RGINIA VOICE: (546) 667-2139 FAX: (546) 665-6493 1 ryu UT u.7: abp C.w. Clifford & assoo. 540-665-0493 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FM)MCK (TO BE COMPLETED By A-rPLICAN`) SUBJECT PROPERTY OWNERS AFFIDAVIT County of Frederick, Virginia FrederickP[anning Web Site: www-co.tredcrick.vs.us This 20th day of May —2004 (Day) (Month) (Year) Aliao Hudson, ManagingtMember, RealTech, LLC (Owner/Contrnd Purchaeer/Authorized Agent) hereby make oath that the list of property owners of the subjed site, as submitted with the applicaxion, is a true and accurate fist based on the information provided by the Frederick County Co= issioncr of the Revenue Office as taken from the current real estate assessment records. (Uwn trimer Pwchasra/Anthorircd Agent) (circle one) COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGUZAA .. of/��\ti✓ Subscribed and sworn to before me ibis- CoNay of Czj in my County and State aforesaid, by the aforenamed Principal My Comazission expires: •...J LV VT IJJ:JOP S.w. ciifford Q assoc. 540-GGS-0493 p.2 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK (FO BE COMPLETED BY ArrucAm) SUBJECT PROPERTY OWNERS AFFMAVIT County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site www coJrederidiva.us day of _ May 2M4 (Month) (Year) (Owner/Contrnct Purchaser/Authorized Agent) hereby make oath that the list of property owners of tho subjcct site, as submitted with the application, is a true and accurate list based on the information provided by the Frederick County Comaussioncr of the Revenue Office as taken from the current real estate assessment records. w •• Subscn'bed and sworn to before = this- day of in my County and State aforesaid, by the aforenamed Principal_ / O Y PUBLI My Commission expires: ��/ nam cu u't uj:dbp c.w. clrtfora & assoc. 540-665-0493 p.2 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK (TO BE COMPLETED BY ArrmcAN) SUBJECT PROPERTY ORWERS AU MAVIT County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.eo.rrederir]-vn.ns This Q0 _ day of Ir l L\ P 77 -W4 - (Day) (Month) �� (Yew) L Purciiaser/Authorized A WAOx bereby make oath that the list of property owners of the subject site, as submitted with the application, is a true and accurate Iist based on the information provided by the Frederick County Co= issio❑cr of the Revenue Office as taken from the current real estate assessment records. (Owner/ rrtract Pur - -cr/Authorized Agent) (circle one) COMMONWEALTH NIA OF VIRGI of % Subscribed and sworn to before me thie 2 day ofRIIYJ_,�� in my County and State aforesaid, by the aforenamed Principal. awl PUB IC My Commission expires. % SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY I, SIERMN G. RITTER and I, MARY M. RITTER, residing at 3022 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, Virginia 22602, have made and constituted ALLAN B. HUDSON, of the County of Fairfax, Virginia, my true .and lawful attorney-in-fact (hereinafter referred to as "my attorney'), who is hereby authorized for me and in my name to do the following specific acts: 1. To act for and in my behalf with respect to all applications relating to the property herein described, including Rezoning, Proffers, Conditional Use Permits, Master Development Plans (Preliminary and Final), Subdivisions, and Site Plans for the real property containing 4.7f acres, known as Tax Map parcel 87-A-34, County of Frederick, Virginia, to -wit: All of that certain tract or parcel of land containing 4.7 acres, more or less, lying in the Opequon District of Frederick County, Virginia, and being the same land that was conveyed to Steven G. Ritter and Mary M. Ritter by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book 501 at Page 255. 2. To execute, acknowledge, and deliver any contract, or any other document, that may, in the opinion of my attorney, be necessary or desirable in connection with the above; 3. To perform any other acts or execute any other documents that are necessary or, in the opinion of my attorney, ought to be done in connection with the above; 4. This Special Power of Attorney is limited to the property described in Paragraph 1, and does not give my attorney authority to act on my behalf for any purpose not related to the above described property. 5. I hereby confirm all lawful actions that may be taken by my attorney pursuant to this Special Power of Attorney. An affidavit executed by my attorney, setting forth that at the time of doing any act pursuant to this Special Power of Attorney, he did not have actual knowledge or had not received notice of the revocation or termination of this Special Power of Attorney by death, disability or otherwise, or had not received notice of any facts indicating same, shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive proof of the non -revocation or non - termination of this Special Power of Attorney at such time. I further declare that, as against me or persons claiming under me, everything that my attorney shall do pursuant to this Special Power of Attorney shall be valid and binding in favor of any person or entity claiming the benefit hereof who has not received written notice that this Special Power of Attorney has been revoked. This Special Power of Attorney shall terminate one year from the date below, but may, upon my written consent, be extended for an additional year for purposes of development. This instrument is executed in more than one counterpart, any one of which shall, for all purposes, be deemed an original. WITNESS my signature and seal this day of .4yij 52004. S G. Ritter STIE-vrT- z "-=. F, - "I M STATE OF _ Y i (U'Y kA . CITY/COUNTYpr1n rirfc_, , to -wit; }{ h The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me by. Ritter this day of n + , 2004. Notdry Public%• M• R%��4�i �g cgw ..... My commission expires ;•.o -Is OF STATE OF 1( 1 Y ,k CITY/COUNTY OV kA to -wit: 'II The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me by Mary M. Ritter this `t day of A° r, 32004. M. Notary Public W1 My My commission expires --31-0 SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY I, JUL1A LESKO BISHOP, residing at 114 Orchard Drive, Midwest City, Oklahoma, 73110, have made and constituted ALLAN B. HUDSON, of the County of Fairfax, Virginia, my true and lawful attomey-in-fact (hereinafter referred to as "my attorney,,),. who is hereby authorized for me and in my name to do the following specific acts: To act for and in my behalf with respect to all applications relating to the property herein described, including Rezoning, Proffers, Conditional Use Permits, Master Development Plans (Preliminary and Final), Subdivisions, and Site Plans for the real property known as Tax Map parcels 87-A-31 and 87-A-32, located in the County of Frederick, Virginia, to -wit: (1) All of that certain tract or parcel of land containing 14 acres, more or less, lying and being situate about 8 miles South of Winchester, near Armel, in the Opequon District of Frederick County, Virginia, and being the same land that was conveyed to John S. Coe, et ux, by William D. Spicer, et ux, by deed dated April 10, 1948, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book 204, at Page 584, said deed including by specific reference a 10 -foot right of way leading to the Front Royal Pike (U.S. Route 522). (2) All of that certain tract or parcel of land containing 9 acres, more or less, lying and being situate along the Northwestern side of Wright's Run, near Armel, in the Opequon District of Frederick County, Virginia, and being the same land that was conveyed to John S. Coe, et ux, by Stuart M. Perry, et al, by deed dated January 15, 1949, of record in said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 208, at Page 304. Said parcels being the same land conveyed by deed of John S. Coe, et ux, to Michael Lesko and Helen R. Lesko, his wife, with common law right of survivorship, dated June 3, 1957, and recorded in said Clerks Office in Deed Book 247, at Page 76, 2. To execute, acknowledge, and deliver any contract, or any other document, that may, in the opinion of my attorney, be necessary or desirable in connection with the above; To perform any other acts or execute any other documents that are necessary or, in the opinion of my attorney, ought to be done in connection with the above; 4. This Special Power of Attorney is limited to the property described in Paragraph 1, and does not give my attorney authority to act on my behalf for any purpose not related to the above described property. 5. I hereby confirm all lawful actions that may be taken by my attorney pursuant to this Special Power of Attorney. An affidavit executed by my attorney, setting forth that at the time of doing any act pursuant to this Special Power of Attorney, he did not have actual knowledge or had not received notice of the revocation or termination of this Special Power of Attorney by death, disability or otherwise, or had not received notice of any facts indicating same, shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive proof of the non -revocation or non - termination of this Special Power of Attorney at such time. I further declare that, as against me or persons claiming under me, everything that my attorney shall do pursuant to this Special Power of Attorney shall be validandbinding in favor of any person or entity claiming the benefit hereof who has not received written notice that this Special Power of Attorney has been revoked. This Special Power of Attorney shall terminate one year from the date below, but may, upon my written consent, be extended for an additional year for purposes of development. This instrument is executed in more than one counterpart, any one of which shall, for all purposes, be deemed an original. WITNESS my signature and seal this 3 day o � L '2004. z STAT E OF!�'_12 CITY/COUNTY OF (��_%; Vit. rriC�` to -wit: The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me by JULIA LESKO BISHOP this ��day of "� 2004. Notar ubli �.�2 O My commission expires =�_ �#W01"``-T= an PYP an— —^'� FOR '','9ypMA �iyJ,