Village-style development pays, according to study

Sarasota 2050 Plan, a ground-breaking regional analysis, calls for infill redevelopment, new villages, and open space preservation. Amajor regional plan nearing completion in Sarasota County, Florida, makes a fiscal case for the New Urbanism.

The plan for the rapidly growing, unincorporated part of the county is intended to direct development into infill areas in the form of town centers, and into the countryside in the form of hamlets and villages. “This is a regional plan focused on form of development, rather than just how much growth are we going to have, and where will we accommodate it,” explains Tim Jackson of Glatting Jackson, the Orlando firm authoring the plan.

The plan is also unusual in that it involves a major housing market study and fiscal impact analyses. “We’re looking at a form of development that is not predominant in the rest of the county,” Jackson explains. “Among other things, we were asked to test the vision for how well it stacks up against reality.”

Bottom line: developers will make more money and the county’s coffers will be significantly richer, according to fiscal analysts Fishkind & Associates. The plan calls for substantially increasing housing density while preserving up to 70 square miles in open space.

Housing variety would be greatly expanded compared to current zoning, which accommodates only large-lot, single-family homes outside the urban service boundary. The market study by Zimmerman-Volk Associates (ZVA) recommends a mix of 10 housing types — including apartment types, attached units, and detached homes on a variety of lot sizes (see Table 1).

The county has a population of 325,000, up by 17 percent since 1990. County population is expected to rise to 460,000 in the next three decades. About 100,000 people live in the City of Sarasota, and another 225,000 in the unincorporated county.

Both the city and county are working on promoting smart growth patterns. Although the city is not involved in the comprehensive planning effort, it is one of the first municipalities in the nation to look at adopting Duany Plater-Zyberk’s (DPZ’s) new Smart Code.

Origins of plan
The county’s 2050 plan grew out of a panel set up by the Urban Land Institute (ULI), which included nationally recognized planners such as Reid Ewing of Rutgers University and Richard Bernhardt, head of Nashville’s planning department. The ULI panel set the tone by selecting infill and the village-style development as the preferred mode of growth. Glatting Jackson was hired to convert this concept into a comprehensive plan.

The plan has two main components. The first covers the existing 150-square-mile urban service boundary — served by water and sewer — which is largely developed in a suburban pattern. The strategy is to encourage mixed use town centers along major corridors and near employment centers.

The second, more controversial, component pertains to more than 90 square miles of undeveloped land which is outside the urban service boundary — currently zoned for large-lot, single-family (mostly five acre lots). The proposed plan calls for a gross density of one unit/acre, to be built in the form of hamlets, villages, and towns. These settlements would have commercial and institutional uses, parks, and homes at a minimum density of three units/acre, surrounded by undeveloped open space.

The open space will be preserved via transfer of development rights and “clustering.” DPZ was hired by Glatting Jackson to create the new urban design guidelines for the new settlements and infill redevelopments. Urban Strategies, a Toronto firm, illustrated the plan.

While the large-lot singles of the existing zoning come with virtually no amenities — not even sidewalks — a host of amenities are anticipated to support the new urban settlements. These include recreation facilities (pools, tennis courts, golf courses, fitness centers), civic buildings, neighborhood parks, hiking trails and sidewalks, and walkable town centers.

Developer profit
Even with the higher cost of amenities, a developer of an 8,000-acre parcel would earn 34 percent more revenue — amounting to over $4 million higher profit — on a net present value basis using the new urbanist approach, Fishkind & Associates conclude (see Table 2 on page 3). Town centers, which are higher density than villages, and hamlets, which require smaller expenditures on infrastructure and amenities, would likely be even more profitable than villages, Fishkind reports.

The profits from building a village were based on the sale of lots and parcels, derived from the development program (Table 1), minus the costs (Table 4), compared to the financial results of low-density development (Table 5). It should be noted that Fishkind, a consultant specializing in conventional real estate development, took a conservative approach to the study, according to Todd Zimmerman of ZVA.

For example, village development costs in the Fishkind study include $25.5 million for “collector” roads, and $5 million for “entry statements,” expenditures not recommended in the plan and which have little to do with a new urban approach to building a village. Zimmerman notes that the conservative approach is appropriate, adding that “if it works that way, it will work better if the developer applies all of the principles of the New Urbanism — this is a worst case scenario.”

In order to reap the financial benefits of building a village, developers face a far more involved process. Tables 1 and 4 highlight the complexity of the New Urbanism.

Public sector fiscal impact
As part of the planning process, Fishkind was asked to determine the fiscal impact on the public sector of the infill/village strategy. Far from being fiscally neutral, new growth that takes place according to the plan will provide the county with a cumulative net fiscal benefit of more than $25 million by 2020, the firm reports (Table 3). This figure is based on a in-depth comparison of public tax revenues and costs likely to be realized and incurred under both scenarios.

The plan calls for overlay zoning, which means that developers will have a choice of building according to the old way or the new plan. The density bonus and the lure of increased profits are adequate incentives to get developers to try New Urbanism, the planners contend.

Glatting Jackson, a firm which has pioneered new urban street standards, recommends minimal road widenings to maintain the rural character of the county. The increased traffic around the villages and hamlets can be accommodated on two-lane roads, Glatting Jackson concludes. These two-laners will change in character from rural highways to main streets with on-street parking as they enter the settlements. Within the existing suburban areas, Glatting Jackson recommends that a handful of arterials leading to major employment centers be widened to six lanes over time.

The plan cost the county $800,000. If approved, it will need a supporting code. “The code will need to be flexible enough to respond to the market and the unique challenge of developing each piece of land,” Jackson says. County commissioners are expected to decide whether to approve the plan in early 2002.