Trailblazing municipalities face challenges with codes

Zoning ordinances in Fort Collins, CO; Huntersville, NC; and Austin, TX; are case studies of approaches to changing municipal land use regulations. In response to encroaching sprawl, a small number of municipal planners and elected officials are choosing to actively promote alternative development patterns. Instead of waiting for the development industry to change its ways, these municipalities point the way by introducing new urbanist, or traditional neighborhood development (TND) codes. Such codes allow, and in some cases require, mixed-use, interconnected, pedestrian-friendly design. The proactive approach is also winning converts at the state level: Wisconsin and Maryland, for example, are working on laws that promote new urbanist codes statewide. Since most zoning ordinances promoting New Urbanism have been adopted since 1995, they are just beginning to be tested. In order to evaluate how TND codes are progressing, New Urban News examined three prominent examples. They reveal that the transition to new codes can be difficult. New urbanist codes can change the pattern of development, but often the changes are very slow. New urbanist codes can be optional (enacted as an overlay to existing zoning), or mandatory. The chief problem with optional codes is that, in the absence of clear and strong incentives, they tend to be ignored by developers. The most prominent example is the widely copied Miami-Dade County 1991 TND ordinance. Only one project, Salamanca, has sought to use the ordinance, and the plan was not approved. In Austin, only recently were the first two projects proposed under a 1997 optional TND code. Mandatory codes like the one in Huntersville, by contrast, are harder to enact and sometimes face strong opposition from home builders. But they can also have a more immediate impact on the built environment. New urbanist codes of all types typically involve more work for both planners and developers than conventional zoning, and require reeducation of all parties. Taking the mandatory route Beginning in the 1990s, Huntersville (12 miles north of Charlotte, North Carolina) experienced rapid population growth and development pressure. From 1990 to 1996 the population increased 286 percent and is now estimated to be about 21,000. The rapid sprawl caused town officials to radically change their approach to land use planning. After a one-year moratorium on new development, the city discarded its existing development codes and in November 1996 adopted a new, mandatory code with many new urbanist characteristics. Planning Director Ann Hammond emphasizes that Huntersville’s ordinance does not require developers to build pure TND, and that it dictates neither housing types nor density. It does concentrate higher-density development near existing highways and the future light rail line to Charlotte, and it demands that all new developments be built on interconnected, pedestrian-oriented streets that connect to the city’s existing network. But otherwise the code allows great flexibility. Some design standards, such as placement of garages, are absolute, while others are more contextual, Hammond says. For instance, the setback of houses built next to existing dwellings is not fixed, but can fluctuate to ensure that new construction respects the integrity of the old. That means the review is often subjective. More work “This code is much more difficult to administer,” Hammond says. Developers are learning the ropes as they go, and the planning department is doing more redlining, or revisions, than in the past. Citizens, developers, builders, and landscape architects all need to be educated, but the planning department is so busy processing proposals that it can’t effectively familiarize developers with the new rules in advance. “Could I do it over again, I would have extended the development moratorium for six months and developed an in-depth orientation program for those who want to build in Huntersville,” Hammond says. Developers, too, are feeling the increased workload. Steve Brumm of AAC Real Estate Services is developing Rosedale Commons, an 80-acre mixed-use project with retail, offices, multifamily, and some live/work units. “It is clearly more work, but the new rules do help control the quality of what happens in town,” he says. Though heavy input from municipal planners can be time consuming, Brumm says city planners helped improve Rosedale Commons. But higher infrastructure costs and some additional design costs mean that rents will likely have to be higher than initially anticipated. According to Hammond, “prophets of doom and gloom” predicted that the new code would make development grind to a halt, but that has not happened. Neighboring towns Cornelius and Davidson have also adopted New Urbanism-friendly ordinances, and the area has become a hotbed of new urbanist and hybrid development. Hammond points to the TND Vermillion as the development that best embodies the city’s planning philosophy — buildings and streets are well-proportioned and Vermillion connects seamlessly to an existing neighborhood. Hybrid projects are still an improvement over cookie cutter subdivisions. In the development Brookdale Village, for example, residents can safely walk to adjacent retail stores. Fort Collins works to streamline review Fort Collins, Colorado, adopted its comprehensive plan, City Plan, in 1997 in response to rapid population growth and increasing traffic congestion and sprawl. The plan’s implementation tool, the Land Use Code, is mandatory, encourages mixed use and narrower streets, and demands that all larger developments have a mix of housing types. As in Huntersville, the new code initially has created more work for planners and developers. Joe Frank, who heads the city’s advanced planning department, acknowledges that the main problem so far has been a lengthy review process. Local builders claim that City Plan was promoted as a streamlining process and say that it has failed miserably as such. Kimberly Stenberg, Director of Community Affairs for the Home Builders Association of Northern Colorado, says many smaller builders cannot afford to spend two and a half to three years in planning and so choose not to propose anything. This criticism is mostly based on what happened with the first large, mixed-use development to be approved under the new land use code. Rigden Farm is a 310-acre, 1,100-unit neighborhood proposed by local developer Bill Neal and designed by two Fort Collins firms, Jim Sell Design and Lockwood Architects. Neal spent two and a half years and $800,000 getting the project approved. Both the planning department and Neal’s staff struggled with the new requirements, and more than 50 changes were made in the code’s language and provisions. “As with any new zoning ordinance, you sometimes find that some of the regulations you wrote need to be tweaked, or that they flat out just don’t work,” says Bob Blanchard of the city’s planning department. Neal argues that the land use code was not ready for adoption and that the outgoing City Council forced the vote. Other local builders are now watching Rigden Farm closely to see how consumers respond to this compact development. Stenberg maintains that the City Plan’s density requirements fly in the face of existing development patterns. She says local builders are skeptical about the depth of demand for small lots and hesitate to be the first to take the risk. “They are waiting for people like Bill Neal to go through the brain damage, and then they’ll just buy lots from him,” Stenberg says. City gets involved earlier The planning department has begun a pilot program to avoid delays and conflicts by having a team of representatives from various city departments meet with developers and designers before a site plan is committed to paper. Stuart MacMillan, the developer of the first project to pass through this new process, says it represents a definite improvement. City officials ironed out potential conflicts on the spot, and the designers were able to come up with a schematic design in the first two hours of the meeting. The planning department is about to publish illustrated design guidelines to accompany the code provisions and will also begin to assign a project manager to new developments. In response to early criticism from builders, the planning department made some provisions more flexible, but city planners do not intend to waiver on the core issue of density. The Land Use Code requires a minimum of five units per acre in lower density zones and a minimum of 12 units in medium density zones. Home builders protest because they believe “everyone wants 12,000 square-foot lots and three-car garages,” Frank says, but so far builders have shown no real interest in the code’s provisions for large estate lots in strategic areas on neighborhood edges. The Land Use Code may push some local builders to build what they believe consumers want in nearby communities like Windsor, a small town off Interstate 25, the spine which connects Fort Collins to Denver. In 1999, the growth rate in Fort Collins was 4 percent, compared to 14 percent in Windsor, but whether or not this trend is related to the land use plan or to what extent it is related to changing development patterns is not clear. A long wait in Austin The City of Austin adopted an optional TND ordinance in 1997, but so far, no projects have been approved under the ordinance. Two potential projects are now under consideration. According to Senior Planner George Adams, the ordinance has generated interest from developers, but this has amounted to little more than talk. There is the perception, and very possibly the reality, that our ordinance has a few too many requirements, that it is overly prescriptive,” Adams says. To the planning department’s frustration, builders and developers have declined to get specific about what is wrong with the code, although planners are willing to revise it. When we were developing the code we were just working off the best information we had at the time, but the theory and practice is evolving,” Adams says. A prime example is the code’s requirement for a corner store in a TND. Theoretically, a neighborhood store is an important amenity, but in practice it will only work with a substantial customer base nearby. “This may be a small thing,” Adams says, “but if you add up a few of those, it can definitely tilt the scale for developers.” Developers have also hesitated to use the TND ordinance because Austin lacks a good model project. But the recent financial success of Plum Creek, a TND in the town of Kyle 20 miles south of Austin, has made an impression on developers, Adams says. Milburn Homes, Plum Creek’s developer, has now proposed the first project under the TND ordinance. The City of Austin has approved a $5 million incentive package for the project (known as the Morse Community) which waives $1.5 million worth of development fees. Bosse & Compton of Austin did the master plan. A second potential project is the redevelopment of Austin’s old airport, a 700-acre site located about four miles from downtown. Since the ordinance applies only to developments of 40 to 250 acres, the city has to decide whether it can be flexible on this point. The project’s master plan by Roma Design Group of San Francisco is nearing completion and envisions a new community with a complete range of housing types and a town center. The plans calls for roughly 4,000 residential units, 4 million square feet of offices, and 300,000 square feet of retail. Conclusion The mandatory approach taken by Huntersville and Fort Collins requires both support from citizens and a city government committed to traditional town planning principles and unafraid of protests from special interest groups. These requirements mean that optional codes will likely be the most common form of new urbanist regulations. For these to be effective, however, officials must streamline the process and offer incentives, like density bonuses, to encourage developers to change their ways. To Ann Hammond the extra work is well worth it — in Huntersville, sprawl is no longer the dominant development pattern.