Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-7-14-PCAPPROVAL OF THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 9, 2014, Regular Meeting 04 -09 -14 PC.PDF PLANNING CASES Planning Case 14 -014 - Variance - 1850 Venus Avenue (No Public Hearing Required) PC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF Planning Case 14 -015 - PUD Amendment & Site Plan Review - Boston Scientific - 4100 Hamline Avenue North (Public Hearing Required) PC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS COMMENTS AND REPORTS PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS & REQUESTS Report From The City Council 5 -07 -14 - REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.PDF TCAAP Update PC 05 07 14.PDF, ATTACHMENTS.PDF ADJOURN A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Chair: Clayton Larson Commissioners: Angela Hames Andy Holewa Sam Scott Roberta Thompson Clayton Zimmerman Brent Bartel Steven Jones - Alternate Council Liaison: Fran Holmes Planning Commission May 7, 2014 6:30 p.m. City Hall Address: 1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone: 651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City Vision Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. Agenda CALL TO ORDER 1. 2. 2.A. Documents: 3. 3.A. Ryan Streff, City Planner Documents: 3.B. Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner Documents: 4. 5. 5.A. 5.B. Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner Documents: 5.C. Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director Documents: Prepared By Prepared By Prepared By Prepared By APPROVAL OF THE AGENDAAPPROVAL OF MINUTESApril 9, 2014, Regular Meeting 04 -09 -14 PC.PDFPLANNING CASESPlanning Case 14 -014 - Variance - 1850 Venus Avenue (No Public Hearing Required)PC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDFPlanning Case 14 -015 - PUD Amendment & Site Plan Review - Boston Scientific -4100 Hamline Avenue North (Public Hearing Required) PC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS COMMENTS AND REPORTS PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS & REQUESTS Report From The City Council 5 -07 -14 - REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.PDF TCAAP Update PC 05 07 14.PDF, ATTACHMENTS.PDF ADJOURN A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Chair:Clayton LarsonCommissioners:Angela HamesAndy HolewaSam ScottRoberta ThompsonClayton ZimmermanBrent BartelSteven Jones -AlternateCouncil Liaison:Fran Holmes Planning CommissionMay 7, 2014 6:30 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96Arden Hills MN 55112Phone:651 -792 -7800Website:www.cityofardenhills.orgCity VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. AgendaCALL TO ORDER1.2.2.A.Documents:3.3.A.Ryan Streff, City PlannerDocuments:3.B.Matthew Bachler, Associate PlannerDocuments: 4. 5. 5.A. 5.B. Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner Documents: 5.C. Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director Documents: Prepared ByPrepared By Prepared By Prepared By Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2014 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Clayton Larson called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Clayton Larson, Commissioners Brent Bartel (arrived at 6:36 p.m.), Andrew Holewa, Steven Jones (Alternate), Roberta Thompson, and Clayton Zimmerman. Absent: Commissioners Angela Hames and Sam Scott. Also present were: City Planner Ryan Streff; Associate Planner Matthew Bachler; Public Works Director, Terry Maurer; and Councilmember Fran Holmes. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – APRIL 9, 2014 Chair Larson stated the agenda will stand as published. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 5, 2014 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Zimmerman moved, seconded by Commissioner Holewa, to approve the March 5, 2014, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 14-012; PUD Amendment – Hood Packaging Corporation – 1887 Gateway Boulevard – Public Hearing City Planner Streff stated that the applicant has requested a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to allow for the installation of one (1) double walled storage tank on the southeast side of the building located at 1887 Gateway Boulevard. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 9, 2014 2 City Planner Streff explained that Hood Packaging Corporation is located at 1887 Gateway Boulevard within the Gateway Business (GB) Zoning District. The property is generally positioned north of Interstate 694, south of Highway 96, east of Interstate 35W and west of Round Lake. Hood Packaging is a national company that manufactures various types of paper and plastic packaging products. The applicant is requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to install one (1) doubled walled storage tank along the southeastern side of the building. The proposed storage tank has the capacity of 2,500 gallons and is approximately five and one half (5.5) feet in height, fifteen (15) feet in length by three and one half (3.5) feet in diameter. City Planner Streff stated that the applicant has indicated that they are in the process of installing an additional printing press to expand the types of products they manufacture. With the new equipment coming online in the near future there is a need for an additional outside storage tank. The proposed tank would be used to store ink and solvent waste that is produced by the new flexographic printing process. According to the applicant, the waste materials that are produced by their manufacturing process are stored onsite and then collected and transported off-site for recycling. City Planner Streff commented that there are currently four (4) similar storage tanks and two (2) silos on the property that were installed following the approval of three previous PUD Amendments. The existing storage tanks are used for housing new and recycled solvent along with waste ink and solvent that is produced during the manufacturing process. The two (2) silos are used for storing plastic resin pellets that are used for the extrusion laminator. This request would add one (1) additional storage tank to the southeastern side of the property. The proposed storage tank would be located adjacent to the existing storage tanks and within the current screening fence. The storage tank would be placed horizontally behind the existing tanks and approximately seven (7) feet from the external wall of the building. According to the applicant, the MPCA requires that the tanks on the property be double walled and placed within a containment area on the exterior of the building. The containment area in the event of an accident is required in order to hold the contents of the largest storage tank. The applicant currently has a containment curbing system in place that has the ability to hold one- hundred (100) percent of the contents of the largest tank on site. The applicants have a valid license with Ramsey County for handling hazardous materials (waste ink and solvent) that are produced. Hazardous waste materials can be handled in the GB Zoning District with the proper licenses from the Ramsey County Public Health Department. City Planner Streff reported that the applicant has submitted a narrative of the project, a site plan of the property, and the details of the storage tank. City Planner Streff stated that the property has been part of five previous planning cases. In 1997, the original PUD was approved in Planning Case 97-006. PUD Amendments in Planning Cases 00-017 and 00-031 were approved in 2000, for minor changes to the exterior of the building and to add storage tanks on the southeast side of the building. In 2007, a PUD Amendment was approved in Planning Case 07-013 that allowed the installation of two additional storage tanks within the previously approved screening area. Planning Case 11-019 ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 9, 2014 3 was approved by a PUD Amendment in 2011 and allowed the installation of two storage silos and one containment tank. Site Data Future Land Use Plan: Light Industrial and Office Existing Land Use: Light Industrial (office space, manufacturing, and warehousing) Zoning: G-B: Gateway Business Current Lot Sizes: 8.93 Acres (388,991sf) Topography: The building and parking area is generally flat. The property slopes steeply towards Round Lake along the NE side of the property, it also slopes towards Gateway Boulevard along the SW side of the property. City Planner Streff reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and the PUD Amendment regulations. City Planner Streff provided the Findings of Fact for review: General Findings: 1. That a PUD Amendment is required to add the additional storage tank to the property. 2. Hood Packaging Corporation is located at 1887 Gateway Boulevard and is a conforming use within the Gateway Business Zoning District. 3. The PUD process allows for flexibility within the City’s regulations through a negotiated process with the developer or land owner. 4. The applicant proposes to add one storage tank to the southeast side of the building where there are currently four (4) similar tanks installed. 5. The tank would be placed horizontally behind the screening fence approximately seven (7) feet from the outside wall of the building. 6. The double walled constructed tank is made from 100% steel with a capacity of 2,500 gallons and is approximately five and one half (5.5) feet in height, fifteen (15) feet in length by three and one half (3.5) feet in diameter. 7. This proposal will not impact lot coverage requirements, nor will it encroach on setbacks. On the Conditional Use Plan Evaluation Criteria: 8. The proposal will not impact traffic circulation or parking. 9. The proposal is not expected to create noise, glare, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid or solid waste, or other nuisance characteristics. The tank is made with double walled construction to contain the material stored. The containment area has been constructed per the MPCA regulations. 10. The proposal will not impact drainage on the site. 11. The proposal will not impact population density on the site. 12. The proposed storage tank would be placed within the existing screening fence that is constructed with galvanized chain-link fencing and tan colored slates. The proposed tank would not be taller in height than the existing screening fence. The use as proposed is compatible with other uses and structures on surrounding properties. 13. The proposed storage tank is unlikely to significantly impact land values on the subject property or on neighboring properties. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 9, 2014 4 14. Park dedication requirements do not apply. 15. The proposal is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. 16. The proposal does not conflict with the general purpose or intent of the Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan for the City. City Planner Streff stated that based on the submitted plans and the findings of fact, staff recommends approval of Planning Case 14-012 for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment at 1887 Gateway Boulevard. Staff recommends the following five (5) conditions be included with the approval: 1. That the project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. That one (1) additional double walled storage tank shall be permitted on the property and installed within the existing screening fence. 3. That the storage tank shall be completely concealed behind the screening fence. 4. That the storage tank shall meet all applicable Building, Fire and Mechanical Codes and all County and MPCA regulations. The applicant shall obtain all required permits prior to installation. 5. That the system to be installed shall comply with the odor, noise, and other applicable Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regulations. Failure to comply with these regulations may result in a revocation of a permit. City Planner Streff reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Thompson questioned if the City monitored the odor or smell emitted from the storage tanks. City Planner Streff commented this was not monitored by the City but would be complaint based. However, the storage tank would be inspected by the City when installed and if there were any issues they would be addressed at that time. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if Hood Packaging would be hiring additional employees. Ted Hegstrom, Hood Packaging Corporation, stated his company would be hiring eight to ten new employees. Commissioner Jones questioned if the new storage tank would be tied into the existing systems. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 9, 2014 5 Mr. Hegstrom stated this was the case. Chair Larson opened the public hearing at 6:41 p.m. Chair Larson invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. There being no comments Chair Larson closed the public hearing at 6:42 p.m. Commissioner Holewa moved and Commissioner Thompson seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 14-012 for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment at 1887 Gateway Boulevard based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the five (5) conditions in the April 9, 2014, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). B. Planning Case 14-013; Preliminary & Final Plat – Gateway 2nd Addition – Public Hearing City Planner Streff stated that the City of Arden Hills is requesting approval of a Preliminary and Final Plat of the Gateway 2nd Addition to correct and/or combine particular parcels located in close proximity to the intersection of Round Lake Road and Gateway Court. The request includes the replat of two properties that are located at 4300 Round Lake Road and 1987 Gateway Court along with new right-of-way and easement areas. The property is generally located north of I-694, south of Highway 96, east of I-35, and west of Old Highway 10/Round Lake. The replatting will ensure that the City has adequate right-of-way and easements for street and utility access and maintenance. City Planner Streff indicated that the City has been working with Egan, Field & Nowak (EFN), Inc. to replat the area so that concerns with adequate right-of-way areas and drainage and utility easement areas are addressed before the City commences the reconstruction work of Round Lake Road and Gateway Court in 2014. The replat of this property will allow the City to acquire additional right-of-way along Round Lake Road and Gateway Court, while vacating a portion of the right-of-way that is within the parking lot of 1987 Gateway Boulevard. In addition, the replat of this area will allow the City to obtain crucial drainage and utility easements need for maintenance purposes and at the same time vacating portions that are no longer needed by the City. The City Council will review the right-of-way and easement vacation request at the time of the Final Plat review. City Planner Streff noted the Public Works Director has provided a memo detailing the project for the Planning Commission, along with a Preliminary and Final Plat. Site Data Future Land Use Plan: Light Industrial and Office Existing Land Use: Light Industrial (office space, manufacturing, and warehousing) Zoning: G-B: Gateway Business Current Lot Sizes: 4300 Round Lake Road = 11.57 Acres & ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 9, 2014 6 1987 Gateway Boulevard = 7.90 Acres Topography: The right-of-way and easement areas are fairly flat City Planner Streff reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and the Plan Review. City Planner Streff provided the Findings of Fact for review: General Findings: 1. The City of Arden Hills is requesting approval of a Preliminary & Final Plat of the Gateway 2nd Addition in order correct and/or combine parcels into a single plat. 2. The property proposed to be replatted is within Gateway Business (GB) Zoning District near the intersection of Round Lake Road and Gateway Court. 3. That the Final Plat will provide for adequate right-of-way and drainage and utility easements. 4. The replat should not impact lot coverage requirements or create additional nonconformities. 5. The park dedication fee does not apply to the application. 6. The drainage areas and stormwater pond areas are included with the utility easements that will be dedicated to the City. 7. The Preliminary and Final Plat has been submitted to Ramsey County for their review. 8. The proposed plan meets all of the requirements of the City’s Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. 9. The proposed plan is in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. City Planner Streff stated based on the submitted plans and the findings of fact, the Preliminary and Final Plat are in conformance with the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, therefore, staff recommends approval of Planning Case 14-013 for a Preliminary and Final Plat for the Gateway 2nd Addition subject to the four (4) conditions of approval: 1. That the project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and/or the City Council. 2. That the drainage and utility easement shall be expanded from six (6) feet to twelve (12) feet along the eastern property line of Block 1, Lot 1, Gateway 2nd Addition. 3. That the comments provided from Ramsey County shall be included in the Final Plat. 4. That the City shall approve the vacation of a segment of the Gateway Court right-of-way and existing drainage and utility easements as noted on the plans prior to the execution of the Final Plat. New right-of-way and drainage and utility easements will be created with the Final Plat. City Planner Streff reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 9, 2014 7 Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Chair Larson requested further information on the existing nonconformities on this site. City Planner Streff explained the minimum landscaping requirements were not being met for the property at 1987 Gateway Boulevard based on the size of the lot. Commissioner Holewa asked if a park dedication fee was paid when the property was originally platted. City Planner Streff indicated that the trail along Round Lake on the east side of the property was constructed by the property owner in lieu of park dedication. Associate Planner Bachler reported the trail was not located on land owned by the City. Commissioner Holewa requested that further information regarding this trail be provided to the City Council. Public Works Director Maurer further discussed the Preliminary and Final Plat for the Gateway 2nd Addition with the Planning Commission. He indicated the driving force for this project was the renovation to Round Lake Road and the City’s need for additional right-of-way and easements in this area for proper maintenance. Chair Larson questioned where the existing trail was located. Public Works Director Maurer noted the trail was located at the rear of the property. He noted a trail would be built along Round Lake Road by the City through the improvement project. Chair Larson opened the public hearing at 6:57 p.m. Chair Larson invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. There being no comment Chair Larson closed the public hearing at 6:58 p.m. Commissioner Holewa moved and Commissioner Bartel seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 14-013 for a Preliminary and Final Plat of Gateway 2nd Addition located at Round Lake Road and Gateway Court based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the four (4) conditions in the April 9, 2014, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). C. Planning Case 14-001; Zoning Code Amendment – Parks and Open Space District Rezoning – Public Hearing Associate Planner Bachler stated that the Planning Commission is being asked to consider approval of Ordinance 14-004 in Planning Case 14-001 for an amendment to Section 1315.01 (Official Zoning Map) of the Arden Hills City Code. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 9, 2014 8 Associate Planner Bachler reported that on November 25, 2013, the City Council approved Ordinance 2013-011, which established a Parks and Open Space District in the Zoning Code. Since then, staff has evaluated parcels within the City that should be rezoned as Parks and Open Space District based on the purpose of this zoning classification. Associate Planner Bachler indicated that the primary purpose of the Parks and Open Space District is to establish land use regulations that support the public parks and open spaces managed by the City of Arden Hills and Ramsey County. In addition, the Zoning Code states that properties zoned Parks and Open Space work to conserve environmental resources, promote ecological stewardship, and provide areas that support community health through the provision of active and passive recreational opportunities. Staff has identified 38 parcels in the City that are appropriate for rezoning as Parks and Open Space. Of these parcels, 28 are owned by the City of Arden Hills. Twenty are currently used as active parkland and four are part of the City’s trail network. An additional four parcels owned by the City provide open space areas, but are not formally part of the City’s park system. These properties are 1750 Parkshore Drive on the southern end of Round Lake; 3772 Brighton Way east of New Brighton Avenue and adjacent to Tony Schmidt Regional Park; 3151 Lake Johanna Boulevard, known as the “triangle parcel” and where the City recently installed a gateway sign; and 3208 Hamline Avenue North, which is a wetland parcel situated between Highway 51 and Lake Josephine. Associate Planner Bachler explained that the remaining ten parcels are owned by the Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department and are all included in the County park system. Eight of these properties comprise the Tony Schmidt Regional Park. The remaining two, the Marsden Archery Range and Rice Creek North Regional Trail, are on land formerly part of the Arden Hills Army Training Site. Associate Planner Bachler commented that the proposed rezoning only includes land owned by the City of Arden Hills or Ramsey County. The Parks and Open Space District cannot be applied to privately owned land. Associate Planner Bachler stated that in September of 2009, the City Council adopted the Arden Hills 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The plan outlines the community’s vision and goals, which are intended to guide the City’s policies and strategies. The adopted Future Land Use Map designates a total of 65 parcels for “Park and Open Space” use. The plan defines this land use category as “areas designated as public parks.” Currently, public parks and open space areas are integrated into residential or business-oriented zoning districts as permitted or conditional uses. Minnesota State law mandates that local zoning codes are consistent with adopted comprehensive plans. The proposed Parks and Open Space District rezoning would help the City meet this requirement. Further, the rezoning will assist in the implementation of goals identified in the Land Use, Parks and Recreation, and Protected Resources chapters in the Comprehensive Plan. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 9, 2014 9 Associate Planner Bachler indicated that the remaining parcels designated as Parks and Open Space on the Future Land Use Map that are not included in the proposed rezoning do not meet the stated purpose of the Parks and Open Space District. These parcels are owned by several entities, including the City, Ramsey County, the State of Minnesota, and private property owners/homeowners associations. Existing uses on these properties include municipal utilities, stormwater easement ponds, private open spaces, and single family homes. Associate Planner Bachler provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The proposed amendment would create greater consistency between the City Zoning Code and the adopted Future Land Use Map. 2. The proposed amendment advances the Comprehensive Plan’s land use goals because it assists in providing a balanced mix of residential, park, open space, and commercial land uses within the City. 3. The proposed amendment advances the Comprehensive Plan’s parks and recreation goals because it helps to protect and maintain access to lakes, marshes, and wooded areas for active and passive recreation. 4. The proposed amendment advances the Comprehensive Plan’s protected resources goals because it implements regulations to protect the City’s natural resources, including trees, lakes, wetlands, and other unique or significant natural resources. Associate Planner Bachler stated that staff recommends approval of Ordinance Number 14-004 in Planning Case 14-001 for an amendment to Section 1315.01 – Zoning Map of the Arden Hills Zoning Code as presented in the April 9, 2014, Report to the Planning Commission. Associate Planner Bachler reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval as Submitted 2. Recommend Approval with Changes 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Holewa indicated this was an important step for the City as it would designate parks as park land and not residential property. He thanked staff for their efforts on the zoning code amendment. Commissioner Jones commented there were a large number of parcels proposed to be park land and he requested the number be tightened up. It was his opinion that several of the parcels could be used for future development instead of park land. Associate Planner Bachler commented that the rezoning would create consistency between the official zoning map and the City’s Comprehensive Plan. He reported that the City could always consider rezoning a parcel in the future if a different land use were to be proposed. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 9, 2014 10 Commissioner Holewa asked if the Ramsey County parkland adjacent to the TCAAP redevelopment site was included in this rezoning. Associate Planner Bachler stated this land was not included in the proposed rezoning. He reported that Ramsey County was in discussion with the Army to have additional land incorporated into the Rice Creek Regional Trail. Once land has been transferred, the land acquired by Ramsey County would be rezoned Parks and Open Space District. Commissioner Holewa was pleased that the City was taking the proposed action to protect its City parks. Commissioner Bartel questioned if each parcel was owned by the City or Ramsey County. Associate Planner Bachler reported that this was the case and that out of the 38 parcels, 28 were owned by the City and the remaining 10 were owned by Ramsey County. Chair Larson opened the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. Chair Larson invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. Karen Cloutier, 1890 Jerrold Avenue, asked if the property on the southeast corner of Hazelnut Park could be broken off and developed for residential homes. Chair Larson stated this property was currently zoned residential and the rezoning would classify this property as Parks and Open Space. He explained that if a development were considered in the future, this would require another rezoning. Councilmember Holmes clarified that the City had purchased a portion of land from Trinity Church and this land was now part of Hazelnut Park. There being no additional comment Chair Larson closed the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. Commissioner Jones had concerns with the number of parcels that were being turned into Park and Open Space. He requested that staff clean up the legal descriptions. He suggested that the rezoning be broken up into several actions and that it not be approved under one broad motion. Associate Planner Bachler stated that the City was still working on the legal descriptions for the parcels owned by Ramsey County. He explained the City Attorney supported the Planning Commission reviewing and approving the rezoning with the understanding the legal descriptions would be completed by staff prior to the case being reviewed by the City Council. Commissioner Jones discussed the lot comprising Tony Schmidt Park and suggested this parcel be broken down into smaller lots. Chair Larson commented that although the Ordinance was in draft form, he could support staff’s recommendation to rezone the 38 parcels with the understanding staff would be revising the legal descriptions prior to review by the City Council. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 9, 2014 11 Commissioner Holewa moved and Commissioner Zimmerman seconded a motion to recommend approval of Ordinance Number 14-004 in Planning Case 14-001 for an amendment to Section 1315.01 – Zoning Map of the Arden Hills Zoning Code as presented in the April 9, 2014, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried 5-1 (Jones opposed). D. Planning Case 14-002; Zoning Code Amendment – Conservation District Rezoning – Public Hearing Associate Planner Bachler stated that the Planning Commission is being asked to consider approval of Ordinance 14-005 in Planning Case 14-002 for an amendment to Section 1315.01 (Official Zoning Map) of the Arden Hills City Code. Associate Planner Bachler reported that on November 25, 2013, the City Council approved Ordinance 2013-010, which established a new Conservation District in the Zoning Code. Since then, staff has evaluated parcels within the City that should be rezoned as Conservation District based on the purpose of this zoning classification. Associate Planner Bachler indicated the Conservation District is meant to be applied to the Arden Hills Army Training Site (AHATS). While the property is now under federal ownership and being leased to the Minnesota National Guard, the City recognized that portions of AHATS could be sold to private parties in the future and developed based on the underlying zoning classification. The main purpose of the Conservation District is to provide a “holding zone” for these lands to ensure that any future development on AHATS maintains a sustainable level of public expenditures for utilities and services. Associate Planner Bachler explained that AHATS is comprised of a total of eight separate parcels. Staff has identified four of these parcels as being appropriate for rezoning as Conservation District at this time. These parcels approximately cover the area bound by County Road I on the north, Lexington Avenue on the east, Highway 96 on the south, and on the west, by a line extending directly north from Snelling Avenue North to County Road I. Associate Planner Bachler commented that the remaining four parcels are located on the western half of AHATS, adjacent to the TCAAP redevelopment site and the Rice Creek North Regional Trail. The Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department is currently working with the federal government to have additional land on these four parcels transferred to the County to be incorporated into their park system. Specifically, these acquisitions would expand the existing boundaries of the Rice Creek North Regional Trail property and add a wildlife corridor along the eastern boundary of the TCAAP site extending south to Highway 96. These additional lands were identified in the Amendment to the Rice Creek Regional Trail Master Plan, which was approved by the City Council on June 24, 2013. Associate Planner Bachler explained that following the completion of the land transfer, the City will work with Ramsey County to rezone the property acquired by the County as Parks and Open ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 9, 2014 12 Space District. That land remaining under federal ownership would be rezoned Conservation District at that time as well. Associate Planner Bachler noted that in 1999, the City amended the Zoning Code to include a new Civic Center District located along the north side of Highway 96, between Snelling and Lexington Avenue. When the zoning map was amended, the Civic Center classification was extended beyond the property boundaries for Arden Hills City Hall and the Ramsey County Public Works Department to partially include a portion of one of the AHATS parcels. The proposed amendment would rezone that area of this parcel now zoned Civic Center as Conservation District. Associate Planner Bachler stated that in September of 2009, the City Council adopted the Arden Hills 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The plan outlines general vision and goals, which are intended to guide the City’s policies and strategies. The adopted Future Land Use Map designates 1,449 acres on AHATS as Park Preserve. This land use is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as “areas designated as natural or scenic areas that are to be preserved for public use or open space.” Associate Planner Bachler reported that a majority of the AHATS site is now zoned R-1 single- family residential. Minnesota State law mandates that local zoning codes are consistent with adopted comprehensive plans. The proposed Conservation District rezoning would help the City meet this requirement. Further, the rezoning will assist in the implementation of the goals identified in the Land Use and Protected Resources chapters in the Comprehensive Plan. Associate Planner Bachler provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The proposed amendment will create greater consistency between the City Zoning Code and the adopted Future Land Use Map. 2. The proposed amendment advances the Comprehensive Plan’s land use goals because it assists in providing a balanced mix of residential, park, open space, and commercial land uses. 3. The proposed amendment advances the Comprehensive Plan’s protected resources goals because it implements regulations to protect the City’s natural resources, including trees, lakes, wetlands, and other unique or significant natural resources. Associate Planner Bachler stated staff recommends approval of Ordinance Number 14-005 in Planning Case 14-002 for an amendment to Section 1315.01 – Zoning Map of the Arden Hills Zoning Code as presented in the April 9, 2014, Report to the Planning Commission. Associate Planner Bachler reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval as Submitted 2. Recommend Approval with Changes 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 9, 2014 13 Commissioner Zimmerman asked if the City was putting the cart before the horse on this matter. He stated the City was dealing with the Federal Government on the TCAAP property. Associate Planner Bachler stated that the Arden Hills Army Training Site was federally held land. However, one of the main reasons for the rezoning was to create consistency between the City’s official zoning map and the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the City does not want to run the risk of federal land being sold for residential development. Commissioner Holewa did not object to the rezoning at this time. Chair Larson asked if the City received any comments from the Army. Associate Planner Bachler reported the City did not receive any comments from the Army. Chair Larson opened the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Chair Larson invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. There being no comment Chair Larson closed the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. Commissioner Holewa moved and Commissioner Thompson seconded a motion to recommend approval of Ordinance Number 14-005 in Planning Case 14-002 for an amendment to Section 1315.01 – Zoning Map of the Arden Hills Zoning Code as presented in the April 9, 2014, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS Chair Larson indicated the Commission and staff picnic would be held on July 22, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. at Cummings Park. REPORTS A. Report from the City Council Councilmember Holmes updated the Planning Commission on recent City Council activities stating that at the March 10, 2014, City Council Meeting the Council voted to approve (5-0) Planning Case 14-010 for an amendment to the Final PUD for Phase I of the Lexington Station redevelopment project. The amendment allows for modifications to the design of the Phase I building. The Planning Commission reviewed this case at their March 5, 2014, regular meeting and recommended approval. The City Council also approved (5-0) Planning Case 13-019 for an accessory structure at the Gradient Financial property at 4105 Lexington Avenue. This case was tabled at the City Council meeting on November 25, 2013, to allow the applicant additional time to research appropriate building materials for the accessory structure. The Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case 13-019 at their November 9, 2013, regular meeting and recommended approval. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 9, 2014 14 On March 31, 2014, the City Council voted to approve (5-0) Ordinance Number 2014-003 to amend the minimum unit size standards under the Multi-family Dwelling Units Additional Conditional Use Permit Criteria in the Zoning Code. The amendment decreases the minimum size of efficiencies units to 550 square feet, and increases the minimum size of two-bedroom and three-bedroom units to 950 square feet and 1,200 square feet, respectively. Councilmember Holmes discussed Creative Catering’s proposal for the reuse of the Carroll’s Furniture property. She indicated the Council has had several special Work Sessions to discuss the redevelopment of the TCAAP site. B. TCAAP Update City Planner Streff stated that the City and Ramsey County are working together on a Request for Proposals for an infrastructure study that will consider roadways, utilities, surface water management, and grading. Ramsey County will be the lead agency for the contract that will include analysis and preliminary design for the Spine Road and other infrastructure. City utilities will be included in the study, and the City will be asked to enter into a cost-sharing agreement for its portion of the contract. Staff expects that the RFP will be released in early April, and a consultant will be selected by mid-May. City Planner Streff explained that special and regular City Council work session meetings have been scheduled to discuss issues related to the Master Plan and City infrastructure. Discussion topics are tentatively planned as follows: March 31, 2014, Special Work Session following the regular meeting • Infrastructure Study Update • Metropolitan Council Sewer Access Charge (SAC) Credit Discussion April 14, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm • Review Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) and Mitigation Plan • Financial Modeling for Trunk Utilities • Review of Public Comments on the Draft Master Plan April 21, 2014, Regular Work Session at 5:00 pm • Ramsey County Economic Development and Redevelopment Goals for TCAAP • PTRC Recommendations for Park and Open Space • City Goals for Surface Water Management April 28, 2014, Special Work Session following the regular meeting • I-35W/Highway 96 Intersection Design Recommendation Staff anticipated that additional regular and special work session meetings will be scheduled to discuss TCAAP issues. Future meeting topics will be defined as those dates draw nearer. Chair Larson asked how much SAC credit exists on the TCAAP site. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 9, 2014 15 City Planner Streff stated there was a considerable amount of SAC credit on the property. Commissioner Zimmerman questioned if the proposed Goodwill store was still being considered by the City. City Planner Streff indicated this proposal was denied by the City Council. He commented that litigation was pending on this case. Commissioner Holewa noted the Friends of the Park tree sale was taking place at this time. He encouraged all residents to participate in the tree sale. Further information was available at City Hall or on the City’s website. ADJOURN Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman, to adjourn the April 9, 2014, Planning Commission Meeting at 7:56 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-014 - Variance - 1850 Venus Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-014 Page 1 of 10 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 7, 2014 PC Agenda Item 3.A TO: Planning Commission FROM: Ryan Streff, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #14-014 – No Public Hearing Required Applicant: Kyle Irestone & Katherine Ahmann Property Location: 1850 Venus Avenue Request: Variance Requested Action The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a twenty (24) foot by thirty-eight (38) foot or 912 square foot garage addition to 1850 Venus Avenue that would encroach thirty (30) feet into the secondary front yard setback. Background 1. Background The applicants in this case own the property located at 1850 Venus Avenue. The property is Zoned R-1 Single Family Residential and is generally positioned north of County Road E2 West, south of Venus Avenue, east of Interstate 35W and west of Snelling Avenue North. The subject property is considered by the Zoning Code to be a corner lot, as it is situated at the corner of Venus Avenue and Rolling Hills Road. However, Rolling Hills Road is an unimproved City right-of-way that terminates approximately 200 feet south of Venus Avenue and is used solely for trail purposes. This area was platted in 1956 as Shorewood Hills Addition No. 6 and Rolling Hills Road was stubbed in for a future connection to County Road E2 West. The connection to County Road E2 West was never completed and is unlikely to be developed as the land to the south is within Tony Schmidt Regional Park and the need for an additional access to this subdivision is unwarranted at this time. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-014 - Variance - 1850 Venus Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-014 Page 2 of 10 2. Overview of Request The applicants are proposing to construct a twenty (24) foot by thirty-eight (38) foot or 912 square foot attached garage to the east side of the single family dwelling. The garage would be constructed between the existing dwelling and the east property line. As proposed, the new addition would encroach thirty (30) feet into the forty (40) foot secondary front yard setback along the platted right-of-way for Rolling Hills Road. The required forty (40) foot setback along Venus Avenue would be maintained along with the remaining rear and side yard setbacks. A variance to encroach thirty (30) feet into the secondary front yard setback is being requested, which would leave a setback of ten (10) feet from the east property line. Grading would be conducted along the north and east sides of the home in order to prepare the new garage pad and driveway, and to reclaim the existing driveway area back to a natural vegetative state. The site plan indicates that some amount of grading would occur in the City’s right-of-way along Rolling Hills Road. Any grading to be completed in the right-of- way would require approval by the Cit y in conjunction with Grading and Erosion Control Permit. The applicants have indicated that the façade and roofing materials to be used on the new garage addition would match the materials on the existing home. Following the construction of the new addition the existing tuck-under garage would be converted to functioning living space, the existing driveway and stairway up to the front door would be removed and new landscaping would be installed. In order to create a finished look the façade area on the former garage would be designed to match the existing home so that a consistent exterior façade is maintained. Once removed the old concrete driveway area would be graded to match the existing grade along the front of the home. Two new trees would be planted to fulfill the Tree Preservation Ordinance and tree mitigation standards. The applicant has submitted a narrative of the proposed addition and a response to the variance evaluation criteria (Attachment A), and survey and a site plan of the property (Attachment B). 3. Site Data Future Land Use Plan: Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single Family Detached Residential Zoning: R-1: Single Family Residential Current Lot Sizes: .3574 Acres (15,569 Square Feet) Topography: The east side of the has a fair amount of grade change in the location of the proposed garage City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-014 - Variance - 1850 Venus Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-014 Page 3 of 10 4. Surrounding Area Direction Future Land Use Plan Zoning Existing Land Use North Low Density Residential R-1: Single Family Residential Single Family Detached Residential South Park and Open Space R-1: Single Family Residential POS: Park and Open Space Park and Open Space East Low Density Residential R-1: Single Family Residential Single Family Detached Residential West Low Density Residential R-1: Single Family Residential Single Family Detached Residential Plan Evaluation 1. R-1 Regulations, Existing Conditions, and Proposed Redevelopment A. Lot Size & Dimensions The lot is 15,569 square feet in size with approximate dimensions of 133.5 feet in width, and 116.5 feet in depth. Although the total square footage of the lot meets the requirements in the R-1 Zoning District the actual dimensions of the lot do not meet the minimum size requirements. B. Structure Setbacks – Variance Required The existing single family dwelling meets the setback requirements for the R-1 Zoning District. In the R-1 Zoning District, a combined total of twenty-five (25) feet is required between the two side yard setbacks with a minimum of at least 10 feet on one side. However, on a corner lot a forty (40) foot setback is required along the secondary front yard; in this case the additional front yard setback is along the unimproved right-of-way platted as Rolling Hills Road. The applicant is requesting a variance to encroach thirty (30) feet into the secondary front yard setback. As proposed the attached garage would be ten (10) feet from the east property line if the variance was approved. The existing dwelling is approximately thirty (30) feet from the west property line making the Applicable R-1 Lot Requirements 1. Minimum Lot Area (sf.) 14,000 2. Minimum Lot Size (ft., width/depth) 95/130 3. Height (ft.) 35 4. Lot Covered by Structure 25% 5. Minimum Landscape Lot Area 65% 6. Minimum Building Setbacks (ft) Front Yard 40 Rear Yard (Principle) 30 Rear Yard (Accessory) 10 Side Yard Interior - Principal (Min/total both yards on lot) 10/25 Side Yard Interior - Accessory 10 Side Yard Corner 40 City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-014 - Variance - 1850 Venus Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-014 Page 4 of 10 combined total of both side yard setbacks forty (40) feet. All other setbacks would conform to the district requirements. C. Lot Coverage – Meets Requirements The existing and proposed lot coverage does not exceed the lot coverage limitations of the R-1 Zoning District. The maximum lot coverage for impervious surfaces is 35% and the minimum landscape coverage is 65%. Proposed Lot Coverage = 23.98% Proposed Landscape Coverage = 76.02% D. FAR (Floor Area Ratio) – Meets Requirements Although the new garage addition does not increase the FAR (Floor Area Ratio), the existing garage when converted to living space would increase the FAR. In the R-1 Zoning District a max FAR of 30% is permitted. The proposed project would increase the FAR to 17.75%. *Floor Area is the sum of all floors of the structure not including covered porches, decks; any space where the average floor-to-ceiling height is less than six feet; attached or detached garages and other detached accessory structures. *Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the ratio obtained by dividing the sum of a building’s floor area by the amount of lot area. Existing Proposed Square Feet % Square Feet % House/Garage 1,382 8.88% 2,294 14.73% Decks/Patios -- -- -- -- Driveway 674 4.33% 1,332 8.56% Sidewalk 36 .23% 107 .69% Structural Coverage 2,092 13.44% 3,854 23.98% Landscaping Coverage 86.56% 76.02% Lot Size 15,569 Sq. Ft. / Lot Size Square Feet % FAR - Existing 2,287 14.69% FAR - Maximum 4,670 30% FAR - Proposed 2,764 17.75% Lot Size 15,569 City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-014 - Variance - 1850 Venus Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-014 Page 5 of 10 E. Structure Height – Meets Requirements The proposed addition would not exceed the 35-foot height maximum for principal structures. 2. Flood Plain, Wetlands, and Easements The proposed addition is outside of any flood plains, wetlands, or easements. 3. Tree Preservation A tree preservation plan for the property will be required before the building permit is issued. The proposed addition would require the removal of one (1) significant tree on the property. There are currently thirteen (13) significant trees on the property that total two hundred and nineteen (219) caliper inches. The removal of the twenty-four (24) inch Pyramid Linden Tree would account for 10.9% of the total caliper inches on the lot. The property owner is permitted to remove up to 10% of the caliper inches. The mitigation rate of 1:2 or one (1) inch for every two (2) inches lost is required after 10% of the total caliper inches are removed. The property owner has indicated that two (2) new trees will be planted upon conclusion of the project. Caliper Inches Number of Trees Total Existing Trees 219 13 10% Permitted Removal 21.9 -- Proposed Removal 24 1 Trees Preserved 197.1 12 Replacement Trees Required* 1.05 Replacement Trees Proposed Greater than 1.05 caliper inches 2 New Trees * Replacement trees are calculated by subtracting the ten percent permitted removal from the proposed removal and dividing by two. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-014 - Variance - 1850 Venus Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-014 Page 6 of 10 4. Additional Review a. The Rice Creek Watershed District reviewed the plans for this request and determined that a RCWD Permit would not be required for the proposed project at 1850 Venus Avenue. b. The Building Official reviewed the plans for the project and had no additional comments. c. The City Engineer reviewed the proposal and stated that a Grading and Erosion Control Permit is needed for this project. d. Ramsey County has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to the project; however, the County has stated that no grading, retaining walls or other structures will be allowed on their property. Variance Evaluation Criteria On May 5, 2011, the Governor signed into law new variance legislation that changed the review criteria City’s must use when evaluating variance requests. The new law renames the municipal variance standard from “undue hardship” to “practical difficulties,” but otherwise retains the familiar three-factor test of (1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential character. Also included is a sentence new to city variance authority that was already in the county statutes: “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan”. Therefore, in evaluating variance requests under the new law, in order to find a practical difficulty, cities should adopt findings addressing the following questions: • Is the variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance? • Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? • Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? • Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? • Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? As was the case before the new legislation took effect, economic considerations alone cannot constitute a practical difficulty. Furthermore, the new law clarifies that conditions may be imposed on granting of variances if those conditions are directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Discussion The findings of fact for this variance request support a recommendation for approval. A single family home is a permitted use in the R-1 Zoning District, and the addition is not an City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-014 - Variance - 1850 Venus Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-014 Page 7 of 10 unreasonable use within this district. If approved the variance is unlikely to create a negative impact on the neighborhood or City as the lot would function as a typical non-corner lot with side yard setbacks that conform to the R-1 Zoning District. It does not appear that the variance is based on economic considerations alone. Findings of Fact Staff offers the following twenty (20) findings of fact for review: General Findings 1. The property is in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. 2. The lot is 15,569 square feet in size with approximate dimensions of 133.5 feet in width, and 116.5 feet in depth. Although the total square footage of the lot meets the requirements in the R-1 Zoning District the actual dimensions of the lot do not meet the minimum size requirements. 3. The existing dwelling and attached tuck-under garage meet all property line setbacks. 4. The proposed garage addition would encroach thirty (30) feet into the forty (40) foot secondary front yard setback along the right-of-way platted as Rolling Hills Road. 5. The proposed addition does not encroach into the rear yard setback or the front yard setback along Venus Avenue. 6. The platted section of right-of-way for Rolling Hills Road is used solely for the purposes of a city and county trail. 7. The unimproved right-of-way known as Rolling Hills Road extends approximately 200 feet from Venus Avenue, where it terminates at the adjacent property line for Tony Schmidt Regional Park. At this time, there are no plans to extend the right-of-way or construct a roadway in this area. 8. The existing garage would be converted into living space and the existing driveway would be removed if a variance is granted. 9. The proposed structure and landscaping coverages are within the zoning district requirements. 10. The dwelling with the proposed addition would not exceed the 35 foot height limit. 11. Single Family Dwellings are permitted structures within the R-1 Zoning District. 12. The existing dwelling and the proposed garage are outside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. 13. The property directly east of the subject property located at 1834 Venus Avenue encroaches into the secondary front yard setback along Rolling Hills Road approximately fifteen (15) feet. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-014 - Variance - 1850 Venus Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-014 Page 8 of 10 Variance Findings: 14. The proposal is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as the Ordinance generally allows flexibility for unique parcels and situations when impacts to surrounding properties are minimized. 15. The proposal is consistent with the Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan as it allows the reasonable use of residential property. 16. Single family dwelling are permitted and a reasonable use within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. 17. The lot has rather unique characteristics for a corner lot within the City. The property is situated on a corner lot, of which only one of the right-of-ways, Venus Avenue, consists of an improved surface. The right-of-way known as Rolling Hills Road along the east side of the property is unimproved and is used for trail purposes only. There are no plans at this time to extend or improve this right-of-way. 18. The proposed addition would be visible from neighboring properties; however, the addition would not be inconsistent in terms of setbacks and lot coverage requirements for typical non-corner lots. The property owner would match the materials used for siding and roofing to the existing dwelling, which should minimize the impacts on surrounding property owners. 19. The proposed addition is unlikely to have negative impacts to the property or to the neighborhood as a whole. Based on the proposed setbacks the property would function as a typical non-corner lot within the R-1 Single Family Residential District. The trail that has been constructed within the right-of-way of Rolling Hills Road is not likely to be affected by the proposed addition. 20. The proposed plans and variance request for the addition to the single family dwelling does not appear to be based on economic considerations alone. Recommendation The findings of fact for this variance request support a recommendation for approval. However, if the Planning Commission chooses to make a recommendation for denial, the Findings of Fact would need to be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this variance, Staff recommends the following seven (7) conditions: 1. That the project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. That the applicant shall obtain a Grading and Erosion Control Permit from the City before the building permit is issued. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-014 - Variance - 1850 Venus Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-014 Page 9 of 10 3. That the final grade of the lot including the grade of the existing driveway shall be approved by the City. The final grade shall match the character of the neighborhood and the existing grade along the front of the home. 4. That grading shall not be allowed outside the property boundary lines without consent from the adjacent property owner. 5. That a tree preservation plan and financial surety or escrow for these improvements shall be submitted to the City before the building permit is issued. 6. That the structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. That a building permit for the construction of the garage and a zoning permit for the construction of the driveway shall be required. 7. That the exterior façade of the addition and the existing garage area shall be the same color and use the same construction materials as the existing structure. The final façade shall be approved by the City Planner. Options The findings in this report currently support approval of this variance. With a motion to deny the variance, the findings must be amended. 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 14-014 for a variance at 1850 Venus Avenue to encroach thirty (30) feet into the secondary front yard setback, based on the findings of fact, the submitted plans, and the seven (7) conditions in the May 7, 2014, Report to the Planning Commission. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 14- 014 for a variance at 1850 Venus Avenue to encroach thirty (30) feet into the secondary front yard setback, based on the findings of fact, the submitted plans, and the seven (7) conditions in the May 7, 2014, Report to the Planning Commission. 3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 14-014 for a variance at 1850 Venus Avenue to encroach thirty (30) feet into the secondary front yard setback based on the following findings of fact… 4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 14-014 for a variance at 1850 Venus Avenue to encroach thirty (30) feet into the secondary front yard setback: a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-014 - Variance - 1850 Venus Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-014 Page 10 of 10 Notice Although a variance does not require a public hearing, a public meeting notice was prepared by the City and mailed to properties within three-hundred fifty (350) feet of the subject property. Resident Comment The City has not received any comments from surrounding residents in regards to this planning case. Scott Yonke from Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department did contact staff about the project. Mr. Yonke informed staff that after reviewing the proposal the County would have no objections to the plan; however, they did have concerns about grading and wanted the applicant to be aware that no grading, retaining walls or other structures will be allowed on the County’s property. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on April 7, 2014. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by June 6, 2014 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. The City may extend the review period beyond the 120 days, with the applicant’s permission. Attachments A. Application and Narrative B. Survey and Site Plan C. Aerial Photo D. Property Photos Arden Hills Planning Commission, This proposed variance is for the construction of an attached garage on the east side of the property at 1850 Venus Avenue along with the construction of a driveway leading to the new garage from Venus Avenue and a new sidewalk connecting the proposed driveway to the existing front entrance of the home. An annotated survey of the property containing the high level plan is included, and upon approval of the variance the homeowners will work with an architect and builder for the detailed plan. The request for variance request is due to the east side of the house being platted as a road (where the Elmer L. Anderson Memorial Trail walking path is located), and the lot therefore being considered a corner lot (despite no road being present to the east). That current 40 foot side yard setback of a corner lot does not allow for a sufficiently sized attached garage to be constructed. This request meets the defined Hardship Criteria due to the aforementioned limited side yard setback available on the east side of the home limiting the reasonable space available for an attached addition to the home. The circumstances of the property were not created by the homeowner as the lot and adjoining road were platted prior to their taking ownership, and the platted road to the east of the property is unlikely to be constructed in the future due to the existing walking path in the platted road’s location. Granting this variance request will retain the spirit and intent of the setback ordinance as the east side of the home at 1850 Venus Avenue is not a typical “corner lot” due to the adjacent walking path. This variance request will retain the essential character of the city as there are many examples of adjacent connected garages within the neighborhood as well as throughout Arden Hills which are similar to the proposed structure in this request. Additionally, there are several examples of corner lot structures (some of which are garages) in the neighborhood which are closer to the side yard setback than the designated 40 feet setback for a corner lot. The proposed garage will match the existing house structure in style as well as material with cement board siding which matches the house as well as asphalt shingles that match the existing roof. Following construction of the new garage, driveway, and sidewalk the existing garage space will be reclaimed as basement living space for the home, the garage door and adjacent service door will be removed and replaced with windows + brick or concrete board siding, the existing concrete driveway and concrete stairs to the front door will be removed, the existing driveway area and concrete stairs area will be re-graded to tie into existing elevations so the area will not appear to have been a driveway, and landscaping/trees will be added in the location of the existing driveway. Tree Preservation Plan: Our plan for the proposed garage and driveway requires the removal of one tree, which is located in the proposed location of the new garage, and the driveway will be constructed in a manner to avoid removal of any front yard trees. The tree which is located in the proposed garage space is a Linden with a 24 inch trunk diameter. There are 13 “significant” trees on the property with a trunk diameter of 12 inches or greater. The total trunk diameter of those 13 trees is 219 inches. The Linden therefore accounts for 10.9% of overall “significant” tree trunk diameter on the property. We plan to plant at two trees at the conclusion of the project to account for the removed tree. The planned trees are one Northern Red Oak and one Black Hills Spruce. Proposed garage: Dimensions - 24’ x 38’ (912 sq ft) Proposed driveway: Dimensions – 30’ wide at garage and 20’ wide at street driveway with an approximate 64’ length (1332 sq ft) Removal of existing driveway (674 sq ft) will result in a net 658 square feet of added driveway The proposed driveway will be a curved design to account for the two existing trees in the front yard with a goal of not removing either tree as a part of this project. Proposed sidewalk leading from proposed driveway to existing front door: Dimensions - 17’ x 3’ (51 sq ft) Removal of existing concrete staircase (36 sq ft) leading from current driveway to existing front door will result in a new 15 square feet of added sidewalk Existing house structure: 52’ x 26’ = 1352 square feet Setback distances of proposed garage: • 10’ from Northeast corner of proposed garage to side property line • 19’ from Southeast corner of proposed garage to side property line • 30’ from Southeast corner of proposed garage to rear property link Thank you, Kyle Irestone and Katie Ahmann 1850 Venus Avenue Homeowners Overview of proposed plan: Existing Front Yard and Garage Rough sketch of the front of the house after existing garage reclamation. The garage door and service door will be removed, and replaced with brick or cement board siding, windows will be installed, the concrete stairs will be removed, and the grading will be altered to tie into the existing elevations for a more gradual slope of grass, and landscaping/trees/bushes will be added. The goal is for the front of the house to look like a driveway, garage, and concrete stairs were never there. Following approval of the variance the homeowners will work with an architect and builder. Formal plans which represent the actual designs can be provided to Arden Hills to add to the information gathered as a part of this proposed project, if neeed. 1850 VENUS AVENUE N: \ P r o j e c t s \ 1 4 0 2 5 \ 1 4 0 2 5 P D F . d w g , 2 / 2 4 / 2 0 1 4 1 : 0 7 : 4 6 P M Map D ate: May 2, 2014P:\GIS_Data\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-014¯1850 Venus Avenue Venus Avenue 1850 Venus Avenue - Setback Variance - PC 14-014 Hamline Avenue Lexington Avenue Unimproved City Right-of-Way Rolling Hills RoadCity/County Trail ROW - Rolling Hills Road Tony Schmidt Regional Park Tony Schmidt Regional Park Proposed Garage Location Proposed Garage Location Existing Home & Garage Proposed Garage Location City/County Trail – Rolling Hills Road ROW City/County Trail – Rolling Hills Road ROW City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-015 - Boston Scientific - PUD Amendment - Building Addition\Memos and Reports_14-015 Page 1 of 9 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 7, 2014 PC Agenda Item 3.B TO: Planning Commission FROM: Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #14-015 - This application requires a Public Hearing Applicant: Boston Scientific Corporation Property Location: 4100 Hamline Avenue North Request: Planned Unit Development Amendment and Site Plan Review Requested Action The applicant has requested a Planned Unit Development Amendment and Site Plan Review to construct a 730 square foot addition on the south side of Building 10 on the Boston Scientific Corporation Campus. Background 1. Overview of Request Boston Scientific is requesting a Master PUD (11th) Amendment and Site Plan Review to construct a 730 gross square foot addition on the south side of Building 10, which is located in the south central portion of the Boston Scientific Campus. Building 10 is also identified on the campus Master Plan as Building D. The purpose of the addition is to provide storage and support for ongoing product development and research. The addition would infill an existing paved courtyard and would match the adjacent roofline at approximately 13 feet above grade. The structure of the building would be concrete masonry with a steel beam and deck roof structure. The exterior finish will be face brick with color and coursing to match the existing construction. The existing landscaped area where the addition will be constructed is turf grass with a mix of mature trees. All areas disturbed by the construction will be restored to their previous condition. Building 10 is heavily screened from the south by a wooded wetland area located between the City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-015 - Boston Scientific - PUD Amendment - Building Addition\Memos and Reports_14-015 Page 2 of 9 building and County Road F. The additional trees needed to meet the City’s landscaping requirements would be added on the east side of Innovation Way near the Cumming Park Drive turnaround. 2. Surrounding Area Direction Future Land Use Plan Zoning Existing Land Use North Low Density Residential, Light Industrial and Office R-1: Single Family Residential, I-1: Limited Industrial Single Family Residential, Office South Light Industrial and Office, High Density Residential I-1: Limited Industrial, R-4: Multiple Dwelling Office, Utility, Multiple Family Residential East (Shoreview) RL-Residential / Office / RH- Residential PUD (Townhouses & Offices)/ R-3:Multiple Dwelling Residential Single Family Detached Residential / Office / Multiple Family West Low Density Residential R-1: Single Family Residential Single Family Residential 3. Site Data Future Land Use Plan: Light Industrial and Office Existing Land Use: Light Industrial and Office Zoning: I-1: Limited Industrial / PUD Overlay Size: 92.8 acres Proposed Density: N/A Topography: Level 4. Past Boston Scientific Planning Cases The City has reviewed the following requests for this property: Planning Case # Request Comments CC Action 14-007 Permit Extension Temporary Walkway 01/27/14 (Approved) 13-021 Master Plan PUD 10th Amendment 1,310 square foot addition to Building N (14) 01/13/14 (Approved) 08-032 Permit Extension Temporary Walkway 11/24/08 (Approved) 08-025 Master Plan PUD 9th Amendment Nitrogen storage tank and liquid nitrogen vaporizer 10/27/08 (Approved) City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-015 - Boston Scientific - PUD Amendment - Building Addition\Memos and Reports_14-015 Page 3 of 9 06-033 Master Plan PUD 8th Amendment 2,250 square foot addition to Building N (14) 11/27/06 (Approved) 06-024 Master Plan PUD 7th Amendment 10,225 square foot addition to Building N (14) 08/28/06 (Approved) Expired 06-010 Master Plan PUD 6th Amendment Parking Modifications 04/24/06 (Approved) 04-018 Master Plan PUD 5th Amendment Installation of nitrogen generator, vaporizers, and 50-foot tall storage tank 10/25/04 (Approved) 04-017 Master Plan PUD 4th Amendment Parking Modifications 07/12/04 (Approved) 04-013 Special Use Permit Satellite antennae for Building L 07/12/04 (Approved) 04-004 Site Plan Review Temporary Walkway 02/23/04 (Approved) 04-001 Master Plan PUD 3rd Amendment and Final PUD Moving Addition J from Phase 2 to Phase 1 and slightly larger Addition J 02/23/04 (Approved) 03-025 Master Plan PUD 2nd Amendment Site layout change to allow for Building N Addition 09/29/03 (Approved) 03-024 Site Plan Review Building N Addition 09/29/03 (Approved) 03-023 Site Plan Review Parking Ramp #1 09/29/03 (Approved) 03-007 Site Plan Review Building Addition I 03/31/03 (Approved) 03-006 Site Plan Review Building L 03/31/03 (Approved) 03-005 Master Plan PUD 1st Amendment Site layout changes to Buildings I, K, L, and M 03/31/03 (Approved) 03-004 Final Plat Final Plat and Vacation 06/30/03 (Approved) 02-025 Master Plan PUD, Preliminary Plat Guidant 3-phase Master Plan and Preliminary Plat 11/12/02 (Approved) 01-025 Sign Variances Lexington Avenue and Water Tower Signage 09/24/01 (Approved) 5. Boston Scientific Master Plan The campus Master Plan was originally approved in 2002. A total of 419,500 square feet of building space was proposed for Phase 1, which was scheduled to be completed in 2006. Due to the change in ownership from Guidant to Boston Scientific in 2006, as well as other market conditions, portions of Phase 1 have not been constructed. Two new buildings (L and K) and an City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-015 - Boston Scientific - PUD Amendment - Building Addition\Memos and Reports_14-015 Page 4 of 9 addition to Building I were expected to be finished during Phase I. Of this additional building area, only Building L and the Building I addition have been built. Plans for Building K have not yet been submitted. The Master Plan requires a traffic study be completed at the end of Phase 1. The Building J addition (90,000 square feet) was moved from Phase 2 to Phase 1 (PC 04-01); however, this addition has not been constructed. Three additions to Building N (14) were also approved for Phase 1 (PC 03-024, PC 06-033, and PC 13-021), which has added 40,250 square feet to the campus to date. The 1,310 square foot addition to Building N (14) approved by the City Council in PC 13-021 will be constructed in the summer of 2014. Since the Master Plan was approved in 2002, the City has approved 297,560 square feet of new space, of which 206,250 square feet have been constructed. As noted above, Phase 1 originally proposed 419,500 square feet of new space. Planning Case Building Master Plan - Phase 1 (s.f.) Approved Size (s.f.) Built (s.f.) PC 03-06 L 108,000 112,000 Yes PC 03-07 I 52,300 54,000 Yes Not yet submitted K 259,200 0 No Original Phase 1 Subtotal 419,500 166,000 166,000 PC 13-21 N (14) 1,310 1,310 No PC 06-33 N (14) 2,250 2,250 Yes PC 04-01 J 80,000 90,000 No PC 03-24 N (14) 38,000 38,000 Yes Amended Phase 1 Subtotal 121,560 131,560 40,250 Phase 1 – Original and Amended Total 541,060 297,560 206,250 Proposed Addition (PC 14-15) D (10) 730 730 Proposed Final Total 541,790 298,290 206,250 Plan Review 1. Zoning – Meets Requirement The Boston Scientific campus is located in the I-1: Limited Industrial Zoning District. The approved Master Plan PUD for the property acts as an additional governing document for the campus. The proposed addition would meet the requirements of the underlying zoning district as well as the Master Plan. The proposed construction would fill in an open courtyard space and City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-015 - Boston Scientific - PUD Amendment - Building Addition\Memos and Reports_14-015 Page 5 of 9 would not bring Building 10 any closer to the property lines of the campus. Currently, Building 10 is approximately 185 feet away from the closest property line. A minimum setback of 50 feet is required in the Master Plan. The height of the addition would be approximately 13 feet tall. The maximum building height allowed in the I-1 District is 35 feet. 2. Landscape Lot Coverage – Meets requirement Boston Scientific Campus: 92.8 Acres (4,042,646 square feet) Landscape Coverage I-1 Criteria Landscape Coverage Existing: Landscape Coverage Proposed: Square Feet Percent Square Feet Percent Square Feet Percent 1,418,030 35% Min 2,155,600 53.32 2,155,600 53.32 The proposal is in conformance with the landscape coverage requirements and the impervious surface limits for the I-1 District. The project will include 730 square feet of impervious surface with zero net increase since the construction replaces an existing paved area. 3. Landscaping Requirements – Meets requirement Since the proposal includes additional building space, the City’s landscaping requirements apply (Zoning Code, 1325.05 Subd. 1 Landscaping). The minimum landscape requirements are determined based on the gross square footage of new building space. In this case, the applicant would be required to provide 2.3 caliper inches of trees (730 square feet / 320 = 2.3). Boston Scientific has proposed planting one Black Hills Spruce tree totaling 2.5 caliper inches on the east side of Innovation Way near the Cummings Park Drive turnaround. 4. Aesthetics – Meets requirement The exterior finish of the addition will be face brick with color and coursing to match the existing construction. Other exterior materials will include prefinished metal wall capping. The applicant has provided a rendering of the proposed building elevations (Attachment C). The Zoning Code does not have specific guidelines for building materials in the I-1 District. Under Section 1325.05 Subd. 6 of the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission is instructed to consider if the appearance of a proposed structure would cause substantial depreciation in the property values in the surrounding area or to unreasonably detract from the appearance of the area. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-015 - Boston Scientific - PUD Amendment - Building Addition\Memos and Reports_14-015 Page 6 of 9 5. Parking – Meets requirement with Proof of Parking Plan Based on the proposed use of the addition (Other Business and Industry), one parking space for each 1,000 square feet of floor area is required. In this case, one additional parking space would need to be provided. The addition is not expected to increase demand for parking on the campus and no new parking spaces are being proposed with the application. The property currently has a parking deficit of 702 spaces based on Zoning Code requirements. With the proposed addition, this number would increase to 703 spaces. Boston Scientific has acknowledged that existing parking on the property satisfies the current parking demand on the campus. They have proposed that the net deficit of parking spaces be accommodated by “Proof of Parking.” The applicant has provided a Parking Calculation Plan (Attachment C) that shows 767 “Proof of Parking” spaces that could be built in the event that additional parking was needed. 6. Traffic, Access, and Circulation – Meets requirement The proposed addition will not have an impact on internal campus circulation or traffic conditions in the surrounding area. Since the total amount of building space proposed in Phase 1 has not been reached, the current proposal does not warrant a traffic study. A study to determine if any road improvements are needed will be required before the campus exceeds the proposed 419,500 square feet in Phase 1. 7. Lighting – Meets requirement There are no proposed changes to the lighting on Building 10 that would impact neighboring properties. 8. Grading and Utilities – Meets requirement The proposed construction would not include any grading or utilities work. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposal and has determined that a Grading and Erosion Control permit will not be required. The Rice Creek Watershed District has also reviewed the project and determined that a RCWD permit will not be necessary because the building addition would disturb an area of less than 10,000 square feet. 9. Screening and Noise – Meets Requirements The Zoning Code requires screening to be provided where any business or industrial use is adjacent to a residential zoning district. The existing stand of mature coniferous and deciduous trees between Building 10 and County Road F line satisfies this requirement. This landscape buffer area measures approximately 400 feet in width. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-015 - Boston Scientific - PUD Amendment - Building Addition\Memos and Reports_14-015 Page 7 of 9 One makeup air unit sized to serve the new square footage will be installed on the roof of Building 10. This unit will be smaller in size than other existing roof equipment and will therefore not contribute to maximum noise levels. The nearest property line from the addition is approximately 260 feet away, with the closest neighbor being the Xcel Energy substation. The closest residential property is the Arden Village multi-family development on County Road F and is approximately 900 feet away. The Zoning Code does not include specific regulations regarding acceptable levels of noise. However, all properties in the City must meet the noise rules established by the State of Minnesota. The State sets noise limits by establishing “noise area classifications” based on the land use at the location of the person that hears the noise. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has been given statutory authority to enforce the state noise rules. 10. Additional Review The City Engineer and Building Official have reviewed the application and do not have any additional comments. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed PUD Amendment and Site Plan Review at 4100 Hamline Avenue North would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. Staff offers the following eight (8) findings of fact for consideration: 1. A Master PUD was approved for 4100 Hamline Avenue North in Planning Case #02-025. 2. The proposed 730 square foot addition to Building 10 was not included in the approved Master Plan and an amendment to the PUD is therefore required. 3. The Master PUD requires that a Site Plan Review be applied for prior to the construction of any building or addition. 4. The property is located in the I-1: Limited Industrial District. 5. The proposal is in conformance with the zoning and design standard requirements for the I-1: Limited Industrial District. 6. The applicant has provided a Parking Calculation Plan that shows adequate “Proof of Parking” spaces in the event that additional parking is needed. 7. The proposal is not expected to exceed noise limits set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 8. The proposal will not adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood or the City as a whole. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-015 - Boston Scientific - PUD Amendment - Building Addition\Memos and Reports_14-015 Page 8 of 9 Notice Notice was published in the Arden Hills/Shoreview Bulletin and notice was prepared by the City and mailed to residents within five hundred (500) feet of the subject property. Resident Comments Staff has not received any letters, e-mails, or telephone calls from property owners or residents in regards to this planning case. Staff Recommendation Based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, staff recommends approval of Planning Case 14-015 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment and Site Plan Review at 4100 Hamline Avenue North. Staff recommends the following three (3) conditions to be included with the approval: 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. A PUD Amendment drafted by the City Attorney shall be executed prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. The Master PUD Amendment and Site Plan Review shall automatically expire and become void one (1) year after the date on which the Council granted such approval if work on the project has not begun. Options 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 14-015 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment and Site Plan Review at 4100 Hamline Avenue North based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans as amended by the three (3) conditions in the May 7, 2014, Report to the Planning Commission. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 14- 015 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment and Site Plan Review at 4100 Hamline Avenue North based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the May 7, 2014, Report to the Planning Commission. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-015 - Boston Scientific - PUD Amendment - Building Addition\Memos and Reports_14-015 Page 9 of 9 3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 14-015 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment and Site Plan Review at 4100 Hamline Avenue North based on the following findings of fact: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. 4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 14-015 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment and Site Plan Review at 4100 Hamline Avenue North in order to gather the following information: a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on April 7, 2014. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by June 6, 2014 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60 day review period. The City may, with the consent of the applicant, extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. Attachments A. Land Use Application and Project Narrative B. Site and Aerial Map C. Project Plans MEMORANDUM COMM. NO.: 613101211 CLIENT: Boston Scientific PROJECT: Building 10 Courtyard Conversion SUBJECT: Land Use Application Narrative MEMO BY: Joseph Ford, RSP Architects DATE: April 7, 2014 ATTENTION: Ryan Streff, City Planner, City of Arden Hills COPY: Marte Byrne, Boston Scientific Boston Scientific would like to request a PUD amendment for an addition to Building 10 in the southern central portion of its Arden Hills Campus. The purpose of the addition is to provide storage and support space for ongoing product development and research work in Building 10. The proposed addition is 730 gross square feet, single-story and will infill an existing paved courtyard at the south side of Building 10. The height of the addition shall match the existing roofline at approximately 13’ above grade. The building structure will be concrete masonry with a steel beam and deck roof structure. The exterior finish will be face brick with color and coursing to match existing adjacent construction. Other exterior materials will include prefinished metal coping. One makeup air unit sized to serve the new square footage will be installed on the roof. This unit will be smaller in size than other existing equipment and will therefore not contribute to maximum noise levels. The nearest property line from the addition is approximately 260 feet away, with the closest neighbor being the Xcel Energy substation. The closest residential property is the new multifamily development on County Road F and is approximately 900 feet away. The existing landscaped area at the addition is turf grass with a mix of mature trees. The area disturbed by construction will be restored to its previous condition. Building 10 is heavily screened from the south by the wooded wetland area between the building and County Road F. Boston Scientific proposes that additional trees needed to meet the City’s landscape requirements be added to the east side of Innovation Way near the turnaround at Cummings Park Drive, where additional landscaping would be noticeable. The Rice Creek Watershed District does not require Stormwater Management or Erosion & Sedimentation Control permits for projects that involve less than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface (Rule C: 2.(a)) or disturbance of vegetative cover (Rule D: 2.(a., 2)). The proposed project will include 730 SF of impervious surface, with zero net increase since the construction replaces a paved area. Disturbance of vegetated areas will be only that needed for excavation of new foundations and construction access. This area of disturbance is estimated at 1,800 square feet. This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. © Ramsey County Enterprise GIS Division 2,060.9 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 1: NAD_1983_HARN_Adj_MN_Ramsey_Feet Feet2,060.901,030.47 4100 Hamline Avenue North - Boston Scientific 12,366 Enter Map Description Notes Ma p Dat e: A pr il 28, 201 4P:\G I S_Da ta \P la nning \P la nning C ase s\201 4\PC 14-01 5¯Boston S ci enti fic Property Bou ndary Count y Ro ad F 4100 Haml ine Avenue Nort h Hamline Avenue Bui ldin g #10 Lexington Avenue App rox im ate loc atio nof p rop ose d p ro ject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Ï-ARSHALLÏ3TREETÏ.%-INNEAPOLIS -INNESOTAÏ ÏFAX WWWRSPARCHCOM230Ï!RCHITECTS #ONSULTANTS #ERTIFICATION 0ROJECTÏ&OR 0ROJECTÏ.O$RAWNÏ"Y #HECKEDÏ"Y $ATE ./4)#%ÏÏ4HEÏDESIGNSÏSHOWNÏANDÏDESCRIBEDÏHEREINÏINCLUDINGÏALLÏTECHNICALÏDRAWINGS GRAPHICS ÏÏANDÏMODELSÏTHEREOF ÏÏAREÏPROPRIETARYÏANDÏCANNOTÏBEÏCOPIED ÏÏDUPLICATEDÏOR COMMERCIALLYÏEXPLOITED ÏÏINÏWHOLEÏORÏINÏPART ÏÏWITHOUTÏEXPRESSÏWRITTENÏPERMISSIONÏOF 230Ï!RCHITECTSÏÏ4HESEÏÏAREÏAVAILABLEÏÏFORÏLIMITEDÏÏREVIEWÏANDÏÏEVALUATIONÏBYÏCLIENTS CONSULTANTS ÏÏCONTRACTORS ÏÏGOVERNMENTÏAGENCIES ÏÏVENDORSÏANDÏOFFICEÏPERSONNELÏONLY INÏACCORDANCEÏWITHÏTHISÏ.OTICEÆÏÏÏ#OPYRIGHTÏ230Ï!RCHITECTSÏÏÏ!LLÏRIGHTSÏRESERVED)ÏHEREBYÏCERTIFYÏTHATÏTHISÏPLAN ÏSPECIFICATIONÏORÏREPORTÏWASÏPREPARED BYÏMEÏORÏUNDERÏMYÏDIRECTÏSUPERVISIONÏANDÏTHATÏ)ÏAMÏAÏDULYÏLICENSED !RCHITECTÏUNDERÏTHEÏLAWSÏOFÏTHEÏ3TATEÏOFÏ-INNESOTA$ATE2EGISTRATIONÏ.UMBER3IGNATURE 2EVISIONS        Ï         Ï 0 - 0 < # O R P O R A T E < " O S T O N Ï 3 C I E N T I F I C < ! R D E N Ï ( I L L S < " L D G Ï   < 6 I V A R I U M Ï % X P AN S I O N < 2 E V I T < " L D G Ï   Ï " O S T O N Ï 3 C I E N T I F I C Ï !   ? # O U R T Y A R D Ï # O N V E R S I O N R V T '#/6%2Ï3(%%4*2&*2&"5),$).'Ï#/5249!2$#/.6%23)/. 23 0 Ï 0 2 / * % # 4 Ï . 5 - " % 2  #, ) % . 4 Ï 0 2 / * % # 4 Ï . 5 - " % 2  "/ 3 4 / . Ï 3 # ) % . 4 ) & ) # "5 ) , $ ) . ' Ï   Ï # / 5 2 4 9 ! 2 $ Ï # / . 6 % 2 3 ) / .    Ï ( ! - , ) . % Ï ! 6 % . 5 % Ï . Ï ! 2 $ % . Ï ( ) , , 3 Ï - . Ï                '5 $ : , 1 * 6 , 6 6 8 ( 6 6+ ( ( 7  1 2  1 $ 0 ( &,7<68%0,77$/   * ( 1 ( 5 $ / *   & 2 9 ( 5  6 + ( ( 7 *   3 8 '  5 ( ) ( 5 ( 1 & (  3 / $ 1 *   3 $ 5 . , 1 *  & $ / & 8 / $ 7 , 2 1 6   $ 5 & + , 7 ( & 7 8 5 $ / $   6 , 7 (   ) /2 2 5  3 / $ 1 6 $   ( / ( 9 $ 7 , 2 1 6   6 ( & 7 , 2 1 6   ' ( 7 $ , / 6 )3 3 5 % $  ! 0 2 ) , Ï  Ï     0! # + ! ' %  3 ) 4 % Ï0,!.Ï2%6)%7 $/ # 5 - % . 4 Ï 0 ! # + ! ' % 3( % % 4 Ï ) . $ % 8 02 / * % # 4 Ï 4 % ! - #/ $ % Ï 3 5 - - ! 2 9 ,/ # ! 4 ) / . Ï - ! 0 $2 ! 7 ) . ' Ï 3 9 - " / , 3 +% 9 Ï 0 , ! . 35 2 - ( & 7 6, 7 ( .O$ATE$ESCRIPTION 12 5 7 + 12 5 7 + :5 = + 8 =' : + 8 :5 = + 8 )5 5 2 / 4 - %/ ' *  (    %/ ' *  '    1( : %/ ' *       ) / 5  / ( 9 ( /    & $ 5 6        * 6 )  6 7 2 5 , ( 6       ) / 5       ) / 5  / ( 9 ( /    & $ 5 6       ) / 5  / ( 9 ( /    & $ 5 6        ) / 5 3523(57</,1( 5=4+8 °)/:?°5,°'8*+4°./229 =' : + 8 :' 4 1 )58658':/54 5=4+8 °)93 6'81/4- 6'81/4- (;/2*/4- %/ ' *        * 6 )  6 7 2 5 , ( 6       ) / 5        ) / 5  / ( 9 ( /      & $ 5 6        * 6 )  6 7 2 5 , ( 6       ) / 5        * 6 )  6 7 2 5 , ( 6       ) / 5 . /  %/ ' * 01( : %/ ' * 2      (/ ( & 7 5 , & $ / 68 %  6 7 $ 7 , 2 1   & $ 5 6    & $ 5 6 %/ ' *  +        * 6 )  6 7 2 5 , ( 6       ) / 5 1( : %/ ' *  % %/ ' *  $ %/ ' *  &       ) / 5       ) / 5       ) / 5       ) / 5    & $ 5 6       ) / 5  / ( 9 ( /    & $ 5 6        ) / 5  / ( 9 ( /    & $ 5 6 %/ ' *  *        * 6 )  6 7 2 5 , ( 6       ) / 5 1( : 35 2 3 ( 5 7 <  / , 1 ( 6( 5 9 , & ( 6( 5 9 , & ( 3523(57</,1( 35 23(57</,1( (1 7 5 < 1( : '5 , 9 ( 6(7%$&. 6( 7 % $ & . 6(7%$&. 6(7%$&. 6( 7 % $ & . 6( 7 % $ & . %/ ' *  )        ) / 5 (; , 6 7  32 : ( 5 3/ $ 1 7 '$ < & $ 5 ( '5 2 3  2 ) ) 35 2 3 ( 5 7 <  / , 1 ( 35 ( 9 , 2 8 6  3 5 2 3 ( 5 7 <  / , 1 ( /(;,1*721$9(18( +$0/,1($9(18( &2 8 1 7 <  5 2 $ '  ) 38 % / , &  5 2 $ ' $' ' 1  -       * 6 )  6 7 2 5 , ( 6       ) / 5 3523(57</,1( 6(7%$&. 35 2 3 ( 5 7 <  / , 1 ( $' ' 1  ,       * 6 )  6 7 2 5 , ( 6       ) / 5 7 5 $ , / :( 7 / $ 1 ' :( 7 / $ 1 ' :( 7 / $ 1 ' 32 1 ' (; , 6 7  %/ ' *  (; , 6 7  %/ ' *  (; , 6 7  %/ ' *  6( 5 9 , & (       ) / 5  / ( 9 ( /      & $ 5 6  :( 7 / $ 1 ' +( , * + 7      +( , * + 7      +( , * + 7      +( , * + 7      +( , * + 7      +( , * + 7      +( , * + 7      +( , * + 7      +( , * + 7      +( , * + 7       +( , * + 7      +( , * + 7      +( , * + 7      +( , * + 7      +( , * + 7      +( , * + 7      +( , * + 7      +( , * + 7        +( , * + 7         +( , * + 7      +( , * + 7      +( , * + 7      +( , * + 7      +( , * + 7                                          * 6 ) %/ ' *  1 +( , * + 7         37 + 6 (  +7          +7       62' 64)738'6,7('$7$6800$5<38' $0(1'(' 6,7('$7$6800$5<38' (;,67,1* '(9,$7,21)52038'64)738'6,7($5($6,7($5($6,7('$7$6800$5<38'$0(1'0(17 /$1'6&$3($5($/27&29(5$*(%8,/',1*$5($ )$5  64)7 /27&29(5$*(%8,/',1*)22735,17 ,03(59,286685)$&(/$1'6&$3($5($/27&29(5$*(%8,/',1*$5($ )$5  64)7 /27&29(5$*(%8,/',1*)22735,17 ,03(59,286685)$&(121(64)738'6,7($5($/$1'6&$3($5($/27&29(5$*(%8,/',1*$5($ )$5  64)7 /27&29(5$*(%8,/',1*)22735,17 ,03(59,286685)$&(121(121(121(127(7+(%8,/',1*$'',7,215(3/$&(6$1 (;,67,1*3$9('&2857<$5'7+(5()25(7+(5(,612&+$1*(,1,03(59,286685)$&(25/$1'6&$3($5($ $' ' , 7 , 2 1    * 6 ) +( , * + 7     Ï-ARSHALLÏ3TREETÏ.%-INNEAPOLIS -INNESOTAÏ ÏFAX WWWRSPARCHCOM230Ï!RCHITECTS #ONSULTANTS #ERTIFICATION 0ROJECTÏ&OR 0ROJECTÏ.O$RAWNÏ"Y #HECKEDÏ"Y $ATE ./4)#%ÏÏ4HEÏDESIGNSÏSHOWNÏANDÏDESCRIBEDÏHEREINÏINCLUDINGÏALLÏTECHNICALÏDRAWINGS GRAPHICS ÏÏANDÏMODELSÏTHEREOF ÏÏAREÏPROPRIETARYÏANDÏCANNOTÏBEÏCOPIED ÏÏDUPLICATEDÏOR COMMERCIALLYÏEXPLOITED ÏÏINÏWHOLEÏORÏINÏPART ÏÏWITHOUTÏEXPRESSÏWRITTENÏPERMISSIONÏOF 230Ï!RCHITECTSÏÏ4HESEÏÏAREÏAVAILABLEÏÏFORÏLIMITEDÏÏREVIEWÏANDÏÏEVALUATIONÏBYÏCLIENTS CONSULTANTS ÏÏCONTRACTORS ÏÏGOVERNMENTÏAGENCIES ÏÏVENDORSÏANDÏOFFICEÏPERSONNELÏONLY INÏACCORDANCEÏWITHÏTHISÏ.OTICEÆÏÏÏ#OPYRIGHTÏ230Ï!RCHITECTSÏÏÏ!LLÏRIGHTSÏRESERVED)ÏHEREBYÏCERTIFYÏTHATÏTHISÏPLAN ÏSPECIFICATIONÏORÏREPORTÏWASÏPREPARED BYÏMEÏORÏUNDERÏMYÏDIRECTÏSUPERVISIONÏANDÏTHATÏ)ÏAMÏAÏDULYÏLICENSED !RCHITECTÏUNDERÏTHEÏLAWSÏOFÏTHEÏ3TATEÏOFÏ-INNESOTA$ATE2EGISTRATIONÏ.UMBER3IGNATURE 2EVISIONS        Ï         Ï 0 - 0 < # O R P O R A T E < " O S T O N Ï 3 C I E N T I F I C < ! R D E N Ï ( I L L S < " L D G Ï   < 6 I V A R I U M Ï % X P AN S I O N < 2 E V I T < " L D G Ï   Ï " O S T O N Ï 3 C I E N T I F I C Ï !   ? # O U R T Y A R D Ï # O N V E R S I O N R V T '05$Ï2%&%2%.#%Ï0,!.*2&*2&"5),$).'Ï#/5249!2$#/.6%23)/.           38 '  5 ( ) ( 5 ( 1 & (  3 / $ 1  12 5 7 +         6& $ / (               .O$ATE$ESCRIPTION $ATEÏ2EVISIONÏ Ï-ARSHALLÏ3TREETÏ.%-INNEAPOLIS -INNESOTAÏ ÏFAX WWWRSPARCHCOM230Ï!RCHITECTS #ONSULTANTS #ERTIFICATION 0ROJECTÏ&OR 0ROJECTÏ.O$RAWNÏ"Y #HECKEDÏ"Y $ATE ./4)#%ÏÏ4HEÏDESIGNSÏSHOWNÏANDÏDESCRIBEDÏHEREINÏINCLUDINGÏALLÏTECHNICALÏDRAWINGS GRAPHICS ÏÏANDÏMODELSÏTHEREOF ÏÏAREÏPROPRIETARYÏANDÏCANNOTÏBEÏCOPIED ÏÏDUPLICATEDÏOR COMMERCIALLYÏEXPLOITED ÏÏINÏWHOLEÏORÏINÏPART ÏÏWITHOUTÏEXPRESSÏWRITTENÏPERMISSIONÏOF 230Ï!RCHITECTSÏÏ4HESEÏÏAREÏAVAILABLEÏÏFORÏLIMITEDÏÏREVIEWÏANDÏÏEVALUATIONÏBYÏCLIENTS CONSULTANTS ÏÏCONTRACTORS ÏÏGOVERNMENTÏAGENCIES ÏÏVENDORSÏANDÏOFFICEÏPERSONNELÏONLY INÏACCORDANCEÏWITHÏTHISÏ.OTICEÆÏÏÏ#OPYRIGHTÏ230Ï!RCHITECTSÏÏÏ!LLÏRIGHTSÏRESERVED)ÏHEREBYÏCERTIFYÏTHATÏTHISÏPLAN ÏSPECIFICATIONÏORÏREPORTÏWASÏPREPARED BYÏMEÏORÏUNDERÏMYÏDIRECTÏSUPERVISIONÏANDÏTHATÏ)ÏAMÏAÏDULYÏLICENSED !RCHITECTÏUNDERÏTHEÏLAWSÏOFÏTHEÏ3TATEÏOFÏ-INNESOTA$ATE2EGISTRATIONÏ.UMBER3IGNATURE 2EVISIONS        Ï         Ï 0 - 0 < # O R P O R A T E < " O S T O N Ï 3 C I E N T I F I C < ! R D E N Ï ( I L L S < " L D G Ï   < 6 I V A R I U M Ï % X P AN S I O N < 2 E V I T < " L D G Ï   Ï " O S T O N Ï 3 C I E N T I F I C Ï !   ? # O U R T Y A R D Ï # O N V E R S I O N R V T '0!2+).'Ï#!,#5,!4)/.3*2&*2&"5),$).'Ï#/5249!2$#/.6%23)/.           3$ 5 . , 1 *  & $ / & 6  12 5 7 +         6& $ / (               .O$ATE$ESCRIPTION   67    $ V K    $ V K    $ V K    2 D N    7 U H H   2 D N   2 D N    2 D N    2 D N    2 D N   7 U H H   7 U H H   2 D N    2 D N   3 L Q H   3 L Q H   3 L Q H   3 L Q H   6 S U X F H   6 S U X F H   6 S U X F H    6 S U X F H   6 S U X F H      & R W W R Q Z R R G    & R W W R Q Z R R G   & U D E D S S O H   & U D E D S S O H   % D V V Z R R G   6 S U X F H   6 S U X F H    6 S U X F H    $ V K   6 S U X F H   7 U H H    6 S U X F H   $ V K    6 S U X F H    0 D S O H   $ V K    3 R S O D U    $ V K    3 R S O D U    3 R S O D U    $ V K   3 R S O D U   3 R S O D U   3 R S O D U   $ V K   $ V K   $ V K   $ V K   $ V K     $ V K    $ V K   $ V K    $ V K    $ V K    $ V K    $ V K    3 R S O D U    3 R S O D U    3 R S O D U    3 R S O D U [ [[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[[[ [ ,U R Q  I H Q F H .2 .2 2222 .2 .2 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 (((((( (((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ')/ /* +PX« /*« 6 6 6 67676767 ::: +PX« %$« +PX« %$« +PX« %$« +PX« %$« *[ F  +PX« /*«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Ï   35 2 - ( & 7  $ 5 ( $ )../6!4)/.Ï7!9 6, / 7  ) ( 1 & ( &2 1 6 7 5 8 & 7 , 2 1 (1 7 5 $ 1 & ( 5( 0 2 9 (  , 5 2 1  ) ( 1 & (  $ 6 1( ( ' ( '  ) 2 5  & 2 1 6 7 5 8 & 7 , 2 1 $& & ( 6 6   6 7 2 5 (  $ 1 ' 5( , 1 6 7 $ / /  $ 7  3 5 2 - ( & 7 &2 0 3 / ( 7 , 2 1 5(  6 2 '  $ / /  7 8 5 )  $ 5 ( $ 6 ', 6 7 8 5 % ( '  % < &2 1 6 7 5 8 & 7 , 2 1 0$ 7 & +  $ ' - $ & ( 1 7 *5 $ ' ( 6  $ 7  ) $ & ( 2)  % 8 , / ' , 1 * Ï-ARSHALLÏ3TREETÏ.%-INNEAPOLIS -INNESOTAÏ ÏFAX WWWRSPARCHCOM230Ï!RCHITECTS #ONSULTANTS #ERTIFICATION 0ROJECTÏ&OR 0ROJECTÏ.O$RAWNÏ"Y #HECKEDÏ"Y $ATE ./4)#%ÏÏ4HEÏDESIGNSÏSHOWNÏANDÏDESCRIBEDÏHEREINÏINCLUDINGÏALLÏTECHNICALÏDRAWINGS GRAPHICS ÏÏANDÏMODELSÏTHEREOF ÏÏAREÏPROPRIETARYÏANDÏCANNOTÏBEÏCOPIED ÏÏDUPLICATEDÏOR COMMERCIALLYÏEXPLOITED ÏÏINÏWHOLEÏORÏINÏPART ÏÏWITHOUTÏEXPRESSÏWRITTENÏPERMISSIONÏOF 230Ï!RCHITECTSÏÏ4HESEÏÏAREÏAVAILABLEÏÏFORÏLIMITEDÏÏREVIEWÏANDÏÏEVALUATIONÏBYÏCLIENTS CONSULTANTS ÏÏCONTRACTORS ÏÏGOVERNMENTÏAGENCIES ÏÏVENDORSÏANDÏOFFICEÏPERSONNELÏONLY INÏACCORDANCEÏWITHÏTHISÏ.OTICEÆÏÏÏ#OPYRIGHTÏ230Ï!RCHITECTSÏÏÏ!LLÏRIGHTSÏRESERVED)ÏHEREBYÏCERTIFYÏTHATÏTHISÏPLAN ÏSPECIFICATIONÏORÏREPORTÏWASÏPREPARED BYÏMEÏORÏUNDERÏMYÏDIRECTÏSUPERVISIONÏANDÏTHATÏ)ÏAMÏAÏDULYÏLICENSED !RCHITECTÏUNDERÏTHEÏLAWSÏOFÏTHEÏ3TATEÏOFÏ-INNESOTA$ATE2EGISTRATIONÏ.UMBER3IGNATURE 2EVISIONS        Ï         Ï 0 - 0 < # O R P O R A T E < " O S T O N Ï 3 C I E N T I F I C < ! R D E N Ï ( I L L S < " L D G Ï   < 6 I V A R I U M Ï % X P AN S I O N < 2 E V I T < " L D G Ï   Ï " O S T O N Ï 3 C I E N T I F I C Ï !   ? # O U R T Y A R D Ï # O N V E R S I O N R V T !3)4%ÏÏ&,//2Ï0,!.3*2&*2&"5),$).'Ï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Ï " 5 ) , $ ) . ' %8 4 % . 4 3 Ï / & Ï ! $ $ ) 4 ) / . %8 ) 3 4 ) . ' Ï " 5 ) , $ ) . ' (; , 6 7 , 1 *  % 8 , / ' , 1 *  % ( < 2 1 ' %8 ) 3 4 ) . ' Ï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Ï-ARSHALLÏ3TREETÏ.%-INNEAPOLIS -INNESOTAÏ ÏFAX WWWRSPARCHCOM230Ï!RCHITECTS #ONSULTANTS #ERTIFICATION 0ROJECTÏ&OR 0ROJECTÏ.O$RAWNÏ"Y #HECKEDÏ"Y $ATE ./4)#%ÏÏ4HEÏDESIGNSÏSHOWNÏANDÏDESCRIBEDÏHEREINÏINCLUDINGÏALLÏTECHNICALÏDRAWINGS GRAPHICS ÏÏANDÏMODELSÏTHEREOF ÏÏAREÏPROPRIETARYÏANDÏCANNOTÏBEÏCOPIED ÏÏDUPLICATEDÏOR COMMERCIALLYÏEXPLOITED ÏÏINÏWHOLEÏORÏINÏPART ÏÏWITHOUTÏEXPRESSÏWRITTENÏPERMISSIONÏOF 230Ï!RCHITECTSÏÏ4HESEÏÏAREÏAVAILABLEÏÏFORÏLIMITEDÏÏREVIEWÏANDÏÏEVALUATIONÏBYÏCLIENTS CONSULTANTS ÏÏCONTRACTORS ÏÏGOVERNMENTÏAGENCIES ÏÏVENDORSÏANDÏOFFICEÏPERSONNELÏONLY INÏACCORDANCEÏWITHÏTHISÏ.OTICEÆÏÏÏ#OPYRIGHTÏ230Ï!RCHITECTSÏÏÏ!LLÏRIGHTSÏRESERVED)ÏHEREBYÏCERTIFYÏTHATÏTHISÏPLAN ÏSPECIFICATIONÏORÏREPORTÏWASÏPREPARED BYÏMEÏORÏUNDERÏMYÏDIRECTÏSUPERVISIONÏANDÏTHATÏ)ÏAMÏAÏDULYÏLICENSED !RCHITECTÏUNDERÏTHEÏLAWSÏOFÏTHEÏ3TATEÏOFÏ-INNESOTA$ATE2EGISTRATIONÏ.UMBER3IGNATURE 2EVISIONS        Ï         Ï 0 - 0 < # O R P O R A T E < " O S T O N Ï 3 C I E N T I F I C < ! R D E N Ï ( I L L S < " L D G Ï   < 6 I V A R I U M Ï % X P AN S I O N < 2 E V I T < " L D G Ï   Ï " O S T O N Ï 3 C I E N T I F I C Ï !   ? # O U R T Y A R D Ï # O N V E R S I O N R V T !%,%6!4)/.3 Ï3%#4)/.3 $%4!),3*2&*2&"5),$).'Ï#/5249!2$#/.6%23)/.           29 ( 5 $ / /  6 2 8 7 +  ( / ( 9 $ 7 , 2 1            62 8 7 +  ( / ( 9   #  & 2 8 5 7 < $ 5 '  , 1 ) , / /  .O$ATE$ESCRIPTION           %8 , / ' , 1 *  6 ( & 7 , 2 1  City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 7, 2014 PC Agenda Item 5.B TO: Planning Commission FROM: Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Report from the City Council April 14, 2014, City Council TCAAP Work Session The City Council provided comments and feedback on the Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) and Mitigation Plan for the TCAAP redevelopment. An AUAR is a form of environmental documentation through Minnesota State Rules that evaluates development scenarios for a geographical area rather than a specific project. The Mitigation Plan provides information on the actions which are advisable, recommended, or necessary to protect the environment and minimize potential impacts by the proposed development scenarios. Public comments on the Draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan will be accepted until May 28, 2014. The documents are available on the City’s website for review. The City Council will review the final AUAR and Mitigation Plan, including responses to public comments, on June 30. Final City Council approval is scheduled for July 28. April 21, 2014, City Council Work Session The City Council directed staff to update the existing contract with Eureka Recycling to transition the City’s recycling program to single stream collection. The switch to single stream will also allow for the collection of additional types of plastics. The recycling program will continue to use the green bins currently being used by City residents. Before any official changes to the program take place, educational materials will be provided to residents to ensure correct collection procedures. April 28, 2014, City Council Meeting The City Council approved Ordinance 14-004 rezoning parks and opens spaces managed by the City and Ramsey County as Parks and Open Space District, and Ordinance 14-005 rezoning portions of the Arden Hills Army Training Site as Conservation District. The City Council also City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 Page 2 of 2 approved Planning Case 14-012, which was a request from Hood Packing for a PUD Amendment allowing for the installation of an additional exterior storage tank on their property. The Planning Commission recommended approval of both of these planning cases at their April meeting. The City Council also approved the request brought forward by the City to vacate certain portions of right-of-way and easements in the area of Round Lake Road and Gateway Court, and to approve a Preliminary and Final Plat of the Gateway 2nd Addition to correct and/or combine particular parcels. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this request at their April meeting. Page 1 of 4 DATE: May 7, 2014 TO: Planning Commission Chair Larson and Commissioners FROM: Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director SUBJECT: TCAAP Update Requested Action None. Master Plan During the months of January, February, and March, staff and consultants collected public comments on the draft Master Plan at meetings and events including:  Joint Development Authority meeting, January 6, 2014  Planning Commission work session, January 8, 2014  Public Open House, January 22, 2014  Five Cities meeting, March 10, 2014  Development Interviews, January 30, February 20, and March 12, 2014 On April 14, 2014, the City Council reviewed a summary of public comments (attached) compiled by Kimley-Horn. Approved Planning Commission and JDA meeting minutes are also attached. On April 21, 2014, the City Council discussed recommendations from the Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee (PTRC) for amenities needed within each park area. The PTRC recommendations, which were accepted by the City Council, can be summarized as follows:  Park areas in neighborhoods should include play structures, a gazebo, and off-street parking (located either in lots or in bump-outs along the public street);  Parks should be located nearer to center or at the entrance to residential neighborhoods so that park traffic is not routed through the neighborhood;  An adult athletic facility (softball and hockey) should be located adjacent to a County road. This facility should be lighted and ideally will have shared parking with adjacent businesses. MEMORANDUM Page 2 of 4 The City Council also discussed goals for the surface water amenity on April 21. Council comments included:  Pond areas should be well-maintained and should have water present at all times;  Ponds may be connected by natural areas or a “brook” environment;  Trails and benches should be included so that the surface water management can also be a site amenity. The City Council is scheduled to discuss residential densities and the flex space land use on May 19, 2014. In preparation for this meeting, the City Council was provided with suggestions for a self-guided mobile tour highlighting various types of residential and commercial development. Planning Commission members may be interested in the self-guided tour as well since it is relevant to upcoming discussions on zoning requirements and design standards for residential and commercial development. The memo and maps provided to the City Council are attached. The City Council was also given three articles recommended by JDA Chair David Sand:  Mixed-Income Housing – Myth and Fact  Higher Density Development – Myth and Fact  Visualizing Density, Chapter One AUAR The City Council reviewed the draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) on April 14, 2014. The draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan was published in the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Monitor on April 28, 2014. The document was also sent to adjacent cities, the Mounds View School District, Rice Creek Watershed District, the Minnesota National Guard, and other stakeholders and interested parties. Public comments on the draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan will be accepted until May 28, 2014. The City Council is tentatively scheduled to approve the final document on July 28, 2014. Infrastructure Study Ramsey County, in cooperation with the City of Arden Hills, has solicited proposals from engineering consultants for development and design of TCAAP Site Infrastructure. The scope of services includes analysis, development, and preliminary and final design of on-site public infrastructure to support the redevelopment including major roadways, regional stormwater management facilities, sanitary sewer, and watermain. The consultant will also assist the County and City in developing a site grading plan, mitigating impacts to existing wetlands, and site platting. Proposals are due May 1 and work is expected to begin by the end of the month. Getting the consultant started as soon as possible will enable coordination between the design of on-site infrastructure with adjacent interchange improvements in order to prepare the site for development in 2016. Both the County and City will participate in the cost of the consultant work as outlined in a cost sharing agreement. Page 3 of 4 LCDA Application The City submitted a Project Concept Plan, which is essentially a pre-application to the Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA), on Thursday, May 1, 2014. The application includes a request for $1,605,000 in Livable Community Act (LCA) funds as follows: Use Description Request Sidewalks and Trails Sidewalks and trails from the North Gateway entrance through the Town Center $105,000 Lighting Pedestrian-scale decorative lighting at the North Gateway entrance and south through the Town Center $400,000 Landscaping Landscaping at the North Gateway entrance and along the spine road through the Town Center $250,000 Site Preparation and Grading Grading work associated with the remeandering of Rice Creek at the North Gateway entrance to restore natural creek alignment and floodplain and to accommodate amenities and local roadway connections $650,000 Architecture and Engineering Architecture and engineering for the design of improvements listed above $200,000 By June 2, 2014, the Metropolitan Council will notify the City if it will be invited to submit a full application. The deadline for the full application is June 30, 2014. Upcoming Meetings TCAAP-related topics will be discussed at the following regular and special City Council meetings and work sessions. Planning Commissioners may choose to attend meetings to hear presentations and City Council discussion. May 12, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room  Infrastructure Study Update and City Cost Participation Agreement  City TCAAP Finances Discussion May 19, 2014, Regular Work Session at 5:00 pm; Council Chambers  Ramsey County Financial Model  Residential Development and Densities  Flex Space Land Use Discussion May 27, 2014 (Tuesday), Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room  I-35W/Highway 96 Interchange Discussion June 9, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room  Discussion topics to be determined (infrastructure, regulations and policies, etc.) June 16, 2014, Regular Work Session at 5:00 pm, Council Chambers  Review Revised Master Plan Page 4 of 4  Review Aesthetics for I-35W Bridges June 30, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room  Review Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan June 30, 2014, Regular Meeting at 7:00 pm, Council Chambers  Approve Master Plan  Municipal Consent for I-35W/Highway 96 July 14, 2014, Regular Work Session at 5:00 pm, Council Chambers  Discussion topics to be determined (infrastructure, regulations and policies, etc.) July 21, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room  Discussion topics to be determined (infrastructure, regulations and policies, etc.) July 28, 2014, Regular Meeting at 7:00 pm, Council Chambers  Approve Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan It is anticipated that additional regular and special work session meetings will be scheduled to discuss regulations and policies, the infrastructure study, and other TCAAP issues. Future meeting topics will be defined as those dates draw nearer. Attachments  Kimley-Horn summary of TCAAP Engagement Activities  Minutes, Joint Development Authority, January 6, 2014  Minutes, Planning Commission work session, January 8, 2014  Memo from Jill Hutmacher dated April 25, 2014 – Self-Guided Development Tour  Self-guided development tour maps  Mixed-Income Housing – Myth and Fact  Higher Density Development – Myth and Fact  Visualizing Density, Chapter One Page 1 of 5 March 2014 SUMMARY OF TCAAP ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES JANUARY - MARCH 2014 This document provides a summary of the following engagement activities:  Joint Development Authority meeting - January 6  Planning Commission work session - January 8  Public open house - January 22  Five Cities meeting – March 10  Developer interviews - January 30, February 20, and March 12 Joint Development Authority – January 6, 2014 The draft Master Plan was presented to the JDA for input, a summary of which is below:  Good balance between housing and business  Water feature is good, but concerns about maintenance and visual aspects – don’t want a swamp  General agreement that a roundabout needs more study – can it handle traffic, is it marketable?  Make sure the ability of the school district to accommodate increase in enrollment is addressed  Connectivity within the site is good, but need to address connectivity to the rest of the city  Questions about the size of the central park facility and the footprint of a potential band shelter/amphitheater Commissioner Ortega also reported that the Ramsey County Board was very pleased with the plan. Planning Commission – January 8, 2014 At this TCAAP work session, the Planning Commission was asked to provide feedback on a list of issues raised by the City Council relative to the Master Plan (wetlands, central water feature, and surface water management; roundabout and connection to CR H; residential densities and mix of housing types; green space and active recreation areas; and flex space development). Overall comments from the Planning Commission on the Master Plan were positive. Specific comments included: good mix of life cycle housing, need for work force housing, like the roundabout, and don’t just give the keys to developers. No specific comments were provided on density. Open House #2 – January 22, 2014 The second open house for the TCAAP Master Plan was held on January 22, 2014 at the Ramsey County Public Works facility. The purpose of this open house was to provide information about the master plan process, and solicit input on the Draft Master Plan. Over 90 people were in attendance. 34 identified as Arden Hills residents. The following display boards were available for viewing:  Where are you from?  Trails and Transit  How should TCAAP be like/different from Arden Hills?  Analysis and Design Principles  Design Process  Opportunities and Constraints  Design Process – A Systems Approach  Illustrative Master Plan  Land Use Plan  Neighborhood Housing  Open Space and Parks  The Town Center and Economic Development  TCAAP will be like/different from Arden Hills because… Other media included:  Handout giving an overview of the project, schedule, and contact information  Brief presentation covering the Master Plan development process looped continuously on TVs in the room Page 2 of 5 March 2014  An interactive roundabout exercise  Illustrative Plan exercise included large maps set up on tables. Participants placed post-it notes on areas where they had a comment or suggestion. Staff facilitators were present at each table and wrote questions and comments on a flip chart.  Invitation to write on a board posing the question “How should TCAAP be similar/different from Arden Hills?”  Comment cards Common themes from these exercises include the following:  Prioritize small/independent businesses  Good mix of uses and housing types  Good trail system  Need good connectivity to CR I  Add regional amenities (pool, library, green space, etc.)  Like the walkable town center  Disagreement whether the amount of green space is adequate or if there should be more All exercise comments:  Traffic on 35W  No big box retail  Keep lighting to a minimum  Where is low-income housing x2  Add transit to alleviate traffic  Add trail crossing at US 10  Like the buffer between residential and highway  Want a better wetland meander  Good neighborhoods and parks x2  Include small retail and restaurants in town center x5  Trail connections x4  Good variety of housing and uses x 3  Good walkable town center x3  Like the central park amphitheater component  Access to AHATS  Like wetland feature x2  Need more connectivity to CR I x4  Include more infiltration to limit rising VOCs  Note that basement sealing is for Radon and VOCs  Add regional amenities x2  Pools? Library? X3  Good park elements x2  Concern with roundabout safety x2  Concern with low density nature of flex business district  Like high-density residential  Potential for canoe route on Rice Creek  Add sustainable energy features  Make town center 1 to 2 stories  More senior living Eighteen (18) comment sheets were also submitted. Common themes in written comments included:  Be sure to adequately incorporate safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities  More parks and open space  The plan includes a good amount of parks and open space  No “big box” retail  Be sure to promote small and independent retailers and restaurants All comments submitted via comment sheets:  Add bike and pedestrian facilities X4  Make bike and pedestrian improvements safe X2 o Bike/ped underpasses for access to the site  More parks  More open space X4  No roundabout  No “big box” retail X4  Make TCAAP a regional attraction Page 3 of 5 March 2014  Engage surrounding municipalities to make sure there is sufficient access to the site  How will the infrastructure be paid for? Will City/County taxpayers be reimbursed?  Parks are appropriate size and in good location X2  Incorporate a transit hub  Use sustainable features and design standards  Will AHATS be cleaned as well?  Add schools  Good parking layout  Good lifecycle housing  Concerns about not enough access  AH needs more independent retailers and restaurants X3  No large townhome developments  Like mixed-use space  Athletic facility  Civic center Five Cities Meeting – March 10, 2014  The Mayor of Mounds View noted that trails and connections to existing trails are an important feature for the entire area. He expressed concerns about surface water being directed to Rice Creek and Mounds View.  The Mayor of Roseville, based on that city’s experience with the Twin Lakes project, advised that the City not be too restrictive in the definition of uses allowed in the business park.  The Mayor of Shoreview emphasized the importance of improving transit service to the area.  The Shoreview City Manager thought that the central surface water feature, if done well, could be a big asset for the development. He compared the plan to the Centennial Lakes development in Edina which created an amenity out of stormwater infrastructure. He also compared the draft master plan to the West End development in St. Louis Park which mixes a fitness club, restaurants, and theaters with office. The mix of uses support shared parking facilities.  The Shoreview City Manager expressed concerns with the thumb connection to County Road I. Specifically, he was concerned that the new road would be used as a bypass for I-35W from County Road J to County Road H. The City of Shoreview is also opposed to changes to the County Road I interchange which would eliminate access points.  General comments included very positive feedback on the draft master plan and advice that the City should adhere to the plan as development occurs. There was strong support for the roundabout. Attendees had questions regarding density and comments about lot sizes for single-family homes and the type of residential development that can work with smaller lots. DEVELOPER INTERVIEWS – January - March 2014 City of Arden Hills staff, Ramsey County staff, and consultants interviewed representatives from Opus, Lennar (residential), Mattamy Homes, Ryan Companies, and United Properties during the months of January, February, and March. Key Takeaways:  Site is planned effectively – uses are in balance and the locations are appropriate  Residential will drive retail  Let market conditions dictate exact boundaries of different users (retail/office)  Mixed use/town center will be challenging and should be developed last Page 4 of 5 March 2014  Retail component can have regional appeal and should also cater to all-day (residential) and daytime (office) users of the site  Amenities are a differentiator - the planned water and open space is attractive  It’s OK to send the message that you want to do something different here – but recognize initial users may not be “brave” (especially retail) – but later, there may be more opportunities for innovation  Key to success – making people feel like they’re part of something smaller, not just one big development  Keep the process as flexible as possible Common themes by category: Land Uses  Office o The Thumb is a compelling site – wait for the right user o Western edge of site is attractive, good for visibility o Currently market not there for speculative office, but some users out there for build-to-suit o Consider consumer/professional services office ( dentist, chiropractic, banks, financial planners, insurance, etc.)  Flex Business o Industrial market has been active lately o Location is desirable to potential labor force o Access and site configuration doesn’t lend to heavy truck distributors o Substantial flex space may need phased infrastructure  Residential (primarily comments from Lennar and Mattamy Homes) o Plan of three distinct neighborhoods is attractive, appeals to varied users o People buy communities, not homes o Density can be achieved by mix of single- and multi-family o Mix of lot sizes in single family neighborhoods - typical lots tend to be 65’ or 75’ (50’ or 60’ product) o Use smaller lots/alley loaded homes and multifamily to transition between single-family and town center, maybe single row townhomes o Lot depths could be reduced by implementing smaller front setbacks, emphasis on porch, etc. o Sees Creek Neighborhood as entirely single-family o A second entrance into Creek Neighborhood would be preferable o Residential developers will want fewer roads adjacent to parks so that costs can be absorbed by housing on both sides of road o Buyers will be concerned about the image at the entrance points to neighborhoods o Could see a mix of multifamily types – garden apartments, large complexes, senior housing o Rental market seems to be expanding, and amenities are desired – “it’s OK to rent” o Walkable spaces are important  Retail o Retail node near CR H is a great spot o Opportunity for regional appeal – implement a good mix of uses/options so people will come to spend their time o Larger format regional/smaller format neighborhood = appealing o Get residential in and retail will follow o Will need an anchor – grocery, smaller-format big box o Restaurants, dry cleaning, health club would be attractive for corporate users as well as residents o Consider neighborhood retail along 96 Page 5 of 5 March 2014 o Think about shared parking opportunities – entertainment (movie theater), health clubs are good for sharing with office, retail o Retail is becoming more about the experience rather than simply buying goods  Mixed Use o Vertical mixed use/town center can be difficult/expensive o This should be the last piece to develop; leave open for options including horizontal mixed use o Challenging but also exciting/unique if market is strong Site Access/Infrastructure  CR H improvements are critical to retail development  Connections to County Road I are important  If spine road and utilities are in – huge benefit  No particularly strong feelings on roundabouts Site Amenities  Regional stormwater - very efficient way to look at land, saves developers from going through approval process and implementing on-site ponding; also unique amenity for site users  People are buying experiences vs things – connectivity, trails, etc. Development Process  Questions about how someone can quote or gain control of the land  Will JDA have ability to provide incentives - “what will you give us to come here?”  Think about what developers or their attorney would need to see  Flexibility = easier process  Assuring land bases will be competitive will be an advantage for the site Approved: February 5, 2014 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2014 8:00 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Clayton Larson called to order the work session meeting at 8:45 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Clayton Larson, Commissioners Brent Bartel, Andrew Holewa, Sam Scott, and Roberta Thompson. Absent: Commissioners Clayton Zimmerman and Angela Hames. Also present were: Council Liaison Fran Holmes; Community Development Director Jill Hutmacher; Associate Planner Matthew Bachler; and City Planner Ryan Streff APPROVAL OF AGENDA – JANUARY 8, 2014 The Agenda was approved as presented. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A. TCAAP Master Plan City Planner Streff reported that the City Council reviewed the first draft of the TCAAP Master Plan on December 16, 2013. Consultants presented information on the process through which site characteristics and potential land use scenarios were considered and how options were eliminated, combined, or adjusted to maximize assets and minimize the impact of constraints in the development of the draft Master Plan. City Planner Streff reported that following the December 16, meeting, the City Council scheduled a special work session for December 26, 2013, to give the consultants an opportunity to respond to Council questions regarding the draft plan prior to additional meetings being held. Scheduled public meetings include the TCAAP Joint Development Authority meeting on January 6, the Planning Commission meeting on January 8, and the TCAAP Open House on January 22. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION – JANUARY 8, 2014 2 The consultants’ December 16 and 26, presentations are included with the staff memo to the Planning Commission, along with a Kimley-Horn memo addressing traffic and transportation questions. At the December 26, 2013, special City Council work session, the Council identified a list of Master Plan discussion items. The Council is seeking JDA, Planning Commission, and public feedback on these discussion items and on all aspects of the Master Plan. The Council will consider feedback prior to making changes to the draft plan in February/March. Council Liaison Holmes explained that the City Council welcomes any and all comments on the draft Master Plan from the Planning Commission. The City Council reviewed the draft Master Plan at two work sessions in December 2013, and noted that the following areas of the draft Master Plan need additional discussion: 1. Wetlands, central water feature, and surface water management 2. Roundabout and connection to County Road H 3. Residential densities and mix of housing types 4. Green space and active recreation areas 5. Flex space development Andrew Dresdner, Cuningham Group, presented the Planning Commission with detailed information on the TCAAP Master Plan. He reviewed what the consultants have heard thus far, the existing conditions on the site, and how the City can move forward with sound planning and design. A proposed layout for the TCAAP site, with three distinct neighborhoods was reviewed. The proposed density and housing styles were discussed. Staff then asked the Commission for comments or questions. Chair Larson opened the floor to Commission questions. Council Liaison Holmes noted the proposed Master Plan was very preliminary. She commented the lot sizes within the neighborhoods are yet to be determined. Commissioner Scott asked if there was contamination on the primer-tracer area. Chair Larson understood that this area did have contamination. Commissioner Holewa suggested the City consider harnessing energy from the water on site. He indicated it would be interesting to see smaller sized lots in comparison to the current single- family residential lots in Arden Hills. He was supportive of providing workforce housing options on the site. Commissioner Thompson wanted to see the site take advantage of the water energy on site as well. She wanted to see the TCAAP site be pedestrian friendly. She encouraged staff to consider smaller housing options for empty nesters and not simply large single-family homes. This would allow residents to age in Arden Hills. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION – JANUARY 8, 2014 3 Chair Larson discussed the demographics in Arden Hills. Council Liaison Holmes requested further information on the proposed roundabout. Mr. Dresdner discussed the location of the proposed roundabout and discussed how traffic would move through this intersection. Chair Larson stated he did not want to see the development cut off on the south end as this would be a detriment. Commissioner Thompson did not oppose the roundabout, as they keep traffic moving and have a way of slowing traffic. Council Liaison Holmes questioned the roundabout’s ability to move traffic in and out of the TCAAP site. She wondered if people would want to live on the TCAAP property if they had to use a roundabout daily to enter and exit the site. Commissioner Thompson and Chair Larson did not see this being a problem. Commissioner Holewa encouraged the City to consider how bicycle and pedestrian traffic would move through the TCAAP site while drafting the Master Plan. Commissioner Thompson suggested a small hotel/retreat center be considered on the TCAAP site. Mr. Dresdner indicated this could be considered. Council Liaison Holmes invited the Planning Commissioners to attend the TCAAP Master Plan Open House on January 22nd. Chair Larson thanked everyone for their input this evening. He suggested all further comments or questions be directed to Community Development Director Hutmacher. ADJOURN Chair Larson adjourned the work session meeting at 10:19 p.m. Page 1 of 7 DATE: April 25, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Self-Guided Development Tour The City Council has indicated that it would like to discuss residential densities and the flex space land use in further detail prior to approval of the master plan map. These discussions are tentatively scheduled for May 19, 2014. Prior to those discussions, it may be helpful for the Council to have some background information on development densities and to view some built examples of different types of development. Options for a self-guided development tour are provided along with maps of each development area and a suggested circle route. As Councilmembers visit the development areas, please note what works and what could be improved upon for reference in upcoming regulations discussions. Background Information David Sand, JDA Chair, has recommended two articles that provide background information on density and development policy. The article from the Urban Land Institute uses facts to dispel myths related to high-density development. The chapter from Visualizing Density describes the challenge and necessity of developing in denser patterns and concludes that design is critical to successful density.  Higher Density Development – Myth and Fact; Urban Land Institute  Chapter One, Visualizing Density; Julie Campoli and Alex MacLean For a very quick tutorial on “good” vs “bad” density, visit A Bird’s Eye View of Density at http://www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/visualizing-density/tour/t1.aspx. This website provides twelve mini-seminars (about a paragraph each) with graphics that highlight more and less successful ways in which density can be accommodated. The City Council will be discussing design elements during the regulations and policies phase of the master planning process. MEMORANDUM Page 2 of 7 Residential Development Residential development at TCAAP is proposed to include single-family homes of varying lot sizes, townhomes, apartments, condominiums, and senior housing. It has been generally assumed that density will be higher in areas closest to the town center and lower in the Hill and Creek neighborhoods which will be predominantly single-family and townhomes. Five development areas featuring various types and styles of residential development are suggested. Note how development styles have changed from the early 1990’s (Centennial Lakes) to today (Wooddale Station). Things to look for include:  For single-family homes, what are front yard setbacks and landscaping? How does that effect the pedestrian environment?  For side-attached garages, are they even with or tucked back from the house façade?  Are townhomes single- (each unit has a front and back façade) or double-loaded (back-to-back)?  Is parking for townhomes and apartments attached to the side, tuck-under, or underground?  Are there courtyards, plazas, or open space provided around multi-family units?  Is there variation or monotony among façades?  Are there sidewalks? Are there off-street trails? Wooddale Station This neighborhood surrounds the planned southwest LRT station at Wooddale and West 36th Street in St. Louis Park. Although the retail space is not fully leased yet, this area is expected to be a vibrant, mixed-use neighborhood once the transit investment occurs. The redevelopment area provides good examples of recently-built, urban-style apartments and townhomes. Page 3 of 7 Excelsior/Grand This redevelopment area in St. Louis Park replaced an outdated strip retail center and several free-standing buildings in the mid-2000’s. The four- and five-story apartment buildings are built up to the street and have interesting variations in exterior materials. The interior courtyard areas which provide play space, green space, and a pool, can be viewed from the public parking ramps. Cloverleaf Ridge Chaska’s Cloverleaf Ridge is a mixed housing neighborhood that includes single-family homes, many of which have rear or detached garages, and townhomes. Page 4 of 7 Centennial Lakes The Centennial Lakes area was redeveloped from a former gravel mining pit in the early-1990’s. Luxury townhomes on the east side of the lake have private outdoor areas, underground parking, and off-street trails providing connections to the park. The apartments located south of the townhomes take advantage of the park setting. Page 5 of 7 Cobblestone Lake Cobblestone Lake in Apple Valley is a former gravel mining pit that began redevelopment in the early 2000’s and continues today. Housing includes large-, medium-, and small-lot single- family, some with rear garages, and townhomes. Note the difference between newly constructed neighborhoods with those whose landscaping has had time to mature. Interesting design features include:  Rear garages along the parkway and side-attached garages on interior residential streets;  Significant variety of architectural styles among single-family homes; and  Coordinated directional signage. Page 6 of 7 Flex Space Development The flex space proposed for TCAAP could also be described as business or office park space. The flex space could include offices, manufacturing, research and development, light industrial, warehousing, or even hotels. Some commonalities of these types of development include:  Primarily one- or two-story buildings;  Surface parking;  Campus or park-like setting with extensive landscaping and sometimes trail connections;  Buildings that combine high-quality office space with manufacturing, warehousing, or research/development;  Truck docks and industrial infrastructure are mostly hidden in the rear of buildings and out of view from the public street. Limits on these uses in terms of exterior appearance and building materials, restrictions on the amount of space used for warehousing/distribution, or minimum floor area ratio will be established in the regulations and policies. Three locations are suggested as examples of this type of development. Bren Road/Opus Despite the confusing system of one-way ring roads, this office park development just west of Highway 169/Bren Road has successfully mixed large corporate headquarters (United Health), a full-service conference hotel, office, professional, and light industrial buildings. Page 7 of 7 Mendota Heights Business park development is located along Mendota Heights Boulevard and along Corporate Center Drive. Phalen Boulevard Corridor New development along Olive Street and Cuyuga Street off of Phalen Boulevard (just east of I- 35E) largely occurred following improvements to Phalen Boulevard. Directions to Wooddale Avenue and Highway 7, St. Louis Park Apartments and townhomes Precedent Development Self-Guided Tour Directions to Excelsior & Grand, St. Louis Park: Apartments and condominiums Directions to Bren Road Business Park, Minnetonka Flex business Directions to Clover Ridge, Chaska: Townhomes and single-family residential Directions to Centennial Lakes, Edina Apartments and townhomes Directions to Cobblestone Lake, Apple Valley: Mix of low, medium, and high density residential Directions to Mendota Heights/Eagan Pilot Knob Road Business Park: Flex Businesses Directions to Phalen Boulevard Business Park: Flex Businesses Directions for Precedent Development Self-Guided Tour from Arden Hills City Hall 109 mi – about 2 hours 28 mins Loading... ©2014 Google - Map data ©2014 Google - Arden Hills City Office to Arden Hills City Office -Google Maps 4/21/2014https://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=Arden+Hills+City+Office,+High... Total:18.6 mi –about 21 mins Total:1.3 mi –about 3 mins 2.Turn left to merge onto I-35W S About 51 secs go 0.6 mi total 2.2 mi 3.Take exit 27B to merge onto I-694 W About 6 mins go 5.4 mi total 7.6 mi Arden Hills City Office 1245 Hwy 96 W, Arden Hills, MN 55112 1.Head west on County Hwy 96/Hwy 96 W toward Hamline Ave N About 3 mins go1.6 mi total 1.6 mi 4.Take exit 35A to merge onto MN-100 S About 11 mins go 10.5 mi total 18.1 mi 5.Take the exit toward W 36th St go 0.3 mi total 18.4 mi 7.Head northwest on Wooddale Ave S go 446 ft total446 ft 6.Slight right onto Wooddale Ave S go 0.1 mi total18.6 mi 8.Take the 1st right onto W 36th St About 2 mins go 0.8 mi total 0.9 mi 9.Continue onto Monterey Dr go 0.2 mi total 1.1 mi 10.Turn right onto Excelsior Blvd go 0.2 mi total 1.2 mi 11.Take the 2nd right onto Grand Way go 299 ft total1.3 mi Wooddale Avenue and Highway 7, St. Louis Park total 0.0 mi Excelsior & Grand, St. Louis Park total 0.0 mi Arden Hills City Office to Arden Hills City Office -Google Maps 12.Head north toward Park Commons Dr go 174 ft total174 ft 14.Turn right onto Excelsior Blvd About 2 mins go0.5 mi total 0.6 mi 15.Continue straight to stay on Excelsior Blvd About 5 mins go 2.5 mi total 3.1 mi 16.Slight left to stay on Excelsior Blvd go 0.2 mi total3.3 mi 18.Take the Bren Rd exit toward Londonderry Rd go 0.3 mi total5.2 mi 19.Turn right onto Bren Rd E go 410 ft total 5.3 mi 13.Exit the traffic circle onto Grand Way go 292 ft total466 ft 17.Take the ramp onto US-169 S About 2 mins go1.7 mi total 5.0 mi Total:5.3 mi –about 10 minsBren Road Business Park, Minnetonka total 0.0 mi Arden Hills City Office to Arden Hills City Office -Google Maps Total:15.4 mi –about 18 mins 21.Turn left onto Bren Rd E go 404 ft total 449 ft 23.Take the exit onto MN-62 W toward US-212 W go 0.4 mi total0.8 mi 24.Take the exit on the left onto US-212 W About 13 mins go 13.1 mi total 13.9 mi 20.Head south on Smetana Dr toward Bren Rd E go 46 ft total46 ft 25.Take the Engler Boulevard exit toward Minnesota 10 go 0.4 mi total14.3 mi 22.Turn right to merge onto US-169 S go 0.3 mi total0.4 mi 27.Take the 1st right onto Clover Ridge Dr About 2 mins go 0.9 mi total 15.4 mi 26.Turn right onto Engler Blvd go 0.2 mi total 14.5 mi Clover Ridge, Chaska total 0.0 mi Arden Hills City Office to Arden Hills City Office -Google Maps Arden Hills City Office to Arden Hills City Office -Google Maps Total:18.3 mi –about 21 mins 28.Head southeast on Clover Ridge Dr toward Molnau Ct About 3 mins go 1.0 mi total1.0 mi 29.Turn left onto Engler Blvd go 0.3 mi total 1.3 mi 30.Turn left to merge onto US-212 E About 10 mins go 10.7 mi total 12.0 mi 31.Take the exit onto I-494 E/MN-5 E About 6 mins go 5.1 mi total 17.0 mi 32.Take exit 6B for County Rd 17/France Ave go 0.3 mi total17.3 mi 33.Turn left onto France Ave S go 0.2 mi total 17.5 mi 34.Slight left to stay on France Ave S About 1 min go 0.6 mi total 18.1 mi 35.Turn right onto Parklawn Ave go 0.2 mi total 18.3 mi 36.Turn left onto Coventry Ln go 43 ft total 18.3 mi Cenntenial Lakes, Edina total 0.0 mi 38.Turn left onto Parklawn Ave go 0.2 mi total 0.2 mi 37.Head southwest on Coventry Ln toward Parklawn Ave go 43 ft total43 ft Arden Hills City Office to Arden Hills City Office -Google Maps Total:17.3 mi –about 24 mins 39.Take the 2nd right onto York Ave S go 0.2 mi total0.4 mi 40.Take the 1st left onto W 76th St About 2 mins go 0.6 mi total 1.0 mi 41.Turn right onto Penn Ave S go 0.2 mi total 1.2 mi 42.Turn left to merge onto I-494 E/MN-5 E About 3 mins go 2.9 mi total 4.1 mi 43.Take exit 2C to merge onto MN-77 S/Cedar Ave About 9 mins go 8.5 mi total12.6 mi 44.Continue onto Cedar Ave About 2 mins go1.0 mi total 13.6 mi 45.Turn left onto 150th St W About 3 mins go2.0 mi total 15.6 mi 46.Turn right onto Pilot Knob Rd go 0.5 mi total 16.1 mi 47.Turn left onto 155th St W go 0.2 mi total 16.3 mi 48.Continue onto 155th St W go 0.2 mi total 16.5 mi 49.Turn right onto Eagle Bay Dr go 0.1 mi total 16.7 mi 50.Turn left onto Cobblestone Lake Pkwy About 2 mins go 0.6 mi total 17.3 mi Cobblestone Lake, Apple Valley total 0.0 mi Total:10.7 mi –about 18 mins Total:0.9 mi –about 2 mins 51.Head south on Cobblestone Lake Pkwy toward 158th St go 482 ft total482 ft 52.Turn left onto 158th St About 59 secs go0.2 mi total 0.3 mi 53.Turn left onto Diamond Path About 3 mins go1.7 mi total 1.9 mi 54.Turn right onto Diamond Path W About 3 mins go1.5 mi total 3.5 mi 55.Turn right onto Pilot Knob Rd About 11 mins go7.2 mi total 10.7 mi Mendota Heights/Eagan Pilot Knob Road Business Park total 0.0 mi 56.Head west on Mendota Heights Rd toward Pilot Knob Rd go 43 ft total43 ft 57.Turn left onto Pilot Knob Rd About 51 secs go0.6 mi total 0.6 mi 58.Turn left onto Corporate Center Dr About 52 secs go 0.3 mi total 0.9 mi Arden Hills City Office to Arden Hills City Office -Google Maps Mendota Heights/Eagan Pilot Knob Road Business Park Total:11.1 mi –about 16 mins 60.Turn right onto Pilot Knob Rd go 0.1 mi total 0.4 mi 61.Turn right to merge onto I-494 E About 52 secs go 0.6 mi total 1.0 mi 62.Take exit 70 for I-35E N toward St Paul go 0.6 mi total1.6 mi 63.Follow signs for Interstate 35 E North/St Paul go 0.3 mi total1.9 mi 59.Head northwest on Corporate Center Dr toward Corporate Center Curve About 46 secs go0.3 mi total 0.3 mi 65.Take exit 106C to merge onto E 11th St toward State Capitol About 2 mins go0.7 mi total 9.8 mi 66.Turn left onto Jackson St go 0.2 mi total 10.1 mi 67.Turn right toward University Ave E go 102 ft total10.1 mi 68.Turn right onto University Ave E About 47 secs go 0.4 mi total 10.4 mi 64.Keep left at the fork and merge onto I-35E N About 8 mins go 7.2 mi total 9.1 mi 69.Turn left onto N Mississippi St go 0.2 mi total10.7 mi 70.Take the 1st right onto Phalen Blvd About 1 min go 0.4 mi total 11.1 mi 71.Turn left onto Cayuga St go 39 ft total 11.1 mi Phalen Boulevard Business Park total 0.0 mi Arden Hills City Office to Arden Hills City Office -Google Maps Total:10.8 mi –about 14 mins These directions are for planning purposes only. You may find that construction projects, traffic, weather, or other events may cause conditions to differ from the map results, and you should plan your route accordingly. You must obey all signs or notices regarding your route. Map data ©2014 Google Directions weren't right? Please find your route on maps.google.com and click "Report a problem" at the bottom left. 80.Turn left onto County Hwy 96/Hwy 96 W Destination will be on the right go 0.3 mi total10.8 mi Arden Hills City Office 1245 Hwy 96 W, Arden Hills, MN 55112 Arden Hills City Office to Arden Hills City Office -Google Maps 4/21/2014https://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=Arden+Hills+City+Office,+High... 72.Head southwest on Phalen Blvd toward Olive St About 53 secs go 0.4 mi total0.4 mi 73.Turn right onto N Mississippi St About 1 min go 0.4 mi total 0.8 mi 75.Keep left at the fork and merge onto I-35E N About 5 mins go 4.1 mi total 5.1 mi 76.Take exit 113 for U.S. 10 W/Interstate 694 W About 1 min go 1.2 mi total 6.3 mi 77.Merge onto I-694 W/US-10 W About 3 mins go2.6 mi total 8.9 mi 79.Turn right onto Lexington Ave N About 2 mins go 1.3 mi total 10.4 mi 74.Turn right onto the ramp to I-35E N About 50 secs go 0.2 mi total 1.0 mi 78.Take exit 43A for Lexington Ave go 0.2 mi total9.1 mi Mixed-Income Housing Myth and Fact Urban Land Institute$ Mixed-Income Housing Myth and Fact About ULI–the Urban Land Institute ULI–the Urban Land Institute is a nonprofit edu- cation and research institute that is supported by its members. Its mission is to provide responsible leadership in the use of land in order to enhance the total environment. ULI sponsors educational programs and forums to encourage an open exchange of ideas and sharing of experiences; initi- ates research that anticipates emerging land use trends and issues and proposes creative solutions based on that research; provides advisory services; and publishes a wide variety of materials to dissemi- nate information on land use and development. Established in 1936, the Institute today has more than 18,000 members and associates from more than 60 countries representing the entire spectrum of the land use and development disciplines. Richard M. Rosan President Recommended bibliographic listing: Myerson, Deborah L. Mixed-Income Housing: Myth and Fact.Washington, D.C.: ULI–the Urban Land Institute, 2003. ULI Catalog Number: M61 International Standard Book Number: 0-87420-916-1 ©2003 by ULI–the Urban Land Institute 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20007-5201 Printed in the United States of America. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechan- ical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system with- out written permission of the publisher. ULI Project Staff Rachelle L. Levitt Senior Vice President, Policy and Practice Publisher Marta Goldsmith Vice President, Land Use Policy Deborah L. Myerson Senior Associate, Land Use Policy Project Director and Principal Author Nancy H. Stewart Director, Book Program Editor Betsy VanBuskirk Art Director Anne Morgan Graphic Designer Diann Stanley-Austin Director, Publishing Operations 2 3 A midst a backdrop of growth and prosperity in America, the number of working families struggling to afford housing has grown steadily in recent years. Mixed-income housing, offering housing units affordable to a range of incomes, has become a popular solution to providing affordable housing—using the strengths of the market to create attractive, competitive residential developments. ULI is a leader in examining land use policy issues through timely research and publications; workshops, forums, and symposiums. Mixed-Income Housing: Myth and Fact continues ULI’s tradition of conducting high-quality research and producing publications on housing topics. This is the fifth in a series of publications designed to dispel myths and offer good examples on issues related to growth and land use. It tackles some of the more challenging and complicated aspects of providing housing that is accessible to households with a variety of income levels. ULI will continue to provide forums in which all stakeholders can explore and debate affordable housing issues. Through research and documentation of best practices, ULI and its partners will seek to find solutions that accom- modate growth and also meet essential housing needs. Harry H. Frampton III Chairman Review Committee Donald K. Carter Principal Urban Design Associates Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Joseph E. Corcoran Chairman Corcoran Jennison Companies Dorchester, Massachusetts Roger L. Galatas President and Chief Executive Officer Roger Galatas Interests LLC The Woodlands, Texas Patricia G. Garrett President Charlotte Mecklenburg Housing Partnership Charlotte, North Carolina John K. McIlwain Senior Resident Fellow, Housing ULI–the Urban Land Institute Washington, D.C. Diane R. Suchman Real Estate Consultant/Writer Diane R. Suchman, LLC Springfield, Virginia Charles S. Wilkins, Jr. Principal The Compass Group, LLC Washington, D.C. 4 Mixed-Income Housing: Myth and Fact F or many communities, the development of mixed-income housing has success- fully addressed the scarcity of affordably priced housing. Long thought to be an issue only for the unemployed, the need for affordable housing is affecting more and more of the workforce. The sustained strong housing market in the United States in recent years has had its downside for many moderate- and low-income workers who, as a result, have faced escalating rents and home prices coupled with little to no income growth. In many metropolitan areas, working families are coping with a dwindling num- ber of choices for affordably priced housing—housing costing no more than 30 percent of a family’s gross income—that is within a manageable commuting distance to work.1 Recent figures illustrate this problem further, with 8.6 million renters and 6.4 million homeowners in the United States paying more than 30 percent of their incomes for housing, and/or living in structurally inadequate or overcrowded homes.2 In the last decade, much of the most successful affordable housing has been built as part of mixed-income housing developments or neighborhoods, providing stable, attractive communities with prices to accommodate the needs of a variety of households. This pub- lication profiles mixed-income housing that combines market-rate and publicly assisted units, as well as all market-rate housing offering a range of price points. While there is no single accepted definition of “mixed-income housing,” this publication considers devel- opments (achieved through a variety of policies and practices) that contain units that are affordable to households with different income levels, whether the households earn an above-moderate income, a moderate income (80 to 120 percent of the area median income (AMI)), a low income (50 to 80 percent of the AMI), or in some cases, a very low income (below 50 percent of the AMI).3 The idea of mixing incomes in residential settings is not new: urban neighborhoods traditionally have contained a mix of housing products suitable for an array of incomes. More recently, however, mixed-income housing has been recognized as a means to lever- age market forces to provide a secure, high-quality, well-maintained living environment while increasing affordable housing options for lower- and moderate-income households.4 As a result, mixing incomes has become a popular way to supply affordable housing options, increase absorption in large planned developments, revitalize urban neighbor- hoods, and decrease the concentration of poverty in publicly assisted housing. When located close to job centers and services, mixed-income housing provides more than just another housing product—it also activates smart growth principles by reducing travel times and congestion. Some examples of mixed-income housing illustrated in the profiles in this publication include: Master-Planned Communities:A larger-scale development (from several hundred to as many as 50,000 or more units) that often offers all market-rate prices but includes a mix of housing types at different price points and tenures, such as rental apartments, condominiums, townhouses, and single-family homes. Some master-planned communi- ties also successfully incorporate assisted housing. 5 Neighborhood-Based Communities: An effort, often generated by a community develop- ment corporation, to revitalize a declining neighborhood by rehabilitating existing housing stock, building new units, and attracting affluent residents. The revitalization provides a retention program to prevent the displacement of longtime, lower-income inhabitants. Project-Based Communities: A development with a mix of market-rate and publicly assisted residents (such as one-third market-rate, one-third moderate-income, and one-third low- income). It is achieved through a variety of state, local, and federal policies and develop- er incentives, such as low-income housing tax credits, inclusionary zoning, fee waivers, or expedited review. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) HOPE VI also has transformed public housing projects into new mixed-income commu- nities, funded with a mix of public dollars and private investment. Mixed-Income Housing: Myth and Fact is the fifth in the Urban Land Institute’s Myth and Fact Series. Earlier editions have addressed transportation and growth, smart growth, urban infill housing, and the environment and development. This most recent publi- cation in the series offers facts to address eight of the most common myths associated with mixed-income housing, especially misconceptions related to affordability. In sup- port of these facts, it highlights profiles of a variety of mixed-income housing projects and profiles developers with significant experience in this area. For-profit developers, public agencies, community development corporations, and oth- ers can work collaboratively or independently to provide high-quality, attractive living environments that include affordably priced housing. Mixed-Income Housing: Myth and Fact is aimed at dispelling common misconceptions related to these housing develop- ments by providing relevant facts and information about a variety of settings in which such developments succeed. Mixed-income housing is not a new invention. Through- out the United States and elsewhere, many neighbor- hoods, especially in urban areas, historically have in- cluded a variety of housing types and residents with a mix of incomes. Such communities often contain larger homes as well as smaller, more affordable units on a variety of lot sizes. Both a large home and a small unit may even be part of the same property—as in the case of a smaller accessory unit over the garage of or adjacent to a larger home. Today, newer developments that include a mix of households with different income levels can take on a variety of forms, from all market-rate housing to a combination of market-rate and assisted affordable rental and/or for-sale housing. Though the strategies to achieve a compatible living environment can vary, mixed-income households can live comfortably in any of these settings. For many communities, offering housing that is affordable to local workers is crucial, as a mix of housing that meets a diversity of needs and incomes allows teachers, police officers, and retail clerks to live in the community in which they work. In all varieties of mixed- income housing, a high-quality development that is well located and well managed and that offers amenities will appeal to higher- income residents with a choice of housing options. A range of housing types and price points also accommodates the needs of different generations, so that a retired couple on a fixed income who have downsized to a two-bedroom apartment can live down the street from their grandchildren who live in a single-family detached home. Harbor Town, a new urbanist, 136-acre, master- planned community adjacent to downtown Memphis, includes a mix of housing types, with apartments that rent for $800 a month near riverfront houses that sell for $800,000. The development’s visual guidelines have resulted in an appealing, shared aesthetic for the community in which lower-priced homes are seamlessly compa- tible with more expensive homes. The variety of housing options 6 Wellington As is the case in many popular resort towns,high housing prices in Breckenridge,Colorado,pose a serious problem for the local workforce. In 2000,the median cost of a single- family home rose to more than $800,000—sending workers 50 miles away to buy or to rent housing. To address this need,Boulder housing developers David O’Neil,John Wolff, and Tom Lyon formed Poplarhouse,LLC,to build Wellington, a new urbanist community of 122 homes,of which 98 are being offered to local workers at moderate,deed-restricted prices. As a neighborhood populated mostly by year-round residents,Wellington provides a welcome sense of commu- nity––a rarity in a resort town where most residences are second homes with seasonal occupants. To help preserve the sense of community,market-rate homes cannot be rent- ed for less than six months. At Wellington,eligibility for below-market-rate housing is not based on income,but on employment: homeowners must work 30 hours per week at jobs in Summit County and reside in the houses they buy. In addition,appreciation is limited to 3 percent annually or the percentage increase in the area median Income (AMI),whichever is greater. The homes in Wellington,priced at $220,000 for a two-bedroom duplex and $281,000 for a single-family house with four bedrooms,sell to people making 90 to 120 percent of the AMI. The remaining 24 of the planned 122 homes are priced at market value—close to $375,000 each. The rapid absorption of the units in Wellington suggests that there is strong demand for affordable,permanent resort housing in a traditional neighborhood. Inexpensive land was crucial to building the development—the development team kept costs down by acquiring property in unincorporated Summit County,1.3 miles away from downtown Breckenridge. The town recently instituted a circulator bus route that links Wellington to downtown Breckenridge.10 Profile Myth #1 Mixed-income housing cannot work—high-income residents will not live near low-income residents. Fact #1 Healthy neighborhoods have long included a blend of incomes—and new developments can achieve the same compatibility. Like many popular resort towns, high housing prices in Breckenridge, Colorado, pose a serious problem of affordability for the local workforce. PO P L A R H O U S E , L L C has drawn a wide range of buyers, including empty nesters, singles, families with children, and professional couples.5 Developers of master-planned communities seeking a broad market with a range of price points often include a variety of housing products that may be rental as well as for-sale. In partic- ular, many new urbanist communities have sought to build bal- anced neighborhoods while also meeting market demand.6 To revitalize urban neighborhoods, community development cor- porations may oversee the rehabilitation of existing homes and new construction, with the aim of attracting higher-income resi- dents—while ensuring that current residents are not displaced in the process. In Atlanta, the Historic District Development Cor- poration (HDDC) has sought to renew the residential neighbor- hood in the Sweet Auburn National Historic District—birthplace of Martin Luther King, Jr., and home to the national historic site dedicated in his honor—without pricing lower-income residents out of the communi- ty. Since 1994, HDDC has worked block by block to re-create a vital, mixed-income neighborhood. Producing more than 50 units of affordable rental housing and more than 110 single-family homes, HDDC has renovated existing houses to highlight their historic architectural features and built new houses that blend architecturally with the existing streetscape.7 Mixed-income developments that contain assisted units—often built with developer incentives, or under a partnership between a private, for-profit developer and a public and/or nonprofit entity—can vary in the exact proportion of the income mix, but often include a broad mix of incomes. Generally, the most successful mix (as noted in rental communities) includes moderate-income residents that can bridge the gap between low-income and market-rate tenants.8 In Tent City, a 269-apartment rental building in Boston, half of the units are targeted for low- to moderate-income households (50 to 120 percent of the median income), while 25 percent are designat- ed for very-low-income households (less than 50 percent of the median income), and 25 percent are market-rate units, creating a successful graduated balance among residents’ incomes that down- plays differences between the opposite ends of the spectrum.9 7 Belle Creek Belle Creek is a 171-acre,mixed-income,master- planned,new urbanist community located in Com- merce City,Colorado—a suburban area approxi- mately eight miles northeast of downtown Denver and west of Denver International Airport. The goal of the developers of Belle Creek was to create a mixed-income community offering a walkable life- style. Fifty-one percent of the rental and for-sale units are designed to be affordable to households earning 80 percent of the local median income. Housing types and price points span a wide range, from apartment rents that begin at $346 per month to single-family homes that sell for more than $300,000. In addition to affordable rentals,166 of the for-sale units are priced for house- holds with incomes at or below 80 percent of the area median income,which was $69,900 in the Denver PMSA in 2002,with an option for developer-assisted downpayments for home- buyers if needed. Homes at Belle Creek are a mix of single-family units,townhouses,and multilevel apartments. Belle Creek was conceived by a partnership consist- ing of Sam Gary,Gene Myers,and Rocky Mountain Mutual Housing. Sam Gary,of Gary-Williams Energy and the Piton Foundation,is a longtime advocate of communities that enable families to move from pover- ty and dependence to self-reliance. Gene Myers,of Greentree Homes and New Town Builders—a produc- tion,custom,and niche-market home developer—is well versed in the homebuilding and land development process and shares Gary’s community vision; Myers also has a particular interest in the aesthetics of com- munity planning. Rocky Mountain Mutual Housing—a nonprofit organization with a solid track record in low- and moderate-income housing—joined the team. In addition to paying a fair-market price for the land, the master developer consented to several covenants as part of the land purchase agreement,including a plan that would disperse throughout the community buyers and renters with a mix of income levels. Home sales have been very successful. In the begin- ning,press coverage and word of mouth made adver- tising virtually unnecessary. A later marketing effort has focused on selling community over selling houses, and the owners of higher-priced homes have shown lit- tle resistance to living close to lower-priced housing.11 Profile The goal of the developers of Belle Creek was to create a mixed-income community offering a walkable lifestyle. The development plan disperses buyers and renters of various income levels throughout the community. MI C H A E L P E C K Many local leaders realize that an inadequate supply of affordable housing effectively limits economic growth: when people pay too much for housing, they spend less on other goods and services, while businesses cannot ex- pand without enough housing available for their workforce. Public policy at the state or local level––whether in the form of regulations, incentives, or technical assistance—is key to sup- port the development of mixed-income housing. Inclusionary zoning, density bonuses, and land assembly assistance are just some of the ways that public policy can facili- tate the production of mixed-income housing. Inclusionary zoning is an increasingly popular tool used to stimulate more affordable hous- ing units in a mixed-income setting. With in- clusionary zoning, localities can require that some percentage of every new residential development beyond a given minimum size (e.g., 50 units) is offered at a price below the market rate and thus is affordable to lower- income residents. The technique makes the provision of affordable housing predictable and even-handed, and removes it from the political process. Though the details of inclu- sionary zoning programs vary, typically they provide incentives such as development rights or zoning variances to developers for includ- ing affordable housing units in their projects. In urban areas, municipalities can help develop- ers overcome the problems of land assembly and acquisition that can stand in the way of development. To encourage the construction of mixed-income housing on vacant land, thereby fostering new affordable housing, cities can compile an inventory of vacant 8 Montgomery County Inclusionary Zoning Perhaps one of the earliest and best-known examples of inclusionary zoning is in Montgomery County, Maryland’s Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit (MPDU) ordinance,under which private,for-profit homebuilders have built nearly 11,000 MPDUs in mixed-income communities since 1974.15 The MPDU law requires that at least 12.5 to 15 percent of the units in resi- dential developments of more than 50 units are affordable to households in the lowest third of the county’s income range. To offset the lost rent,devel- opers receive a density bonus of up to 22 percent. To ensure continued affordability,the Housing Oppor- tunities Commission of Montgomery County (the local public housing authority) has the right of first purchase of one-third of the affordable units in every new devel- opment. The public housing authority has purchased 1,600 townhouses outright and rents another 1,200 apartments in the midst of middle-class neighbor- hoods. In all,through its MPDU policy and other housing initia- tives,the Housing Opportunities Commission has leveraged about 35,000 homes in mixed-income settings.16 Beyond Montgomery County, many municipalities around the country have adopted in- clusionary zoning ordinances, such as Burlington,Vermont; Boston; Denver; Santa Fe, New Mexico; and San Diego, and many others are consider- ing passing similar measures. In fact,most jurisdictions can trace some aspect of their in- clusionary zoning ordinances to the Montgomery County program.17 Profile Myth #2 Local regulations make it too difficult to develop mixed-income housing. Fact #2 Local and state regulations, incen- tives, and technical assistance can help the private sector to produce mixed-income housing. King Farm, a 430-acre, planned community in Rockville, Maryland, will include 3,200 units at buildout. As part of the MPDU program, 12 percent of the units will meet the affordable housing requirements. TO R T I G A L L A S A N D P A R T N E R S 9 Austin S.M.A.R.T. Housing Initiative In an effort to provide more affordable housing within the city limits,the city of Austin enacted in May 2000 its S.M.A.R.T. (Safe,Mixed-Income, Accessible,Reasonably Priced,Transit-Oriented) Housing Initiative. “Reasonably priced” housing was defined as affordable for households that make 80 percent of Austin’s median income, which then was $44,300 for a family of four. To qualify for S.M.A.R.T. incentives,units must remain affordable for at least five years. Devel- opers who agree to meet S.M.A.R.T. housing standards—incorporating a portion of afford- able units,building near mass transit,and devel- oping compatibly with green building standards— qualify for incentives offered by the city. The incentives include: •Wa ived development fees,with the amount waived increasing as the percentage of affordable housing units increases; •Expedited permitting and zoning reviews; •Reduced parking requirements; and •Support from the Neighborhood Housing and Community Development Department in the city’s development process. S.M.A.R.T. housing is funded by the city’s Housing Tr ust Fund commissioned in 2000 at $1 million. Of that total,75 percent is designated to subsidize the construction of multifamily affordable housing units, with the remainder serving to guarantee home im- provement loans for low-income city residents. The program’s stated goal is the development of 5,000 new affordable housing units in the city by 2005. The program has met with a greater success rate than anticipated: in the first two years of the program,1,400 units of S.M.A.R.T. housing were built,87 percent of which were affordable. Another 2,100 units are expected to be built during the program’s third year.18 Profilelots, plan for land assembly and redevelopment, and streamline the legal and administrative requirements for land acquisition. A strategic combination of public policy measures can help to stimulate the production of mixed-income housing. Localities can modify area plans, local zoning, subdivision regulations, and building codes to more readily accommodate a mix of unit types or housing products. For instance, by allowing residential development anywhere in the downtown area, reducing parking requirements, and mandating affordable housing, the city of San Rafael, California, has sparked new vitality in its central business district and stimulated mixed-income housing. As a result, 314 units—148 of which are affordable —have been added or approved for the downtown since 1990.12 State initiatives also can help stimulate the production of afford- able housing in a mixed-income setting at the local level. The Massachusetts Housing Partnership (MHP) is a self-supporting state agency that promotes the development and preservation of affordable rental and for-sale housing in cities and towns across the state through a variety of finance and technical assis- tance programs.13 In addition, Massachusetts’s Comprehensive Permit Law, also known as Chapter 40B, allows local zoning boards of appeals to approve affordable housing developments under flexible rules if at least 25 percent of the units have long- term affordability restrictions. Since 1970, projects have been approved in 170 communities representing approximately 25,000 units of housing.14 10 Summerfield Homes and Montevista Apartments Using a combination of financial tools,several public,non- profit,and private partners collaborated to produce 184 units of mixed-income rental and for-sale housing in the city of Milpitas,California,outside of San Jose in the competitive Silicon Valley housing market. The city of Milpitas chose the BRIDGEHousing Corporation,a Bay Area nonprofit housing developer,to acquire the land,arrange for financing,and build and manage the project. As a nonprofit developer, BRIDGEwas able to negotiate a lower price for the county- owned land––which was particularly crucial,as the high cost of land is one of the biggest hurdles to overcome in producing affordable housing in Silicon Valley. To develop the Summerfield subdivision of 114 single-family homes— 20 percent of which were below the market rate—BRIDGE partnered with the for-profit developer DKB Homes,LLC,in a profit-sharing agreement. DKB purchased the Summerfield site from BRIDGE,managed Summerfield’s public outreach efforts,and led the process to select the buyers of the assist- ed homes. To develop the adjacent Montevista Apartments, BRIDGEreceived a $3 million redevelopment loan as well as federal community development block grant (CDBG) and HOME funds from the city and county. Permanent project financing used tax-exempt bonds from the California Hous- ing Finance Agency and the sale of 4 percent tax credits to John Hancock. The completed apartment complex includes a pool,a cabana,play areas,a community building,and fit- ness facilities.21 Profile F or-profit developers can bring market savvy to the devel- opment of high-quality, mixed-income housing. Working independently or in partnership with a nonprofit or pub- lic agency, for-profit developers can produce mixed-income housing in a variety of forms and types. Master-planned communities that include a mix of housing types and price points provide greater affordability simply by offering a product at the lower end of the price scale. Knowledgeable developers realize that offering an assortment of housing types at a range of price points reduces the overall risk of the project and can help increase absorption rates. The mix of housing prod- ucts widens the scope of the target market and allows develop- ments to respond more flexibly to changing market conditions. For-profit developers also develop mixed-income housing with the help of a variety of federal, state, and local housing finance programs, incentives, or regulatory initiatives that support the development of affordably priced units. For example, the feder- al low-income housing tax credit encourages the development of affordable rental housing, while localities often offer develop- ers density bonuses as part of an inclusionary zoning program. An increasing number of for-profit developers are partnering with public agencies and/or nonprofit development organiza- tions to build mixed-income communities that combine market- rate and publicly assisted units. Many public/private partner- ships were established under the federal HOPE VI program (Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere) administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Established by Congress in 1992 to improve the nation’s most severely distressed public housing, HOPE VI encouraged public housing authorities to collaborate with private developers to build new, mixed-income neighborhoods. Approximately 49 different private development firms varying in size, specialization, and experience—including some of the nation’s foremost devel- Myth #3 Only nonprofit developers and public housing authorities build mixed-income housing. Fact #3 For-profit developers produce mixed-income housing in many forms. To build the 114 for-sale Summerfield homes, for-profit developer DKB Homes purchased the site from the nonprofit BRIDGEHousing Corporation, managed public outreach efforts, and led the selection process for the buyers of the assisted homes. PH O T O C O U R T E S Y O F D K B H O M E S , L L C 11 The Woodlands The Woodlands,30 miles north of Houston and one of the country’s more successful master-planned communities,today has more than 25,000 residen- tial units,including single-family homes in a wide range of prices and architectural styles (78 percent); townhomes and condominiums (almost 6 percent); and rental apartments (16 percent). A variety of pro- grams have been employed at the Woodlands to provide affordable housing choices for families and seniors,including HUD Section 8,FHA 235 for-sale housing and tax credit programs for rental apartments. To date,more than 1,000 assisted housing units have been developed. Affordable housing choices for employees and customers have supported extensive office and commercial development in the Woodlands,where more than 34,000 permanent jobs have been created since 1974. Companies seekingnew corporate locations show a preference for communities in which employees at all levels in their organizations can benefit from a good living environment near their work locations. Affordable housing for seniors has encouraged ex- tended families to reunite in the community,thus strengthening the community through the grandparent- child relationship. The remaining ten to 15 years of development in the Woodlands will benefit from the early commitment to mixed-income housing opportunities.22 Profileopers—have been involved in more than 80 HOPE VI revitaliza- tion projects in 48 different cities. The redevelopment of First Ward Place offers valuable insight into the mixed-finance process. One of the first housing proj- ects built with HOPE VI funding, First Ward Place is a 406-unit, mixed-income community located on 27 acres adjacent to down- town Charlotte, North Carolina. The development includes 283 units of low- to moderate-income rental housing; 68 housing units for seniors; and 55 for-sale homes available to market-rate and low-income households. NationsBank (now Bank of Amer- ica) served as a development partner with the Charlotte Housing Authority (CHA). To subsidize the low-income units, NationsBank acquired approximately $10 million in low-income housing tax credits. Rather than collect a devel- opment fee, NationsBank agreed to receive half of the net operating income. The $41.7 million HOPE VI grant helped to finance part of the devel- opment costs of the project and the program and administrative costs of CHA. CHA has remained the landowner and the improvements are owned by First Ward Place LLC (of which Nations- Bank and CHA are members).19 Public/private collaborations in the development of large-scale, mixed- income housing projects allow part- ners to share and cultivate their areas of expertise. Such partnerships pro- vide access to conventional financing as well as to municipal, state, or feder- al funds in the form of grants, tax credits, or other incentives. Nonprofit organizations and public agencies may also be eligible for sup- port from mission-driven foundations committed to affordable housing and community development.20 A variety of programs have been employed at the Woodlands to provide an assortment of housing choices for families and seniors, and to produce more than 1,000 affordable housing units. The Lennar townhomes are affordably priced, starting from the low $100,000s, making them a popular choice for first-time buyers or retirees. TH E W O O D L A N D S O P E R A T I N G C O M P A N Y , L . P . 12 Pa rk DuValle Park DuValle,located on approximately 125 acres on the west side of Louisville,Kentucky,is a HOPE VI mixed-income community developed by the Community Builders that,at completion,will have 1,008 rental and homeownership units. The goal of the income mix at Park DuValle is to include lower-,middle-,and upper- income residents,with 40 percent of the units occupied by households making 30 to 50 percent of the area median income,30 percent of the units occupied by households making 50 to 60 percent of the median income,and 30 percent of the units occupied by house- holds at or above 60 percent of the median income. Organized according to a new urbanist master plan by Urban Design Associates (UDA)––and with the strong support of then-Mayor Jerry Abramson and the city of Louisville––Park DuValle consists of compact residential blocks in small-scale neighborhoods with houses attrac- tively sited on a boulevard or on narrower residential streets and garages with rear alleys for services. UDA devoted substantial time and attention to the devel- opment of a pattern book (a reference for the shapes and forms of buildings in the neighborhood) for Park DuValle,based on traditional architectural styles found in Louisville neighborhoods. The pattern book represents a strategy the firm has employed with great suc- cess in community revital- ization plans as well as new,market-rate develop- ments. Designed to blend seamlessly with the sur- rounding neighborhoods, the residences,streets, and public spaces in the Park DuValle master plan seek to build on Louisville’s traditions of community design.25 Profile W hen people think of affordable housing, they may imagine the drab, monolithic, concrete high rises that characterized some of the most visible public housing projects of the mid-20th century. Yet the reality is that the design of today’s affordable housing—housing that meets the users’ needs, is responsive to its context, enhances its neighborhood, and is built to last—has made great strides in the last two decades as its ben- efits to the community have become more widely recognized.23 For mixed- income developments, good residential design is often a competitive selling point to attract market-rate residents. Mixed-income housing and good design are a winning combination that has demonstrated the capacity to encourage faster project approvals, attract the support of future residents, and overcome the fears of neighbors who are uncertain about the prospect of affordable housing next door. As a result, design principles for mixed-income housing typically incorporate human-scale buildings, architectural features that blend in with the surround- ing community, walkable neighborhoods, and appealing land- scaping. Over the long term, attractive mixed-income housing is becoming a neighborhood asset. Well-designed units also make the property more resilient and likely to succeed over the long term. The growing popularity of the new urbanism since the early 1990s also has influenced the design of affordable and mixed- income housing. Many new urbanist design features—such as a grid street pattern, on-street parking, sidewalks, and pedestrian- friendly streets—have become common features in affordable and mixed-income housing in the last decade. HUD has collab- orated with the Congress for the New Urbanism to urge public Myth #4 Affordable housing is unattractive and a blight to the neighborhood. Fact #4 Mixed-income housing developments help raise the standards for good design in affordable housing, provid- ing appealing residences that blend in with surrounding communities. Organized according to a new urbanist master plan, Park DuValle consists of compact residential blocks in small-scale neighborhoods with attractively sited houses. TH E C O M M U N I T Y B U I L D E R S 13 Nava Adé Nava Adé is a privately developed master-planned com- munity in Santa Fe,New Mexico,built to address the shortage of affordable housing there. The developer of Nava Adé designated 35 percent of the planned 513 units for moderate-income households; the rest are market-rate units. The affordable units are reserved for households earning no more than 120 percent of the county AMI ($59,300 in 1995,the year the land was purchased for development). The developer,Auerbach Southwest,is a diversified private real estate develop- ment company offering full services in brokerage,land and property development,and management. The look and feel of Old Santa Fe—more typical in the area’s upscale neighborhoods—is present throughout Nava Adé,along with affordable housing designs and amenities usually associated with higher-end homes. The residential architecture represents Santa Fe’s traditional styles,especially the native adobe houses. The entire project was privately financed,without the use of federal or state tax credits or subsidies. The developer was able to make the project finan- cially feasible with the help of the city of Santa Fe. Although Santa Fe traditionally has main- tained a no-growth policy, Auerbach Southwest petitioned the city to annex the subdivision (which bordered the exist- ing city limits) in order to obtain water and sewer service and make the development possible. The plan- ning commission approved the petition based on the developer’s promise to allocate 35 percent of the units to affordable housing. Little marketing has been necessary. The market-rate homes sell for $170,000 to $250,000,while the affordable units are priced from $70,000 to $110,000. All units have three or four bedrooms. During the first year,all 143 homes built were sold,and in 2001,the following year,78 more houses were constructed and sold. With the success of Nava Adé,Auerbach South- west has been exploring additional opportunities to build communities with affordable housing.26 Profileagencies and their allies to consider design, along with social and economic factors, in building a community.24 To further highlight the advantages of well-designed affordable housing, HUD, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the American Institute of Architects cosponsored a publication focusing on design quality—Good Neighbors: Affordable Family Housing —and the Web site Affordable Housing Design Advisor. The Web site (www.designadvisor.org) provides developers with information and resources to improve the design quality of affordable housing projects. Mixed-income housing is sometimes achieved by providing a vari- ety of market-rate single- and multifamily product types that are affordable to a range of income levels in a single development or neighborhood (such as a master-planned community). Good design also contributes to an attractive, architecturally compatible community in this type of environment. Rather than segregate multifamily buildings and single-family homes, developers use architectural design to integrate visually a variety of housing products. Nava Adé’s residential architecture represents Santa Fe’s traditional residential design, especially native adobe house styles. AU E R B A C H S O U T H W E S T More than any government program, the marketplace typically can provide more housing that is affordable through the process of filtering: older housing stock becomes affordable to low- and moderate-income households as the older housing units decrease in value and higher-income households move on to new, high-quality housing. However, the marketplace has not provided an ade- quate supply of decent affordable hous- ing, especially in locations that are low in crime, have good schools, and are close to employment centers. And increasingly, workforce families—families earning too much to be eligible for housing assistance but often not enough to afford market- rate housing—are finding that having a job does not guarantee a place to live at an affordable cost. Recognizing that gain- ing public support for new affordable housing can be difficult, many commun- ities are exploring mixed-income housing as a way to provide workforce housing. The last decade’s rapid appreciation in home prices in many housing markets has outstripped the means of many moderate- and low-income working households, including teachers, police officers, sales clerks, and clerical workers, forcing many to spend more than 30 percent of their incomes––in some cases, as much as 50 percent—on housing. The dire shortage of workforce housing, especially near job centers, means that workers must endure long commutes from far-flung residential develop- 14 Stapleton Airport Redevelopment The city of Denver,under the leadership of Mayor Wellington Webb,has taken an aggressive stance in promoting the development of more affordable hous- ing. Denver’s former Stapleton Airport—currently the nation’s largest urban infill development—includes a mixed-income residential component. In 1999,the city of Denver and the Stapleton Development Corpo- ration selected Forest City as their private partner in the development of Stapleton. The 15-year plan for total buildout envisions more than 12,000 homes,3 million square feet of retail space,10 million square feet of office/industrial space,and over 1,100 acres of regional parks and open space.28 The Stapleton Wor kforce Housing Program designates 10 percent of the owner-occupied homes (800 units) and 20 percent of the apartments (800 units) for households at or below 80 percent of the area median income (AMI). To maintain long-term affordability of the owner-occupied homes, each of the units will have a deed with a 30- year price restriction that allows the owner to realize some of the home’s appreciation in the value but keeps the price below market value. At the end of the 30 years,a nonprofit entity—created to control and monitor the for-sale units— has the option of buy- ing back the homes at the restricted price and re-restricting the units,or letting them be sold on the open market and collecting the difference in price. Forest City also has donated acreage for 200 units of affordable housing that will be reserved for people with incomes of 30 to 50 percent of the AMI.29 Profile Myth #5 The marketplace can meet the demand for moderate-income housing. Fact #5 The marketplace needs help to supply enough housing, especially for working families; mixed-income developments can alleviate that need, providing housing that is safe, livable, and close to employment centers. The Stapleton Workforce Housing Program designates 1,600 rental and for-sale units for households that have incomes at or below 80 percent of the area median income (AMI). Roslyn Court offers the first homes for sale at Stapleton that will be restricted for purchase by police officers, firefighters, teachers, nurses, and others with “workforce” incomes. DR A W I N G C O U R T E S Y O F F O R E S T C I T Y - S T A P L E T O N 15 Corcoran Jennison Companies Established in 1971,the Corcoran Jennison Com- panies is a private,for-profit developer of a range of projects from luxury resorts to affordable housing, as well as other properties. Headquartered in Boston, Corcoran Jennison has developed more than $1.8 billion worth of real estate. It has built,developed, and currently manages more than 26,000 units in its multifamily division,many of which are in mixed- income communities. The company is a pioneer in the use of the mixed-income-housing concept,particu- larly in conversions of distressed urban multifamily housing into successful mixed-income neighborhoods. Recognizing that the market alone cannot serve the economics of producing affordable housing,Corcoran Jennison is developing mixed-income housing,using its expertise with governmental assistance programs. One of the company’s best known mixed-income developments,the Harbor Point Apartments in Boston,was a $250 million project financed through a consortium of private and public sources,including an urban development action grant (UDAG),a Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) insured loan,the State Housing Assistance Rental Program (SHARP),syndi- cated tax credits,and mortgage- backed securities. Of Harbor Point’s 1,283 apartments,two- thirds are market-rate units and one-third are for low-income households.30 Profilements—worsening highway congestion, accelerating urban sprawl, consuming open space, and threatening a region’s economic competitiveness. According to a study by the National Housing Conference examining the availability of decent, affordable housing for workers in five “vital occupations” in 60 of the nation’s largest housing markets, janitors could afford to rent a one-bedroom apartment in only six of the 60 metropolitan areas, while sales- persons could rent a one-bedroom apartment for no more than 30 percent of their income in only three of the areas. Neither janitors nor salespersons could afford to rent a two-bedroom apartment in any of the 60 areas studied. As for homeowner- ship, the report found that households dependent on the salary of one elementary school teacher or one police officer alone could not afford to buy a median-priced home in two-thirds of the metropolitan areas. Retail salespersons and janitors could not afford to purchase a home in any of the markets studied.27 Mixed-income housing allows working families to live in the communities in which they are employed while augmenting the marketplace’s insufficient supply of affordable housing. Government policies and developer incentives such as inclu- sionary zoning, density bonuses, expedited reviews, parking requirement mitigation, rebates, and fee waivers can all support the construc- tion of mixed-income housing in the marketplace. Harbor Point, in Boston, an award-winning national model for transforming public housing into private, mixed-income hous- ing, is one of Corcoran Jennison’s best-known developments. The $250 million project was financed through a complex package of private and public sources. CO R C O R A N J E N N I S O N C O M P A N I E S 16 MassHousing MassHousing (formerly the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency) is the state’s affordable housing bank,created by an act of the legislature in 1966 as a self-supporting,independent public authority charged with increasing affordable rental and home- ownership housing in Massachusetts. The agency lends money at rates below the conventional market rate to support rental and homeownership oppor- tunities for low- and moderate-income residents of Massachusetts,relying on private nonprofit and for- profit developers to construct and operate the rental housing that it finances. MassHousing sells federally authorized,tax-exempt,and taxable bonds to individ- ual and corporate investors,raising private capital for mortgages that it loans to eligible borrowers. This money is loaned at rates that are well below those offered by conventional lenders,thus making the housing financed more affordable to low- and moderate-income households. MassHousing makes financing available to develop- ers proposing to construct new,mixed-income rental housing developments in which a minimum of 20 per- cent of the units are affordable to low-income house- holds,or to refinance and extend affordability require- ments at existing developments through innovative and award-winning pro- grams. MassHousing offers “one-stop shop- ping” for developers of mixed-income rental hous- ing by providing construc- tion,bridge,and perma- nent financing at rates below conventional inter- est rates. Since making its first loan in 1970, MassHousing has pro- vided more than $6 bil- lion to finance more than 60,000 apartments and 40,000 home mortgages throughout the state. Profile Mixed-income developments with all market-rate units (such as a master-planned community with a range of price points) usually rely on conventional financing. However, mixed-income housing developments containing assisted units can draw on many sources of financing––and may in fact have more options than market-rate housing. Because additional funding comes from government sources layered with conventional sources, financing generally is more complex in a development with assisted units. Financing tools for mixed-income housing may include tax-exempt bonds, low- income housing tax credits, housing trust funds, tax increment financing, and revolving loan funds. These supplemental funding sources typically have regulatory and reporting requirements and often operate on annual cycles that govern when money is paid out. The federal government sponsors the following pro- grams that can help support the development of mixed-income housing:31 • HOME Investment Partnerships Program—a block grant program that provides funds to states and localities on an annual basis. Funds may be used for a variety of affordable housing activities. • Community Development Block Grant Program—provides funds to eligible metropolitan cities and urban coun- ties on an annual basis. Emphasis is on use of funds to benefit low- and moderate-income families. • Community Development Block Grant Program/Section 108 Loan Guarantees—enables state and local gov- ernments to obtain federally guaranteed loans that can be used for a variety of housing and community development activities. Myth #6 Financing for mixed-income housing developments is unavail- able or hard to come by. Fact #6 There are many sources of financing to support the devel- opment of mixed-income housing. Avalon Oaks, in Wilmington, Massachusetts, is a 204- unit mixed-income development with 41 units set aside for low-income families. MassHousing financed Avalon Oaks in 1998 with a $17.8 million permanent loan. The project’s developer was AvalonBay Communities, Inc. GR E I G C R A N N A 17 The Hollywood Library/The Bookmark Apartments A joint public and private venture,the Hollywood Library/the Bookmark Apartments is an innovative, transit-oriented,mixed-use project in the Hollywood District of Portland,Oregon. The project combines a 13,000-square-foot branch library,owned by Multnomah County,with a 47-unit,mixed-income rental complex called “the Bookmark” and 815 square feet of ground-floor retail space,owned by Sockeye Development,LLC. The construction of the library cost $3.5 million, and was funded from a $29 million county bond. The Bookmark Apartments and adjacent retail space,which cost $6.5 million,was financed with 4 percent in low-income housing tax credits administered by Oregon Housing and Community Services,tax-exempt bonds,a Portland Develop- ment Commission loan,and developer equity. Nineteen apartments are reserved for households at or below 60 percent of the area median income,while the remaining 28 units are available at market rate. The library occupies most of the ground floor of the four- story building. Residents have access to a generous landscaped courtyard on the south side of the building.36,37 Profile• Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC)—provides investor equity capital to reduce debt service on multifamily rental housing. Established by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, this program authorizes a federal tax incentive for the construction or rehabilitation of rental housing units occupied by low-income households. The LIHTC provides the owner with a tax credit to offset federal income taxes for a period of ten years. The size of the tax credit is based on the construction or rehabilitation costs for the low-income units. As state-chartered authorities established to help meet the affordable housing needs of the residents of their states, state and local housing finance agencies also provide a source of funding for mixed-income housing. These agencies administer a wide range of affordable housing and community develop- ment programs, including federally authorized housing pro- grams such as the Mortgage Revenue Bond program, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program, and the HOME Investment Partnerships program. Housing trust funds, administered at the state and local levels, offer another means of providing a dedicated revenue stream to support the development and retention of affordable housing. About 150 states and localities have established housing trust funds.32 These public funds can be established by law at the national, state, or local level and perpetuated by ongoing rev- enues from dedicated sources of funding such as taxes, fees, or loan repayments. Typically, a housing trust fund is estab- lished through legislation that increases an existing revenue source, such as a real estate transfer tax, with the increase com- mitted to the housing trust fund.33 In 1992, the state of Florida passed the Sadowski Act, creating the largest dedicat- ed revenue source for affordable housing in the nation. Under the act, funds are shared between state (30 percent) and local (70 percent) housing trust funds. Now generating more than $185 million a year, the Sadowski Act has assisted more than 87,000 households with affordable homeownership or rental housing and leveraged an estimated $2.4 billion in private and public sector investments since its inception.34 In its postdevelopment phases, mixed-income housing has much in common with other residential developments—requiring funds to market units, exercise high-quality maintenance and manage- ment, and endure cyclical downturns in the housing market— while it maintains resources to subsidize the housing costs for lower-income residents.35 A joint public and private venture—the Hollywood Library/the Bookmark Apartments—combines a branch public library with a 47-unit, mixed-income rental complex called “the Bookmark” and ground-floor retail space. LA R A S W I M M E R 18 The Reservoir Located six blocks from the state capitol and the downtown business district in Madison,Wisconsin, the Reservoir development is a resident-managed, limited-equity cooperative that helped to launch revitalization and new market-rate housing in the surrounding neighborhood. Of the 28 units,seven units are designated for low-income residents,14 for moderate-income households,and seven for market-rate units. The city of Madison owned the site and offered it to developers who would meet the city’s development and design criteria,competitively selecting a nonprofit owner-architect team—Madison Mutual Housing Association (MMHA) and Design Coalition,Inc.—for the project. The units are designed as two-story flats and attached townhouses,with architectural details and a density of 18 units per acre that blend in with the surrounding neighborhood. Through a series of public meetings and negotiations over density and design issues,developers were able to overcome the initial opposition of neighbors to the project. In the end,the new housing not only made constructive use of long-vacant land—but also generated subsequent rehabilitation efforts on adjacent blocks where for- profit developers have added about 150 units both in rehabilitated warehouses and in new construction.44 Profile Neighbors of mixed-income housing developments may express concern about the impact of low- to moderate- income housing units on their property values. Yet, numerous studies around the country consistently have indi- cated that affordable housing has a positive or neutral effect on neighboring property values. In San Francisco, a study of 3,000 sales of low-cost, for-sale homes built by the BRIDGE Housing Corporation, an affordable housing development company in the Bay Area, showed no decline in the values of properties nearby over a four-year period.38 In the Twin Cities, affordable rental housing developments built in the 1990s made no difference in the property values of neighboring homes.39 And in Montgomery County, Maryland, a comparison by zip code as well as countywide showed no significant difference in price trends between nonassist- ed homes located near assisted units and the market as a whole.40 New affordable housing can improve neighborhood stability and appeal, and in doing do, actually can boost nearby proper- ty values. A study in Minneapolis found that housing developed by nonprofit organizations and then renovated into affordable rental units helped to improve safety in the buildings—and to increase adjacent property values.41 A study of more than 6,000 homes in Wisconsin found that nearby Myth #7 Mixed-income housing brings down the property values of neighboring residences. Fact #7 Mixed-income housing has been found to make no difference in the values of adjacent properties. Located six blocks from the state capitol and the downtown business district in Madison, Wisconsin, the Reservoir is a resident-managed, limited-equity cooperative that helped to launch revitalization and new market-rate housing in the surrounding neighborhood. TH E D E S I G N C O A L I T I O N 19 Profilehousing constructed with low-income housing tax credits had no impact on property values in the Milwaukee metropolitan area, and led to an appreciation of property values in Madison.42 Mixing more affordable housing types with higher-end residen- tial development also can generate concerns about property values—such as the perception that multifamily housing will have negative effects on the property values of neighboring single-family homes. However, there is no evidence that multi- family communities have led to a devaluation of single-family homes nearby. In fact, according to the American Housing Survey, there is no evident difference in the appreciation of value of single-family homes located near apartments or condo- miniums and those that are not. For example, between 1997 and 1999, the average annual appreciation rate for single-family homes located within 300 feet of multifamily buildings was 2.9 percent compared with 2.7 percent for single-family homes hav- ing no apartments or condominiums within 300 feet.43 The Impact of Affordable Family Rental Housing on Home Values in the Twin Cities A study conducted in the Twin Cities by Maxfield Research examined how affordable rental tax-credit developments affected adjacent property values. The Family Housing Fund,a Minneapolis-based nonprofit organization that supports the creation of affordable housing in the Twin Cities,sponsored the study. The research concluded: “There is little or no evidence to support the claim that the tax-credit family rental developments in [the] study eroded surrounding home values.” More specifically,the study included the fol- lowing findings: •In general,homes in the subject areas around the 12 affordable tax-credit developments studied exhibited similar or stronger market performance after the affordable properties were built than before,as well as stronger or comparable home sales from a control group. •The markets surrounding the tax-credit develop- ments became stronger as a group compared with the Twin Cities overall. •The selling time on the market for nearby proper- ties varied comparably before and after develop- ment of the affordable rental housing. •As a group,the subject areas—with both town- houses and single-family homes—had a signifi- cantly higher average annual per-square-foot appreciation after the affordable rental devel- opments were built than before.45 20 T imberlawn Crescent Timberlawn Crescent,a mixed-income rental commu- nity,integrates affordable housing with market-rate units owing in part to requirements imposed by Montgomery County’s inclusionary zoning policy. Initially,residents of the surrounding community strong- ly opposed the Timberlawn Crescent development, despite numerous meetings to solicit neighborhood input during the planning process. Upon seeing the actual design of the buildings,however—with assisted units that are indistinguishable from those that are market rate—neighbors were reassured and their con- cerns put to rest. The development’s moderate density, with buildings designed as two-story townhouses over flats,is comparable to that of surrounding commu- nities. The architect sought to site the buildings to pre- serve as many of the existing tulip trees as possible, creating a buffer between buildings.54 Profile Proposed mixed-income housing developments can face significant challenges from NIMBY neighbors protesting “Not In My Back Yard!” because of concerns about the perceived fiscal, social, and environmental impacts of affordable housing units. The objections—which can come from low- income as well as affluent neighbors—include fears of poorly designed units, higher densities, increased crime, and lowered property values (in higher-income areas) or a disproportionately high share of affordable housing (among lower- income residents). Sometimes, negative stereo- types about low- and moderate-income families, people of color, and new immigrants can arouse community opposition.46 While the neighborhood concerns vary, a savvy developer with a good repu- tation and a history of producing high-quality products can win community support. Attractive design, attention to details, and good community relations are important assets with which to leverage community support for a proj- ect. In many cases, mixed-income developments that include market-rate housing are a politically palatable solution to providing affordable hous- ing. For example, in more affluent areas that offer better schools and job opportunities, a mixed-income approach with high-quality design and management may be particularly important in order to build affordable housing successfully.47 At the mixed-income Oak Park Village housing development in Boise, Idaho, some neighbors initially resisted the affordable housing component of the project. The mayor of Boise strongly supported the project, encouraging excellent architectural design. Negotiated amenities, such as the addition of more green space and extended streets and sidewalks in the Myth #8 Community opposition to new mixed-income housing is an insurmountable obstacle. Fact #8 Mixed-income housing can be an appealing option that lends itself to community acceptance. Residents of the community surrounding Timberlawn Crescent initially opposed the development. Upon seeing the actual scheme of the buildings— designed comparably to surrounding developments, as two-story townhouses over flats—they were reassured, and accepted the development. HO U S I N G O P P O R T U N I T I E S C O M M I S S I O N O F M O N T G O M E R Y C O U N T Y , M A R Y L A N D new community, proved to be the persuasive elements that con- vinced the opposition.48 Evidence of good management practices can also ease communi- ty concerns. As part of the development of the Ashwood Court apartments in Northridge, California, developer McCormack Baron & Associates provided uneasy neighbors with background on its property management experience, which included direct hands-on operation of its properties, as well as criminal back- ground checks and credit reports on prospective residents.49 Attracting higher-income residents can also create a challenge: overgentrification. CDCs often buy and rehabilitate vacant units in a neighborhood and market the neighborhood, its low housing costs, and urban and cultural amenities to attract higher-income residents. As a result, CDCs must ensure that an influx of higher- income households does not displace lower-income neighborhood residents as the area becomes gentrified. To preserve the afford- ability of the neighborhood for lower-income residents, CDCs may work to protect and expand the supply of affordable housing; control land for community development; establish community land trusts and limited-equity housing cooperatives; support the creation of housing trust funds and inclusionary zoning policies; and apply creative financing strategies to fund these efforts.50 In all cases, the developer’s careful planning and good commu- nication with neighbors are essential to winning community acceptance of a proposed mixed-income housing development. Techniques to minimize opposition to and mobilize support for affordable housing projects include developing strong communi- ty relationships, educating the public about the project, offering examples of successful projects, and negotiating in a way that includes a savvy concession strategy.51 In concert with the developer’s efforts, strong support from local government is key to defusing or overcoming community opposi- tion to affordable housing. Local planning and zoning regula- tions aimed at fostering the construction of affordable housing— such as inclusionary zoning—can help make affordable units a natural and accepted part of residential development over the long term. The city of San Diego conducted intensive outreach efforts to earn community acceptance of its “City of Villages” plan—designed to address growth and improve existing commu- nities by clustering together diverse, mixed-income housing; commercial uses; employment centers; schools; and civic uses in areas where a high level of activity already exists.52 To gain public approval of the plan, city officials held numerous public meet- ings and published reports emphasizing the positive aspects of well-planned, dense development—including increased tax rev- enue, expanded job opportunities, new housing opportunities, additional public amenities, and revitalization of blighted areas.53 21 McCormack Baron and Associates St. Louis–based McCormack Baron & Associates (MBA) is a national real estate developer with special expert- ise in the creation of new,mixed-income communities and an emphasis on historic properties and declining urban neighborhoods. MBA is noted for its “community- building” approach to neighborhood development. The firm has developed 83 projects in 22 cities at a total cost of more than $1 billion. A key underpinning of MBA’s development approach is to establish a strong relationship with all components of the local community,including community develop- ment corporations,future residents,neighborhood members,government officials,businesses,founda- tions,and church leaders. These relationships earn support for the development within the community and can help to attract local,state,and federal funding.55 Profile McCormack Baron & Associates is noted for its “community-building” approach to neighborhood development. Westminster Place—a large-scale, mixed-income residential community in a distressed St. Louis inner-city neighborhood formerly called Gaslight Square—features a variety of residential rental products, as well as for-sale duplexes and single-family homes. MC C O R M A C K B A R O N & A S S O C I A T E S 22 Organization/Agency/Community World Wide Web Address Affordable Housing Design Advisorwww.designadvisor.org Association of Bay Area Governmentswww.abag.ca.gov Austin Housing Finance Corporation S.M.A.R.T. Housing Initiativewww.ci.austin.tx.us/ahfc/smart.htm The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policywww.brookings.edu The Family Housing Fund www.fhfund.org Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard Universitywww.jchs.harvard.edu Massachusetts Housing Partnershipwww.mhp.net National Housing Conferencewww.nhc.org National Housing Institutewww.nhi.org National Trust for Historic Preservationwww.nationaltrust.org Policy Link Equitable Development Tool Kitwww.policylink.org ULI Development Case Studies developmentcasestudies.uli.org ULI Land Use Policy Paperspolicypapers.uli.org U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Policy, Development and Research Information Servicewww.huduser.org Mixed-Income Housing: Myth and Fact Source Guide 2003 1. Barbara J. Lipman et al., Paycheck to Paycheck: Working Families and the Cost of Housing in America (Washington, D.C.: Center for Housing Policy/National Housing Conference, 2001). 2. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, The State of the Nation’s Housing: 2002 (Cambridge: Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, 2002). 3. Income groups are according to U.S. Census Bureau definitions. 4. Alastair Smith, Mixed-Income Housing Developments: Promise and Reality. (Cambridge: Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University/Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, 2002). 5. Jo Allen Gause et al., Great Planned Communities (Washington, D.C.: ULI–the Urban Land Institute, 2002). 6. “Mixing Housing Types in TNDS,” New Urban News,May/June 2000, p.10. 7. Community Partners, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Sweet Auburn Case Study at www.nationaltrust.org/community_partners/ sweet_auburn. html. 8. Paul C. Brophy and Rhonda N. Smith, “Mixed-Income Housing: Factors for Success,” Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research (3) 2, 1997, p. 27. 9. Diane Suchman, Mixed-Income Housing,ULI Research Working Paper Series #643, 1995, p. 3. 10. William P. Macht, “Mountain Urbanism: Resort Neighborhood Creates Affordability Without Income Limits,” Urban Land, November/December 2001. 11. Belle Creek, Commerce City, Colorado: ULI Development Case Study C032016. 12. Association of Bay Area Governments, Theory in Action: S.M.A.R.T. Growth Case Studies in the San Francisco Bay Area and Around the Nation, 2001, www.abag.ca.gov/planning/theoryia/houssanrafael.htm. 13. Massachusetts Housing Partnership,www.mhp.net. 14. Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association, Massachusetts and Chapter 40B, February 2001, www.mhp.net/termsheets/40BQA.pdf. 15. David Rusk, “Inclusionary Zoning: Living—And Learning—Together; Appendix B.” Remarks to Florida Housing Coalition, October 23,2001; www.gamliel.org. 16. Ibid. 17. Karen Destorel Brown, Expanding Affordable Housing Through Inclusionary Zoning: Lessons From the Washington Metropolitan Area (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, 2001), p. 2. 18. Kim Ilana Marschner, Building Workforce Housing: Meeting San Francisco’s Housing Challenge (San Francisco: San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, 2003). 19. ULI–Urban Land Institute, Engaging the Private Sector in HOPE VI (Washington, D.C.: ULI–the Urban Land Institute, 2002). 20. Deborah L. Myerson, “The Income Mix.” Urban Land,May 2002. 21. Patrick O’Toole, “The Public Land Connection,” Professional Builder, August 2000. 22. Roger Galatas (president and CEO, Roger Galatas Interests, LLC), personal communication; March 2003. 23. Affordable Housing Design Advisor,www.designadvisor.org. 24. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development/Congress for the New Urbanism, Principles for Inner City Neighborhood Design: HOPE VI and the New Urbanism (San Francisco: Author, 2000). p. 34. 25. ULI–Urban Land Institute, Engaging the Private Sector in HOPE VI. 26. Nava Adé, Santa Fe, New Mexico: ULI Development Case Study #C032014. 27. Lipman et al., Paycheck to Paycheck. 28. Colorado Sprawl Action Center,www.sprawlaction.org/halloffame/ EStapleton.html. 29. Richard M. Haughey, ULI Land Use Policy Forum Report: Challenges to Developing Workforce Housing (Washington, D.C.: ULI–the Urban Land Institute, 2002). 30. Joseph E. Corcoran, “Making Mixed-Income Housing Work,” Multifamily Trends,Summer 2002. 31. For a more comprehensive discussion of federal, state, and local programs to support the production of affordable and mixed-income housing, see National Association of Home Builders–Economics, Mortgage Finance, and Housing Policy Division, Producing Affordable Housing: Partnerships for Profit (Washington, D.C.: Home Builder Press, 1999); or the Policy Link Equitable Development Tool Kit, www.policylink.org. 32. Michael Bodaken and Anne Heitlinger, “Providing Affordable Housing.” Planning Commissioners Journal, No. 45, Winter 2002, p. 2. 33.Edmonton Housing Trust Fund, www.ehtf.ca. 34.Jamie Ross and Mark Hendrickson, “2001 Housing Legislative Wrap Up,” Housing News Network: The Journal of the Florida Housing Coalition, Inc., Summer 2001. 35. Brophy and Smith, “Mixed-Income Housing: Factors for Success,” p. 24. 36. Multnomah County Library, www.multcolib.org/news/2002/hwdreopen.html. 37. Shiels Obletz Johnsen, www.sojpdx.com/hollywood.html. 38. Paul Cummings and John Landis, Relationships between Affordable Housing Developments and Neighboring Property Values (Berkeley: University of California Institute of Urban & Regional Development, 1993). 39. Maxfield Research, Inc., A Study of the Relationship Between Affordable Family Rental Housing and Home Values in the Twin Cities (Minneapolis: Family Housing Fund, 2000). 40.Joyce Siegel, The House Next Door (Baltimore: Innovative Housing Institute, 1998). 41.Edward Goetz et al., There Goes the Neighborhood?(Minneapolis: Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota, 1996). 42. Richard K. Green, Stephen Malpezzi, and Kiat-Ying Seah, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits: Housing Development and Property Values (Madison: Center for Urban Land Economics Research, University of Wisconsin, 2002), p. 4. 43. National Association of Home Builders, Market Outlook: Confronting the Myths about Apartments with Facts (Washington D.C.: NAHB, November 2001), p. 4. 44. Affordable Housing Design Advisor, available at www.designadvisor.org/ gallery/reservoir.html. 45. Maxfield Research, A Study of the Relationship Between Affordable Family Rental Housing and Home Values in the Twin Cities [Summary of Findings].Prepared for the Family Housing Fund (Minneapolis: Maxfield Research, 2000). 46. Planning and Conservation League/PCL Foundation, Why Should Environmentalists Support Quality Affordable Housing?, 2000, www.pcl.org/Land%20Use/housing.html. 23 Notes 47. Smith,Mixed-Income Housing Developments: Promise and Reality,p. 14. 48. “Boise and Partners Build Affordable Housing,” Planning,August 1996. 49. Jeff Chelwick, “Great Designs Win Over Not in My Back Yard Neighbors,” Units,October 1997, p. 53. 50. Kalima Rose, “Beyond Gentrification: Tools for Equitable Development,” Shelterforce,May/June 2001. 51. Debra Stein, “Getting from NIMBY to Yes: How Developers Can Overcome Opposition and Mobilize Support for Multifamily Housing,” Multifamily Tr ends,Vol. 4, No. 3, 2001. 52. General Plan: City of Villages at www.sannet.gov/cityofvillages/index.shtml. 53. “Turning the Tide: ULI’s Intown Housing Conference Looks at Overcoming Community Opposition to Development,” Press release/ULI–the Urban Land Institute, October 2001. 54. See the Affordable Housing Design Advisor at www.designadvisor.org/ gallery/timberlawn.html. 55. Matthew Ashby, “No More Business-As-Usual: Leveraging Private Investment to Re-create Neighborhoods,” Bridges, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Summer 1998. 24 Notes (continued) Higher-Density Development MYTH AND FACT $Urban Land Institute Urban Land Institute$ Myth and Fact 3 Higher-Density Development MYTH AND FACT $Urban Land Institute Urban Land Institute$ About NMHC–the National Multi Housing Council NMHC is a national association representing the interests of the nation’s larger and most prominent apartment firms. NMHC advocates on behalf of rental hous- ing, conducts apartment-related research, encourages the exchange of strategic business information, and promotes the desirability of apartment living. One-third of Americans rent their housing, and 15 percent of all U.S. households live in an apartment home. Doug Bibby, President About Sierra Club The Sierra Club’s members are 700,000 of your friends and neighbors. Inspired by nature, we work together to protect our communities and the planet. The Club is America’s oldest, largest, and most influential grass-roots environmental organization. Larry Fahn, President About AIA–the American Institute of Architects Since 1857, the AIA has represented the professional interests of America’s archi- tects. As AIA members, more than 75,000 licensed architects, emerging profession- als, and allied partners express their commitment to excellence in design and livabil- ity in our nation’s buildings and communities. Members adhere to a code of ethics and professional conduct that assures the client, the public, and colleagues of an AIA-member architect’s dedication to the highest standards in professional practice. Douglas L. Steidl, President About ULI–the Urban Land Institute ULI–the Urban Land Institute is a nonprofit educational and research institute supported by its members. Its mission is to provide responsible leadership in the use of land to enhance the total environment. ULI sponsors educational programs and forums to encourage an open exchange of ideas and sharing of experiences; initiates research that anticipates emerging land use trends and issues and propos- es creative solutions based on that research; provides advisor y services; and pub- lishes a wide variety of materials to disseminate information on land use and devel- opment. Established in 1936, the Institute has more than 24,000 members and associates from more than 80 countries representing the entire spectrum of the land use and development disciplines. Richard M. Rosan, President 2 Higher-Density Development Myth and Fact 3 ULI Project Staff ULI Project Staff Rachelle L. Levitt Senior Vice President, Policy and Practice Publisher Gayle Berens Vice President, Real Estate Development and Practice Richard M. Haughey Director, Multifamily Development Project Director Principal Author Elam Thomas Sprenkle Alexa Bach Contributing Authors Nancy H. Stewart Director, Book Program Managing Editor Barbara M. Fishel/Editech Manuscript Editor Betsy Van Buskirk Art Director Anne Morgan Graphic Design Diann Stanley-Austin Director, Publishing Operations Recommended bibliographic listing: Haughey, Richard M. Higher-Density Development: Myth and Fact. Washington, D.C.: ULI–the Urban Land Institute, 2005. ULI Catalog Number: N27 International Standard Book Number: 0-87420-941-2 ©2005 by ULI–the Urban Land Institute 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20007-5201 Printed in the United States of America. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or in any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by an information storage and retrieval system without written permission of the publisher. 4 Higher-Density Development Representatives of the partners who directed this work: NMHC Doug Bibby,President Kimberly D. Duty, Vice President of Communications Michael H. Tucker, Director of Communications Sierra Club Neha Bhatt, Associate Washington Representative Challenge to Sprawl Campaign Eric Olson, Associate Washington Representative Challenge to Sprawl Campaign AIA David T. Downey, Managing Director AIA Center for Communities by Design ULI Richard M. Haughey,Director,Multifamily Development ULI Review Committee Elinor R. Bacon President ER Bacon Development, LLC Washington, D.C. Maureen McAvey Senior Resident Fellow, Urban Development ULI–the Urban Land Institute Washington, D.C. Edward T. McMahon Senior Resident Fellow, Sustainable Development ULI–the Urban Land Institute Washington, D.C. Debra Stein President GCA Strategies San Francisco, California Myth and Fact 5 s this country continues to grow and change, communities are left to figure out where all these new people will live, work, and shop. New markets are emerging for real estate that offers a more convenient lifestyle than is offered by many low-density sprawling communities. New compact developments with a mix of uses and housing types throughout the country are being embraced as a popular alternative to sprawl. At the core of the success of these developments is density, which is the key to making these communities walkable and vibrant. Unfortunately, in too many communities higher-density mixed-use development is difficult to construct because of zoning and building codes that favor low-density development with segregated uses and because of opposition from the commu- nity. This publication looks at several myths surrounding higher-density develop- ment and attempts to dispel them with facts to help dismantle the many barriers such developments face. ULI is proud to have partnered with NMHC–the National Multi Housing Council, Sierra Club, and AIA–the American Institute of Architects on this publication. This convergence of interests highlights the importance each organization has placed on finding a new development pattern that better fits the needs of a growing and changing country. ULI will continue to provide forums in which all stakeholders can explore and debate issues about growth and development patterns and how properly designed and incorporated density can be used to accommodate new growth. ULI will conduct research, produce well-balanced information, and identify best practices on issues relevant to growth and density.Through these efforts, ULI and its partners hope to play a role in planning a better development pattern for the future. Harry H. Frampton III Chair HHiigghheerr--DDeennssiittyy DDeevveellooppmmeenntt:: Myth and Fact merica’s changing population is creating demand for new types of homes, offices, and retail outlets. Better solutions are needed to the challenges created by changing demographics, dwindling natural areas, smog and public health issues, shrinking municipal budgets, and traffic congestion. Commu- nities that answer these challenges will develop into great places to live. America will add roughly 43 million new residents—that’s 2.7 million new residents per year—between now and 2020.1 America is not only growing but also under- going dramatic demographic changes. The traditional two-parent household with children is now less than a quarter of the population and getting proportionally smaller. Single-parent households, single-person households, empty nesters, and couples without children make up the new majority of American households, and they have quite different real estate needs.2 These groups are more likely to choose higher-density housing in mixed-density communities that offer vibrant neighbor- hoods over single-family houses far from the community core. The fact is that continuing the sprawling, low-density haphazard development pat- tern of the past 40 years is unsustainable, financially and otherwise. It will exacer- bate many of the problems sprawl has already created—dwindling natural areas and working farms, increasingly longer commutes, debilitating traffic congestion, and harmful smog and water pollution. Local officials now realize that paying for basic infrastructure—roadways and schools, libraries, fire, police, and sewer services —spread over large and sprawling distances is inefficient and expensive. Most public leaders want to create vibrant, economically strong communities where citizens can enjoy a high quality of life in a fiscally and environmentally responsible manner, but many are not sure how to achieve it. Planning for growth is a compre- hensive and complicated process that requires leaders to employ a variety of tools to balance diverse community interests. Arguably, no tool is more important than increasing the density of existing and new communities, which includes support for infill development, the rehabilitation and reuse of existing structures, and denser new development. Indeed, well-designed and well-integrated higher-density devel- opment makes successful planning for growth possible. Density refers not only to high-rise buildings. The definition of density depends on the context in which it is used. In this publication, higher density simply means new residential and commercial development at a density that is higher than what is typically found in the existing community. Thus, in a sprawling area with single-family detached houses on one-acre lots, single-family houses on one-fourth or one-eighth acre are considered higher density. In more densely populated areas with single-family houses on small lots, townhouses and apartments are con- sidered higher-density development. For many suburban communities, the popu- lar mixed-use town centers being developed around the country are considered higher-density development. 6 Higher-Density Development Myth and Fact 7 Most land use professionals and community leaders now agree that creating com- munities with a mix of densities, housing types, and uses could be the antidote to sprawl when implemented regionally. And across the country, the general public is becoming more informed and engaged in making the tough land use choices that need to be made while understanding the consequences of continuing to grow as we have in the past. Many have also come to appreciate the “place-making” bene- fits of density and the relationship between higher-density development and land preservation. Media coverage of the topic of growth and development has also evolved. Past media coverage of growth and development issues was often limited to the heated conflicts between developers and community residents. Many in the media are now presenting more thoughtful and balanced coverage, and several editorial boards support higher-density developments in their communities as an antidote to regional sprawl. Yet despite the growing awareness of the complexity of the issue and growing sup- port for higher-density development as an answer to sprawl, many still have ques- tions and fears related to higher-density development. How will it change the neigh- borhood? Will it make traffic worse? What will happen to property values? And what about crime? Ample evidence—documented throughout this publication—suggests that well-designed higher-density development, properly integrated into an existing community, can become a significant community asset that adds to the quality of life and property values for existing residents while addressing the needs of a growing and changing population. Many people’s perception of higher-density development does not mesh with the reality. Studies show that when surveyed about higher-density development, those inter viewed hold a negative view. But when shown images of higher-density versus lower-density development, people often change their perceptions and prefer higher density.3 In a recent study by the National Association of Realtors®and Smart Growth America, six in ten prospective homebuyers, when asked to choose between two communities, chose the neighborhood that offered a shorter com- mute, sidewalks, and amenities like shops, restaurants, libraries, schools, and pub- lic transportation within walking distance. They preferred this option over the one with longer commutes and larger lots but limited options for walking.4 The 2001 American Housing Survey further reveals that respondents cited proximity to work more often than unit type as the leading factor in housing choice.5 Such contra- dictions point to widespread misconceptions about the nature of higher-density development and sprawl. Several of these misconceptions are so prevalent as to be considered myths. To some degree, these myths are the result of memories people have of the very- high-density urban public housing projects of the 1960s and 1970s that have been subsequently deemed a failure. Somehow, the concept of density became associated with the negative imagery and social problems of depressed urban areas. The reality 8 Higher-Density Development is that complex interrelated factors such as the high concentration of poverty and poor educational and employment opportunities combined to doom the public housing projects. Even very-high-density housing can be practical, safe, and desir- able. For example, the mixed-income apartments and condominiums or luxury high rises in New York and Chicago—some of the safest and most expensive housing in the country—prove that density does not equal an unsafe environment. The purpose of this publication is to dispel the many myths surrounding higher- density development and to create a new understanding of density that goes beyond simplistic negative connotations that overestimate its impact and under- estimate its value. Elected officials, concerned citizens, and community leaders can use this publication to support well-designed and well-planned density that creates great places and great communities that people love. With the anticipated popula- tion growth and continuing demographic and lifestyle changes, consensus is build- ing that creating communities with a mix of densities, housing types, and uses will be both necessary and desirable. Higher-Density Development: Myth and Fact is the sixth in a series of Urban Land Institute myth and fact booklets. The series is intended to clarify misconceptions surrounding growth and development. Other topics covered have included trans- portation, smart growth, urban infill housing, environment and development, and mixed-income housing. Higher-Density Development: Myth and Fact examines widespread misconceptions related to higher-density development and seeks to dispel them with relevant facts and information. Although the benefits of higher-density development are often understated, so are the detrimental effects of low-density development. The advan- tages and drawbacks of higher-density development are compared throughout this publication with the alternative of low-density development. In the process, mis- conceptions regarding low-density development are also addressed. 1MYTH FACT The nature of who lives in higher-density housing—fewer families with children—puts less demand on schools and other public services than low-density housing. Moreover, the compact nature of higher-density development requires less extensive infrastructure to support it. Higher-density development overburdens public schools and other public services and requires more infrastructure support systems. P ublic officials across the country struggle to afford the infrastructure need- ed to support sprawling development. A recent study analyzing the costs of sprawl estimated that more than $100 billion in infrastructure costs could be saved over 25 years by pursuing better planned and more com- pact forms of development.6 The issue has transcended political parties and ideolo- gies and has become an issue of basic fiscal responsibility. California’s Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has criticized “fiscally unsustainable sprawl,”7 while Michigan’s Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm has noted that sprawl “is hampering the ability of this state and its local governments to finance public facilities and service improvements.”8 Myth and Fact 9 NUMBER OF SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN PER 100 UNITS OF NEW HOUSING NUMBER OF CHILDREN TYPE OF HOUSING 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Mid- to High-Rise Apartments 19 Garden Apartments 21 Owner- Occupied Single-Family Homes 64 Source: 1999 American Housing Survey (Washington, D.C.:U.S. Bureau of the Census and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1999). 10 Higher-Density Development MYTH ONE FACTONE Progressive and conservative groups have identified sprawl as a real problem. Charter of the New Urbanism states that “placeless sprawl” is an “interrelated com- munity building challenge.”9 Conservative groups have concluded that “sprawl is in fact a conservative issue” with “conservative solutions” and that “sprawl was in large part created through government intervention in the economy.”10 Indeed, numerous government policies over the last half century have led to and supported sprawl. Historically, federal spending for transportation has subsidized large-scale highway construction over other modes of transportation. Financing policies from the Federal Housing Administration have promoted suburban sub- divisions across the nation. Large lot exclusionary zoning has forced the artificial separation of land uses, leading to large distances between employment centers, housing, and retail. But many government agencies now realize they cannot afford to continue providing the infrastructure and public services that sprawl demands. Not only do local governments absorb much of the cost of more and more road- ways, profoundly longer water and electrical lines, and much larger sewer systems to support sprawling development, they must also fund public services to the new resi- dents who live farther and farther from the core community. These new residents need police and fire protection, schools, libraries, trash removal, and other services. Stretching all these basic services over ever-growing geographic areas places a great burden on local governments. For example, the Minneapolis/St. Paul region built 78 new schools in the suburbs between 1970 and 1990 while simultaneously closing 162 schools in good condition located within city limits.11 Albuquerque, New Mexico, faces a school budget crisis as a result of the need to build expensive new schools in outlying areas while enrollment in existing close-in schools declines. The Market Common Clarendon Located on the site of a former parking lot and occupying roughly ten acres of land, the Market Common in Clarendon, Virginia, just outside Washington, D.C., provides 300 Class A apartments, 87 townhouses, 100,000 square feet of office space, and 240,000 square feet of prime retail space. Located within walking distance of the Orange Line of Washington’s extensive subway system, residents can leave their cars parked while they take public transit to work. They can also walk to a Whole Foods grocery store adjacent to the highly successful develop- ment. Prominent national retailers occupy the ground level of the building, and structured parking is provided. The compact develop- ment form of the Market Common promotes walking, biking, and using public transit over autos. The apartments are attractive to young pro- fessionals without children, lessening the impact on the county’s school system. The project is the result of a successful collaboration of McCaffery Interests, Arlington County officials, and citizens of the Clarendon neighborhood; it has spurred new retail, office, and residential construction on neighboring sites. PROFILE Located within walking distance of a Washington, D.C., Metro stop, the Market Common provides housing, offices, retail, and restaurants on a ten- acre site that was formerly a parking lot. MCCAFFERY INTERESTS Myth and Fact 11 MYTH ONE FACTONE Unfortunately for local governments, a growing body of evidence shows that sprawling development often does not pay enough property tax to cover the serv- ices it requires. A study conducted for a suburban community outside Milwaukee found that public services for an average-price single-family house in that commu- nity cost more than twice as much as the property taxes paid by the homeowner.12 One reason for the disparity between property tax revenue and the cost of public services is expenditures for public schools. Low-density suburbs and exurban areas generally attract families with more school-age children. In fact, single-family developments average 64 children for every 100 units, compared with only 21 chil- dren for every 100 units of garden apartments and 19 children for every 100 units of mid- to high-rise apartments.13 The reason is that multifamily housing attracts predominantly childless couples, singles, and empty nesters. And although apartment renters do not pay property tax directly, apartment owners do. Apartments are also usually taxed at a higher commercial real estate tax rate,14 so a typical mixed-use development with retail, office, and apartments may subsidize the schools and other public services required by residents of low-density housing in the same community. This phenomenon is further exacerbated because many multi- family developments and retail and office establishments pay for their own trash dis- posal, shuttle buses, and security. Reducing the distance between homes, shops, and offices also reduces the cost of public infrastructure. According to one of many studies, “The public capital and operating costs for close-in, compact development [are] much lower than they [are] for fringe, scattered, linear, and satellite development.”15 And many of these studies do not take into account the advantages created by making public transit 20 15 10 5 0 –5 PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD GROWTH: 2000–2010 Families with No Children 16.0% Nonfamily Households 14.0% Families with Children Under 18 –3.0%PERCENTAGE GROWTH RATE TYPE OF HOUSEHOLD Source:Projections of Number of Households and Families in the United States: 1995–2010 (Washington, D.C.:U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1996). 12 Higher-Density Development MYTH ONE FACTONE more feasible as well as making delivery of basic services like mail delivery, trash collection, and police and fire protec- tion more efficient. Another emerging body of research suggests that higher- density development is an important component of eco- nomic development initiatives and helps attract new employers. “Information economy” is a term used to define the growing industries based on the economics of the Internet, information goods, and intellectual property. Workers in this field are known as “knowledge workers,” and many believe they are the future of the American econ- omy. These workers are comfortable with the latest technol- ogy and, because their skills are transferable, choose their jobs based on the attributes of the town or city where they are located. They seek out vibrant, diverse urban centers that offer access to technology, other knowledge workers, and lifestyle.16 The economic development game has changed. Employers now follow the workers rather than the other way around. Therefore, communities that focus on providing a high quality of life with the energy and vitality created by urban centers will be much more likely to attract these highly prized, talented, and productive workers than communi- ties of faceless sprawl. Companies that understand the appeal of these communities are making relocation deci- sions with these workers in mind. Studies have shown that increasing employment density increases labor productivity, generally by reducing commuting times.17 Thus, introducing higher-density projects into a community will actually increase that community’s revenue without significantly increasing the infrastructure and public service burdens. Blending apartments into low-density communities can help pay for schools without drastic increases in the num- ber of students. Diversifying housing options and adding amenities like shops and offices close by will improve the quality of life and attract businesses and people that will strengthen the community’s economic stability. Increasing density provides a real economic boost to the community and helps pay for the infrastructure and public services that everybody needs. Highlands’ Garden Village Built on the site of the Elitch Gardens amusement park in Denver, Highlands’ Garden Village is a walk- able, transit-linked community and a financially viable model for environmentally responsible infill development. New York–based developer Jonathan Rose & Companies developed single-family homes, townhouses, seniors’ and multifamily apartments, cohousing, offices, and retail space on the site. At the center, a historic theater and carousel from the original amusement park are being transformed into a community performing arts center and a walking labyrinth. Berkeley, California–based Calthorpe Associates designed a plan that put new homes on three sides of a square-shaped village and a commercial “main street” on the fourth. Restaurants, studios, and shops line the street with live/work townhouses and offices above, giving residents the opportunity to live, work, and shop in the same community. The proximity of amenities, location near downtown, and convenience of public bus lines encourage people to walk and reduce travel costs. PROFILE Highlands’ Garden Village reuses some structures from the amusement park previously located on the site. The compact development, combined with a variety of uses and housing types, uses public infrastructure more efficiently than low- density sprawling development. JONATHAN ROSE & COMPANIES 2FACT Myth and Fact 13 MYTH No discernible difference exists in the appreciation rate of properties located near higher-density development and those that are not. Some research even shows that higher-density development can increase property values. Higher-density developments lower property values in surrounding areas. T he precise value of real estate is determined by many factors, and isolating the impact of one factor can be difficult. Although location and school district are the two most obvious determining factors of value, location within a community and size and condition of the house also affect value. Several studies have examined whether multifamily housing has any impact on the value of nearby single-family detached houses. These studies have shown either no impact or even a slightly positive impact on appreciation rates. Haile Plantation Haile Plantation is a Gainesville, Florida, icon. Although it is denser than surrounding communities, the values of homes in Haile Plantation are often higher than the values of houses in neighboring lower-density communities, because the traditional neighborhood design employed there makes Haile Plantation more desirable and valuable. Beginning with the master plan in 1979, Haile Plantation has been called one of the first new urban- ist communities in the country. Developers Bob Rowe and Bob Kramer in conjunction with the Haile Plantation Corporation developed the 1,700-acre site to include more than 2,700 units, ranging from single-family homes to townhouses and garden apartments. The sense of community has only grown with the expansion of the development to include a town center, a village green, trails, civic uses, and offices. Indeed, it is density and diver- sity that together add value to this popular Florida community. PROFILE Homes in Haile Plantation sell for more than neighboring homes because prospective buyers view the traditional neighborhood design as a valuable and desirable amenity. HAILE PLANTATION CORPORATION 14 Higher-Density Development MYTH TWO FFACTTWO For instance, one study by the National Association of Home Builders looked at data from the American Housing Survey, which is conducted every two years by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It found that between 1997 and 1999, the value of single-family houses within 300 feet of an apartment or condo- minium building went up 2.9 percent a year, slightly higher than the 2.7 percent rate for single-family homes without multifamily properties nearby.18 Another study, commissioned by the Family Housing Fund in Minnesota, studied affordable apartments in 12 Twin Cities neighborhoods and found “little or no evidence to support the claim that tax-credit family rental developments in [the] study eroded surrounding home values.”19 And a long-term study by Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies published in 2003 also confirms that apartments pose no threat to nearby single-family house values, based on U.S. Census data from 1970 to 2000.20 Not only is there compelling evidence that increased density does not hurt property values of nearby neighbors: researchers at Virginia Tech University have concluded that over the long run, well-placed market-rate apartments with attractive design and landscaping actually increases the overall value of detached houses nearby.21 They cite three possible reasons. First, the new apartments could themselves be an indicator that an area’s econ- omy is vibrant and growing. Second, multifamily housing may increase the pool of potential future homebuyers, creating more possible buyers for exist- ing owners when they decide to sell their houses. Third, new multifamily housing, particularly as part of mixed-use development, often makes an area more attractive than nearby communities that have fewer housing and retail choices.22 Echelon at Lakeside Echelon at Lakeside is the only multifamily development in an upscale, master-planned single-family suburban neighborhood of Lakeside on Preston in Plano, Texas a suburb of Dallas. Florida-based developers Echelon Communities, LLC, overcame initial community opposi- tion from area residents through high-quality innovative design. The award-winning architecture blends seam- lessly with the surrounding neighborhood’s traditional style. Larger-than-normal floor plans, individual entries, and attached garages combine to mirror the grand estates in the surrounding communities. Although street elevations make the buildings appear to be one single- family home, they actually house several multifamily units. Memphis-based architects Looney Ricks Kiss used five building types and three building styles. All units include high-quality interior finishes; community amenities include a resort-style pool, fitness facility, clubroom, business and conference center, and full-time concierge. PROFILE The award-winning apartments at Echelon at Lakeside were designed to blend with the neighboring luxury homes. COURTESY OF ECHELON COMMUNITIES, LLC, PHOTOGRAPH ©STEVE HINDS Myth and Fact 15 MYTH TWO FFACTTWO Concerned citizens should use the entitlement process to demand high-quality development in their communities while understanding that density and adjacent property values are not inversely related. Higher-density real estate developers and investors in higher-density real estate need to appreciate the fact that most Americans’ wealth is held in their home equity. Therefore, changes in property values can have very real consequences to existing property owners. Likewise, homeowners would benefit from knowing that developers make a substantial financial commitment when investing in new higher-density projects. This invest- ment is an incentive to make the project successful, which can give the commu- nity leverage in working with the developer. Such interrelated and overlapping economic interests among these stakeholders make it all the more likely that a mutually beneficial agreement can be reached. Such an agreement can result in a project that enhances the existing community, ensures the appreciation of resi- dents’, developers’, and the local government’s financial interests, and addresses the needs of current and future residents of the community and region. 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0% AVERAGE ANNUAL APPRECIATION FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES BY NEARNESS TO MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS Not Near Multifamily 2.66% Near Multifamily 2.90% Near Low-Rise Multifamily 2.91% Near Mid- or High-Rise Multifamily 2.79% AVERAGE ANNUAL APPRECIATION RATE PROXIMITY TO MULTIFAMILY Source:NAHB computations based on data in the American Housing Sur vey: 1997 and 1999 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1997 and 1999). 3 MYTH FACT Higher-density development generates less traffic than low-density development per unit; it makes walking and public transit more feasible and creates opportunities for shared parking. Higher-density development creates more regional traffic congestion and parking problems than low-density development. 16 Higher-Density Development Most people assume that higher-density development generates more traffic than low- density development and that regional traffic will get worse with more compact devel- opment. In fact, the opposite is true. Although residents of low-density single-family communities tend to have two or more cars per household, residents of high-density apartments and condominiums tend to have only one car per household.23 And according to one study using data from the National Personal Transportation Survey, doubling density decreases the vehicle miles traveled by 38 percent.24 Mockingbird Station The residents of Mockingbird Station in Dallas, Texas, are far less dependent on their cars, because they have a whole host of amenities at their doorstep. Dallas developer Ken Hughes partnered with Denver-based Simpson Housing Group to create the ten-acre pedestrian-oriented urban village, which includes 216 loft apartments, an eight-screen film center and café, more than 90 shops and restaurants, offices, an enclosed public plaza, and parking, all directly linked to the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) light-rail system. Mockingbird Station provides direct platform access to DART trains, which offer residents an eight-minute commute to Dallas’s central business district and a single train connection to the Dallas Convention Center, Reunion Arena, and other downtown entertainment. The new village is also immediately adjacent to the campus of Southern Methodist University and within walking distance of the university’s new stadium and sports center. RTKL created architecture reminiscent of historic train stations but with a modern twist to the materials and detailing. Although only limited driving is necessary, a parking garage is provided but placed out of sight and underground. The myriad materials, architectural styles, and amenities create a vibrant transit-oriented community. PROFILE Residents of Mockingbird Station can leave their cars in the garage and take an eight-minute train ride to downtown Dallas; they can also walk to shops, offices, and a movie theater. UC URBAN Myth and Fact 17 The reason is that higher-density developments make for more walkable neighbor- hoods and bring together the concentration of population required to support pub- lic transportation. The result is that residents in higher-density housing make fewer and shorter auto trips than those living in low-density housing.25 Condominium and townhouse residents average 5.6 trips per day and apartment dwellers 6.3 car trips per day, compared with the ten trips a day averaged by residents of low-density com- munities. (A trip is defined as any time a car leaves or returns to a home.) Increasing density can significantly reduce dependency on cars, but those benefits are even greater when jobs and retail are incorporated with the housing. Such mixed-use neighborhoods make it easier for people to park their car in one place and accomplish several tasks, which not only reduces the number of car trips required but also reduces overall parking needs for the community. But if retail uses are to survive, they must be near households with disposable income. Having those households within walking distance of the shops builds in a market for the stores. One study indicates that in some markets, 25 to 35 percent of retail sales must come from housing close to shops for the shops to be successful.26 MYTH THREEEFACTTHREE Southwest Station The Southwest Metro Transit Commission is a small suburban bus system near Minneapolis that serves downtown Minneapolis and numerous other employment and recreation centers, including Minnesota Twins baseball games. The American Public Transportation Association calls it the “best small system in the country.” In an effort to capital- ize and expand on the success of the system, the commission has encouraged transit-oriented devel- opment at its bus stops. In Eden Prairie, Minnesota, the commission completed a bus depot and five- story parking garage on 22 acres of excess right-of- way. In 2001, it started selling land around the tran- sit complex for retail and residential development. Restaurants, shops, and more than 250 apartments, condominiums, and townhouses soon followed. The new development generated revenue for the com- mission, new public transit riders, affordable con- venient housing, and a suburban lifestyle with the amenities usually afforded only to city dwellers. PROFILE The Southwest Metro Transit Commission in suburban Minneapolis runs an award-winning bus system and has encouraged higher-density development around transit stops, like this one at Southwest Station in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION 18 Higher-Density Development MYTH THREE FACTTHREE With a typical family now making more car trips for family, personal, social, and recreational reasons than for commuting to work,27 reducing the number of noncommuting trips takes on greater importance in the battle to reduce traffic congestion and parking problems. A case study in Washington, D.C., found that workers in dense downtown Washington made 80 percent of their mid-day trips by foot while suburban workers made 67 percent of their mid-day trips by car.28 Although a suburban office park would never reach the density levels of a down- town area, planners can still reduce the auto dependency of suburban office work- ers by using some of the same design techniques. Concentrating density around suburban offices, allowing and encouraging retail and restaurants in and near the offices, and planning for pedestrian and bike access can all reduce the number of lunchtime car trips required by office workers. Higher-density mixed-used developments also create efficiencies through shared parking. For example, office and residential uses require parking at almost exact opposite times. As residents leave for work, office workers return, and vice versa. In addition, structured parking becomes feasible only with higher-density developments. Higher-density development also makes public transit more feasible. When a com- munity that includes residences, shops, and offices reaches a certain threshold of density, public transit-shuttles, bus service, trams, or light rail becomes an option for residents. It is estimated that a minimum density of seven dwelling units per acre is needed to make local bus service feasible with an intermediate level of service.29 Light rail needs a minimum density of nine dwelling units per acre to be feasible.30 When a community can take advantage of these options and increase the transportation choices for residents, relief is greater as total car dependency is further broken. Such choices are impossible for low-density developments. AVERAGE DAILY CAR TRIPS NUMBER OF TRIPS DAILY 10 8 6 4 2 0 Apartment 6.3 Single-Family Detached 10.0 TYPE OF HOUSING Source: Institute of Traffic Engineers,Trip Generation,6th Edition, vol. 1 (Washington, D.C.: Author, 1997). 4MYTH FACT The crime rates at higher-density developments are not significantly different from those at lower-density developments. Higher-density development leads to higher crime rates. Myth and Fact 19Myth and Fact 19 P eople sometimes associate density with crime, even though numerous studies show that no relationship exists between the two. A study in Ir ving, Texas, using geographic information systems and crime statistics, found no link between crime and density. In fact, it found that single-family neigh- borhoods are “not all associated with lower crime rates.”31 Another study conducted by the University of Alaska found no relationship between housing density and crime in Anchorage.32 Westminster Place Although today Westminster Place is a thriving, safe community in midtown St. Louis, it was not always the case. The area, approxi- mately 90 acres, was well known by the St. Louis police department for its high rate of violent crime, which led to the area’s becoming blighted. McCormack Baron Salazar, a St. Louis–based developer, brought the community back through the addition of higher-density mixed-income housing comprising affordable and market-rate units. The master plan included for-sale and rental housing, garden apart- ments, townhouses, single-family homes, and even an assisted liv- ing facility for seniors. A new community pool, a bustling retail cen- ter, and a magnet school are included as well. The new plan slowed traffic through the community, added landscaping and street and parking lot lighting, and new “eyes on the street,” making it more difficult for criminals to go unnoticed. The area blossomed into a place where people once again feel safe walking. The success of the community spurred the revitalization of surrounding areas. PROFILE Increasing the housing density, adding some market-rate housing, and developing a design that slowed traffic and added additional lighting changed Westminster Place from a crime-ridden neighbor- hood to a thriving, safe community. MCCORMACK BARON SALAZAR 20 Higher-Density Development MYTH FOUR FACTFOUR East Village East Village is a small urban revitalization project on the edge of downtown Minneapolis. Before the project was built, the neglected 2.9-acre site contained several deteriorating rental homes, old commer- cial buildings, and abandoned surface parking lots. The neighborhood wanted to improve the area and the image of one of the city’s oldest neighborhoods, Elliot Park. The developers of the project, Central Community Housing Trust and East Village Housing Corporation, developed the new mixed-income housing and commercial community to encourage a sense of community and ownership. East Village now features community green space, pedestrian paths, and neighborhood businesses. Buildings sur- round the greenway that leads to Elliot Park, a city park with year-round activities and a community center. Brick, bay windows, and French balconies complement historic buildings in the area. In addition, all buildings have multiple entrances to encourage interaction among neighbors. An underground 350- space parking garage frees up space for landscaped areas. This once neglected area has won two awards for innovation and design and become an exceedingly successful vibrant and safe community. The additional “eyes on the street” created by the development of East Village in Minneapolis has led to a safer vibrant community. PROFILE CENTRAL COMMUNITY HOUSING TRUST Myth and Fact 21 MYTH FOUR FACTFOUR Arizona researchers found that when police data are analyzed per unit, apartments actually create less demand for police services than a comparable number of single- family houses. In Tempe, Arizona, a random sample of 1,000 calls for service showed that 35 percent originated from single-family houses and just 21 percent came from apartments. Similarly, a random sample of 600 calls for service in Phoenix, Arizona, found that an apartment unit’s demand for police services was less than half of the demand created by a single-family house.33 One reason for the misperception that crime and density are related could be that crime reports tend to characterize multifamily properties as a single “house” and may record every visit to an apartment community as happening at a single house. But a multifamily property with 250 units is more accurately defined as 250 houses. To truly compare crime rates between multifamily properties and single-family houses, the officer would have to count each household in the multifamily commu- nity as the equivalent of a separate single-family household. When they do so, many find what the previous studies prove: that crime rates between different housing types are comparable. Higher-density developments can actually help reduce crime by increasing pedestrian activity and fostering a 24-hour community that puts more “eyes on the street”34 at all times. Many residents say they chose higher-density housing specifically because they felt more secure there; they feel safer because there are more people coming and going, making it more difficult for criminals to act without being discovered. This factor could explain why a ULI study of different housing types in Greenwich, Connecticut, shows that higher-density housing is significantly less likely to be bur- glarized than single-family houses.35 The relationships among design, management, and security became better understood in the past few decades with the publication of several seminal works, including Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through Urban Design by Oscar Newman36 and Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in our Communities by George Kelling and Catherine Coles.37 Many new higher- density developments include better lighting plans and careful placement of buildings and landscaping to reduce opportunities for crime, contributing to a safer community. With the emergence of better-quality designs, higher-density mixed-use develop- ment is an attractive and safe addition to a community, one that is increasingly attracting a professional constituency seeking safety features. In fact, the luxur y segment is one of the fastest-growing components of the multifamily industry.38 5 MYTH FACT Low-density development increases air and water pollution and destroys natural areas by paving and urbanizing greater swaths of land. Higher-density development is environmentally more destructive than lower-density development. L ow-density sprawl takes an enormous toll on our air, water, and land. The United States is now losing a staggering 2 million acres of land a year to haphazard, sprawling development.39 More than 50 percent of Americans live in places where the air is unhealthy to breathe,40 and childhood asthma and other respiratory diseases are on the rise.41 Almost half the damage to our streams, lakes, and rivers is the result of polluted runoff from paved surfaces.42 It is inefficient land use, not economic growth, that accounts for the rapid loss of open space and farms. Since 1994, housing lots larger than ten acres have account- ed for 55 percent of the land developed.43 This loss of land often causes unexpect- ed economic challenges for rural communities, where farmland, forests, ranchland, and open space tend to be the economic drivers that attract businesses, residents, and tourists. Low-density sprawl compromises the resources that are the core of the community’s economy and character. The majority of American homeowners think it is important to stop these trends. In fact, 76 percent of local ballot initiatives related to land conservation passed in November 2004, making $2.4 billion in fund- ing available for protection of parks and open space.44 But purchasing land is only part of the solution and not always an option for financially strapped governments. Higher-density development offers the best solution to managing growth and pro- tecting clean air and clean water. Placing new development into already urbanized areas that are equipped with all the basic infrastructure like utility lines, police and fire protection, schools, and shops eliminates the financial and environmental costs of stretching those services farther and farther out from the core community. Com- pact urban design reduces driving and smog and preserves the natural areas that are assets of the community: watersheds, wetlands, working farms, open space, and wildlife corridors. It further minimizes impervious surface area, which causes ero- sion and polluted stormwater runoff. Two studies completed for the state of New Jersey confirm that compact development can achieve a 30 percent reduction in runoff and an 83 percent reduction in water consumption compared with conven- tional suburban development.45 22 Higher-Density Development MYTH FIVE FACTFIVE Prairie Crossing The developers of Prairie Crossing, George and Vicky Ranney, saved $1 million in infrastructure costs through environmentally sensitive design. The 677-acre conservation community is locatedin Grayslake, Illinois, 40 miles northwest of Chicago and one hour south of Milwaukee. The community features 350 acres of open space, including 160 acres of restored prairie, 158 acres of active farmland, 13 acres of wetlands, a 22-acre lake, a village green, and several neighborhood parks. Houses are sited to protect natural features such as hedge- rows, native habitat, and wetlands. Designed with colors and architecture inspired by the landscape, every home has a view of open space and direct access to ten miles of on-site walk- ing and biking trails. Wide sidewalks, deep front porches, and rear garages encourage neighbors to meet. The homes were built with U.S. Department of Energy–approved green building techniques. As a result, they are 50 percent more energy efficient than other homes in the Chicago area, and they sell for a 33 percent sales premium. Station Village is the last phase of Prairie Crossing. When complete, it will include residential, retail, and office space, all within walking distance of two commuter train stations. Residents can ride Metra’s North Line to Chicago’s Union Station or the Central Line to downtown Chicago and O’Hare Airport. PROFILE More than half the land at Prairie Crossing was preserved as open space, and homes were built with approved green building techniques. Myth and Fact 23 PRAIRIE CROSSING 24 Higher-Density Development The Preserve USS Real Estate originally held a 550-acre tract of land in Hoover, Alabama, but sold 250 acres to the city, intending to create the Moss Rock Nature Preserve. The 680 single-family homes, 50,000 square feet of retail, and 50,000 square feet of office space are concentrated on the remaining 311-acre site. Before development of the Preserve, Hoover was characterized by sprawling conven- tional development and lacked a town center. The Preserve’s future town center is planned to include 34 live/work units, 14 retail units, and two restaurants: at the heart of the community is the village green, an impressive eight-acre park with a town hall, a fitness center, a junior olympic swimming pool, and a kiddie pool. Residents have access to 15 acres of parks and seven miles of trails that connect to award-winning Hoover schools and the newly created Moss Rock preserve. PROFILE Clustering development at the Preserve in Hoover Alabama, enabled the creation of the 250-acre Moss Rock Nature Preserve. MYTH FIVE FACTFIVE USS REAL ESTATE Myth and Fact 25 MYTH FIVE FACTFIVE Many communities employ techniques such as infill and brownfield development to transform unused, abandoned lots into vibrant, revenue-generating components of the community. Some create direct incentives for higher-density development. The city of Austin, Texas, for example, created a program that rewards developers for locating projects in the city’s existing neighborhoods and downtown. Others award points for a variety of attributes, such as transit access, the redevelopment of empty lots, and an increase in pedestrian facilities. By employing standards for fac- tors like open space, dense development, and impact on water quality, communi- ties can facilitate good urban design that preserves natural resources. Although a well-designed higher-density community offers residents a higher- quality environment, poorly planned sprawl does the opposite. Because low-density sprawl gobbles up so much land through large-lot zoning, it ends up destroying the very thing most people moved there for in the first place—the natural areas and farmland. It forces people to drive longer distances, increasing regional air quality problems. The average American man spends 81 minutes behind the wheel every day, while women average 63 minutes. And surveys show that the time spent driving has been consistently increasing every year.46 The national road network, currently at 4 million miles according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, is still grow- ing at an alarming rate, mainly for the purpose of connecting new low-density sub- urbs back to core communities. Along with the water and air pollution, construc- tion of these highways perpetuates the cycle of sprawl, fragments wildlife habitats, and dries up a community’s financial coffers. Increasing density not only improves air and water quality and protects open space but also redirects investments to our existing towns and cities. It can revitalize existing communities and create more walkable neighborhoods with access to public transit and hiking and biking trails. Pedestrian-friendly higher- density developments offer general health benefits as well. Mixed land uses give people the option to walk and bike to work, shops, restaurants, and entertain- ment. The convenience of compact communities may help fight diseases related to obesity.47 Higher-density communities are vital to preserving a healthy environ- ment and fostering healthy lifestyles. 6 MYTH FACT 26 Higher-Density Development Attractive, well-designed, and well-maintained higher-density development attracts good residents and tenants and fits into existing communities. Higher-density development is unattractive and does not fit in a low-density community. Higher-density development comes in many forms. Some of the most attrac- tive well-planned modern development is built at a high density. Across America, appealing higher-density mixed-use town centers have been wildly popular with the public. Lushly landscaped boulevards, fountains, and showcase architecture have created a sense of place in areas previously known only for faceless, uninteresting low-density development. The enduring appeal Post Riverside Atlanta is often called the poster child for suburban sprawl. However, it is also the home of Post Riverside, a revolutionary new mixed-use pedestri- an-oriented community developed by Atlanta-based Post Properties, Inc., and located on the banks of the Chattahoochee River between Atlanta’s bustling Buckhead and Vinings communities. As is the trend nationally, 65 percent of all vehicle trips in Atlanta are to run errands, not to commute to work. With offices, shops, and restaurants within walking dis- tance of the apartments, Post Riverside residents depend on autos much less than their neighbors in lower-density areas. In addition, the community is connected to Atlanta’s MARTA subway system and the Cobb County transit system. This award- winning 85-acre mixed-use development includes 25,000 square feet of retail space, 225,000 square feet of office space, and 535 apartments, all designed around a gracious town square. For many people, this amenity-rich, low-maintenance lifestyle better suits their needs than a traditional single-family home in a low-density neighborhood. PROFILE Post Riverside in Atlanta demonstrates that higher-density development can be attractive and successful in a commu- nity known for lower-density development. POST PROPERTIES, INC., PHOTOGRAPH ©STEVE HINDS and desirability of older and more gracious higher-density neigh- borhoods—Georgetown in Washington, D.C., Beacon Hill and Back Bay in Boston, and Lincoln Park in Chicago—attest to the fact that some of the more desirable neighborhoods in America historically have been of higher density than that found in typical outer suburbs. This return to the design principles of the past is at the core of the new urbanist movement that took hold in the 1990s. The move- ment grew as many people came to miss the sense of community that was created by the mixed-density and mixed-use communities of the past. They realized that low-density subdivisions isolated their owners not only from pedestrian access to shops and offices but also from their neighbors. The growing sense of social alien- ation, highlighted in books like Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone,48 has led many back to the comfort of communities that are a reminder of the places where many of us grew up. These new communities combine the best design ideas of the past with the modern conveniences of today to provide residents with what has been missing from many sprawling areas—a sense of community. Today’s developers, architects, and planners know that to attract customers and to secure zoning approvals and community acceptance, they must produce attractive and innovative properties that complement their surroundings. Design profession- als are driven to produce projects that meet users’ demands, understand and respond to the context of a site, enhance its neighborhood, and are built to last.49 In fact, attendance at a recent American Institute of Architects–sponsored conference on density far surpassed expectations, speaking to the interest among land use professionals in addressing the design issues associated with density.50 It is plausible that the high level of citizens’ opposition to density may be based on an outdated notion of what higher-density development looks like. A University of North Carolina study revealed that when given a choice between two attractively designed communities, one higher density and the other low density; the majority preferred the higher-density option.51 Other visual preference surveys con- firm that there is an almost universal negative reaction to the visual appearance of commercial strip sprawl and an almost universal posi- tive reaction to traditional town-like communities of the past, com- munities that almost invariably included a mix of densities and uses.52 Myth and Fact 27 MYTH SIX FACTSIX The Plaza at the Arboretum This award-winning mixed-use project in Santa Monica, California, developed by California-based Legacy Partners, achieves a density of 97.5 dwelling units per acre. The attractive seven-story building includes 10,000 square feet of retail space and 350 apartment units ranging from 612 to 1,555 square feet. The architecture firm Meeks and Partners used strong geometric forms to create a playful architectural character that fits nicely in the avant-garde Hollywood studio section of Santa Monica. The devel- opment includes a swimming pool, spa, fit- ness center, and clubhouse. PROFILE Higher-density developments like the Plaza at the Arboretum present opportunities to create outstanding award-winning architecture. MEEKS AND PARTNERS, PHOTOGRAPH ©STEVE HINDS 7 MYTH FACT Our population is changing and becoming increasingly diverse. Many of these households now prefer higher-density housing, even in suburban locations. No one in suburban areas wants higher-density development. W hen many of us think of the American Dream, we envision married couples with children living in single-family detached houses in the suburbs. The notion is that the only people who want to live in higher-density areas are those who cannot afford a traditional house with a back yard or who want to live in the middle of the city. Both percep- tions are flawed. This country’s population is changing, and so are its real estate preferences. These lifestyle changes have significant implications for suburban development. For the first time, there are more single-person households (26.4 percent) than married- 28 Higher-Density Development HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE: 2003 (PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL) 5.6 15.2 11.2 16.4 28.2 23.3 Married couples with children (23.3) Married couples without children (28.2) Other family households (16.4) Men living alone (11.2) Women living alone (15.2) Other nonfamily households (5.6) Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, March; and Annual Social and Economic Supplement:2003. Myth and Fact 29 couple-with-children households (23.3 percent).53 The groups growing the fastest, people in their mid-20s and empty nesters in their 50s, are the groups most likely to look for an alternative to low-density, single-family housing.54 A growing number of Americans are redefining their American Dream. They are seeking a more convenient and vibrant lifestyle. And while some seek this lifestyle in cities, many others seek the same lifestyle in the suburbs. According to a 2002 study by the National Association of Home Builders, more than half the renters questioned said they wanted to live in the suburbs.55 Moreover, a national survey of homebuyers’ community preferences found that nearly three-quarters of all MYTH SEVEN FACTSEVEN King Farm This 430-acre community is characterized by the historic architecture of the region but offers an assortment of modern conveniences as well. Developed by King Farm Associates, LLC, King Farm is located in Rockville, Maryland, five miles from the Washington, D.C., beltway, 15 miles from downtown D.C., and walking distance from the Shady Grove Metro station. The neighborhood was designed for pedestrians, but the King Farm shuttle makes getting around even easier. The shuttle runs a complimentary route between the King Farm Village Center, the Metro station, and the Irvington Center, a 90-acre commercial com- plex next to the Metro. In addition, two types of public bus service are available at King Farm. At the Village Center, 120,000 square feet of retail space is within walking distance from both resi- dential and commercial development. The center also includes 47 loft apartments and a one-acre village green. Watkins Pond and Baileys Common are King Farm’s two residential villages. They offer single-family homes, townhouses, condominiums, and luxury apartments intertwined with natural areas. The center of Watkins Pond is a 12-acre city park with tennis and basketball courts, a soc- cer and softball field, two playgrounds, several picnic areas, benches, and paths. King Farm is a successful higher-density suburban community that integrates housing, retail shops, offices, and public transit. PROFILE TORTI GALLAS AND PARTNERS 30 Higher-Density Development MYTH SEVEN FACTSEVEN Victoria Gardens The city of Rancho Cucamonga, located roughly 60 miles east of Los Angeles in California’s Inland Empire, has a rich agricultural history and, more recently, a history of low-density sprawl with no real city center. This situation is changing, however, with the opening of the first phases of a huge new mixed-use development known as Victoria Gardens. The development, designed by L.A.–based architects, Altoon + Porter, and being developed jointly by California-based developers Forest City California and the Lewis Investment Company, will create a vibrant higher-density downtown where none previously existed. Rapidly growing Rancho Cucamonga has been traditionally underserved by restaurants and entertainment options. The long-awaited addition of a “place” in the city has been well received by residents. The 147-acre development will eventually contain 1.3 million square feet of commer- cial and community space, including retail, entertainment, office, and civic uses with a cultural center and a library. Twenty acres of housing on site will allow people to live within walking distance of all the amenities of Rancho Cucamonga’s new downtown. PROFILE A higher-density downtown is emerging in sprawling Rancho Cucamonga at Victoria Gardens. Long-underserved residents now have a “place” to go for restaurants, retail, offices, and housing. ALTOON + PORTER ARCHITECTS Myth and Fact 31 buyers prefer to live in a community where they can walk or bike to some desti- nations.56 The 2001 American Housing Survey further reveals that respondents cited proximity to work more often than unit type as the leading factor in housing choice.57 These surveys confirm that many people prefer the suburbs but want the amenities traditionally associated with cities, including living close to work. With the continuing decentralization of cities and the rise of suburban communi- ties with urban-like amenities, many people find that they can live and work in the suburbs with all the attributes of suburbia they desire without giving up walkability and convenience. A recent study confirms that in many regions, more office space is located in suburban locations than downtowns,58 providing an opportunity for people to live near their jobs. Communities and developers that have recognized and responded to the dual trends of decentralized offices and a growing desire for a more convenient lifestyle have been rewarded. Well-placed mixed-use, higher- density developments in the suburbs are increasingly popular, creating a new sense of place. Communities are being developed using the best concepts of traditional commu- nities—smaller lots, a variety of housing types, front porches and sidewalks, shops and offices within walking distance, and public transit nearby. Communities like Celebration in Florida and King Farm in Maryland have been so popular with the homebuying public that past worries over whether the demand exists for them have been replaced by concerns about their rapid price appreciation, putting them out of the reach of all but the highest-income households. Today’s real demographic and lifestyle changes are inspiring a return to traditional development styles that offer walkable, bikeable, and more dynamic communities that put residents closer to shops, offices, and parks. MYTH SEVEN FACTSEVEN 8 MYTH FACT People of all income groups choose higher-density housing. Higher-density housing is only for lower-income households. Multifamily housing is not the housing of last resort for households un- able to afford a single-family house. Condominiums, for instance, are often the most sought after and highly appreciating real estate in many urban markets. The luxury segment of the apartment market is also rapidly expanding. Most people are surprised to learn that 41 percent of renters say they rent by choice and not out of necessity, and households making more than $50,000 a year have been the fastest-growing segment of the rental market for the past three years.59 Multifamily housing throughout the world has historically been the housing of choice by the wealthiest individuals because of the access and con- venience it provides. From Manhattan to Miami to San Francisco, higher-density housing has been prized for the amenity-rich lifestyle it can provide. Higher-density development can be a viable housing choice for all income groups and people in all phases of their lives. Many financially secure baby boomers, who have seen their children leave the nest, have chosen to leave behind the yard maintenance and repairs required of a single-family house for the more carefree and convenient lifestyle multifamily housing provides. Interestingly, their children, the echo boomers, are entering the age where many will likely live in multifamily housing. Just starting careers, many are looking for the flexibility of apartment liv- ing to follow job opportunities. Their grandparents, likely on a fixed income, may also prefer or need to live in multifamily housing as physical limitations may have made living in a single-family house too challenging. Providing balanced housing options to people of all income groups is important to a region’s economic vitality. The availability of affordable multifamily housing helps attract and retain the workers needed to keep any economy thriving. In many American towns and cities, rapidly rising house prices are forcing working families to live farther away from their jobs. In fact, the lack of affordable housing is mentioned as the number one problem facing working families today.60 32 Higher-Density Development32Higher-Density Development32Higher Density Development Myth and Fact 33 MYTH EIGHT FACTEIGHT Rollins Square Rollins Square, a mixed-use development in Boston’s South End, is a truly mixed-income community that provides housing for a wide spectrum of people in all income brackets. Twenty percent of the overall units are reserved for people whose income is 30 to 60 percent of the Boston area median income (AMI), 40 percent are for-sale condominiums reserved for working households with incomes 80 to 120 percent of the AMI, and the remaining 40 percent are market-rate units sell- ing for up to $750,000. The residences occupy two city blocks and integrate seamlessly into the existing neighborhood. The varying heights and diverse exterior materials give the appearance that the development was constructed over time. Rollins Square was developed by the Planning Office for Urban Affairs, Inc., a nonprofit developer associated with the Archdiocese of Boston. PROFILE Rollins Square effectively provides housing for low-, moderate-, and high-income households in one attractive development that is well integrated into the existing community. CBT/CHILDS BERTMAN TSECKARES ARCHITECTS 34 Higher-Density Development MYTH EIGHT FACTEIGHT I’On I’On is a 244-acre master-planned community along the deep-water marshes of Hobcraw Creek in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. Just six miles east of Charleston, the com- munity features 700 single-family homes, community facili- ties, and a small-scale commercial area. Vince Graham, principal with the I’On Company, is developing six residential neighborhoods connected by narrow streets, pedestrian corridors, and community spaces. An I’On Guild member, one of 18 builders selected for experience, talent, and finan- cial strength, builds each individual home. The architecture is inspired by classic Lowcountry style with large balconies, deep front porches, and tall windows on even taller homes. Homes now sell for $685,000 to $1.7 million. Community facil- ities include I’On Square, I’On Club, the Creek Club, and the Mount Pleasant Amphitheater. Residents also enjoy easy access to the Cooper and Wando rivers, the Charleston har- bor, and the Atlantic Ocean. One neighborhood boat ramp and four community docks are available for crabbing and fishing. Two miles of walking trails are available for resi- dents; a five-acre pond, the Rookery, is a protected nesting site for wading birds. In addition, the public and private schools in Mount Pleasant are some of the best in the area. Some home prices in the well-planned higher-density community of I’On are approaching $2 million. The traditional neighborhood design combined with the community amenities made possible by higher densities have made the community one of the most desirable in the Charleston area. PROFILE As the problem of affordability worsens, workers on the lower end of the salary scale may move to more affordable cities, leaving a labor shortage in their wake. Such shortages make a region less desirable as an employment center. According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, access to a large and diverse labor pool is the most important factor in making corporate decisions on locations.61 Communities that do not provide housing for all income groups become less desirable corporate locations. I’ON COMPANY Myth and Fact 35 NOTES 1. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/natprojtab01a.pdf. 2. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=D&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_DP1&- ds_name=D&-_lang=en. 3. Emil Malizia and Jack Goodman, Mixed Picture: Are Higher-Density Developments Being Shortchanged by Opinion Surveys?(Washington, D.C.: ULI-the Urban Land Institute, July 2000), p. 12. 4. Smart Growth America and National Association of Realtors®, 2004 American Community Survey: National Survey on Communities (Washington, D.C.: Author, October 2004). 5. Robert W. Burchell et al., The Costs of Sprawl, 2000 (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2002). 6. Sam Newberg and Tom O’Neil, “Making the Case,”Multifamily Trends,vol. 6, no. 3, Summer 2003, p. 47. 7. “Schwarzenegger Embraces ‘Smart Growth’ Ideas to Curb Sprawl,” CNN.com, Inside Politics, November 21, 2003. 8. Mark Muro and Rob Puentes, Investing in a Better Future: A Review of the Fiscal and Competitive Advantages of Smarter Growth Development Patterns (Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, 2004). 9. Kathleen McCormick and Michael Leccese, eds., Charter of the New Urbanism (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1999), p. v. 10. Michael E. Lewyn, “Why Sprawl Is a Conservative Issue. Part 1,” The Green Elephant, Summer 2002,p. 1. 11. Brett Hulsey, Sprawl Costs Us All (Madison, Wisconsin: Sierra Club Midwest Office, 1996). 12. Ibid., p. 8. 13. U.S. Bureau of the Census and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1999 American Housing Survey (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2000). 14. http://www.nmhc.org/content/servecontent.cfm?isPrinterFriendly= 1&IssueID=215&contentID=827. 15. Muro and Puentes, Investing in a Better Future,p. 15. 16. Richard Florida, The Rise of the Creative Class (New York: Basic Books, 2002). 17. Timothy F. Harris and Yannis M. Ioannides, Productivity and Metropolitan Density (Boston: Tufts University Department of Economics, 2000), p. 6. 18. National Association of Home Builders, “Market Outlook: Confronting the Myths about Apartments with Facts” (Washington, D.C.: Author, 2001), p. 4. 19. Maxfield Research, A Study in the Relationship between Affordable Family Rental Housing and Home Values in the Twin Cities (Minneapolis: Author, November 2000). 20. Alexander Hoffman, The Vitality of America’s Working Communities (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies, 2003). 21. Arthur C. Nelson and Mitch Moody, “Price Effects of Apartments on Nearby Single-Family Detached Residential Homes,” Working Draft (Blacksburg, Virginia: Virginia Tech University, 2003). 22. Arthur C. Nelson, “Top Ten State and Local Strategies to Increase Affordable Housing Supply,” Housing Facts & Findings, vol. 5, no. 1. 23. National Multi Housing Council, “Tabulations of 1999 American Housing Survey” (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,1999). 24. Robert Dunphy and Kimberly Fisher, “Transportation, Congestion, and Density: New Insights,” Transportation Research Record,1996. 25. Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation,6th ed., vol. 1 (Washington, D.C.: Author, 1997). 26. “How to Calculate Demand for Retail,” New Urban News, March 2004, pp.10–11. 27. U.S. Department of Transportation,Our Nation’s Travel:1995, NPTS Early Results Report (Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration, 1997), p. 11. 28. G. Bruce Douglas III, et al., Urban Design, Urban Forms, and Employee Travel Behavior, TRB Transportation Planning Applications Conference Papers (Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board,1997). 29. Robert Dunphy, Deborah Myerson, and Michael Pawlukiewicz, Ten Principles for Successful Development Around Transit (Washington, D.C.: ULI–the Urban Land Institute, 2003). 30. Ibid. 31. Jianling Li and Jack Rainwater, “The Real Picture of Land-Use Density and Crime: A GIS Application,” http://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/proc00/professional/papers/PAP508/p508.htm. 32. University of Alaska Justice Center, “The Strength of Association: Housing Density and Delinquency,” Anchorage Community Indicators, series 3A, no. 1, http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/indicators/series03/ aci03a1.housing.pdf. 33. Elliott D. Pollack and Company, Economic and Fiscal Impact of Multi-Family Housing (Phoenix: Arizona Multihousing Association, 1996). 36 Higher-Density Development NOTES (continued) 34. 1000 Friends of Oregon, Do Four-Plexes Cause Cannibalism?Winter 1999, pp. 2–3. 35. Marcus Felson and Richard B. Peiser, Reducing Crime through Real Estate Development and Management (Washington, D.C.: ULI-the Urban Land Institute, 1997). 36. Oscar Newman, Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through Urban Design (New York: Macmillan, 1972). 37. George Kelling and Catherine Coles, Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in our Communities (New York: Touchstone, 1997). 38. Gary Kachadurian, Debunking the Homeownership Myth (Washington, D.C.: National Multi Housing Council, 1998). 39. American Farmland Trust, Farmland Information Center, National Statistics Sheet, http://www.farmlandinfo.org/ agricultural_statistics/. 40. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Issues Designations on Ozone Health Standards,” News Release, April 15, 2004. 41. American Lung Association, “State of the Air: 2004,” April 29, 2004, http://lungaction.org/reports/sota04_full.html. 42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Water Quality Inventory: 1996 Report to Congress,” http://www.epa.gov/305b/. 43. Smart Growth America, http://smartgrowthamerica.org/openspace.html#and. 44. National Association of Realtors®, “On Common Ground: Realtors and Smart Growth, Winter 2005; and Trust for Public Land, “Voters Approve $2.4 Billion in Open Space Funding,” press release (Washington, D.C.: Author, 2004). 45. Robert W. Burchell et al., Impact Assessment of the New Jersey Interim State Development and Redevelopment Plan, Report II: Research Findings (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research, 1992); and Center for Urban Policy Research, The Costs and Benefits of Alternative Growth Patterns: The Impact Assessment of the New Jersey State Plan (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Author, 2000). 46. U.S. Department of Transportation, Our Nation’s Travel (Washington, D.C.:Author, 1995), pp.13, 22. 47. H. Frumkin, “Urban Sprawl and Public Health,” Public Health Reports, vol. 117, May/June 2002, pp. 201–217. 48. Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000). 49. www.designadvisor.org. 50. David Dixon, personal interview, American Institute of Architects,December 9, 2004. 51. http://www.nmhc.org/Content/ServeFile.cfm?FileID=182. 52. http://www.nelessen.org/NAR_web_files/frame.htm. 53. http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-553.pdf. 54. http://www.nmhc.org/content/servecontent.cfm?issueID=215&contentitemID=1828. 55. National Association of Home Builders, “What Renters Want” (Washington, D.C.: Author, 2002). 56. http://www.nelessen.org/NAR_web_files/frame.htm#slide1263.htm. 57. Newberg and O’Neil, “Making the Case,” p. 47. 58. Robert E. Lang and Jennifer LeFurgy, “Edgeless Cities: Examining the Noncentered Metropolis,” Housing Policy Debate, vol. 14, no. 3. 59. http://www.nmhc.org/content/servecontent.cfm?issueID=10&contentitemID=1007. 60. Fannie Mae Foundation, Results of the Fannie Mae Foundation Affordable Housing Survey (Washington, D.C.: Author, 2002), p. 2. 61. PricewaterhouseCoopers, Trendsetter Barometer (New York: Author, 2002). Order #N27 (Packet of 10 Booklets) Order #N28 (Single Copy) ISBN 0-87420-941-2 $ ULI–the Urban Land Institute 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20007-5201 http://www.uli.org Higher-Density Development Myth and Fact Richard Haughey No one likes sprawl and the traffic conges- tion it creates,yet proposals for increasing density in new and existing neighborhoods often are squashed by community fears of public housing,crime,and ugly high rises. Higher-Density Development: Myth and Fact dispels these negative connotations,by comparing the advantages and drawbacks of higher- and low-density development. The definition of higher-density development is relative to the community the development is in—it could be single-family homes on smaller lots,or townhouses and apartments in more populated areas. Eight widespread misconceptions about higher-density devel- opment are examined and dispelled with well-researched facts and examples of high- quality,compact developments. Debunk these common myths about density: • Higher-density development overburdens public schools and other public services and requires more infrastructure support systems. • Higher-density developments lower property values in surrounding areas. • Higher-density development creates more regional traffic congestion and parking problems than low-density development. • Higher-density development leads to higher crime rates. • Higher-density development is environ- mentally more destructive than lower- density development. • Higher-density development is unattractive and does not fit in a low-density community. • No one in suburban areas wants higher-density development. • Higher-density housing is only for lower-income households. FREE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION! Ideal to present to planning officials and civic and neigh- borhood groups,this presentation will provide a better understanding of density and the value it provides. Download free from www.uli.org/policypapers, www.nmhc.org,or www.sierraclub.org,or request a CD-ROM. Give a copy of this publication to others. Buy a packet of ten booklets for just $19.95! CALL 800-321-5011 OR ORDER ONLINE AT WWW.BOOKSTORE.ULI.ORG. More Myth and Fact Titles from the Urban Land Institute Environment and Development: Myth and Fact 2002/Order #E14 Mixed-Income Housing: Myth and Fact 2003/Order #M60 Urban Infill Housing: Myth and Fact 2001/Order #U22 Visualizing Density Julie Campoli • Alex S. MacLean Campoli MacLean Vi s u a l i z i n g D e n s i t y Vi s u a l i z i n g D e n s i t y Visualizing Density Julie Campoli • Alex S. MacLean © 2007 by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Julie Campoli, and Alex S. MacLean Text, ground photographs, and diagrams © 2007 Julie Campoli Aerial photographs © 2007 Alex S. MacLean All rights reserved. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Campoli, Julie. Visualizing density / Julie Campoli and Alex S. MacLean. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN-13: 978-1-55844-171-2 ISBN-10: 1-55844-171-9 1. Population density—United States. 2. City planning—United States. I. MacLean, Alex S. II. Title. HB1965.C25 2007 307.3’316—dc22 2006039014 Designed by Peter M. Blaiwas, Vern Associates, Inc. Composed in Joanna MT. Printed and bound by Capital Offset in Concord, New Hampshire. The paper is Sterling Ultra Matte, an acid-free, recycled sheet. MANUFACTURED IN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Cover: Somerville, Massachusetts Title page: Phoenix, Arizona Page vi: Glendale, Arizona Growing Closer 2 The Count 4 The Coming Boom 5 Spreading Out or Growing In 5 Crosscurrents 6 The Benefits 8 Why We Hate Density 11 How We Can Love Density 13 Visualizing Density 21 Contents Foreword, Armando Carbonell vii The Density Catalog 62 References 150 Acknowledgements 151 About the Authors 151 About the Lincoln Institute 152 of Land Policy Patterns of Density 22 Planning for Density 22 Designing for Density 36 For many Americans density is associated with ugliness, crowding, and congestion, even though it can be shown that, when properly planned and executed, higher density can save land, energy, and dollars. Moreover, many people—includ- ing some trained planners and designers—have difficulty esti- mating density from visual cues or distinguishing quantitative (measured) and qualitative (perceived) density. We tend to overestimate the density of monotonous, amenity-poor devel- opments and underestimate the density of well-designed, attractive projects, thereby reinforcing the negative stereo- types. A primary objective of this work is to correct these misperceptions. This book was commissioned by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy to help planners, designers, public officials, and citizens better understand—and better communicate to oth- ers—the concept of density as it applies to the residential envi- ronment. The need for such a work is borne out repeatedly by participants in our classroom courses, also titled Visualizing Density,who share stories of proposed residential developments of appropriate density that had been rejected outright or forced to reduce the number of housing units owing to public mis- conceptions about density. This is not to say that every resi- dential project that has failed to win approval on account of its density was necessarily well conceived. To address this issue, the authors also discuss and illustrate the importance of good planning and design in gaining acceptance of density. This book addresses both the “why” and the “how” of density. In the first chapter, “Growing Closer,” Julie Campoli describes the density challenge in the United States: Will we be able to accommodate significant growth in population and housing units while reversing the trend of increasing rates of land consumption? The second chapter, “Patterns of Den- sity,” can be used as a manual on planning and designing for “good” density, bringing together both quantitative and quali- tative aspects of residential development. Finally, “The Den- sity Catalog” is a set of reference images presented in order of increasing density, based on Alex MacLean’s superb aerial pho- tography and clear diagrams of street patterns drawn by Julie Campoli. I am very pleased to be adding this book to the body of materials on planning and urban form produced by the Lincoln Institute. It is the culmination of more than five years of collab- oration with Alex and Julie, who have developed a classroom course offered at sites around the country, as well as illustrated working papers and a Visualizing Density Web site that can be accessed through www.lincolninst.edu. We have packaged this book with a CD of the images in the Density Catalog to facili- tate their noncommercial use in public discussions and educa- tion programs. We hope this dramatic visual material and explanatory text will provide a robust set of tools and techniques for those engaged in planning and designing the roughly 60 million housing units that we can expect to build in this country over the next 25 years. While all density may not be “good” den- sity, it is time we redeem the word and reap the social, eco- nomic, and environmental benefits of creating the right density in the right places. — Armando Carbonell Chairman Department of Planning and Urban Form Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Foreword vii  Visualizing Density This is where America lives—a neighborhood of free-standing homes built on half- to quarter-acre lots, each with a yard and a garage, located on a sparsely traveled street. It’s a simple con- cept—one family per house, each occupying its own distinct realm defined by an expanse of lawn. When we think of hous- ing, this image usually comes to mind. Many of us live in this type of place, and many others aspire to. It has become a sym- bol of comfort, security, and privacy. Or maybe it’s just where we think we live. Although most Americans occupy single-family homes, a full 40 percent of existing housing units are attached or multifamily structures (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). In fact, many Americans are living side by side in cities or dense suburbs. Their duplexes, town- houses, and apartments make up a substantial portion of the housing stock. Yet, despite its solid presence in the housing market, the apartment building is far from reaching icon status in the American imagination. We can’t seem to get the low-density suburb out of our minds, which makes it easy to continue to build it. It’s what everyone expects—the architects and engineers who design it, the bankers who finance it, the planners who approve it, the developers who build it, and the homeowners who move in. In the past 50 years, we’ve created tens of thousands of these neighborhoods. We can almost do it in our sleep. The low- density subdivision has achieved a kind of inevitability. But despite its hold over our imagination, this type of neighborhood will not serve us well in the future. We simply cannot afford to use the land and resources required to house our growing population at such a low density. Growing Closer Newark, Ohio Growing Closer  050629-0165  Visualizing Density The CounT Every 10 years the U.S. Census counts Americans. In 2000 the count was 281 million. The Census also keeps track of many other details of our lives—where we live, how big our families are, what types of houses we occupy, what our ethnic back- grounds are, and how much money we make. To anyone even remotely interested in how we shelter ourselves and how we use land, the U.S. Census of 2000 revealed a startling fact: After dipping slightly in the past 50 years, our population growth rate has turned sharply upward. Between 1960 and 1989 it ranged from 22 to 24 million people added per decade. In the 1990s, however, we grew by 33 million. Each year we add about 4.7 million people. At this rate, by 2030 we will be a nation of roughly 350 million. While the pace of population growth has accelerated, another fact remains constant—we have, and always will have, ■the same amount of land. Whether this reality is problematic or not depends on our appetite for land. Census 2000 revealed that lately it has been voracious. In the past few decades we have combined steady population growth with unprecedented land consumption. Urbanized land, or land that is used for residen- tial, commercial, industrial, or institutional purposes, increased by 47 percent in the 1990s while population expanded by only 17 percent (Fulton et al. 2001). In essence, we’re taking up more space per capita than we used to. Across the United States, suburbs grow faster than central cities, and jobs continue to migrate out of cities. As of 2000, more than half of the population in 46 metropolitan areas lived more than 10 miles from the city center; in 1970, this was the case in only 13 metropolitan areas. Boston, with its tradition- ally dense urban fabric, is a good example of this recent trend. Unlike in earlier years of settlement, one-third of Boston-area Tualatin, Oregon 050629-0447 Growing Closer  residents now live 30 miles or more from downtown. One- fifth live at least 40 miles away (Joint Center for Housing Stud- ies 2005). An increasing number settle not in the city, or even in inner-ring suburbs, but on large parcels in emerging sub- urbs farther afield. This echoes the national trend—40 percent of new homes built between 1985 and 2001 were on lots of more than an acre (Nelson 2004). The Coming Boom To shelter a fast-growing population, the next few decades will bring a significant need for new housing. There were almost 116 million units of housing in the United States in 2000. By the time we reach 350 million people in 2030, we’ll need a total of 155 million homes. Considering that about 18 percent of existing units will be lost to fire, natural disasters, or demo- lition in the next 25 years, we’ll need to build about 60 million new units to house the population—that’s more than half of the housing stock on the ground now. And that doesn’t include the 104 billion square feet of new space that will be needed for commercial, industrial, and institutional uses. The next genera- tion of Americans will face an unprecedented building boom (Nelson 2004). Given this need for housing, our tendency to sprawl will place a great strain on our environment and our future econ- omy. How long we can sustain ourselves on our finite land mass will depend on how carefully we use land in this new century. As we face the coming boom, we can choose between two basic approaches to land development—spreading out or grow- ing in and up. Spreading ouT or growing in For the past 50 years we’ve been growing out—extending beyond the limits of existing settlements and converting farm- land, deserts, and forests into building sites. Expansion outward is nothing new. The edges of our cities and towns have tradi- ■ ■ tionally shifted to accommodate the need for built space. It’s the density of that new growth that has changed. The rapid pace of conversion from resource land to suburb is due not to the amount of development, but to its low density. We are spread- ing fewer people across each square mile and using up more land in the process. The alternative to spreading out is to concentrate—to grow in and up. This is the way we grew before the automobile age transformed our sense of scale and distance. Before World War II, cities expanded outward in small increments in a dense fabric. Developers filled in vacant parcels and rebuilt existing structures, making room for newcomers within an area limited by pedestrian access and public transportation. As they added Buckeye, Arizona 041215-0432  Visualizing Density Above: Seattle, Washington Opposite: Chicago, Illinois population, cities grew more dense as an increasing number of people shared each square mile of land. As we confront dwindling land and energy resources, this concentrated growth pattern makes more and more sense: reuse land that has already been altered; limit the range of new devel- opment to an area that is easily accessible; and build up, not out. It is becoming clearer that these ideas should not be rel- egated to our past, but are the key to our future. CroSSCurrenTS Along with the sprawl trends evident in the Census 2000 sta- tistics, researchers have detected some interesting crosscur- rents. It seems that not every corner of the nation sprawled in ■ the 1990s. Several cities and suburbs in the West grew in rather than out. People returned to the central cores of a few cities. The market for multifamily homes grew. The movement toward greater density is mostly evident in the West, where land costs are high or water is scarce. Although this countertrend was minor in relation to the amount of sprawl overall, it may well point to a future direction. One indicator is that a small minority of metropolitan areas became more concentrated in the last decade of the twentieth century. These cities used less land per capita to accommodate their fast-growing populations (Fulton et al. 2001). Areas that were originally built to a low density filled in at a faster rate than they expanded outward. Phoenix is a good example of this trend. Density in Phoenix increased from 2,228 persons per square mile in the 1970s to 2,707 in the 1990s. Unlike other cities, population and employment grew and remains concen- trated in the center. Density in Los Angeles increased by 8 per- cent between 1982 and 1997 (Fulton et al. 2001). People are moving back into the hearts of some cities in search of an urban lifestyle. Despite the fact that their larger metropolitan areas sprawled, many downtowns grew denser. Central districts of downtown Chicago, Denver, Seattle, and Houston, among others, grew at a faster rate in the 1990s than the cities around them (Liu 2003). Demographic trends indi- cate an emerging market for urban locations and city housing, due in part to an aging population and declining family size. Empty nesters and young singles, two of the faster growing segments of the population, are choosing multifamily hous- ing over single-family options. Immigrants, who made up 34 percent of new U.S. residents in the 1990s and represent a growing presence in the housing market, also tend to seek out urban settings. This new market for density has emerged in places like Washington, DC, and its suburbs, where the demand for multi- family housing is high. Developers have stepped up production of apartments and condominiums and are having little trou- ble renting and selling them to residents of all incomes. Sales 050630-0192 Growing Closer  050529-0104  Visualizing Density are highest in the upper-income groups, which are choosing luxury condos in mixed-use locations over detached homes in outer suburbs. Loft-style high rises and mid-rise buildings built near metro stations are also increasingly popular (Allen 2005). In the Seattle area, between 1996 and 1998, half of all new suburban housing was made up of multifamily dwelling units. The BenefiTS Just as we’ve discovered the specific negative impacts of sprawl in recent years, we are now beginning to understand the par- ticular ways in which arranging our towns in a compact pat- tern can provide benefits. A growing body of research shows that concentrating homes, jobs, schools, and shops into a smaller area will help us prosper, protect our environment, and strengthen our communities. Building at a higher density boosts the economy because it saves money for governments, developers, and consumers. One study analyzing the fiscal benefits of channeling higher den- ■ sity growth into existing areas of Massachusetts found that $11 billion could be saved over the course of 25 years. Most of the savings would go to homebuyers and developers, but local and state governments also stood to gain (Burchell 2003). When it comes to sewer, water, roads, electric, and other infrastructure elements, compact form equals fewer pipes and poles, and less asphalt and concrete per unit of housing. Add- ing population to existing service areas creates an economy of scale that translates into lower installation costs for developers and lower operational costs for municipalities. Consumers and taxpayers save money, too. Although the amount of the sav- ings varies from study to study, research over the past decades has consistently shown that low-density development leads to higher public and private development costs (Muro and Puentes 2004). Transportation savings is one of the biggest benefits of concentrating people and jobs into a smaller geographic area. Households can save thousands of dollars a year if they drive less because the services they need are nearby. One recent study 050701-0203 Olympia, Washington Growing Closer  found that families in low-density regions like Houston and Atlanta spend more than $8,000 per year to get around, while those in Chicago average $5,000 (McCann 2000). Chicago resi- dents, who have less expensive travel options such as walking, biking, and public transit, are able to translate their transporta- tion savings into better-quality housing through the Location Efficient Mortgage program. Lenders recognize the efficiency and cost effectiveness of urban locations and are willing to extend more credit to those buying homes in dense areas served by public transportation. Where homes are spread out, more energy must be expended to serve them: more gasoline to access them; more oil or natural gas to heat them; and more electricity to cool them. Freestanding or “detached” homes consume 85 to 99 percent more energy than houses of equal size that share a common wall. Combining energy used for travel, home, and an individual’s portion of what is used for community infra- structure, the contrast in energy consumption between low- density and high-density housing is striking. The owner of a 3-units-per-acre, detached, suburban house uses an average of 440 million British thermal units (Btus) per year compared to 360 million Btus per year for his urban counterpart living in an attached townhouse at a density of 24 units per acre (Allen and McKeever 1996). We don’t often think of cities as environmentally friendly places, but by most significant measures they are. City dwell- ers use fewer energy resources and generate less pollution than their suburban and rural neighbors. People drive less in places where densities are high, streets are interconnected, and jobs are interspersed with housing. They take fewer trips, and the ones they take are shorter. They don’t start up their cars— a significant source of harmful emissions—as frequently because they have other travel options. Fewer vehicle miles traveled translates into lower amounts of volatile organic com- pounds, nitrogen oxides, and particulates that pose risks of asthma and cancer. An urban resident living at a density of 12 units per acre generates about one-third less of these harmful emissions than someone driving the miles necessary to live at a density of 3 units per acre. She is also responsible for emitting a lower amount of the pollution that causes global warming—10.4 tons of greenhouse gases per year at 12 units per acre versus 16 tons at 3 units per acre (Holtzclaw n.d.). Cities generate high concentrations of pollutants, but on a per capita basis residents of leafy suburbs are far more responsible for air pollution and global warming than their urban neighbors. Living closer together helps save agricultural and resource land. The typical suburban density of 3 units per acre requires four times as much land as a medium density of 12 units per acre. At a small development scale, this may seem like a negligi- ble difference. To build 10 houses at the lower density, only 29 more acres of land would be needed. But when the growth rate 7806.12 Reading, Pennsylvania 10 Visualizing Density 050629-0225 Growing Closer 11 is high and the number of households rises, the need for land also rises dramatically. One thousand new homes at a suburban low density would consume 250 more acres of land than they would at a medium density; 5,000 new homes would require 1,250 more acres of land. That development would most likely be on soils suitable for agriculture or on land that provides an important ecological function. Increasing the density in urban areas while restricting growth on resource lands prevents this loss of crucial land. Oregon has pursued this policy for the past 30 years. In 1973, 300,000 acres of productive farmland in the Willamette Valley were rezoned from rural residential to agricultural use. Dur- ing the same period, urban growth boundaries around Portland directed growth inward. The results have been encouraging. Only 1 percent of the farmland in the valley was lost between 1987 and 1999, while the population of nearby Portland rose by 23 percent. Compare this to a productive region of another state without a similar policy: California’s rich Central Valley loses 15,000 acres of farmland every year (1000 Friends of Oregon n.d.). Other studies have calculated the potential land savings of following a similar course. For example, Massachusetts could save 51,000 acres of land by switching to a smart growth development pattern for the next 25 years (Burchell 2003). In addition to economic and environmental benefits, den- sity offers the advantages of urban life, namely the choices and options available wherever people live and work in close prox- imity. Cities generate diverse and specialized services that are not possible in places with smaller populations—things like cultural events, medical services, shopping, and dining options. At higher densities, it’s possible to offer more of these ameni- ties within a smaller geographical area. Many people like the idea of having a corner store or café in their neighborhood. In housing surveys, homebuyers regu- larly express a preference for “shops within walking distance.” But retail businesses need residents to survive. The larger a gro- cery store is—and the more extensive its selection—the more customers it needs to stay in business. For example, a neighbor- hood shopping center with local goods such as convenience items, videos, or a dry cleaner needs a minimum of 3,000 people within a three-mile radius to be viable; a supermarket requires far more—40,000 residents within three to six miles (Beyard and O’Mara 1999). why we haTe denSiT y Despite all the advantages of building closer, resistance to density is widespread, to say the least. One reason is cultural. Unlike other nations that developed over a millennium, we don’t have a long-standing tradition of designing cities and sharing close quarters. Our cities and villages were dense for a mere 150 years before losing population to the suburbs in the middle of the twentieth century. Psychologically, we’re a nation of single-family homeowners. We’re accustomed to a lot of space between our neighbors and ourselves. This cultural bias often underlies discussions of growth and development and merges with negative stereotypes of recent public housing fail- ures. Many people view density as a threat, believing that it leads to sinking property values, rising crime, and traffic congestion. Crowding Although skepticism toward density is often based on fear and misconceptions, not all opposition is unjus- tified. There is such a thing as “bad” density—that which is poorly planned and designed without an understanding or concern for human needs. Much recent development has proven to be a poor model of how to live closer together. Many new subdivisions create density without amenities. They are crowded and monotonous, offering few of the environmental or economic benefits described above. Density is often associated with crowding, but it is impor- tant to distinguish between the two. Density is the number of people in a given space, while crowding is the subjective per- ception that that number is too high. Places can be very dense, but may not be perceived as overcrowded if they are designed ■ Opposite: Portland, Oregon 1  Visualizing Density to comfortably accommodate many people. William H. Whyte’s research into the use of public spaces revealed how this can be true. The two plazas that New Yorkers cited as the most pleasing and the least crowded—Paley Park and Greenacre Park—were also the most heavily used per square foot (Whyte 1980). They attracted and held the highest density of users, but left people with the impression that there was plenty of room. Livable, or “good,” density requires a state of balance between housing and population. Even if many people live within an acre or square mile, enough housing units are avail- able to shelter them comfortably. In residential settings, the perception of crowding may be the result of too many people trying to fit into too few housing units. Measured in persons per square mile, some areas of South Central Los Angeles are the densest neighborhoods in the country, but measured in units per acre they have a relatively low density. They are dense in population, but not in housing units. Another phenomenon, known as “dense sprawl,” is growth that is simultaneously dense and sprawling. Recent growth in desert cities like Las Vegas and Phoenix has forced us to rethink our assumptions about density and sprawl. The word “sprawl” means spread out, so it’s natural to assume that den- sity is its opposite. In fact low-density development has long been a key component of the standard sprawl definition. But sprawl as a land use pattern is defined by other characteristics as well. In sprawling environments, uses are separated by geo- graphic area, and the circulation and storage of vehicles are prime generators of form. Development gathers along highway corridors and leapfrogs across open space in a haphazard pat- tern. Growth in the desert Southwest fits this description, but it’s occurring at a higher density. A remote 500-acre subdivi- sion of single-family homes on cul-de-sac streets, located near a highway interchange, but with a relatively high density of 8 units per acre, could be accurately described as sprawl. It’s just a denser version of sprawl. 050528-0055 Growing Closer 1  monotony Many examples of “bad” density arise from the “stack ’em and pack ’em” approach to housing design, which is tempting to developers in our age of mass produc- tion. This option has been available since the 1940s, when William Levitt built 17,000 homes seemingly overnight on a Long Island potato field. Applying factory techniques to on- site construction and working at a large scale, his development company created an instant suburb of affordable homes, which sold quickly to first-time homebuyers. Levitt’s strategy relied on speed and standardization. He offered only one model—a 30-by-20-foot Cape Cod–style house—that stood in a uni- form location on a standardized lot. By eliminating variety and employing an assembly-line construction method, Levitt pro- duced thousands of homes in record time. Levittown became a model for the successful mass production of housing. It also became an icon of 1950s uniformity. While large-scale standardization brings down the cost of construction and makes housing more affordable, it also breeds monotony. When the same building form is repeated relent- lessly across a broad area, it provokes a response that there are “too many” structures, regardless of the actual number. Density is perceived to be greater than it is. All too often, the term “density” evokes an image of repeti- tive, featureless housing developments with little greenery and no privacy. Some dense neighborhoods are bleak, but it’s not a function of how many housing units are built on each acre. Crowding and monotony are the consequences of poor design, not the inevitable results of density. how we Can Love denSiT y If the next 25 years are like the past quarter-century, we will continue to spread ourselves thin across a diminishing land- scape. If our fear of density persists and we build the next 60 million housing units at 3 to 5 units per acre, the costs will be huge. To maintain the low-density lifestyle in this new era ■ 1-30AX1801 Top and bottom: Las Vegas, Nevada Opposite: Chicago, Illinois 1-30AX1801 050309-0186 1  Visualizing Density of rising energy costs and shrinking budgets, we will consume significant energy resources and require government subsidies. Our supply of resource land will shrivel within a generation. What type of pattern will and should dense growth take? What will it look like? Depending on the pattern it fits within and the form it takes, density can be a blessing or a curse. Despite the word’s power to provoke emotional responses, den- sity merely expresses a numerical ratio—typically the number of housing units to the acre of land. Examined rationally, it tells us something about how much activity is compressed into a given area, but it reveals nothing about physical form. Two neighborhoods with the exact same density can look as different as night and day. Although they measure out at the same density, they are not necessarily perceived to be equally dense. What really matters is how the streets are laid out, how the land is subdivided, how the buildings are arranged and detailed, whether trees are planted, and where the sidewalks lead. These are all functions of design. Living closer together is more appealing when the built environment is designed well and cared for. Dense urban neigh- borhoods such as Chicago’s Oak Park, Seattle’s Capital Hill, and Brooklyn’s Park Slope have been valued over time for their high quality of life. These places offer the benefits of density without negative aspects like overcrowding or monotony. Not limited to big cities, dense, livable neighborhoods are common in settings as diverse as Boise, Idaho; Sandusky, Ohio; and St. Johnsbury, Vermont. There are many historic examples to serve as models, as well as newer places that combine the best attributes of the old. The key to creating new, high-quality density lies in how we plan and design communities. 041215-0226 Phoenix, Arizona Growing Closer 1  d ensity in the r egion Planning for density should begin at the regional level with a fundamental question: Where should growth go? Densities should vary across a town as well as throughout a region. Determining which areas can accommodate more intense development and which should be protected is a good first step. Density is appropriate in built-up areas where infrastructure and services are already in place to serve a growing population. Underused urban sites with access to public transportation and nearby jobs and commercial ser- vices are also a good choice. Density neither belongs in remote locations, where a substantial investment in new roads, sewer, water, and electric lines is required, nor on natural resource land or fragile soils. Successful density requires a major shift in our thinking about how we get around. Currently, we rely almost exclu- sively on private automobiles. At very low densities this mode of transportation works well. There are few people per mile of roadway and plenty of space to store vehicles. Parking is plenti- ful and highways are clear. At the other end of the transporta- tion spectrum, urban densities support a mix of alternatives, including walking, biking, buses, and trains, in a setting with little room for private automobiles. Numerically speaking, there is not a large gap between these two ends of the spectrum. Rural densities are typically less than 1 unit per acre; transit-friendly densities begin at 6 units per acre and extend into the hundreds. Given the broad continuum of possible densities, this span of 1 to 6 units per acre is small, but it represents a huge portion of the housing stock and a very common density for new construction. 050906-0058 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1  Visualizing Density As a region is solidly built out at densities of 1 to 6 units per acre, the demand for space on roads and highways often exceeds the supply. This explains the epidemic of traffic con- gestion across the country that has accompanied widespread suburban development. Depending on the extent of the devel- oped area and road network, densities of fewer than 6 units per acre are often too high for the cars-only approach, but too low to support alternatives, resulting in a transportation limbo between rural and urban. Density goes hand in hand with alternative transportation. Higher concentrations of people make mass transit feasible, and transit is the most efficient way to move larger numbers of people. As communities grow denser, they should invest more in alternative transportation and less in auto-oriented infra- structure. Transportation funding in projects such as transit centers, bike lanes, sidewalks, ride-sharing programs, and bus shelters should begin to take precedence over roadways and parking lots. In addition to this shift toward alternatives, land use decisions should complement transportation investments. The maximum distance people are willing to walk to catch a bus or train is about half a mile. It makes sense to concentrate housing within that radius around transit centers, allowing more people to take a shorter walk. Planning for high-density development requires two differ- ent leaps of imagination. It involves sacrificing the primacy of both the car and the big yard—each dear to American hearts— 8282.16 Colorado Springs, Colorado Growing Closer 1  to achieve a different sort of mobility and convenience. It compels us to embrace alternative transportation at a policy level and to choose it on a personal level. In this sense the psychological gap between 1 and 6 units an acre can be immense. But in order to make density fulfill its promise of a better living environment, living closer together must be accompanied by a willingness to drive less and walk or ride more. One of the most significant benefits of density is the poten- tial to save open land from development. Homeowners may be more willing to forgo a big yard if they have access to large tracts of natural land for recreation. Like context and transpor- tation, open space is a key issue in planning for density. Which areas are protected, where they are located, and how they are managed are decisions that need to be addressed through town and regional planning. Like a good transportation system, open space should be extensive, varied, interconnected, and acces- sible to all neighborhoods. This is not a new concept. Frederick Law Olmsted advo- cated for open space networks in the nineteenth century and convinced many cities to build them. He believed that dense urban environments required the counterbalancing effects of green oases and that the restorative power of nature must be available to all city dwellers. Olmsted designed city parks to fill this need, but also suggested they be linked across a city or region by greenways. His advice that no neighborhood be more 8349.25 San Francisco, California 1  Visualizing Density than a few minutes walk from a greenway or park extension is worth heeding if cities and towns are to grow inward. density in the neighborhood Living closer together has some negative aspects—less private space, fewer parking spaces, and more noise, to name a few—but good design can help overcome some of these drawbacks. Specific design elements, or amenities, should be present in all dense neighborhoods. Carefully placed and proportioned public spaces often compensate for the loss of large lots. Clearly defined private gardens can be more appealing outdoor spaces than large, blank lawns. Diversity in architecture is key. Green infrastructure in the form of parks, greenways, or tree-lined streets offers the connection with the natural world we all crave. An interconnected street network that serves both vehicles and pedestrians can make neighborhood life more community ori- ented and convenient. These are the amenities that make people forget, or not even notice, that a neighborhood is high-density. Dense housing can be bleak if it’s architecturally monoto- nous. When the same building type is repeated up and down identical streets, the result is tedious to look at. Density can also be boring to live in if there is only one type of use and one 8001.24 St. Johnsbury, Vermont Growing Closer 1  type of housing. The best dense neighborhoods include a lively mix of uses, housing types, architectural styles, and public spaces. There is more to observe and more to do. Most impor- tant, a broad range of people lives in them. Variety on every level is what keeps dense neighborhoods from feeling oppres- sive. It helps create places that are both visually stimulating and socially dynamic. One byproduct of monotony is an uneasy sense of disori- entation that one feels moving through a setting where every- thing looks the same. The architecture is not distinctive enough to register in our memories and serve as landmarks. As human beings, we have an innate desire to know where we are and how to find our way around. This is easier when our environ- ment is varied and has a comprehensible structure. In a neigh- borhood setting this requires an assortment of buildings and a coherent street network. Distinctive elements such as a unique building or a view of a distant mountain provide landmarks. Neighborhood design should take this into account, not only 5417.28 Camden, New Jersey 0 Visualizing Density in the design of buildings, but also in the layout of streets and public spaces. One of the great benefits of density is that it brings people close enough together that they can interact without traveling far. The higher the density, the more people and activities there are within walking distance. This proximity shrinks the propor- tions of a place from a scale oriented to vehicles to one suited to pedestrians. Since we perceive the world at the size of a human being and not a car, this is an inherently more comfort- able scale in which to exist. The design of dense neighborhoods should take full advantage of this, by locating a mix of uses and public spaces within an optimal walking distance from homes, arranging buildings to create well-proportioned outdoor spaces, and designing streets to encourage human interaction. Street trees, narrow roadways, wide sidewalks, prominent crosswalks, bike lanes and racks, and bus shelters are some of the design elements of a pedestrian-friendly street. As pedestri- ans, we like buildings that are a few footsteps away, walls that don’t dwarf us, windows that reveal a glimpse of life within, and doorways that invite us. We move slowly and appreciate details that are lost to drivers. We may not consciously notice the well-trimmed cornice or gracefully proportioned fenestra- tion, but our experience of it makes walking a pleasure rather than a chore. 8258.21 Location to come Growing Closer 1 about density, there is a growing realization that design and planning are at the heart of the issue—that people’s attitudes, pro and con, reflect the quality of the housing around them, rather than the concept of density (Oppenheimer 2006). Many Oregonians now recognize they need to determine why some density appeals, while other density disappoints, so they can learn to do it better. Which is what this book is all about—showing density and the design behind it to help you decide what works and what doesn’t. When you examine the many ways to achieve density, you can begin to understand how different design approaches create different results. Chapter 2 presents “Patterns of Density,” a selection of photographs that illustrate the points made in this introduction. The accompanying images show examples of monotony, diver- sity, amenities, open space, and other elements to demonstrate how they contribute to or detract from an environment. They highlight the differences among various planning and design strategies, showing how town and neighborhood layout, build- ing design, and landscaping affect the quality of living spaces. Chapter 3 is a “Density Catalog.” This collection of neigh- borhood photographs represents a broad sampling of density at many levels, from rural low to urban high. It will help you get a feel for what different densities look like. And it will show how design, much more than density, is what shapes the physi- cal character of a place. Density increases the need to formalize and strengthen our connection to nature. Just as all cities need infrastructure in the form of roads, pipes, and wires, healthy cities need a green infrastructure. Such a system of open spaces and natural ele- ments would reach into every neighborhood. Green infrastruc- ture could include natural features like riparian stream edges and wooded tracts, but it also might contain formal elements like pocket parks and tree-lined boulevards. The greenspace system should weave through town, offering every resident a direct connection to nature and natural processes. Trees, which fit in the smallest of spaces, play an indispensable role. Green infrastructure offers many environmental benefits—cleaner air, better water quality, cooler summer temperatures—but the main advantage is that it provides an element of tranquility to areas of high activity. It satisfies a human need that is often denied in urban life. In dense neighborhoods, architectural design matters down to the last detail of construction. It is just as important to add sound insulation to apartment walls as it is to build a parking garage. High ceilings add a sense of spaciousness.Large windows let in more daylight. A balcony offers a place to eat outdoors. One large tree in the back patio can make the neigh- bors seem twice as far away. Shielded streetlights help keep the night sky dark. Living close together should not mean saying goodbye to privacy and quiet. viSuaLizing denSiT y Americans will be wrestling with issues of growth and den- sity for generations. We are growing rapidly and are not sure we want to continue to sprawl. We can learn something from Oregon, a state that chose density 30 years ago. After decades of brisk growth and a land use policy mandating density, the state has experienced both successes and failures. Compared to other regions, sprawl has been curtailed and open land protected. But Oregonians give mixed reviews of the density they’re now liv- ing in. Some love it; others are skeptical. In the public dialogue ■