Infill Development Publication

MRSC PUBLICATIONS › Infill Development Publication - MRSC

Infill Development Strategies for Shaping Livable Neighborhoods

June 1997 - Report No. 38

Copyright © 1997 by the Municipal Research & Services Center of Washington. All rights reserved. Except as permitted under the Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means or stored in a data base or retrieval system without the prior permission of the publisher, however, government entities in the State of Washington are granted permission to reproduce and distribute this publication for official use

Preface
Contents
Introduction
Remedying Barriers/Recognizing Opportunities
Formula for Successful Infill Development
Strategies to Make Attractive for Developers

Preface

Recent efforts by many communities to curb sprawling development, as well as changing housing needs, have rekindled interest in infill development—the development of vacant lands within urban areas. In Washington State, and other places, many fresh ideas have emerged from the process of reexamining the codes and policies that shape how communities will grow. This handbook describes promising strategies and provides examples of programs local jurisdictions can use to encourage infill development. The publication includes strategies to make it more feasible for developers to do infill development. It also provides strategies to make infill development more appealing to existing and potential residents. This handbook emphasizes the importance of thoroughly considering overall neighborhood needs and context to ensure successful infill development.

Special acknowledgment is given to Susan C. Enger, MRSC Planning Consultant, who researched and wrote this handbook. From our staff, Carol Tobin, Public Policy Consultant and Research Librarian, John Carpita, Public Works Consultant, and Judith Cox, Finance Consultant, reviewed the draft and provided helpful advice. Appreciation for fine work is also given to Holly Martin, for designing the format and preparing the document for publication, to Terri Sanders for computerizing scanned graphics, and to Nicole Stiver for preparing a number of illustrations for the publication.

We are particularly grateful to experts from several agencies outside of MRSC who reviewed the draft and offered suggestions for its improvement: John Owen, MAKERS Architecture and Urban Design and Elisa Shostak, The Housing Partnership. We also thank the many individuals and public officials who provided encouragement, alerted us to interesting programs, and provided fine examples for inclusion in this publication.

Richard Yukubousky, Executive Director

Municipal Research & Services Center of Washington

Introduction

Communities across the country are increasingly recognizing that the spread out patterns of growth, which have shaped American communities for the past several decades, cannot be sustained. Problems of increased traffic congestion, overburdened public facilities, increased housing and infrastructure costs, loss of open space and loss of other valued community resources are typically associated with such patterns. Instead, an increased emphasis on developing passed-over parcels within developed areas, and on maximizing use of existing public facilities is needed. Many communities are implementing programs designed to reverse inefficient patterns of sprawling, low-density growth. To contain sprawl development, most Washington communities are adopting urban growth boundaries which will restrict the amount of land that is available, outside of urban centers, for development. The resulting reduced land supply will focus new interest on infill development opportunities in central and suburban cities alike. A renewed emphasis on infill development can reverse the growing problems fueled by sprawl development.

Infill development is the process of developing vacant or under-used parcels within existing urban areas that are already largely developed. Most communities have significant vacant land within city limits, which, for various reasons, has been passed over in the normal course of urbanization. The program of infill development promoted in this handbook is more than the piecemeal development of individual lots. Instead, a successful infill development program focuses on the completion of the existing community fabric. It should focus on filling gaps in the neighborhood. Infill development, as discussed in this publication contributes to a healthy mix of uses that provides added vitality and convenience for residents. In addition, it is characterized by overall residential densities high enough to support transit, and a wider variety of services and amenities. It is designed to support improved transportation choices, including convenient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and regular transit service. Attention to the character of development also is a key component for ensuing that the new development fits the existing context, and gains neighborhood acceptance.

The more comprehensive program of infill development discussed in this handbook will require a cooperative partnership between government, the development community, financial institutions, non-profit organizations, neighborhood organizations and other resources to achieve infill success.

Why is Infill Development Needed?

Infill development contributes to a more compact form of development which is less consumptive of land and resources. Many developers are bypassing vacant urban area land for less expensive land beyond our cities edges. Our current patterns of sprawling, low-density development at the urban fringe are consuming land (including farmlands, wetlands, and other resource lands) at a much faster rate than population growth. In the Puget Sound region between 1970 and 1990, for instance, population has increased by 36 percent. During the same period, the amount of developed land has increased by 87 percent (Pivo and Lidman, 1990). Similar trends have been documented in Maryland, New Jersey, and other regions. According to the Governor's Councilon New Jersey's Outdoors, "threats to the environment cannot be explained by the state's population growth. Rather, it is explained by the fact that one-story buildings, expansive parking areas, and urban sprawl have been favored over more compact development" (Governor's Council on New Jersey's Outdoors in Mendelssohn, 1991).

Infill development offers increased mobility for those who can't drive or prefer not to drive. It is also an important part of the formula for minimizing traffic congestion. In-city living offers other transportation choices in addition to the automobile. Filling in the gaps creates higher average densities, which in turn support more frequent transit service. Residents who live near where they work, shop, or pursue other activities often can choose to walk, and carpools may be easier to arrange. Such choice is particularly important for those who can't drive including elderly, youth, or low income residents who lack a car. Communities are learning that they cannot build their way out of traffic congestion. New highways or lane additions typically fill up as fast as they are built as a result of the extended commutes and more frequent vehicle trips required by spread-out development. For instance, in King County, Washington, total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has increased 64 percent in ten years, while population has increased only 18 percent (1996 King County Annual Growth Report). To the extent that more people live closer to jobs, shopping and other activities, the number and length of vehicle trips can be reduced. Individuals benefit from reduced transportation costs as well as increased time to pursue various interests.

Fully utilizing existing facilities and services before considering costly service extensions to outlying areas offers savings for local government budgets. Building expensive new facilities while existing facilities have existing capacity is wasteful duplication in an era of belt tightening. Many local jurisdictions traditionally have averaged the costs of services across all users rather than charging the full cost of serving more distant development. This has made outlying development relatively less expensive for the developer, while straining local government budgets. In addition, we are racing to construct expensive, new schools in outlying areas at the same time that we agonize over closing and finding new uses for inner city schools. Growth at the cities' edges has come at the expense of central cities. Older buildings in core areas have been abandoned, existing utilities are underutilized and, in general, new investment has been redirected to the outlying areas. Infill development also bolsters local government budgets by putting underutilized vacant land back on the tax roles. Spreading facility operation and maintenance costs among more residents and businesses ultimately will reduce costs for individual city taxpayers.

Infill development offers opportunities to increase the supply of housing types which meet the needs and purchasing power of today's households. The average household size (number of people per household) in the United States today is 2.6 compared to 3.54 in 1950 (Bogdan,1995). The percentage of "traditional" households with two parents, children (and most likely a dog or cat) has steadily declined in recent years. Smaller families, elderly or empty-nester households, single parent households and single individuals make up an increasing share of our households. However, most of our current housing stock was built was built with this larger traditional family in mind. An increased supply of smaller-sized housing units can offer more affordable and lower maintenance housing choices for smaller households. This is especially important in an era wherefewer and fewer households can afford the average-priced home. Convenient in-city housing also offers time and transportation cost savings for today's households.

Renewed infill and investment in our central cities is crucial to the overall economic health of the surrounding regions. Infill development brings increased numbers of residents to support in-city commercial centers. A more efficient business climate can result from employment centers located in close proximity rather than in scattered sites. As Charles Thurow notes (1994) the health of central city downtowns is intertwined with that of the region as a whole. For a region to be well-positioned to compete in a global economy, it must have at its vortex a thriving central city which can provide the vitality and draw to fuel the region's economy.

Infill development can bring new opportunity and improved quality of life for in-city residents. The migration of higher-income residents, together with the best jobs, educational opportunities and services from many central cities, has left low-income residents isolated. It can be very difficult for them to learn about and travel to distant jobs, especially if dependent on transit that requires multiple bus transfers, or carpooling to scattered job sites. Reduced population and average income in cities also produces fewer tax dollars to support public services, and local businesses. Fewer opportunities and positive role models, can contribute to loss of hope, increased anti-social behavior, crime and even riots, as in Los Angeles. These trends further fuel middle-class migration from cities. In contrast, in-city neighborhoods offer living opportunities in neighborhoods with distinctive character and more opportunity for social interaction than sprawl development typically provides. Infill development can return jobs, purchasing power and new amenities to an urban neighborhood.

In-city neighborhoods, which provide central gathering places within ready walking distance, can facilitate interaction between neighbors. Many existing in-city neighborhoods are laid out with parks, elementary schools, and convenience shopping within walking distance. These neighborhood focal points provide opportunity for regular contact with neighbors. Furthermore, they already exist and need only be preserved. In addition, if people do not have to spend all of their time traveling in different directions to work, shop, go to school, and recreate, they will have more time for family or community affairs and activities.

Energy and Environment savings are an important by-product of infill development. New cars have improved fuel efficiency from the 1973 rate of 13 mpg to 29 mpg in 1989. Yet we continue to lose ground in our efforts to reduce fuel consumption. Sprawl-induced increases in automobile travel outweigh the improved fuel efficiency. Similarly, despite tightened tailpipe emissions, pollutants are projected to be worst in 2010, because of increased travel (Calthorpe, 1993). Compact development also takes development pressure off of sensitive lands, which have important functions such as wetlands and wildlife habitat.

Purpose of this Publication

Several excellent earlier publications present studies and thorough discussion about infill vacant land supply, development feasibility, market potential, characteristics and strategies to make it happen (see Infill Development Strategies, 1982, and Making Infill Projects Work, 1985, available from the Urban Land Institute). This guidebook does not attempt to duplicate or replace the useful background information of the earlier publications. The reader is encouraged to refer to these materials, as well. Instead, the focuses of this publication are to:

2. Highlight infill development's role as a critical element in accomplishing the community's goals for growth and development such as reducing transportation congestion, containing sprawl, revitalizing downtowns, encouraging affordable housing, and others.

3. Focus attention on emerging opportunities for infill development as economic and demographic conditions change.

4. Stress the importance of implementing measures to reverse negative perceptions and/or experiences about urban life, including concerns about security, quality of education, availability of services, amenities and other concerns.

5. Encourage a holistic approach to rebuilding and filling the gaps in neighborhoods. Facilitating the provision of public and private services, including frequent transit, parks, well-stocked grocery stores, and safe routes to school can do much to support successful infill development.

Organization

The chapter "Remedying Barriers/Recognizing Opportunities," will briefly summarize some of the barriers that have discouraged infill development and the emerging opportunities for such development. The second chapter, "Formula for Successful Infill Development," provides a checklistfor successful infill development. Strategies to make infill development more feasible for developers to do are presented in the third chapter "Strategies to Make Attractive for Developers." The final chapters "Strategies to Make Attractive to Potential Residents" and "Strategies to Make Acceptable to Existing Residents," present strategies to make infill development attractive to existing and potential residents. Appendix H contains a list of resources/contacts who can provide further information about examples used in this publication.

Remedying Barriers/Recognizing Opportunities

Parcels that have remained undeveloped over time, even when surrounding land has developed, are usually vacant for good reason. Although some have been held out of development because of the whims of a property owner or the speculator's hope for future profit, many others are vacant because some obstacle to their development exists. Infill parcels are a special type of development situation that involves greater risk and challenge to a developer and is of greater sensitivity to surrounding neighbors and city officials. However, the time seems particularly ripe for a greater focus on infill development. Recent legislation, changing demographics and economic conditions present new opportunities for infill. In this section, I will briefly note some obstacles to infill that must be overcome. I will then highlight several trends that provide new support for infill development. Finally, I will note some specific types of infill development situations which offer great promise.

Obstacles

Many vacant parcels in built-up areas suffer from site constraints that have inhibited their development. A variety of environmental constraints, such as steep slopes, streams or wetlands may restrict development of a parcel. The size, width or shape of a parcel may make it difficult to develop in a manner that meets current land use regulations or current market tastes. The site may be in an area that lacks basic infrastructure such as storm sewer or sidewalks. Sewer and water lines or other facilities may be undersized or deteriorated, requiring expensive improvements. As local budgets tighten, many communities have deferred maintenance on these and other important facilities. At times, parcels have been "landlocked" (left without street access by the development of surrounding lots).

New, stricter regulations may cause difficulties when applied to pre-existing lots. For instance, new parking, landscaping or drainage requirements may require more land area than could be provided and still accommodate reasonable development. New requirements or exactions for infrastructure improvements may make development prohibitive on land that is already expensive. As the area develops, increasing land values can make property expensive to purchase and develop at existing permitted densities.

In addition, neighborhood opposition can develop, particularly if the new development is very different in appearance or scale. New infill may also be seen as contributing to traffic problems, to crowded facilities or just to the loss of the vacant "mini-park" next door. The opposition can result in a lengthy permit process (and time is money in the development world), expensive conditions on project approval or even the death of the project.

The ready availability of cheaper land on the urban fringe has provided stiff competition to urban vacant lands. This was particularly true when federal funding heavily subsidized new highway and infrastructure construction. Most communities subsidize infrastructure for development at the fringeby averaging infrastructure costs throughout the service area. Also, most central city vacant parcels sites are small relative to their urban fringe counterparts. Even with higher density allowances, the smaller sites accommodate fewer total units, reducing the potential for economies of scale than are possible with large track subdivisions. One study in the Albuquerque area investigated comparative costs between infill versus fringe single-family, multifamily and commercial projects. The study concluded that total costs for an infill detached single family project would exceed a comparable project in a fringe area by $10,300. A multifamily project in an infill area would command similar market rents but would cost seven percent more to develop than the comparable fringe project. A retail project would cost 32 percent more to develop in the infill area than the fringe area (Colombo & Taylor, 1988).

Partly in response to cheaper land, about 70 percent of new jobs are being created outside cities. Many of the new jobs require technical training which is also not readily accessible to inner-city residents (Kelley, 1996). Transportation to scattered job sites outside of cities can be difficult for those dependent on transit because it can require multiple transfers or inconvenient carpool arrangements.

The perception of greater crime, inferior schools and deteriorating facilities in central areas has motivated many middle-and upper-income buyers to escape to ex-urban enclaves. Although many northwestern cities retain some strong middle-class neighborhoods, the allure of "country living" remains powerful, especially for middle-class families with children. These perceptions also reduce the marketability of urban sites to new buyers. In a vicious cycle, the market for some urban sites has continued to weaken and financing has become more difficult as banks tend to "redline" or avoid risky investment areas.

Finally, previously developed and abandoned industrial sites in urban areas may remain vacant where the clean-up costs of industrial pollution are prohibitive. Clean-up costs of these "brownfield" (industrially-polluted) sites can at times exceed property values, again making virgin "greenfield" sites (which have never been developed) at the urban fringe comparably more attractive.

Emerging Opportunities

Recent Legislation

Several recent events have begun to brighten the prospects for infill development. The Washington Growth Management Act of 1990 (GMA) requires that most Washington counties, in cooperation with cities, designate urban growth areas (UGAs). UGAs are to include cities, lands already characterized by urban growth, and, if necessary, additional lands adjacent to such lands. Urban growth is not permitted outside of UGAs (RCW 36.70A.110). Annexations beyond the UGA are also prohibited. By reducing the supply of land that can be developed in urban uses, the GMA reduces the competition from outlying areas and enhances infill prospects. GMA goals for reducing sprawl, encouraging affordable housing and a variety of residential densities, assuring adequate facilities and other goals also strengthen infill prospects. The GMA planning processes is also intended develop consensus and provide clear guidelines about what development is appropriate in a community long before individual applications are considered. The process, which promotes citizen involvement and development of a shared vision, can reduce neighborhood opposition when projects are consistent with community goals. A variety of creative and more flexible approaches for implementing growth management objectives are being developed by numerous Washington cities, in response to GMA. Many of these new approaches are well-suited for infill development.

Following on the heels of GMA, ESHB 1724 required most Washington cities and counties to limit project permit application review time, to limit the number of hearings and appeals, to generally streamline project review procedures, and to better coordinate/integrate environmental and applications for project permits. These changes should reduce the risk of lengthy project review that can occur, when neighborhood opposition to next door development arises. Also in the spirit of regulatory reform, many communities are revising land use controls to provide increased flexibility for development where conditions are difficult. Again, this should facilitate the development of passed-over infill sites.

In addition, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and Washington's Commute Trip Reduction Act favor infill development. ISTEA represents a shift in emphasis to improved mobility rather than narrowly focusing on highway construction that subsidizes development in outlying areas. It has provided increased flexibility and funding for pedestrian and bicycle facilities, transit capital projects and other alternative transportation modes which can support infill development. Washington's Commute Trip Reduction law has provided the impetus for many local programs, which among other objectives, seek to reduce the number of trips made by vehicles that are transporting a single person to work. Some local programs, such as those reducing the ready availability of free, convenient parking at non-urban work sites, help put urban employment centers on a more equal footing with outlying employment centers.

Other new programs and policies, such as EPA's increased flexibility in regulating urban brownfield site clean-up, also favor increased interest in infill development.

Changing Demographics and Economic Conditions

As the recent Portland, Oregon study "Infill Development: Market Trends and Prototypes," comments, most Americans still would prefer a detached single family home on a lot with a private lawn. However, "economics and changing households are in the process of changing the American dream" (Tashman, Associates & Leland Consulting Group, 1993). This new reality opens up the opportunity for a range of new infill development types.

Much of our existing housing stock was built at a time when the "traditional" household consisted of two parents with children. That picture has dramatically changed. The average household size in the U.S. has dropped from 3.54 in 1950 to 2.6 today (Boagdan, 1995). The average household size in Washington is slightly smaller at 2.53 (Bureau of Census, 1990). Today, 50 percent of all Washington households are childless (1990 Census of Population and Housing). The percentage of childless households for the U.S. as a whole is even higher. (Leland-Tashman, 1993). Single parents with children now constitute about 10 percent of U.S. households (Leland-Tashman, 1993).

The percentage of Washington's population which is over 65 in Washington has increased to 11.4 percent. The percentage of elderly will increase even more rapidly after the turn of the century when the leading edge of the baby boom generation begins turning 65.

Housing costs have risen faster than average incomes in recent years, placing home ownership of traditional housing types out of reach for many households. For instance, King County, Washington found that despite rock bottom interest rates, in 1994, a $19,000 "affordability gap" existed between the median household income and the income that would be required to purchase the average-priced single family home in the county. Similarly, the affordability gap for apartment rental was $316 in 1995 in King County. (King County, 1996.)

In general, these smaller households require less space than the typical family of the past. Households whose occupants are aging or maintaining hectic schedules often will seek smaller, lower maintenance housing types than those now readily available. Childless households will be less concerned with locating in well-regarded school districts and may place higher value on convenient access to work. Convenient access to frequent transit service, medical centers, and other services may help elderly households to function independently for longer. Single parent families typically have below average incomes, requiring affordable housing and transportation costs. The also may seek to be near special services such as child care. Even families or individuals at median income are in need of more affordable housing than today's average-priced single family house. Infill housing types which are geared to meet these emerging needs have an excellent prognosis for success.

Recognizing Opportunities for Locating Infill Development

The individual vacant lot next door represents one obvious type of opportunity for small-scale incremental infill development. A Real Estate Research Corporation (RERC, 1982) study found that over half of the vacant parcels in three cities studied were under one-quarter acre in size. Less obvious are the opportunities represented by underutilized lots. For instance, a single house may bebuilt on a double lot to provide extra yard area. If the house is sited entirely on one of the lots, it may be possible to an additional unit without need of further subdivision. Or, an existing lot may be large enough and developed in a manner that allows additional smaller dwelling(s) (such as an accessory dwelling unit) to be added. A change in ownership or financial circumstances may make these infill sites available without further encouragement by local government. Where constraints have inhibited development, or low holding costs favor retaining land in a vacant state, government actions or improved construction techniques can encourage their development. The primary challenge of developing of such small infill sites is to assure new development fits the established neighborhood context.

Most communities also have a number of larger vacant sites. The RERC study cited above found that less than half of the vacant parcels exceeded one-quarter acre and few parcels exceeded five acres in size. However, over half of the sampled infill parcels bordered other vacant parcels, providing some opportunity for assembling larger parcels. Furthermore, in tight economic times, vacant land can become available through tax foreclosures or when surplus institutional or privately-held land is divested. Where parcels of several acres (approximately half of a typical city block) or more exist, greater opportunity exists for planning infill development as a package. Infill development on larger parcels offers an opportunity for increased densities, which enhance project feasibility, if it is well-designed to control its impacts on the surrounding neighborhood.

Several types of locations offer particular promise for larger infill development projects. Because infill development can be used to increase average densities and add to the variety of uses, it can help implement objectives for (1) transit corridors/station areas, (2) urban activity centers, and (3) mixed-use districts. Larger infill development projects may gain more ready acceptance in such areas than in homogeneous neighborhoods.

Transit Corridors and Station Areas

The Puget Sound area of Washington (which includes five out of six of Washington's largest cities) recently approved bond financing for a light rail system, and other transit system improvements. Infill development and redevelopment that increases densities along transit corridors and around stations can increase ridership potential and the use of transit. In return, residents that can locate along express bus routes and rail rapid transit corridors will greatly benefit from convenient access to jobs and other destinations. Transportation expenses can be reduced for infill residents when a family needs fewer vehicles, or when fuel and maintenance costs for a vehicle are reduced. Because a rail line is fixed in location, infill development investors have greater assurance that rapid transit will continue as an amenity to their project into the foreseeable future. Transit-oriented development is characterized by higher densities, a balanced mix of uses and good pedestrian linkage between uses and transit stops. A mix of uses within a transit corridor can promote more directionally-balanced transit service if riders have reasons to travel in both directions.

"Urban Villages"/Activity Centers

Cities such as Seattle are addressing growth management objectives, in part, by concentrating and intensifying development in and around existing or planned centers within a city. Consisting of a more intense level of residential, commercial and, in many cases, employment uses, these centers serve as hubs for less intensely developed neighborhoods and wider communities. Seattle's urban villages "are conceived as well identified and largely self-contained residential and commercial neighborhoods. Residential densities in urban villages would be high enough to encourage walking, support efficient transit service and provide adequate markets for neighborhood stores (Seattle Planning Department, 1993)." Infill development located within and around such activity centers may encounter less resistance than new development in the middle of a well-established residential area. Again, infill development can be employed to add density and a balanced mix of uses to these such centers. It can contribute to a wide variety of commercial services, employment opportunities, governmental services, restaurants and entertainment and cultural/recreational opportunities. The variety and 24-hour activity will make these centers attractive to some segments of the housing market.

Mixed-Use Districts

Many communities are considering designation of areas for a more balanced mix of uses to increase convenience and provide greater transportation choices. When a wide variety of uses are located in close proximity to each other, walking and bicycling become practical alternatives to automobile travel. Such infill clearly supports legislative objectives for improved mobility and reduced congestion. In return, infill development success can be enhanced by planning a mutually-supportive mix of uses. A mixing of uses can add variety and vitality to an area, making it a more attractive, interesting place to live. In addition, convenient commercial and personal services, readily accessible to work sites and residential areas, and convenient cultural or recreational amenities can enhance the attractiveness of infill development. Infill development can fill gaps to benefit the entire neighborhood including existing residents, for instance by including a grocery store or park where none exists. Commercial centers, surplus industrial or institutional lands, transit corridors and neighborhoods that already have some mixing of uses may offer the best opportunities for mixed use developments. Performance standards and careful design will be needed to ensure that dissimilar uses can be made compatible neighbors. For examples of policies and regulations promoting mixed-use development, see "Creating Transit-Supportive Regulations," PAS Report No. 468, APA, January 1996.

Formula for Successful Infill Development

Many communities have begun to realize that success in developing infill parcels requires more than a philosophy of "if you zone it, they will come." To ensure successful programs that stimulate infill development consistent with a community's vision, communities should:

2. Promote cooperation to make it happen. Public officials, (sometimes from multiple jurisdictions), representatives from neighborhood organizations, non-profits, private developers and financial institutions will need to join forces for extensive, community revitalizing infill development to occur. Work for a shared vision for in-city neighborhoods.

3. Recognize where the best opportunities exist for infill development that reinforces community objectives for future growth. Some locations, such as transit corridors, or locations near employment, convenient shopping, and recreational or cultural amenities will greatly enhance infill success. Infill development success is also enhanced when it is done in a manner which reinforces the land use patterns and policy directions promoted by the recent state legislation described earlier. In particular, growth management and transportation legislation promote (1) compact development in urban centers rather than spread out development, (2) a balanced mix of mutually-supportive land uses to facilitate walking and transit, and (3) increased densities in transit corridors to better support frequent transit service.

4. Understand the larger context of how the neighborhood looks and functions as a whole. Appeal to new residents and acceptance by existing residents will be enhanced if the new development fits in with the existing context. It should also contribute in some way to the functioning and the desirability of the neighborhood. To attract residents who will live in infill housing, infill design must address their needs—for affordable housing, security, convenient access, services and other qualities. Infill development should fill the existing gaps in the neighborhood.

5. Identify priority areas where infill development can be successful and should be encouraged. Focus limited community resources to make targeted neighborhoods fully ready for infill development. Strive for a critical mass of public investment to engender private investor confidence.

6. Work with the development community to target the housing needs of smaller "non-traditional" family households (such as empty-nesters, single parent households, or childless couples) that are more likely to be attracted to close-in housing.

7. Address the barriers (real and perceived) which have prevented past development of vacant parcels. Local jurisdictions may be able to remedy inadequate infrastructure, difficult parcel assembly, lengthy permit processes, security concerns or other barriers which have discouraged past development. Successful infill will often require dealing with fears that many people have about central city.

8. In general, re-examine pass ways of doing business and consider whether new approaches may work better for current conditions.

Strategies to Make Attractive for Developers

As noted in the last section, developers may hesitate to undertake infill development projects because of real or perceived obstacles and risks inherent in such development. Developers must expect a reasonable return on their investment if they are to pursue infill development. They must feel confident that sufficient market demand exists for their intended product. Because time is money, developers also must believe that they can complete a project on a reasonable schedule. A number of studies indicate that many infill sites can be developed without public assistance, especially with the opportunities presented by emerging trends. Even so, the smaller-scale projects, lower profit margins and greater uncertainty typical of infill situations may tend to be more attractive to smaller developers than larger well-established developers. Also, infill development in some locations and some types of infill housing will likely require government action or incentives. Although local governments can not, on their own, accomplish wide-spread infill development, they can often set the stage to enable infill development by the private sector. This section will suggest a number of strategies that can make it more attractive for developers to take advantage of infill development opportunities.

Adopt Infrastructure Strategies Which Support Development in Infill Areas

One of the attractions of infill sites is the general availability of existing infrastructure. However, as noted earlier, the site may lack some elements of basic infrastructure including direct road access to the site. In other cases, infrastructure may be undersized by current standards or densities, or may be deteriorated, requiring replacement, particularly for a larger infill project. Under such circumstances, infill development becomes increasingly troublesome and expensive relative to "greenfield" development. Developers, concerned about their bottom line, are likely to go elsewhere. Local governments can employ a number of strategies related to infrastructure to increase the attractiveness of infill areas relative to outlying areas. Local governments, in turn, will generally benefit from the long term reduced costs of extending and maintaining infrastructure to close-in neighborhoods, rather than more distant sites. For instance, a Rutgers University study of the New Jersey State Plan, approved in 1992, estimated it would save the state $1.3 billion in capital needs over 20 years and $400 million a year in operating costs of municipalities and school districts, as compared to accommodating the same population and facilities in a spread-city pattern" (Rutgers University Center for Public Policy Research, 1992).

Establish Focused Public Investment Areas

Local jurisdictions can set the stage for infill development by using a focused public investment strategy to direct growth to target infill areas within urban areas. Several Oregon cities have implemented focused public investment programs to promote infill development. Generally, these are areas where there is substantial existing development and the major public facilities are largely in place. Within these focused public investment areas (FPIAs), local government will take a more proactive role in providing infrastructure and shaping growth. Such focused public investment can fill the gaps where basic infrastructure is missing or needs upgrading. In addition, directing desirable amenities such as parks or libraries to these areas can bolster investor confidence in the market potential and stimulate surrounding private investment. Focusing public investment to assure fully-served neighborhoods is more effective than a dispersed (something-for-everyone) investment approach. With the dispersed approach, no area ends up with adequate facilities and services. The liveability of all areas falls short of the level which will attract prospective buyers and renters.

Local capital improvements plans can coordinate the sequential addition of land, eligible for public improvements, to the FPIAs, as improvements are completed in the initially designated FPIAs (Kelly, 1993). Development can still take place outside the FPIAs. However, the private sector bears full responsibility for providing public facilities and services, if they wish to proceed in advance of the city's FPIA designation and capital improvement plan schedule. Salem, Oregon's Transportation and Development Services Director notes that in Salem, if a developer builds outside the FPIA in "leapfrog land," he or she must (1) annex to the city, and (2) extend master plan facilities outward to the development, linking them to Salem's facilities (Siegel, 1993). Salem's program includes provision for a developer to be reimbursed for his fair share of the costs by future developers who will also use the facilities. Although the developer may be reimbursed later, the up-front costs andfinancing needs are greatly increased. Because of the expense of major public facilities, the FPIA program provides a compelling incentive for developing first in infill areas in designated FPIAs. The development of infill areas becomes increasingly attractive and profitable relative to sites outside of FPIAs.

Successful Applications

Oregon's Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) developed recommendations and guidelines for focused public investment programs for Oregon cities. Salem, Oregon, provided the initial model for the DLCD's proposed FPIA program.

The FPIAs proposed by DLCD call for five-year capital improvement plans to meet projected needs within the FPIAs. Local government is responsible for providing off-site improvements within the FPIA boundaries. The capital improvement plans should provide for the maintenance, replacement and upgrading of existing facilities. In addition, primary master plans must be developed for the entire urban growth area to identify major needed facilities. The FPIAs must provide at least a five year supply of fully-served, buildable land. The FPIAs can't include more area than a jurisdiction can demonstrate fiscal ability to serve. The local jurisdiction can, in some instances, invest outside the FPIA. For instance, it may do so if the investment would yield long-term capital cost savings or if it would complete a system which serves the entire urban growth area, such as a greenway trail (Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, 1992).

Policy Issues

The FPIA programs require a commitment on the part of local jurisdictions to fund improvements within the FPIAs, where facilities are lacking or require upgrading. Assessments and fees must be in place to cover ongoing operation and maintenance costs and forecasted annual capital costs.
Such a program will require coordination between cities and counties and between adjacent jurisdictions. If development can still take place in a scattered manner within adjacent jurisdictions, sprawling development could still ring a city and frustrate future logical expansion.
Designating target areas for investment can be a politically difficult process.

Tie Infrastructure Policy to Service Area Tiers

A "tiering" of urban services can be used to accomplish similar objectives to those addressed by the focused public investment approach. The primary purpose of the technique is to assure a logical sequence of growth outward from developed areas. It can help direct growth to target areas where a full range of public services can be more readily provided. Several Washington communities have designated tiers, similar to programs pioneered by the Twin Cities area in Minnesota and Summit County, Utah. The tiers are basically a further refinement of the urban growth area designation process. They allow a community to further fine tune specific public service and growth management policies to these particular geographical subareas (tiers). Generally, the designated tiers are in the form of concentric circles around existing urban centers. The rings closest to the center(s) of existing development are the highest priority areas for growth and services. Local jurisdictions assume a greater share of the public improvements costs in the inner rings as an incentive to develop these areas first. Conversely, developers assume most or all of the costs of bringing services to outer rings. A capital facilities program linked to the mapped tier areas can provide a clear plan for when and where major improvements will be made. Designating tiers which stage growth over time also allows service providers to better anticipate, plan and provide for growth. As the first tiers are fully developed, the next tiers in line become target areas for development.

Promising Applications

Port Townsend, Washington has designated service tiers to help target growth and services within an overly generous urban growth boundary. Past platting and annexation practices resulted in land within city limits that far exceed 20-year growth projections. To ensure a more logical extension of growth and services within the boundary, the city has established three tiers. Approximately one half of the city falls within the first tier. The city has a stated policy of focusing a larger share of its programmed capital improvements into the first tier. The city is making a concerted effort to ensure that the first tier is fully served. If a developer seeks to develop on a block that lacks paved streets or other important infrastructure, the developer must put in the missing infrastructure. The developer pays only for the portion necessary to serve the new development. The city will pay the share related to properties that are already developed, and has set money aside in its capital improvements programto cover these costs. The city will enter into a latecomers agreement with the developer to provide for payback to the developer for any properties not already developed. In certain areas, where improvements costs are prohibitive, and would discourage infill development, the city will allow development subject to an agreement that the developer or subsequent property owner will participate in a future LID. Over time, the city's policies should ensure that services within the first tier are brought up to standards. Within the second tier, the city will seek to put in some major infrastructure improvements, such as key arterial extensions, to the extent possible after first tier priorities for the year have been addressed. Within the third tier, the city requires full improvements but will not participate at all in the improvements. The developer must cover all costs of bringing required improvements to the property. The developer may get future payback through latecomer agreements, when and if other developments take place. The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board has upheld Port Townsend's plan and tier approach. (Bruce Freeland, 1997.)

Policy Issues

Tiers may not be the best approach in a community where there is little basis for distinguishing tiers. For instance, if all parts of a jurisdiction are equally serviceable, or at a similar stage of development, tiers will be more difficult to justify.
The tier approach will limit the immediate development options for property owners within the later tier phases. Some measures may be needed to assure some reasonable use of land in the interim period before full urban development is permitted. As an example, Summit County, Utah has provisions which allow a percentage of the future potential development to proceed before the area is reclassified as tier 2.
The tier approach is likely to require considerable interjurisdictional cooperation. For instance, Summit County, Utah engages in joint planning within its cities' high priority annexation areas ("Land Use Element: Snyderville Basin General Plan," December 1992).
Developing good criteria and adequate facility standards to define when a tier is ready for urban development is difficult. Pierce County has been struggling with standards which can be used to gauge when a tier is ready for urban development.

Reduce Service Standards and Impact Fees in Target Growth Areas

Local governments can also enhance the relative attractiveness of infill area development by adopting more appropriate level-of-service standards and/or lower impact fees within designated infill areas. If lower fees and standards are required in target infill areas than in more remote areas, these policies will provide incentives to develop in the target areas first.

Level-of-service standards establish the minimum amount and quality of public facilities and services that must be provided to satisfy community needs. The GMA directs that adequate public facilities and services be available at the time new development is available for use. Local jurisdictions may define what level-of-service is adequate to meet the particular needs of their residents.

Impact fees are fees a local jurisdiction charges new development to at least partially fund off-site public facilities and services made necessary by the new development. The GMA authorizes local jurisdictions to establish fees to finance certain types of improvements. Again, there is flexibility to tailor the fees, within limits, to meet local needs. The fees are generally levied based on the level-of-service standards established by a jurisdiction.

Service standards and impact fees are meant to assure that there are adequate facilities and services to support new development. However, many communities are finding that the traditional, uniformly applied transportation level-of-service standards may tend to defeat GMA objectives for directing growth to existing developed areas. Traditional transportation level-of-service standards measuring capacity have focused on the speed of automobile movement. As a rule, traffic will be more congested and slower within higher density urban areas than in rural areas, making automobile-oriented uniform standards more difficult to meet in infill areas.

Transit, pedestrian and other non-motorized modes of transportation also contribute capacity to the transportation system. Although roads may be more congested in urban areas, overall mobility may still be adequate where transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities meet some of the circulation needs. In addition, a greater level of roadway congestion and delay may be acceptable in close-in urban areas, where residents may face shorter overall work or shopping trips. As a result, a lower street level-of-service standard may be justifiable in urban areas that have compensating transit or other circulation options, than could be justified in rural areas.

For additional information on transportation level-of-service standards, see the Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) publication: Level of Service Standards: Measures for Maintainingthe Quality of Community Life. The MRSC publication discusses emerging approaches to transportation level-of-service standards.

Communities often establish uniform impact fees that are based on the average cost of providing service to new development located within the jurisdiction. Such a fee system does not recognize that it typically costs more to serve more distant locations. For instance, longer sewer lines and street extensions may be required. The Sacramento planning staff found that if pricing reflected actual costs of extending services, fees charged to residential infill projects would be about $3,000 per unit compared to $10,000 to $15,000 for residential projects beyond their urban service boundary (Johnston, Seymour, Schwartz and Tracy, 1984). Communities may wish to consider impact fees that reflect the actual cost of extending a service to a given location (the marginal cost) rather than on a less equitable average cost. Lower fees could be charged in close-in target infill areas which are less expensive to serve.

In some cases, expensive replacement or retrofitting of infrastructure may be required in infill areas. The costs of installing facilities in such areas may then actually exceed costs in outlying areas. However, the public benefit of lower long-term operation and maintenance costs may justify lower fees charged to new development in close-in areas. Maintenance costs can be minimized within a less extensive service area. Infill development results in higher average densities so that ongoing costs can be spread over a greater population base as existing facilities are more fully utilized. This, in turn, translates into lower user fees. In addition, other public benefits, such as conservation of resource lands and open space, may justify a greater public share for infrastructure costs within target infill areas.

Successful Applications

King County, Washington has established different road level-of-service standards for different transportation service areas. A very low level-of-service for roads (level F) is acceptable in certain developed urban areas that have adequate HOV and transit service capacity to compensate for congested roads. Increasingly higher levels of service are required before development can go forward in other services moving outward from the more developed urban areas. The highest standard (B) is applied in some rural areas. The relatively lower standard in infill type areas provides an incentive to develop these areas first. King County's mitigation payment system (impact fees) also factors in distance from developed areas in establishing fees charged in different transportation zones (King County Code, Ch. 14.70 and 14.75).

Lancaster, California also recognized that it was more costly to provide services to projects 10 miles from the urban core than those close to the core. Before the city adjusted fees for distance, developers were locating projects away from the core where land costs were cheaper and fees were the same as for central locations. The city has revised its fee program to assess new development the full cost related to the new development, rather than shifting some of the costs to existing development. Lancaster divides the costs into capital improvements costs (one time lump sum expenditure to construct) and annual operation/maintenance costs. The city developed a computerized model which calculates combined impact fees for new development based on eachdevelopment's size, location and type of land uses. Developers are not charged for costs related to existing deficiencies. The program also provides a process for developers to provide an independent fee study for complex projects which may not neatly fit the model assumptions (Agajanian & Associates, 1992; Ledbetter, 1994).

Policy Issues

Property owners with development plans outside of high priority growth areas may strenuously resist standards and fee structures which favor infill development. Such measures will be easier to enact if based on the community's vision and clear goals to focus growth near existing development.
The rationale for differential standards and impact fees must be thoroughly documented to avoid constitutional challenge.
Aggressive public investment in transit, non-motorized transportation facilities and active transportation demand management programs will be needed to avoid lost mobility within urban areas. Additional funding sources, such as transportation benefit districts or local improvement districts, may need to be established to fund needs not charged to new development.

Implement a Parcel Assembly Program and Strategic Land Banking

Assembling small, individual parcels into larger blocks under common ownership can greatly enhance their development potential. Local jurisdictions can acquire land for an immediate need or "bank" it until a future day when facilities are available or the timing is otherwise right. Most large developers are used to working with parcels of 20 acres or more, making the development of relatively small infill parcels less attractive for such developers. While small special niche developers may find it worthwhile to develop such small parcels individually, many established developers seek the economies of scale and greater profits possible with a larger site. Purchasing land under fragmented ownership can be time-consuming and very expensive for a developer. Not all desired parcels will be actively for sale, and the developer may need to pay a premium to induce a sale. Land prices may inflate once the developer's intentions are out. Some parcels may have title encumbrances which need to be cleared. In addition, some intervening sites may be occupied by buildings which would need to be removed or extensively remodeled to fit in the development.

The Real Estate Research study cited earlier found that half or more of the sampled vacant infill parcels in three study areas (Dade County, Florida; King County, Washington and Monroe County, New York) were under one-quarter acre in size. Although over half of the vacant infill parcels adjoined other vacant parcels, only a third of the adjoining parcels were in the same ownership. Central city infill sites are particularly handicapped relative to suburban infill sites. The average infill site in a King County central city location was 8,500 square feet while the average suburban infill site was over three acres. An even greater difference between central city and suburban sites existed in Dade and Monroe Counties (Real Estate Research Corporation, 1982). Small wonder that developers may be intimidated at the prospect of urban land assembly.

Far-sighted cities can aid this process by assembling and improving land, (and even removing encumbrances), in an organized manner which supports long-range plans, before specific demand arises. Kim Herman, Director of the Washington State Housing Commission, argues that it may be the most effective way that local jurisdictions can support the production of affordable housing. Once a local jurisdiction has control of useable blocks of land, the jurisdiction can use a variety of approaches to stimulate housing construction, such as collaboration with a non-profit or private developer. At the same time, the jurisdiction can better control development and assure that the development is consistent with community goals (Herman, 1997).

Kurt Creager, Executive Director of the Vancouver Housing Authority, agrees that land banking is essential to an affordable housing program. His advice to local jurisdictions is to identify key infill sites at least three to five years in advance to avoid paying inflated prices when speculative investment begins. This may be particularly important for guiding development in the vicinity of a light rail station or other magnet for growth. For example, Mr. Creager notes that although the average construction price for multifamily new construction is $86 per square foot in the four-county Seattle Metro area, the cost per square foot around the Portland rail stations has inflated to 140+ percent of that level. Purchasing land now, before the speculative cycle begins, can make affordable housing feasible when the time is ripe (Creager, 1997).

City governments can use their power of eminent domain, to purchase blighted property or to accomplish other legitimate public purposes. Cities also will benefit from working with counties to acquire land in target areas through tax defaults, donations or trades with other agencies. Washington's constitution generally restricts cities from giving property to private individuals or from offering it for less than fair market value. However, a city can loan or grant monies to benefit low income households. A city also can sell the more attractive package of assembled lots to private developers for fair market value. If the land will not be used in the near-term, the city may want to transfer land to a development corporation. Transferring the property may help the city avoid the appearance of being seen by the development community as a competing land speculator. The private sector may be more supportive of public land banking if developers have a crack at obtaining property for development at prices and arrangements that minimize their risks.

Successful Applications

Cleveland, Ohio has established a highly successful assembly effort in cooperation with the county treasurer's office, foreclosure office and prosecuting attorney's office. The city and county cooperate on an expedited foreclosure process to return the properties to productive use. The city now receives most of these delinquent properties. The amount of land is significant with about 900 lots obtained per year. Foreclosure properties that are not sold at county auctions go to the city's land bank. The city pays foreclosure costs out of the city's share of real estate excise tax fees. The property taxes are also forgiven. The city sells unbuildable property to adjacent owners and holds other land to sell for development. Most often, the buildable land goes to non-profits who use housing trust fund money to develop the property. One area of about 137 acres of land, located between the downtown area and Case Western University, has been transformed. The city has seen other development take off following the development of key projects on the foreclosed properties.

Yakima, Washington has consistently pursued a program to acquire individual lots, within a designated target area, which have abandoned buildings or which are vacant and poorly maintained. The city's code enforcement department has an aggressive program to identify and inspect properties that are not being maintained to city standards. In many cases, the city conducts research to determine ownership and contacts the owner of record with an offer to purchase the property at appraised value. The city uses a portion of its Block Grant funds to purchase these properties. The city does not use condemnation to take over ownership. The city then generally offers the property to non-profits or its housing authority to construct new housing or rehabilitate existing substandard housing. The city may move housing to a different site or trade properties to assemble land for key housing projects. The city 's program demonstrates how seemingly small individual acquisitions, when part of a larger program pursued consistently over time, can add up to significant housing production. Approximately 50 to 60 lots of single family housing have been developed or rehabilitated through the program.

Policy Issues

Land assembly can be very expensive, particularly if unanticipated expenses arise associated with environmental clean up, title encumbrances, and similar expenses.
Land banking can require considerable start up money in the early stages of the program, before property is resold. If state or federal seed money or loan money is not available, it may require strong citizen support for a bond approval or a unique situation (such as Cleveland's tax delinquency holdings).
While the land is under local government ownership, it is removed from the tax roles. (It may not be producing tax revenue anyway if the property is in default.) Property maintenance will also be needed until the property is resold. A community may be able to generate revenue to offset these costs by leasing the property for some interim use.
Land banking may not be popular with the real estate industry, particularly those who may profit from land speculation.
It may be difficult to carry out land assembly and banking on a significant scale without some use of eminent domain powers. Particularly if eminent domain is used, (but also at other times) it will be important to demonstrate a valid public purpose and to proceed with acquisitions based on an adopted plan.

Limit the Supply of Land Available for Development in Non-Target Areas

Most Washington communities have already taken one major step toward promoting development of infill sites. Many Washington communities are designating urban growth areas (UGAs) which set limits on where urban development can occur. As required by GMA, these UGAs must include an adequate supply of land to accommodate projected growth for the next 20 years. Urban growth is prohibited outside of the UGAs. The reduced supply of land outside of UGAs enhances the prospect for available infill sites. Even so, in the first years after the UGA is set, there will be an abundant supply of vacant land (enough for 20 years of growth). In many cases, local jurisdictions also have provided an additional safety factor of land supply above the 20 year requirement. Growth may occur at a different rate than projected. Development may still tend to go first to larger sites in undeveloped portions of the UGA before filling in existing built-up areas. When the land supply is abundant and large lot development is affordable, land may often develop at lower than permitted densities. If the Urban Growth Boundary is expanded before the high density centers and corridors have intensified, it may be difficult to reach the target densities and inefficient to provide transit service.

A flexible way to manage land supply over the short term is designate target growth areas with incentives as illustrated by the Oregon focused public investment area described in a preceding section. Another approach might be to designate urban holding zones within UGAs as Vancouver, Washington has done. The holding zones can be adjusted more flexibly than the UGA to increase the supply as it is needed. A variety of other phasing techniques can limit the short term supply to promote higher densities to develop before opening new areas to development. The MRSC working paper: "Keeping Pace with Growth: A Guide to Growth Phasing," provides a more comprehensive discussion of growth phasing techniques.

Successful Applications

Vancouver, Washington uses a holding zone which permits only very low densities until facilities are available to support urban levels of development. These density limits tend to discourage development until the facilities are available which allow higher densities. If development does occur, it must be laid out in a way which would permit further future development of the property at higher densities. Vancouver's holding zone provisions can be found in Appendix A.

Policy Issues

Local jurisdictions that employ holding zones should carefully monitor land supply and the housing market to ensure that these temporary constraints do not help push land prices to unacceptable levels.
Holding zones should be viewed as an interim state until full services can be reasonably provided to support urban development. Local jurisdictions should diligently pursue programs that prepare these areas for future development.

Provide Community Information and Sponsor Infill Demonstration Projects

"Greenfield" sites, never-developed sites located in largely undeveloped areas, can look more appealing to developers because such a site will have fewer established neighbors who might rally against a project. Objections raised by community residents at community meetings can result delays or even a decision to deny a project. Because time is money, developers have one more reason to shy away from the potential hassles of infill sites. Neighborhood residents may be predisposed to resist new development because of past experiences with infill development that was a poor fit with the existing neighborhood. In addition, developers are reluctant to try, and banks are reluctant to finance, new types of housing for which the market is untested. As one successful developer noted, "Developers don't want to be pioneers; developers want to be successful. Pioneers are the ones with arrows in their back... (and yet) if something is shown to be successful, Parkerlane Homes will go out and copy it" (Stewart, 1997).

Local jurisdictions can pave the way for responsible infill developers by providing information which can reduce neighborhood resistance to well-designed, new infill development. A number of jurisdictions have begun working with their residents to develop neighborhood-specific guidelines which produce more acceptable development. To convince neighborhood residents, illustrations and demonstration projects may be most effective. Demonstration projects also are an effective way to convince developers and banks that a thriving market exists for new and affordable housing types.

Successful Applications

Victoria, B.C. in Canada won several national awards last year for its infill housing project. The purpose of the project was to demonstrate that under appropriate design guidelines, small lot residential projects can blend well with existing neighborhoods. Financing for the project was provided under a program sponsored by four national (Canadian) housing organizations.

The city first developed a set of guidelines which emphasized fitting both the immediate and neighborhood context and preserving privacy between close-spaced residences. The guidelines address placement of balconies, decks and windows to respect neighbor's privacy, stepping back buildings to avoid overshadowing neighbors, building height, setbacks and mass which blends with neighboring property and similar provisions. The guidelines were tested by applying them to small lot housing which pre-dated current city by-laws. The homes were finished with attractive features including arbors, wrap-around verandas, patios with sunny exposures, elegant maple floors, french doors, gas fireplaces and high performance windows. The guidelines were designed for use in small infill projects—building spacing and other aspects of the guidelines would not necessarily work on a larger scale project. Excerpts from Victoria's guidelines appears in Appendix B.

The city then selected a developer to build a prototype project to demonstrate that the guidelines worked. Three detached houses were built on a 7,200 square feet lot divided into three 2,400 square feet lots. The houses sold quickly, in part because the developer was able to price the small lot homeswell below the average home cost. The city of Victoria invited neighboring residents and the general public to an open house at the prototype project. According to city staff, up to 300 people attended on the first day and 800 total attended during the open house week. The city surveyed surrounding property owners and open house visitors about their reactions to the project. Despite the higher density, 85 percent of the respondents were 100 percent satisfied with the project. The other 15 percent didn't like one or two aspects about the project. The city convincingly demonstrated that small lot development could be a positive addition to the neighborhood (Lam, 1997).

Snohomish County, Washington has a unique provision for a "temporary housing demonstration program." The county may select up to six projects per year which will be permitted to deviate from the county's normal development standards provided that they meet a general set of program criteria. The purpose of the program is generally to encourage, demonstrate, and win acceptance for innovative housing which addresses county goals for low/moderate income housing, housing diversity, mixed-use and mixed-income housing, and innovative neighborhood design. The county will track and evaluate these projects to document successes and identify desirable land use code revisions (Snohomish County Code, Sec. 18.51.120).

Vancouver, Washington's experience demonstrates how working with community residents on project design can win acceptance for denser single family development. The Rosemere neighborhood of Vancouver successfully blocked a 20 unit suburban-style single family development of mostly 5,000 square feet lots with small houses. Even though the gross density of the project at four units/acre was typical of single family projects proposed in the city, neighborhood residents did not see it as an asset. The same neighborhood later supported an even higher density project on the same site. A new developer brought in a design consultant team which organized focus groups of neighbors and prospective buyers and used slides to evaluate design preferences. The residents favored housing types similar to those in their neighborhood and reacted favorably to neotraditional concepts such as front porches, narrow streets and community greens. Other focus groups of prospective buyers were used to test preferences for housing features. These design preferences were incorporated into a new plan and developer design standards for the project. Despite the higher density (37 single family unitsinstead of 20 units on the same five acres) there was no opposition to the project—a number of neighbors even voiced support for the project which was approved unanimously at planning commission and city council meetings (Phillips, 1994).

Policy Issues

Demonstration projects generally require adequate investment of public funds to design and construct a quality project that can effectively convince others of a projects viability and acceptability. If the project can motivate private and nonprofit developers to undertake similar projects, it will be a worthwhile investment.

Consider (or Support Legislation for) Tax Incentives to Promote Infill Housing

The following section describes several tax incentive approaches which can potentially stimulate infill housing. There is specific statutory authority for the ten-year property tax exemption approach for certain Washington cities. Two of approaches would require a constitutional amendment, and/or legislative action, to be used in the state of Washington. They are described here because the experience in other places indicates that they can be powerful tools for stimulating infill development. In some instances, however, tax incentives have been abused. In some areas, they have been applied to development that would have occurred without the incentive. In other instances, they have been awarded to projects offering minimal public benefit. Local jurisdictions should structure and use such tax incentives judiciously to promote development in target areas, where clear public benefit can be demonstrated. They may be worthy candidates for further study and legislative action.

Adopt Ten-Year Property Tax Exemption for Multifamily Housing

RCW 84.14 currently authorizes cities with a population of at least 150,000 which are planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) to offer a ten-year property tax exemption as an incentive for constructing or rehabilitating multifamily housing in vacant structures. To qualify, a minimum of four multifamily units must constructed, converted, or rehabilitated within city-designated target areas, within urban centers. The tax exemption does not include the value of the land or non-housing-related improvements. The program can be used as an incentive for market rate housing as well as affordable housing. Applications may be accepted once a year. Currently, only Seattle, Spokane and Tacoma are eligible. A bill was approved by the legislature in 1997 to extend the tax abatement program to all cities and towns with a population of at least 100,000 or to the largest city in a county. That bill adds language to encourage local jurisdictions to include requirements for low-income or moderate-income occupancy in their guidelines.

Successful Applications

Portland, Oregon offers a property tax abatement for new infill housing priced under $105,000 in designated "distressed areas." In some cases, the city offers an abatement for rehabilitated housing. The benefiting property owner pays no tax on the value of improvements for 10 years. At $15 per $1,000 assessed valuation, the abatement would permit an approximately $125 reduction in monthly mortgage. This makes housing more affordable and expands the market for infill housing, making it more attractive to developers (Michael Harrison, 1994).

Tacoma, Washington has established a successful tax exemption program to stimulate multifamily housing within its 14 mixed use centers. Of the 11 applications submitted, six have now been approved for exemption by the city council and one pending project appears likely to receive exemption approval. Several of the other project applications either were ineligible, failed to secure financing, are pursuing historic tax exemptions or canceled for other reasons. In its first year, a totalof about 300 units were approved for exemption. Of the approved units, 199 are for low income housing units. Several of the projects are parts of mixed-use developments. Tacoma has received new applications for 280 units this year. Tacoma is very optimistic about the incentive program (Teasley and Wilkerson, 1997).

Policy Issues

Until new legislation extends authority to other cities, Seattle, Spokane and Tacoma are the only cities in Washington that can employ the ten-year tax exemption.
The incentive assists with tail-ending financing rather than up-front financing. Because the exemptions apply to building improvements and not land, the tax exemptions begin when the units are complete. The exemption does reduce holding costs and ongoing operational costs, but it is not a financing tool for project construction costs.
If used on a large scale, some other revenue source may be needed to make up for lost tax revenue.

Adopt Tax Policies Which Discourage Holding Unimproved Property

Taxing land at a significantly higher rate than property improvements can accelerate development of vacant parcels. Conventional property taxation involves the taxation of both land and the improvements to the land such as buildings. In Washington, although county assessors separately assess the market value of a property's land and its improvements, both components are added together to determine property value and are taxed together at the one rate. Under this conventional property taxation system, improving property with buildings or other improvements such as infrastructure, increases property value. It also has the negative consequence of triggering higher taxes. This situation operates as a disincentive for improving land. A property owner must be certain that the property improvements will produce adequate return and investment to realize desired profits despite increased taxes. As long as tax rates on land are low, a property owner can afford to hold land, in an unimproved state, for speculative purposes. Speculation, in general, drives up land prices which in turn drives up housing costs. In fact, the King County Housing Partnership identified rising land values as the main "cost driver of the 1980's" (King County Housing Partnership, 1991).

Some communities have dramatically restructured their property tax system to tax land at a much higher rate than the tax rate on property improvements. Raising the tax on land while lowering the tax on buildings means that it will become more expensive to hold land in a vacant state. At the same time, this action would reduce the "penalty" on improvements, thus encouraging more intensive use. A study using King County data found evidence that land-extensive uses (such as single-story strip commercial shopping establishments with abundant surface parking, or large lot subdivisions) would experience a greater tax burden than land-intensive uses (such as multifamily complexes). Such a tax structure also would tend to precipitate upgrade of older, obsolete buildings or their conversion to more intensive uses. The overall burden on single family residences would remain much the same,except for large lot residences which would experience increased taxes (Gihring, 1993). In general, this restructured tax system promises to promote changes which are consistent with many communities' growth management goals.

Successful Applications

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania restructured its property tax system in 1979 to 1980 to one in which land is taxed at more than five times the tax rate applied to structures on the land. Following this change, Pittsburgh was the only city among 15 studied to experience "a large and significant increase in levels of building activity during the 1980's (a 70 percent increase on an annual basis over the 20 year period preceding the reform)." Only one other of the studied cities experienced any increase in building activity during this period, while the rest of the cities typically experienced a substantial decline in the annual real level of building activity. Pittsburgh's suburbs did not experience a similar increase. (Note that county and school district property taxes were not restructured so that overall, land within the city was taxed at twice the rate that was applied to improvements.) At the same time, Pittsburgh instituted a generous three year tax abatement on the additional value from new construction. The study's authors concluded that the tax abatement on improvements was the more powerful incentive. However, the huge increased rate on land provides the additional revenue source which allows the reduction in the rate on improvements (Oates and Schwab, 1992).

Policy Issues

The major obstacle to implementing the dual tax rate is that Article VII, Section 1 of Washington's Constitution prevents county assessors in Washington from applying different rates to the two components of real property. A constitutional amendment would be necessary.
The revised tax structure could result in some low-income housing being demolished and replaced by higher value uses, since the tax "penalty" on improvements would be reduced. However, the revised structure may also help to bring land costs down, contributing to affordable housing. Pittsburgh has used some exemptions and other measures to help minimize this effect.
Washington's Growth Management Act requires counties to establish urban growth areas with adequate land supply to accommodate growth for the next 20 years. Not all if this land is needed at once. There will not be market demand for all of the vacant land immediately, and some property owners may be unfairly penalized when they have little choice but to hold land. This may be less of A problem if the restructuring involves only city taxes, as in Pittsburgh and the land supply within city limits (as opposed to the larger urban growth boundary) is relatively balanced with demand.

Adopt a Tax Increment Financing Program

In many parts of the country, tax increment financing (TIF) is becoming an increasingly popular way to finance public investment and to stimulate private investment in infill or redevelopment areas. However, the Washington Supreme Court has found that Washington's Community Redevelopment Financing Act (which was intended to authorize TIF in Washington) to be in conflict with the state constitution. A constitutional amendment or legislation that avoids constitutional problems is required before TIF can be used in Washington, as further explained in the following policy issues section. However, TIF is discussed here because it is a tool that may be employed in most other states. The successful experiences with TIF in many other places suggests that it may be a tool worth pursuing further in Washington state. Juli Wilkerson, Manager of Planning and Development Services for the city of Tacoma, Washington considers the lack of a tax increment financing tool to be "the biggest barrier to redevelopment." She laments that the situation handicaps Washington cities from competing with other cities around the country in the effort to attract redevelopment interest and resources (1997). Cities, such as Tacoma, are continuing to work for new legislation that can pass constitutional muster.

The typical (TIF) method works by temporarily freezing the tax base at the pre-development level within a defined district. Property owners continue to pay taxes while the TIF district is in effect. A city or county will then make public improvements to the area, with the expectation that they willattract additional private investment. If the private development occurs, tax revenues will increase above the base level. Existing properties increase in assessed valuation and new developments generate new tax revenues producing the tax increment. The tax increment is earmarked to finance selected improvements within the TIF district, rather than going to a community's general fund or to other taxing entities. Typically, a community will sell tax increment bonds at the initiation of the district so that funds are available to finance initial expenses such as infrastructure or land assembly. The annual increment revenues are then used to retire the bonds. Alternately, improvements can be financed on a pay-as-you-go basis from annual tax increment revenues.

In theory, development would not occur in these areas without the stimulating expenditure of public funds. Based on this theory, the community and other taxing entities do not actually lose revenue because taxes would not have increased without the district. Instead, they will benefit from increased taxes when planned improvements are completed and the TIF district expires. TIF, then, is a way of generating and leveraging funds for redevelopment without dipping into traditional revenue sources. Such programs can attract private investment in previously neglected areas, targeted for infill development and redevelopment, which may otherwise go to more outlying areas. As a result, it can reinforce efforts to develop target areas first (Planning and Zoning Center, 1991).

Successful Applications

In testimony to the potential utility of tax increment financing, only a handful of states lack specific authority for TIF. Minnesota and California cities were early pioneers and remain prolific users of the TIF tool. Results in some states have been mixed. However, there is sufficient evidence that a well-crafted and focused TIF program can play a pivotal role in financing and accomplishing community development programs.

The Portland, Oregon Development Commission and other Oregon communities have accomplished a range of projects with this tool. Phil Kushlan, a former Bellevue, Washington city manager, credits the Commission with transforming Portland's urban setting, in larger part through the use of TIF (Kushlan, 1993). The Portland Development Commission has used TIF to fund improvements such as parks in a residential neighborhood it was redeveloping near the downtown. TIF was also instrumental in funding a marina and waterfront esplanade in a mixed-use residential development on a key development tract in the downtown area. Smaller cities such as Cottage Grove, near Eugene, have also successfully used TIF to finance the sewer, water, sidewalk and other improvements needed to attract development to a formerly underserved area (Minter, 1991; Kushlan, 1993).

Policy Issues

Washington State had enacted legislation intended to authorize use of TIF programs (The Community Redevelopment Financing Act, RCW 39.88.) However, the Washington Supreme Court found the legislation to be in conflict with constitutional provisions concerning property taxes collected for public schools (Leonard v. Spokane, 127 Wn.2d 195, 1995). A constitutional amendment is required to enable tax increment financing in Washington in its typical form. Several attempts to amend the constitution to resolve the conflicts have been defeated at the polls. Legislation introduced during the 1997 legislative session sought to get around the potential constitutional problems with a somewhat different approach. The proposed Urban Stabilization Act bill would have earmarked increases in sales and excise taxes, rather than property taxes to finance improvements in targeted districts. Although the bill died late in the session, proponents in Tacoma and other cities feel that they made inroads and will push hard for its passage in the next legislative session. There is less experience around the country that demonstrates how well sales and excise tax will work as a substitute for property tax in raising funds for infrastructure improvements.
A prospective TIF program would require careful analysis, accurate projections and a clear understanding of the financial consequences of the tax. Any TIF programs involving property taxes (which would require a constitutional amendment) would need to be examined to anticipate their effects on the county, school districts, fire districts and others that apply taxes within the district. Although these districts would continue to receive the revenues they received in the past, the revenues may not cover inflation increases and new costs associated with growth. This is especially important since these other taxing districts could appeal certain district issues to the state board of tax appeals. A community may need to give up a portion of the earmarked increment to avoid an appeal which undermines the district.
If tax allocation bonds backed by property taxes were issued to pay for improvements, they may fail to attract investors. (Sandy Cohen, Assistant City Attorney at the City of Seattle believes tax allocation bonds will be considered similar to revenue bonds.) Particularly when located in infill areas, they may appear to be a risky investment. The local jurisdiction may have to pay an interest rate that is too high to make the project financially feasible. MRSC staff believes that bonds backed by sales or excise tax revenue may appear even riskier. In fact, there might not be a market for these bonds. If tax allocation revenues don't generate enough money to cover a community's debt service, the community may need to tap into its general fund to cover payments. Under either the property tax or sales and excise tax approach, local jurisdictions could choose to issue councilmanic general obligation bonds to finance improvements. They could then use these revenues to pay back the bonds, but would be required to use the general fund to cover any shortfall of revenues.
TIF alone can not be counted on to shape the desired land use patterns. Penalties or incentives generally will not be enough to alter basic market conditions. They will need to be combined with a complementary package of growth management measures and incentives.
The programs should be evaluated to avoid counterproductive results. For instance, in some other states, TIF has been abused to subsidize private development without commensurate public benefit. Shopping malls, sports stadiums and luxury office towers may not be what the community needs. Washington law does not allow communities to subsidize private development or otherwise make a gift of public funds. TIF expenditure should be based on a comprehensive plan which identifies priority community needs, addresses displacement of affordable housing and small businesses, and other community needs.

Revise Codes to Eliminate Excessive Standards

In some cases, adopting more flexible or less restrictive standards can allow infill development to go forward, where existing regulations discourage such development. Many infill parcels were created under regulations which have been replaced by newer, stricter standards. The size or configuration of these older parcels may make it difficult or impossible to develop them while meeting current standards. For instance, new requirements for on-site parking or large setbacks may not leave adequate area to reasonably develop the pre-existing lot. In many cities, older but desirable neighborhoods could not be built under current standards, which favor more suburban, auto-oriented type development. Where larger parcels exist, it may be physically possible to carve out new lots under current standards. However, rising land values and improvements requirements may make it unprofitable to develop under current density allowances. Code changes are generally possible while still maintaining desired neighborhood qualities, if a city is clear about what it is really trying to achieve.

A case study from King County illustrates the significant impact that development standards can have on land development costs. The case study follows the experience of a non-profit housing development corporation while developing the 43-unit Benson Glen subdivision/affordable housing project in the Renton area of King County. The study report compared typical 1980 and 1990 development costs with the 1995 development costs. The comparison indicated that most of the increased cost of development was related to increased land development costs, and to a lesser extent, increased land acquisition costs. The marketing and closing costs and constructions costs had stayed generally constant. In the case of Benson Glen, marketing and closing costs, and site acquisition costs were actually less than those of typical 1980 and 1990 projects. Land development costs had increased substantially, however. Even though the project received priority treatment from the County, the land development costs to prepare the site and comply with county standards amounted almost $33,000 per home. One of the larger pieces of the land development cost was the $5,000 per home that was required to install drainage improvements in compliance with the County's Storm Water Manual. Although storm water management is important to King County residents, the report noted that increased flexibility in applying the code could have addressed the storm water management concerns, while significantly reducing costs. The parking standards in effect at the time required more parking spaces than the total number of bedrooms in the project, according to the report. Particularly since the housing was intended for primarily low-income residents, the parking requirements may have been excessive.

The permit process required 23 months for final project approval, even though it had been expedited from what staff estimated would normally require 32 months. The non-profit developer was paying about $48,000 per year in holding costs such as interest payments and property taxes, so that an additional year in permit processing would have been costly. The report concluded that a major source of delay in the process was the uncoordinated, fragmentation of project review responsibility by a variety of departments. In addition, standards applied to the project were developed by separate functional departments with no one department responsible for considering how the regulations work together. The Benson Glen case study has triggered an effort to re-examine standards and permit procedures, and a pilot project to test more flexible, cooperative approaches to achieving quality community development (Lewis, 1993).

Several useful approaches can help identify land use code standards which may be impeding affordable infill housing and should be candidates for revision. Regulations which generate frequent variance requests may signal code provisions which are unnecessary or unreasonable, as Montreal, Canada found (Kinnis, 1995). Other communities, such as Camden, Maine, are re-examining and drawing on the standards that shaped attractive, surrounding neighborhoods, to provide more appropriate dimensional and design standards for new infill development (Richert, 1996). Existing neighborhoods can be used to illustrate the patterns and qualities that abstract standards will produce. A number of communities have found that reduced residential lot sizes (often combined with design standards), reduced or averaged setbacks, and reduced street and parking standards can stimulate development while producing attractive, livable neighborhoods. The following examples illustrate standard reduction programs.

Ease Standards for Pre-Existing (Nonconforming) Lots

If a pre-existing lot does not meet current minimum lot size standards, it can not be developed without special approvals. Variances or permits for nonconforming development may be necessary for infill parcel development, if more restrictive standards have replaced standards in effect when infill parcels were created. Variances generally require public hearings, which causes some amount of delay, and present an opportunity for neighbors to oppose or even block a project. Nonconforming status may restrict future additions or property improvements.

Successful Applications

Some communities, such as Redmond, Washington, specifically state that existing lots of record, although they don't meet current minimum area or dimensional requirements, shall be considered to be conforming lots. Tacoma allows certain additions to nonconforming structures to extend into required front or rear yards when the existing structure already extends beyond that setback line. Stanwood and Sultan, Washington both state that infill residential units shall conform to the dimensional standards in force at the time the surrounding area was developed. If documentation of those earlier standards is not available, minimum standards are derived from averaging the standards set by abutting properties. Portland, Oregon zoning provides that if a multifamily structure that exceeds current density standards is destroyed (by natural causes) it may be rebuilt with the old number of units (if rebuilt within five years).

Provide for Small Single-Family Lots

Successful Applications

Victoria, B.C.'s demonstration project mentioned earlier demonstrated neighborhood acceptance for lots as small as 2,400 square feet when development complied with infill design guidelines.

Many Washington cities are now designating zones with a minimum lot size requirement of 4,000 to 5,000 square feet rather than the 6,000 or 7,200 minimum lot sizes that have become common in recent years. A 5,000 square feet minimum lot size permits net densities in the seven to eight unit acre range, which can begin to support regular transit service in infill areas. Even smaller parcels can accommodate quality detached single family housing with private yard. Particularly in the Northwest, landscaping can do much to retain the privacy of smaller yards.

Seattle, Washington has designated a "residential small lot zone" with a minimum lot area of 2,500 square feet for a detached single family dwelling. Only one parking space is required which may not be located in the front or street side yard. A greater height is allowed for pitched roofs (up to 30 feet) than the 25 feet base height. Front or rear yard setbacks can be as little as 10 feet provided that the front plus rear yard must be a minimum of 30 feet. Side yard setbacks are five feet, but may be averaged so that one side yard may be a minimum of three feet (Seattle Municipal Code, Ch. 23.43).

Tacoma, Washington has also adopted special infill development standards which provide for front yard setbacks equal to the average front yard setbacks of adjacent developed property or the minimum setback for the zoning district, which ever is less. Side yard setbacks may also be averaged although never less than five feet. The setback will be assumed to be set at 10 to 15 feet, for particularly large side yards, for purposes of averaging. Similar averaging is allowed for determining height standards for infill development. A minimum 4/12 pitched roof is required, and height may not be restricted to less than 25 feet (Tacoma Municipal Code, Sec. 13.06.202).

Reducing Street and Parking Standards

It is not uncommon for 25 percent or more a proposed project's land area to be set aside for required rights-of-way. On-site parking requirements can also consume considerable land area, depending on the type of use and local standards. Even in suburban locations, a number of recent studies have found that typical parking requirements by local communities greatly exceed peak parking demand on a typical day. For instance, although the average parking requirement for office uses may be 3.5 to five spaces per 1,000 gross square feet of building floor area, several studies have observed average peak parking use of between two to three spaces per 1,000 gross square feet (Willson, 1995; Shoup, 1995). Excessive parking standards are even less appropriate in infill areas where transit service and other alternatives can substitute for automobile travel. Similarly, as the automobile became the predominant mode of travel, street widths and rights-of-way expanded. Wider street widths and turning radii served to speed the automobile along, even on residential streets. A new school of thought argues that narrower streets reduces through traffic and accident potential on residential streets as cars are forced to slow down. Narrower streets also have a more intimate feel, also contributing to neighborhood liveability. Because streets and parking can tie up such a large percentage of a site's total land area, reducing excessive requirements can greatly reduce development costs and allow the site to be more intensely developed. Also, reducing the amount of abundant, free parking available in fringe areas makes in-city locations (which typically lack such abundant parking) relatively more attractive.

Successful Applications

Olympia, Washington represents one community which has conducted field studies (although cursory) of actual parking use. That city has begun to adjust its parking requirements downward to reflect real demand rather than to require excess parking which rarely, if ever, is fully utilized. For example, based on its studies, the city requires between 2.5 to 4 spaces/1,000 square feet for office uses (smaller offices require a higher ratio of parking). It requires as few as one space per residential unit for accessory or studio units and for any residential unit in its downtown business or high density multifamily zones.

Portland, Oregon with its efficient light rail transit has succeeded in reducing required parking even further. For instance, Portland requires only one parking space per residential unit in most zones, two spaces per 1,000 square feet floor area for most retail uses and 2.5 parking spaces/1,000 square feet floor area for office uses. Portland also adopted a "skinny street" ordinance in 1991 which applies to residential blocks in zones with minimum lot sizes of at least 5,000 square feet. The ordinance allows narrower streets with only a single travel lane, and parking on one or both sides. These residential streets serve primarily to provide local access to residences rather than provide for extended through travel. Therefore, the streets can reasonably accommodate two-way traffic although vehicles may have to pull over occasionally into a curbside parking lane to allow other vehicles to pass. To work well, there must be adequate breaks in the curbside parking, to permit yielding vehicles to pull over. For this reason, it may not work well in denser residential zones where on-street parking will be fully utilized. Portland reduced required street width for streets with two parking lanes from 32 to 26 feet, and reduced required streets widths for streets with a single parkinglane from 28 to 20 feet Portland's Fire Bureau supported the reduction for through streets which can be accessed from two directions, but pushed for two travel lanes on cul-de-sac streets longer than 300 feet (Bray and Rabiner, 1994). (Boulder, Colorado standards provide for fire set-up pads to address emergency vehicle access on its skinny streets.) Such street width reductions can result in a significant savings for infill projects which can translate into a more affordable, marketable project.

Policy Issues

Careful study and testing of proposals intended to eliminate excessive standards is advised to ensure that they are workable and do not sacrifice important safeguards and community quality of life.

Revise Codes to Provide Flexibility for Special Infill Situations

Provide for Planning Variances or Waivers

A few communities have provisions for planning variances or waivers. The more familiar hardship variance is designed to enable a departure from provisions of a zoning ordinance such as setbacks, or lot size. In general, they are granted to remedy some hardship or difficulty in using a site because of the physical characteristics of the property. In contrast, a planning variance is granted to allow departures from similar type zoning ordinance standards if it would result in improved zoning and planning and would benefit the community (Moskowitz and Lindbloom, 1993). Such a planning variance or waiver must be specifically provided for in ordinances to avoid abuse. It will be a much more successful tool if guidelines/criteria for determining benefit are also spelled out.

Successful Applications

The Ogden, Utah planning commission has the flexibility to reduce minimum lot area, lot width and yard setbacks for single-family or two-family infill development if the subdivision plan is of "exceptional quality and design" considering certain criteria. Similarly, Redmond, Washington may approve alternative street designs to encourage innovative designs or reduce disturbance to the natural setting if the alternative meets the intent of Redmond's street access provisions. The Snohomish County housing demonstration program described earlier allows deviations for selected projects subject to the following criteria:

Snohomish County Housing Demonstration Program Criteria for Permitting Deviations from Code Standards

2. The change is consistent with the purpose of the housing demonstration program as defined in subsection 3;

3. The change does not result in adverse impacts on the environment which are significantly different from the application of the zoning code;

4. The change does not threaten public health and safety;

5. The change is consistent with generally accepted engineering and design criteria , except as provided for in subsection 8;

6. The change promotes innovative neighborhood design and/or housing products.

Provide Flexibility for Site Development Through Planned Developments

Many communities provide the flexibility to deviate from zoning requirements, particularly dimensional standards, in exchange for well-integrated planned developments which meet (or exceed) the intent of the community's codes. Communities may use planned development provisions to serve a variety of purposes which may vary from community to community. Planned unit development provisions in unincorporated counties may emphasize clustering development to preserve large tracts of open space, compatible with surrounding rural development. Urban planned development provisions typically require that park and recreation needs be met. However, very large blocks of open space in urban developments may run counter to goals of efficient public service provision, if average densities are reduced or utility networks are disrupted. Any open spaces in planned developments should be carefully located and integrated with the community's overall open space system. Urban (infill) area planned development provisions may emphasize other purposes such as a unified approach to neighborhood development, more flexible development standards, a greater mixing of housing types and land uses including more affordable types of housing and convenience services, a more efficient arrangement of structures, streets, utility networks or other public improvements and in general, a more creative and aesthetic approach to land development. Urban planned developments may continue grid street patterns, as in neotraditional developments, or it may be appropriate to cluster development. In clustered developments, development can be clustered on unconstrained portions of a site. As a result, average densities can be maintained while avoiding disruption of many types of environmentally sensitive areas or lost of other special features.

Clustering development can also facilitate the buffering of development such as attached housing or convenience commercial from surrounding neighborhoods. In some cases, communities provide density bonuses in exchange for a planned development which provides superior design, public improvements and/or amenities. Many existing planned unit development ordinances (PUD) establish a high minimum acreage before a project can be developed under planned development provisions. A recent study from the Salem-Keizer, Oregon area concludes that PUD provisions should allow for planned developments on smaller infill sites and even allow for a limited density increase over the base- zone density (Tashman, 1993).

Successful Applications

Olympia, Washington's planned residential development provisions are intended to permit greater flexibility and, as a result, more creative and imaginative design than possible under conventional zoning. They are specifically intended to promote urban infilling, more efficient land use, and a variety of housing types while maintaining compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. They also facilitate protection of sensitive areas and unique features, and encourage the provision of a higher level of urban amenities, among other purposes. Olympia generally applies base zone standards across the entire project rather than on a lot-by-lot basis. For instance, the density requirements, lot size and lot coverage requirements of the underlying district may be increased or reduced for individual lots as long as the average for the entire site is consistent. The base zone front yard setbacks are applied at the project perimeter rather than between every lot. Nonresidential uses for the convenience and service of development residents may be included subject to certain conditio

Infill Development Strategies for Shaping Livable Neighborhoods

June 1997 - Report No. 38

Contents

Preface

Introduction

Why is Infill Development Needed?

Purpose of this Publication

Organization

Remedying Barriers/Recognizing Opportunities

Obstacles

Emerging Opportunities

Recognizing Opportunities for Locating Infill Development

Formula for Successful Infill Development

Strategies to Make Attractive for Developers

Adopt Infrastructure Strategies Which Support Development in Infill Areas

Successful Applications

Policy Issues

Promising Applications

Policy Issues

Successful Applications

Policy Issues

Implement a Parcel Assembly Program and Strategic Land Banking

Successful Applications

Policy Issues

Limit the Supply of Land Available for Development in Non-Target Areas

Successful Applications

Policy Issues

Provide Community Information and Sponsor Infill Demonstration Projects

Successful Applications

Policy Issues

Consider (or Support Legislation for) Tax Incentives to Promote Infill Housing

Successful Applications

Policy Issues

Successful Applications

Policy Issues

Successful Applications

Policy Issues

Revise Codes to Eliminate Excessive Standards

Successful Applications

Successful Applications

Successful Applications

Policy Issues

Revise Codes to Provide Flexibility for Special Infill Situations

Successful Applications

Successful Applications