Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 08 06 Regular Item E CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA 32708.2799 Telephone (407) 327-1800 Community Development PLANNING & ZONING BOARD / LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY AGENDA ITEM: II. E. DRAFT BY-LAWS IN THE CONDUCT OF THE MEETINGS AND BUSINESS OF THE P & Z BOARD / LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY STAFF REPORT: The Planning & Zoning Board/ Local Planning Agency first received the draft Byaws in the Conduct of Meetings and Business of the Board in its Agenda Mailout for July 2, 1997. The P & Z Board / LP A indicated its interest in discussing the draft at succeeding meetings of the Board. REMINDER PLEASE BRING YOUR COpy OF THE DRAFT BYLAWS WITH YOU TO THE MEETING \.. FOR YOUR INFORMATION \.. LETTERS Gated Communities: The Right of Self-Defense Gated communities are a response to a real problem ("Fortress Communities,'j Commen- rary column, February). To deny people the chosen right to retreat to a secured space IS a form of denying them the right to self-defense. Gating communities is not an unusual re~ sporne of our society to crime; it is similar to gun control. As with gun control, to deny people secure space is at odds v.~th promoting democratic ideals or public safety. Gated communities are effective in re- ducing crime inside the gates. Overall crime may not change much, but like streetlights, g:ues may cause crime to relocate. For that maner, as a majority of states in the union have found, licensing responsible law-abiding citizens to carr", concealed firearms does not increase crime: Between Texas and Florida alone, some half a million concealed carry permits have been issued. But although crime overall has not been greatly reduced, Florida's experience clearly demonstrates that criminal activity has been redirected: toward unarmed tourists. 'Ve are not going to get rid of crime bv curbing self-defense. It is a shame that rhe 1972 book Defensible Spore (by Oscar Newman), cited byJohn L. Cann,Jr., in his February article "Building Crime Preven- tion into Land Use Codes," is not more 6 U,'bon Land . Mol' 1997 wideh' read. In fact, it is likely that, due to the f~ilure of the public school system to educate a large portion of America's youth, we are going to have a high rate of crime for the rest of our lives. Charles B. W,""" Warren & Warren Valuation & Consultation San FranciscD, California Gated Communities: A Crime Deterrent? The Febul'a1)' Commentlrj' column poine; Out the continuing segmentation of com- munity life by guarded gate residential de\'elopments. ] recall how the Newport Beach (Cali. fornia) City Council agonized over the Irvine Company's request in 1976 for a guarded gate communit)' called Harbor Ridge, finally giving in 'while raising the communit)' division issues set forth by Blake]\' and Sn\'der. Today, hardly a single reside~tial dev~Jopment any\\!here along the southern California coast goes up with. Out a guarded gate. "'hile crime is not a parricuJar issue along the coast, residential developers claim that a guarded gate adds anywhere from $10,000 and up to the builder's bonom lme even m middle-class communities. 1 personally detest clearing myself at a gate before going to a friends house, and ] reall\' detest waiting at the gate for clear- ance' before visiting my daughter's home. A crime deterrent? Not long ago, 1 waited with the senior editor of a national maga- zine for gate clearance at a residential co~~ muni,,'] wanted to show him. ] had called m advan~e, but the message was not relayed. As the two of us sat patiently in our busi- ness suits waiting to be cleared, the maga- zine editor had to laugh. In the other lane, service, construction, and gardening per- sonnel in torn tee shirts sitting in beat up trucks were waved in by the guard. Mertin A. Brower Editor Bnd Publisher' Orange County Report Newport Beach, California Sprawl Redux Dare I enter the fray? Allow me initially to express straightforwa~d agreement v:ith two of ]. Thomas Black's Statements in "Extending the Sprawl Debate" (Leners column, Sep- tember 1996). Sprawl is not an identified objective, per se, but the cumulative effect of numerous public and private considera- tions and decisions. And, one solution in an open economy is to produce "attractive alternative nonsprawling living environ- ments (better housing values. . . , good schools, etc.)." Having said that, however, we parr company, for Black simply does not aclrno\\.ledge two points that 1 will explain, nor does he offer any suggestions for mech- anisms to help promote the nonsprawling alternatives he acknowledges as one solution. Costs. There is more to personal "costs" of sprawl than apparent pocketbook impacts for the housing shopper. Housing costs much more than what one pays for the mortgage each month, not the least of which includes transportation, at $5,000 to $7,000 per year for the average suburban private automobile user (not including lost productivity sitting in traffic). Recent studies have shown that the avoidance of such costs due to li,~ng close to efficient transit could effectively jIL<rifY a $30,000 to $70,000 higher mortgage or otherwise higher cost.of.living factors. Of course, the other personal COSt is local tlXes, which have to be continually raised in sprawl communities to pay for that devel- opment pattern's revenue inefficiencies. In addition, substantial em~ronmentaJ costs associated with sprawl (air and water pollution, resource losses) are borne by all of us. If we accept growth as a given, for example, sprawl produces nearly ru..ice the sediment and nitrogen runoff as does com- pact development, on a per person basis. Sprawl also displaces farm, forest, and wet- land-not only essential environmentally, but representi~g an economic and culrural landscape thar in large parr defines and identifies us in a Wav that sprawl cannot (since it is virtually identical and geographi- call\' interchangeable). "'hat We \Vant, Need, and Get. The market failures that characterize our pres- ent svstem are not rhe indirect result of the "im'i~ihle hand," but rather the direct result of the ",'isible hand"-massi"e government intervention, fully supporting private sector biases built into aged, limited underwriting formulae used by pension funds, REITs, and other entities that now are financing most large-scale development. Alternatives to the present system cannot and will not be found as long as the tax system, public subsidies for sprawl-inducing new infra- structure, and standardized private financ- ing combine to shut down any possibility for innovation, improvement, or housing product "choice." Richard Morrill in ".More on Sprawl" (Letters column, February) believes that "most of us really want and need" cars, single- family houses, malls, and business parks, and that we should not be "compelled to suffer higher costs and diminished well- being in a misguided attempt to impose a 19th-century ideal that. . . never was." At least 1\1orrill and I agree that "cities are our most ,-ital generators of wealth." There's also no question that we currently "need" cars, nue to an extraordinarily inefficient, spread-out settlement pattern. As for suffering higher costs and imposing an ideal that never was, we definitely dis- agree: the former is addressed above, and the latter is simply wrong, as noted below. In some merro areas, the majority of new home sales are higher-density townhomes and condominiums-though often the density is "wasted" in auto-dependent enclaves, offering urban densities \\;thout any of the urbanity. Most thoughtful sprawl opponents do not advocate (and would not impose) one Old vs. New: In a feature box, "DOWIltO\\'Il Denver's Renaissance," by Susan Powers in "Downto\\'Il Re,;r.al- ization in Small Cities" bv Annette Cassel1\1eans a anuary U~bpn LanJ), a photo of the old American National Bank (inset) was inadvertently used instead of one sho,"'ing its redevelop- ment into the Holtze Executive Place (left), a 240-room apartment! hotel that opened in 1995 after a $19.5 mil- lion renovation. B V,-bon Land . Mol' 1997 style of living for all: the single-family house is a recognized American icon of economic and social stability. \Ve would nor force smaller houses, grann~' flats, duplexes, second- floor walk-ups, townhouses, or any form of aparonent on anyone. \Ve would, however, reduce the massive waste of open land caused by tv.'o-acre lots scattered across the land- scape by seeking to have such housing pay the full COSts it is imposing upon the rest' of us. \Ve would try to bener integrate shop- ping, commerce, and civic life within com- munities, rather than isolating them in miles of malls, strip shopping centers, and office buildings in seas of parking. \Ve would allow-indeed, encourage-ample, anrac- rive single-family houses on 5,000-, i ,000-, even I O,OOO-square-foot lots. And yes, we see growth boundaries as useful tOols for promoting a rational ordering of moderate- ly higher densities and designs that people are buying today, because these meet their needs and desires. One should not so readily call into ques- tion the liability of metropolitan econo- mies changed by compact' growth, given examples of dynamic positive change in cities and regions where there are at least anempts to encourage the same. At the same time, respected urban analysts such as Anthony DO"11s, Myron Orfield, David Rusk, and Christopher Leinberger are beginning to eA.-plain v.~th convincing empir- ical evidence how metropolitan economies are being deyastated by sprawl. U.S. as Frontier. Finally, both .Morrill and Black dismiss the quite literal consump- tion of environmentally, economically, and culturally important resource lands by refer- encing an old saw: How could we be waste- fully consuming open space in America when there is obviously so much left-when urban land only takes up a small percent of the total? \\'here's the "shortage?" they ask. First., enormous expanses of land in the United States are unusable. Either their remOteness makes their economic utility marginal, or they are highly valued for other functions, i.e., as floodplains, prairie pothole wetlands, or as publicly owned national parks. Second, land is not a wholly interchange- able commodity. It is not the same every~ where. It matters to .Modesto and Fresno, for example, that California's Cenrral Valley lost more than 600,000 acres of agricultural land during the 1980s. The 30,000 acres of farm and forest convened to urban use in .Maryland last year wert in suburban and e,,~ban metropolitan counties. These losses of resource lands are si6rnificant for the envi- ronmental and economic changes they have \\Tought in those places, as well as to Tef.,.;on::.J resources such as the Chesapeake Bay. There are other impacts. Urban edge agriculrure, for example, generates 5t'i p~r- cent of gross U.S. agriculrure sales and ahout 80 percent of U.S. fruit and veget:lhle production. Shall we just throw th:1~t away in favor of more (supposed Iv) "efficient'" centralized production, whil~ disregarding enormous transportation (and other) costs in energy and the environment? Shall we ignore major place-specific forestland losses, and what they may mean to specific water- sheds? Shall we accept as "free will" Los Angeles's 58 percent' population increase, and 300 percent geographic spread, writing off whatever local or regional desen, moun- tain ridge, coastal, or valley environmental resources are consequently lost? In the final analysis, sprawl does not (or at least need not) equal homeownership. Given tremendous market distortions, sprawl does not equal economic (and cannot' lead to transportation) efficiency. And sprawl is indisputably a vast transformer of open land, with substantial adverse impacts upon local and regional environments. Perhaps we should move to more sustainable develop- ment patterns and give up the outdated model perfected in the 1940s and promoted in myriad ways ever since. .., R. Epstein l.3nds Program Director Chesapeake Bay Foundation Annapolis, Maryland We'd Uke to Hear from You! We welcome your comments about articles pub- lished in this magazine, es weD as about o1her Iopics lhat may be of inlerest 10 our readers. a.atters are subject 10 etfrting for lenglll and clarityJ We also welcome proposals for articles on land usa and development Sae OUT Web site htlp-J 1www.uli.oIjJ for a copy of OUT editorial calendar. Address lattars and article proposals 10 Kristina Kessler, Editor, Urban l1lnd, 1025 Thomas Jefferson SIree~ NW., Suite 500 West, Washing- lon, D.C. 20007-7038; fax 202-624-7140; E-mail: magazine@uILoljJ The Peninsula. Lake Norman. North Carolina. Single-Family Housing The year 1996 was one ,0("" of the best years of the ~. decade in terms of new ~=-;Z home construction. over- ---- all home sales, and home appreciation. Factors behind the strong housing market are low interest rates and good emplo~'ffient and income growth across the country. Single-fami. ly housing starts reached 1,160,200 in 1996, the second-highest level in ten years. Starts rose by 84.000 units over 1995 levels, a 7.8 percent increase that reversed the 1995 fall off from the high levels of 1994. However, the latter half of 1996 did not perform as well as the first half, and starts will likely fall off slightly in 1997. Housing starts ha,'e been generally on the rise since 1991, with a slight dip in 1()95 (see Figure 44). Monthly fil,'1lres from HJ9G reveal that December saw starts dip to their lowest point sin<:e May 19%. Major housing f())'e"asters are projecting t!1at starts will rail off slightly in 19!)7. The National Associa- tio~)f HomC:' Builders fon~casts :t (i.!l pC:'l'cent dedin(~ in sing-le-fall1ily stal'1.:-: in lU!J7. projeding all annual 1"at.(' (If l.1 4li UlI 1997 Real Estate forecast million starts. a respectable number e"en with the decline. F. W. Dodge is projecting a 4 percent decline in starts. The ULl Fameo.;!. predicts that the annual rate of starts over this period will be similar to that of 199G. New home sales in ,January 1997 showed exceptional strength, surging by 8.G percent to a nearly ll-year high. In California. the Construction Industry Board is projecting a 25 percent increase in housing starts over 1996 levels, with three-quarters of the new starts in single-family homes. Several mal'kets that v,ill see large increases in one or more segments of the single- family construction market include Oakland/East Bay, San Francisco, and San Jose. Of the foul' general categoriejo; of sin- ((I~- famil)' housing in the U LI J!i!l7 HU/I,.,iug Pm/un1,y \lal.l/.(' Foreca..d, sin- ((Ie-family lots should ap)ll'eciate at the hi,l.!.'hest rate, followed by high-income (It'Ltlehe(] units, mid(ll(~-in<:om~ detaehec] units, and aUaehed homes (spe Figure 4iJ). A n'('('nt report by Exp(~rian [iluh; that l1i.~'IH'nd IlllIJH' \'ahlt'~ 11.1\'(' J'j~L'n fa;;ter than the housing market as a whole. Homes in the top] 0 percent for their market have lisen in value by 2 to ;) percent annually since 1990 compared to less than I percent overall. Value increases in general are likely to be modest. in the range of 1 to 3 percent. Detached Single-Family Homes and Lots Detached single-family home values and lot prices v.'ill increase at a moder- ate pace over the next year, a rate of growth that will be very similar to the pace of growth in 1996 (see Figure 45). Eleven of the markets in the ULI Market Prqfiles survey were expected to realize large increases in values in one or more of the foul' segments while ;i5 other markets were expected to see moderate increases (see Figure 4G). .!\1H~tel'-l)lanne(] e{II11I11Unities have become increasingly imp(lJ"tant factors in the residential sector around the l'olllltry. espeeially in markets where lots are beeomil1g seaJ'L'P and L'annat be pntit}ed quiL'kJy, (;(,]1' ('ourse (h~\'eJop- IlJ(~llb aJ:..;(1 l'ontilluL' to bLI popular ("Oll- cepts with buyers. Remarks Erik Larsen with Palmer Course Design Company in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida, "GrO\vth of single-family developments with private golf courses is down, but those "ith public golf courses is up." Phoenix has been one of the more active single-family home markets in the past year. In Phoenix, notes Coopers & Lybrand, LLP, "Single- family permits were projected to reach a record 30,000 in 1996, an increase of approximately 11 percent from 1995's total of nearly 27,000. The previous record of 28,000 was set in 1978." While permitting is expected to decline by 10 to 15 percent in 1997 as a result of con- tinued moderation of both population and job growth, values are expected to increase by 5 percent or more annually through mid-1998 for both middle- and high-income homes. The southern California housing mar- ket is on the move again. In Riverside/ San Bernardino, Grubb & Ellis states, "For the first time in the 1990s, annual construction in 1996 was expected to post a gain over the previous year. Overall, with per capita income also on the rise, housing is nearly the most affordable it has been in a decade. ... In addition to an increase in active pro- jects selling new houses, large-scale land development has also become more active, as supplies of finished lots are expected to tighten over the next year. . . . Mfordable detached housing on small lots remains strong, but the hottest product is currently 'big-box' houses, which maximize square footage at the expense of design features and amenities." Grubb & Ellis expects mid- priced single-family home values to increase by 5 percent or more and con- struction of mid-priced single-family homes to rise by 15 percent or more. In Detroit, notes SmithGroup Real Estate Strategies, Inc., "Residential development experienced its fourth consecutive year of growth in 1996, fueled by a robust local economy and low interest rates. . . . [G]olf com- munities continued to be the product of choice." Average home prices are around $125,000, and values are expect- ed to increase by 5 percent or more for all types of single-family homes. Figure 44 - Single Famil~ Housing Starts: 1987-199& 1,500,0CiJ' 1.250,000' ~ ~ " ~ ;;; " " => ~ c ,. c c '" '1187 ".. '989 "'" Source: u,s. DepartmenlolCommerce In Atlanta, single-family permits for 1996 declined by 2.3 percent from 1995 levels, according to Arthur Andersen, LLP, and construction activity is expected to be steady or down slightly through mid-1998. Higher-end homes are expected to appreciate faster than middle-income homes during this peri- od. Observes John Rymer of Morrison Homes in Roswell, Georgia, "The employment-to-building-permits ratio has been falling for almost two years. As a result, 1997 most likely will see a slowdown in demand of 10 to 15 percent." Lot prices are expected to increase in line with single-family home prices in most areas, although there are a few markets where lot prices are rising faster than home prices. In Orange County. California, notes E&Y Kenneth Leventhal Real Estate Group, "Since mid-1995, lot prices have increased substantially because of the increasing demand for housing and a constrained supply of lots. Finished lots of 4,500 to 7,000 square feet [in 1996] averaged about $85,000 [up from $60,000 in 1995]. . . . A shortage of fin- ished lots could develop as a result of the lack of development of finished lots during the last four to five years, resulting in an upward pressure on lot prices." The fear and confusion follow- ing the county's bankruptcy seems a thing of the past, and both home sales and home construction were up sub- stantially in 1996. Notes E & Y Kenneth Leventhal, "Homebuilders have responded to greatly reduced demand for higher-priced houses by dropping prices and building smaller, less '901 ,,,, '993 ,... '995 ,... Figure 45 - Detail from Figure 2 --... 1lItKMII~....... . i llIrtIclIIIII~1IIWo'- ~ E -- i MuIlilamilyConclominiums ot Change In Values I!l!iIiI Note: See Figure 2tordetaits on Ihe metllollology tor lhis torecas! UU 1997 Real Estate Forecast 47 expensive units. A number of major builders now offer detached houses priced from $180,000 to $220,000, levels not seen in the county..,n a widespread basis since 1987." Figure 46 - Detached Single-Family Housing Values: Market Areas with the Highest Expected Increase in Values (mi = for middle income properties; hi = for high income properties; I = for lots) large Increases Moderate Increases Birmingham (mi. hi. I) Atlanta (hi) Oallas/Fort Worth (I) Austin (mi. hi, I) Detroit (mi, hi) Boston (mi, hi, !) Jacksonville (mi, hi. I) Charlotte (hi) New Orleans (I) Chicago (mi. hi. I) NorfolklHampton Roads (I) Cincinnati (mJ. hi, l) Orange County (I) Colorado Springs (mi. hi. I) Phoenix (mi. hi) Dallas/Fort Worth (mi. hi) Richmond (I) Denver (mi, hi, I) Riverside/ Fort Myers (hi. I) San Bernardino (mi) Hartford (mi. hi, I) Seattle (mi, hi, I) Houston (mi. hi, I) Kansas City (hi. I) Los Angeles/Long Beach (hi) Nashville (I) New Orleans (mi, hi) New York City (mi. hi. I) Norfolk/Hampton Roads (mi, hi) Northern New Jersey (hi) Oakland/East Bay (mi, hi, i) Orange County, CA (mi, hi) Orlando (hi, I) Philadelphia (mi, hi) Phoenix (I) Portland (mi, I) Richmond (mi, hi) Riverside/San Bernardino (I) Sacramento (mj, hi, I) St.louis (I) Salt lake City Imi. hi, I) San Francisco (mi, hi. I) San Jose (mL hi. I) Tampa Bay (hi. I) Tucson (mi) Washington, DC (mi, t) .. UU 1997 Real Estate Forecast Attached Single-Family Homes Attached single-family homes will not be as strong as detached product nationally over the next year, although the sector ,,~ll experience small to moderate increases in values-increas- es that should be comparable to those of 1996 (see Figure 45). Six of the surveyed markets were expected to realize large increases in values while 15 other markets will see moderate increases (see Figure 47). Denver will be one of the stronger markets for attached housing. Notes the Leland Consulting Group, "The average sale price for attached housing in 1996 was approximately $141,000, an 8 percent increase over the 1995 figure. . . . In light of changing demo- graphic trends, opportunities for future housing development lie in the entry-level, single-family market and the move-down, or empty-nester, mar- ket. These markets represent potential demand for higher-density housing products, such as patio homes, town- homes, and rowhouses, in both afford- able and luxury price ranges." Seattle is also expected to be strong, benefiting from the same trends that are supporting the multifamily condo- minium market. i.e.. solid economic growth and the urban growth bound. ary that is constraining lower-density development. According to Propelty Counselors, "The line between condo- miniums and detached single-family houses blurred as houses got smaller and condos got larger." Affordable attached product "that mimics single- family construction as much as possible should be successful [in 1997], regard- less of location." Values for attached product are expected to be up by 10 percent or more through mid-1998. Figure 47 - Attached Single-family Home Values: Market Areas with the Highest Expected Increase in Home Values large Increases Birmingham Denver Detroit Jacksonville New Orleans Seattle Moderate Increases Albuquerque Austin Birmingham Boston Chicago Colorado Springs New York City OaktandfEast Bay Orange County, CA Phoenix Portland Salt lake City San Francisco San Jose Tucson Washington. DC Queens Harbour Yacht & Country Club. Jacksonville. Florida.