G R O W I N G S M A R T E R A T T H E E D G EG R O W I N G S M A R T E R A T T H E E D G E

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Lincoln Institute of Land Policyand the Sonoran Institute partneredwith the City of Tucson to providefunding for this project. The casestudy report was prepared byClarion Associates and EconomicResearch Associates to assist theCity of Tucson Urban Planning andDesign Department develop the10,000 acre Houghton Area MasterPlan project (HAMP).

Much of the land area includedwithin the planning area is ownedby the Arizona State LandDepartment which manages theland as a trustee on behalf of thepublic school system. Revenuesfrom the sale or lease of these landsprovide funding in support ofArizona’s Classroom Site Fund. Wethank the Arizona State LandDepartment and their planning andasset management staff who provid-ed encouragement and support forthis study effort and whose commit-ment will help make the City ofTucson’s planning effort a success.

CONTENTS

Introduction ..............................................................................................................1

Case Study & Land Use Objectives ......................................................................2

Market Performance Objectives ..........................................................................3

Case Study Highlights/Projects Charts ................................................................4

Lessons Learned ......................................................................................................9

Planning Lessons..................................................................................................9

Planning Challenges..........................................................................................12

Respond to the Market ....................................................................................13

G r o w i n g S m a r t e r a t t h e E d g e

INTRODUCTION

Over the next 25 years, it isestimated that the United States willgrow by another 50 millionresidents. The American West, withits wide open spaces and desirablelifestyle, is predicted to absorb alarge share of that growth, withsome projections indicating that theWest could increase by as many as25 million people. Rapidlyexpanding metro areas likePhoenix, Arizona can anticipatethree million new residents inaddition to its existing three million.By all accounts, the West can expectmuch of the explosive growth thathas characterized the last 20 yearsto extend to the next 20 years.

Advocates of smart growth point tothe need to encourage infill andredevelopment within our existingdeveloped areas. This amelioratesthe impacts of a rapidly growingsociety on our natural landscapesand conserves limited resources–such as fossil fuels–moreresponsibly. However, it isbecoming apparent that even themost optimistic infill orredevelopment scenarios willaccommodate less than half of theprojected increase in householdsover the next 25 years.

Development at the edge of urbanareas will continue to be thepredominant aspect of our futuregrowth.

While development at the edge isfrequently consigned by critics tothe “sprawl” category anddismissed as undesirable, a numberof encouraging trends in master-planned communities suggest thatdevelopment at the edge is growingsmarter. In a variety of communitiesacross the West, the following basicelements of smart growth are beingaccommodated within master-planned communities (Heid 2004)and are increasingly seen as factorswhich provide a market advantage:

• Integrated, accessible, naturalopen space;

• Mixed public, commercial, andresidential uses;

• Pedestrian orientation andother mobility options; and

• A range of housing densitiesand prices.

The above are some of the coreaspects of these new communitiesand they are pointing the way tosmarter growth at the edge.

This report examines specific casestudies both from a private andpublic sector perspective to gleanlessons that can foster similardevelopment at the edge of ourrapidly growing metro areas. It isour hope that with proper attentionto infill and redevelopment as wellas smarter growth at the edge, wecan help sustain and improve thelivability and economic vitality ofour communities, while helping tokeep the West and its naturallandscapes a defining element ofour nation’s heritage.

Heid, J. Greenfield DevelopmentWithout Sprawl: The Role ofPlanned Communities,Washington, D.C. : ULI-the UrbanLand Institute. 2004

1

The Lincoln Institute of Land Policyand the Sonoran Institute workedwith the City of Tucson, Arizona,to retain Clarion Associates andEconomics Research Associates toprovide planning assistance for thepreparation of the Houghton AreaMaster Plan (HAMP), one of thelargest areas of undeveloped landremaining within Tucson city limits.The area encompasses nearly10,800 acres on the City’ssoutheastern edge, with 7,750 acresunder the control of the ArizonaState Land Department.

This comprehensive case study,Growing Smarter at the Edge, isdesigned to review and evaluate thebest of urban edge developmentassociated with master-plannedcommunities. The case studies willassist with the development ofHAMP, an area plan that is intendedto provide the implementationframework for the Desert Villageconcept established in the City ofTucson’s 2002 General Plan.

The Desert Village concept is alarge-scale development comprisedof multiple master-plannedcommunities, neighborhoods, and a Desert Village Center. Keyconsiderations have been a blend offactors including:

• Preservation and integration of natural desert spaces andvegetation with ease ofaccessibility for people andvehicles;

• An appropriate mix ofcommercial and residentialdevelopment; and

• A range of housing density,styles, sizes, and prices.

There is little doubt that the aspectsof today’s newer communityconcepts lead to smarter citygrowth while retaining maximumvalue for property owners.

CASE STUDY OBJECTIVES

Prior to initiating the detailedresearch of the case studies, theproject team developed a list of

representative projects from theWestern United States to help focusits efforts. These recommendationswere gleaned from planners anddevelopers as well as extensiveInternet and literature reviews.

LAND USE OBJECTIVES

From a land use standpoint,targeted case study projectsincluded:

• Western edge city locations;

• Contemporary models of progressive master-planneddevelopment; and

• Desert Village model elements as defined in the City of TucsonGeneral Plan.

2 G r o w i n g S m a r t e r a t t h e E d g e

MARKET PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES

From a market performancestandpoint, targeted case studyprojects identified and documented:

• Market performance of progressive master-planneddevelopment in urban edge environments;

• Successful examples of projectsthat balance the competinginterests of the differing scales ofcommercial centers;

• Successful examples of planningmodels and development patterns that maximize and preserve long-term value andhave a positive impact on thecost of providing public services,including public schools.

STUDY CATEGORIES

Three categories of case studies targeted include:

CATEGORY 1: LARGE-SCALE

MASTER-PLANNED COMMUNITIES

• Range of size and scale (1,500-10,000 acres);

• Open space preservation component;

• Urban edge location;• Western location;• Progressive urban form• Mix of housing types and

price ranges;• Mix of land use types

(residential, commercial,employment, open space).

CATEGORY 2: MIXED-USE CENTERS

• Part of master-planned communities;

• Progressive examples of regional commercial centers as well as neighborhood andcommunity-scale development;

• Projects that plan for and integrate public/civic spaceseffectively.

CATEGORY 3: PUBLIC SECTOR

AREA PLANS

• Examples of public sectorplanning frameworks (e.g., City’s General Plan, AreaPlan, or other planningframeworks) thatencourage/foster progressivemaster-planned communitiesthat might be appropriate forthe study area.

REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS

The team developed a focused listof case study projects for furtherresearch and analysis, based onland use, market performanceobjectives, and other criteria. Theprojects, which span five westernstates, include:

NEW MEXICO

Rancho Viejo • Mesa del SolARIZONA

Verrado • VistanciaDC Ranch • Rancho Sahuarita

NEVADA

Summerlin

CALIFORNIA

Otay Ranch • San Elijo HillsNorth City Future Urbanizing

IDAHO

Hidden Springs

3

CASE STUDY HIGHLIGHTS

The following information is amatrix summarizing keycharacteristics and planning toolsused in implementing each of theseprojects. It highlights projects thathave successfully accomplished oneor more key master-plannedcommunity criteria, such as a mixof housing densities, a mix ofhousing prices, open space andnatural resource protection, amulti-modal street layout and theincorporation of commercial andretail. Particularly notableexamples of these criteria areindicated by a .

This matrix can be used as a tool in locating the case studies mostapplicable to a particular issuerelated to the implementation of the Desert Village concept or master-planned communities in general.

4 G r o w i n g S m a r t e r a t t h e E d g e

5

•Peoria General Plan•Planned Communities District

•Strategic Area and Character Plans

•Sensitive Design Program•Environmentally Sensitive

Lands Ordinance

•Rancho Sahuarita Specific Plan

VISTANCIA – PEORIA, ARIZONA

Mix

of H

ousin

g De

nsiti

es

Mix

of H

ousin

g Pr

ices

Open

Spa

ce/P

rese

rvat

ion

Mul

ti-m

odal

Stre

et L

ayou

t

Com

mer

cial

/Ret

ail

KEY CHARACTERISTICS PLANNING TOOLS

DC RANCH – SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA

RANCHO SAHUARITA – SAHUARITA, ARIZONA

•7,100 acres•17,000 units planned•Collection of intimate villages•Centerpiece of community is the

Discovery Trail•Variation in home size/price, not

necessarily housing type•Unprecedented “respect for the land”•1,700 acres open space•Opened April 2004

•8,281 acres–3,700 of which are developable

•Remainder is protected by McDowellSonoran Preserve–well integrated with its desert setting

•4-5,000 units planned•Mix of housing types •Market Street–300,000 sf

neighborhood center •2 million sf mixed-use town

center (planned)•Community opened 1997•Expected build-out 2007

•2,810 acres•10,600 units planned•Family-oriented, "lifestyle living" •15 acre lake park•Town Center (planned)•Residential well-established •Expected build-out 2015

✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

CASE STUDY PROJECT CHART

LEGEND

✔

sf

= meets criteria

= notable example of criteria

= square feet

6

•Santa Fe County GrowthManagement Plan

•Santa Fe Community College District Plan

•Community College Land Use andZoning District Regulations

•Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Comprehensive Plan

•Planned Communities Criteria•Level A master-plan (First in

3-step process)

•Buckeye General Development Plan

•Community master-plan

RANCHO VIEJO – SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO

Mix

of H

ousin

g De

nsiti

es

Mix

of H

ousin

g Pr

ices

Open

Spa

ce/P

rese

rvat

ion

Mul

ti-m

odal

Stre

et L

ayou

t

Com

mer

cial

/Ret

ail

KEY CHARACTERISTICS PLANNING TOOLS

MESA DEL SOL – ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO

VERRADO – BUCKEYE, ARIZONA

•2,500 acres•Collection of villages/village centers•50% open space•Promotes “living amid nature”•Construction began in 1998, two villages

under construction•500+ occupied homes•Affordable housing component

•12,400 acres–State Trust Land•39,000 units planned•Affordable, mixed-use, pedestrian-

friendly•Combination of urban and rural villages•Incorporates employment, neighborhood,

village and community centers•3,000-4,000 acres open space•Water Conservation Component•Forest City Covington Master Developer•Anticipated 70 year build-out•Construction has not begun

•8,800 acres•9,500 units planned•Built amenities before homes•Neighborhoods range from urban to rural •Town center constructed up front •Village center/model homes complete•Planned for up to 4 million sf

of commercial space•Phase I includes 2,040 homes

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

CASE STUDY PROJECT CHART

LEGEND

✔

sf

= meets criteria

= notable example of criteria

= square feet

G r o w i n g S m a r t e r a t t h e E d g e

7

•NCFUA Framework Plan•Five Sub-Area Plans

•Hidden Springs Specific Plan•Hidden Springs Planned

Community Zoning Ordinance

NORTH CITY FUTURE URBANIZING AREA – SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA

KEY CHARACTERISTICS PLANNING TOOLS

HIDDEN SPRINGS – BOISE, IDAHO

•12,000 acres•13,000 units planned•Over 50% set aside as open space•Built environment was defined by

environmental factors•Minimum of 20% of units set aside for

families earning no more than 65% ofmedian area income (city mandate)

•Other units very exclusive–land now goesfor approximately $1M per acre

•1,800 acres•1,035 units planned•Foothills setting, recreation amenities,

community atmosphere, rural character,farming, and small town feel

•1,000 acres of open space•Motto is “The Antidote to Anywhere USA”•Winner Best Smart Growth Community

in Nation (2000)•Opened 1997–brisk sales•500 residents today•Marketing 3rd phase of development

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

CASE STUDY PROJECT CHART

Mix

of H

ousin

g De

nsiti

es

Mix

of H

ousin

g Pr

ices

Open

Spa

ce/P

rese

rvat

ion

Mul

ti-m

odal

Stre

et L

ayou

t

Com

mer

cial

/Ret

ail

LEGEND

✔

sf

= meets criteria

= notable example of criteria

= square feet

8

• Planned Community District

• Otay Ranch General DevelopmentPlan/Subregional Plan

• Sectional Planning Areas• Village Design Plans

• San Elijo Hills Specific Plan

SUMMERLIN – LAS VEGAS, NEVADA

Mix

of H

ousin

g De

nsiti

es

Mix

of H

ousin

g Pr

ices

Open

Spa

ce/P

rese

rvat

ion

Mul

ti-m

odal

Stre

et L

ayou

t

Com

mer

cial

/Ret

ail

KEY CHARACTERISTICS PLANNING TOOLS

OTAY RANCH – SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA

SAN ELIJO HILLS – SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA

• 22,000 acres• Population 83,000 (160,000 at build-out)• America’s best-selling master-planned

community 2002• 1/3 acreage set aside for open space• Began in 1990• 30 year build-out• Nine villages completed, eight in active

stages of development• Villages range in size from 100 to

1,300 acres• Mix of housing types/multiple town centers

• 22,899 acres• Approximately 78,500 residents at build-out• Small town ambiance• San Diego County’s top-selling planned

community• 2,500 acres of open space• Heritage Town Center opened in April

2004, includes 1550 sf homes, 1150 sf apartments, 38,000 sf retail, affordable senior units

• Opened 1999• 13 neighborhoods with 33 model homes• Several neighborhoods completed• Includes designated transit corridor for

future expansion of San Diego system

• 1,920 acres• 3,398 units planned• 777 acres natural open space• 28 neighborhoods• Mixture of housing types/densities• 10% of units devoted to low-income rentals• 18 miles of trails

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

CASE STUDY PROJECT CHART

LEGEND

✔

sf

= meets criteria

= notable example of criteria

= square feet

G r o w i n g S m a r t e r a t t h e E d g e

LESSONS LEARNED

INTRODUCTION

Each case study project offers anumber of lessons learned from adesign, planning process, anddevelopment program standpoint.While the significance of theselessons may vary between projectsdepending upon the reader’sprimary objectives, day-to-day rolein the design, development, andoversight of master-plannedcommunities, there are a numberof noteworthy common themes.These themes are organized intothree categories:

• Planning Lessons: What’s working from a planning standpoint in most or all of theprojects reviewed?

• Planning Challenges: What arethe most common or difficultissues that have arisen duringthe planning and development ofmaster-planned communitiesaround the West?

• Market Lessons: What areimportant market lessons in theplanning of large-scale master-planned communities?

PLANNING LESSONS

Provide clear direction at the General/Comprehensive Plan level.

Each of the master-plannedcommunities reviewed wasrequired to meet a detailed set ofpolicy objectives as set forth by

the adopted community plan for thecity/county in which it is located.Typically, community plans containa variety of elements such as parksand open space, land use, growthmanagement, housing andneighborhoods, and othercategories based upon applicablestate legislation and communityneeds. Although these documentsare usually advisory in nature, bysetting a clear direction at a broadlevel, communities are betterequipped to enforce theimplementation of their goals andobjectives as they review morespecific plans for master-plannedcommunities. Some states, such asCalifornia, go one step further andrequire that zoning must beconsistent with the adopted plan.

In Arizona, Growing Smarter legislation in 1998 and 2000(Growing Smarter Plus) requiredall communities to update theirGeneral Plans, add four newelements (Open Space, GrowthAreas, Environmental Planning, andCost of Development) and set adeadline for completion of theupdate (December 2001). As aresult, Arizona communitiesresearched were fairly consistent at

the General/Comprehensive planlevel on their policies in theseareas, sending a clear message todevelopers and property ownersregarding the expectations for planssubmitted for master-plannedcommunities. Many plannersindicated these policies were reliedupon heavily during the preparationof specific area plans andnegotiation of developmentagreements for individualproperties.

Other states, such as Nevada, havesimilar legislative requirements thatensure communities incorporatemandatory elements into their cityor county plans. In some cases, themaster-planned community wassubject to the adopted policies ofboth the city and county plans.

Although the nomenclature varies,many communities also utilize sub-area plans, specific plans,framework plans, community plans,or similar, more detaileddocuments to supplement theirgeneral or comprehensive plans.This is common when a particulararea or property has unique issuesand characteristics, either due toexisting development patterns,

9

10

notable natural features, or otherfactors and requires an additionallayer of discussion.

Provide a clear process to guidethe development of master-planned communities.

Many of the municipalities reviewed have establishedprocesses specifically for thedevelopment of master-plannedcommunities. While the processesvary in their formality and level ofdetail–some representing a lengthychapter in city’s zoning ordinanceand others summarized in a briefmemo on the city’s Web site–theyall play a key role in clearlydefining what the city’s expectationswill be for each master plansubmittal. Common specificationsinclude:

• A minimum size for master-planned communities (rangingfrom 600 acres in Peoria,Arizona, to 3,000 acres in LasVegas, Nevada);

• Minimum open space orenvironmental protectionrequirements (ranging from 10%in Buckeye, Arizona, to 50% inSanta Fe, New Mexico); and

• Desired and/or requireddevelopment characteristics, suchas a mix of uses, inclusionary housing, varied housing types,protection of natural features, or an integrated open space network. In most cases, these

are characteristics that must beaddressed in subsequent phasesof the process.

Establishing a straightforwardprocess for the development ofmaster-planned communities helpsensure that specific requirementsapplied to master-plannedcommunities are appliedconsistently across the board andensure that the city’s planning staffand elected officials are working andreviewing project submittals with thesame set of objectives in mind.

Equally important is the need to establish flexibility within themaster-planned communityframework to encourage creativityand innovation in design. In fact,planners and developersacknowledge that many of the moreinnovative projects would simplynot have been possible if requiredto follow every aspect of the city'straditional zoning districts, as theissues associated with a 10,000acre master-planned community are simply not the same as thoseassociated with a 200-acresubdivision. Working within variousmaster-planned community

processes, new zone districts andstandards were crafted in manycases to allow for variations inhousing types, increased densities,mixed uses, flexible lot depths,reduced street widths, andnaturalized street cross sections, toname a few. Planners indicated thatthese often hefty “custom”standards far exceeded basicstandards set forth by the city. Close coordination with cityengineering and public works staffwas required in order to gainapproval for narrow streets or otherfeatures that must meet accessibilitystandards for emergency vehicles.

In some cases, cities have developeddetailed design guidelines to helpclarify their expectations for newdevelopment and have used them asa tool for reviewing individualcomponents of proposed master-planned communities (Scottsdale,Arizona, is one good example).Development review boards werealso used in several instances as ameans of ensuring high qualitydevelopment, while allowing a moreflexible approach.

G r o w i n g S m a r t e r a t t h e E d g e

11

Do not budge on the basics.

Despite clear distinctions in density,architectural character, types ofamenities, and other features, eachproject evaluated has a commontheme–a mix of housing types, a mixof land uses, and an integrated openspace and pedestrian system. Thepresence of these characteristics istruly what turns a typical productionsubdivision into something more:

• Inviting to live in;• Sensitive to the

environment and thecommunity; and

• Better able to retain their value in the long-term.

City or county-level policies thatprovide a framework for the protec-tion of open space, parks, and nat-ural features and the accessibility ofthese features are a must for anycommunity, regardless of the sizeand composition of the master-planned communities it contains.Some level of citywide or county-wide environmental protection andopen space policies exist in each ofthe communities evaluated, andwhile it could be argued that anygood developer would preserve thebest natural features of the siteregardless of whether there waspolicy direction to do so, the gener-al consensus among communitiesthat deal with this issue on a dailybasis is that it is better not to leaveit to chance.

Take advantage of availablemechanisms for infrastructurefinancing.

The immense scale and fringe loca-tions of many master-planned com-munities can make the cost of pro-viding basic infrastructure, such asroadways, drainage systems, schools,and other public facilities extremelycostly. Rarely are municipalities–particularly smaller communities–equipped to pay for such improve-ments upfront. In 1988, the ArizonaCommunity Facilities District Actbecame effective, which allowsmunicipalities to form special dis-tricts for the purpose of financingthe installation, operation, and/ormaintenance of public infrastruc-ture. Homeowners are then assessedfor the costs over time and in mostcases completed facilities are turnedover to the municipality.

Community Facilities Districts(CFDs) were the most common tool used to meet the basic infra-structure needs of master-plannedcommunities in the Phoenix region.This was the case with the Verradoproject in Buckeye, Arizona, wherea CFD was used to build a freewayinterchange and a 3-mile accessroad. CFDs are also being used suc-cessfully in the Tucson area by thecommunity of Marana, Arizona.According to Marana’s planners,they have helped facilitate a morecoordinated approach to the devel-opment of the Northwest Marana

area by allowing infrastructureimprovements to be made upfront,regardless of whether all of theaffected properties were beingdeveloped in the short term. CFDscan also be used to cover ongoingcosts such as maintenance or oper-ating costs, allowing them to bepaid back over time.

To help level the playing fieldbetween large and small developersand property owners, Marana hasalso recently begun investigating theuse of impact fees for parks androadway improvements. Typically,impact fees do not cover operatingand maintenance costs once thefacilities are established, so addi-tional sources of funding may ultimately need to be identified.

Other tools common in the westernstates include the use of SpecialAssessment Districts, which operateunder a similar premise. This wasthe case with Summerlin, locatedwithin the City of Las Vegas, whereseven districts have been used to pay for parks, roadways, andother improvements during the project’s history.

Some of the case study projects,including Otay Ranch and the North City Future Urbanizing Area,were required to submit PublicFacility Financing Plans upfront toillustrate how each community’sinfrastructure needs would be met.These plans were then approvedconcurrent with the master-plan.

PLANNING CHALLENGES

Maintain a region perspective.

Regional coordination betweenlocal jurisdictions and other publicagencies is especially critical whendealing with emerging developmentareas likely to attract larger master-planned communities. With manymaster-planned communities locating on the fringes of a largermetropolitan area, local jurisdic-tions have struggled to pay for and implement urban services, such as roadway widening, regionaldrainage systems, and otherimprovements necessary to supportgrowth. Regardless of the ultimatefunding source, whether public,private, or a combination of thetwo, communication and coordina-tion must occur on an ongoingbasis to ensure improvements beingmade meet the needs of not onlythe planned development, but arealso compatible with existing andplanned regional systems.

Driving through the semi-rural, butquickly growing areas in the EastValley of Phoenix, it quicklybecomes apparent that the existingtransportation network is woefullyinadequate to handle the increasedtravel demands of thousands of newresidents. According to county plan-ners, in more than one instance,annexations have occurred that stopshort of adjacent roadways, or

improvements have occurred in apiecemeal fashion with a “one-mile-here-one-mile-there” approach. This is highly inefficient and resultsin roadways that are unsafe andinadequate. In another instance, aroadway has been barricaded byone community to accommodate aplanned development, and as aresult has cut off a major east/westroute for the neighboring commu-nity. Clearly, both the design andreview of master-planned communi-ties must occur with a strong senseof the broader region in mind.

Take the “standard” out ofdesign standards.

As discussed above, many master-planned communities have devotedconsiderable time and effort intothe preparation of detailed designstandards in order to ensure thateach phase of the project maintainsa similar level of quality and is visu-ally compatible with existing andfuture phases. However, even withthe best of intentions, this approachcan occasionally backfire–resultingin homogeneous neighborhoodsthat are virtually indistinguishablefrom one to the other. Design standards, whether applied at acommunity-wide level or limited toa specific community master-plan,should encourage creativity andvariety in design. Each standardshould be carefully considered to

assess its effectiveness applied over several thousand acres, oreven citywide.

Although homebuilders have in thepast relied upon repetition forspeed and cost effectiveness and asa result have been reluctant toincrease the diversity of residentialstreetscapes, attitudes are beginningto change. Both planners and devel-opers surveyed acknowledged aninitial resistance to these types ofrequirements from the homebuildercommunity, but also stressed thatthrough persistence and the consis-tent application of standards, theyultimately achieved their objectives.Diversity requirements were inmany cases applied by design at themaster-plan level and were used asa major selling point–as was thecase with Verrado and Otay Ranch,among others. In some cases, how-ever, basic diversity requirementswere already codified and weresimply exceeded by the subsequentmaster-planned community’s stan-dards. In Buckeye, Arizona (homeof Verrado), for example, the city’szoning ordinance contains a “3x3”variety provision for housing types(floor plans, colors, and facades)to ensure that a quantifiable level ofvariety is provided in all master-planned communities but allows forflexibility in developing an alterna-tive approach.

12 G r o w i n g S m a r t e r a t t h e E d g e

RESPOND TO THE MARKET

The review of the case studies’ market characteristics and projectperformance reveal several lessonsthat may apply to other planningefforts:

Timing of development isdependent on regional growthtrends and patterns.

A growing regional market, interms of jobs, population, andhousing, though not a prerequisite,is a common condition of all of thecase studies reviewed. For thoseareas that are not growing as rapid-ly as most of the case study mar-kets, the rate of development willbe related to regional growth trendsand patterns. This means that theimplementation of some plan elements, such as multi-family resi-dential, commercial, and industrialuses (which may not be feasibletoday) will need to be paced inorder to allow the market to buildover time.

Deliver housing at a variety of price-points.

Building programs for master-planned communities need to deliver housing at price-points thatare affordable to different marketsegments, consistent with house-hold incomes and characteristics in the market area.

Develop a strategy of providingaffordable amenities.

The case studies illustrate that master-planned communities oftenobtain premium pricing relative to their markets because of theamenities they offer and their strate-gic market-orientation. However,larger communities that by designprovide a broad range of housingtypes, either as a strategy or as aregulatory requirement, obtainaverage prices that are comparableto their regional markets because ofthis additional responsibility.

While amenities often commandprice premiums, these premiumsare limited by the buying-power anddepth of the target markets. Inareas with relatively low land costscompared to some of the case studymarkets, there is less room for landto absorb expensive amenities.Therefore, projects in these areasmust develop a strategy of providingamenities affordably through designand economies-of-scale. Preservedopen space that is set-aside andintegrated with development is alower cost way of providing amenityvalue than, for example, moreexpensive recreational facilities.

Responding to the market without losing sight of the early vision.

As voiced by planners and develop-ers alike, one of the greatest chal-

lenges in successfully implementingmaster-planned communities ismaintaining the project's overallvision over an extended period oftime. While it is generally expectedthat there will be some “shifting” ofdensities and land uses within amaster-planned community betweenphases, some master-planned com-munities have gone astray whenmechanisms were not built intotheir master-planned communityprocesses to ensure that adjust-ments to the adopted master-plandid not result in the outright loss of important elements of the plan,such as commercial uses or housing variety.

To prevent this, many of the munici-palities surveyed categorize amend-ments to master-plans as “major”or “minor” and provide detailedspecifications as to what types ofchanges may be made at each level.Typically, minor amendments aredefined as not significantly alteringthe overall vision of the master-planas adopted and can be approvedadministratively. Major amendmentsoften involve land use changes oradjustments in density that requirefurther discussion and are requiredto go through a public hearingprocess and be approved by electedofficials.

13

THE PARTNERSHIP

TRUST LAND—A LAND LEGACY FOR

THE AMERICAN WEST: BALANCING

PUBLIC VALUES WITH FIDUCIARY

RESPONSIBILITY.

In June 2003 the Lincoln Instituteof Land Policy and the SonoranInstitute established a joint ventureproject to improve State Trust Landadministration in the AmericanWest. The goal of the partnership isto ensure that conservation,collaborative land use planning,and efficient and effectivemanagement on behalf of trust landbeneficiaries are integral elementsof how these lands are managed.The efforts of the partnership areintended to assist diverse audiencesbroaden the range of informationand policy options to improve statetrust land management throughoutthe West.

THE LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY

The Lincoln Institute of Land Policyis a nonprofit and tax-exempteducational institution establishedin 1974 to study and teach landpolicy, including land economicsand land taxation. The Institute issupported primarily by the LincolnFoundation, which was establishedin 1947 by Cleveland industrialistJohn C. Lincoln, who drew

inspiration from the ideas of HenryGeorge, the nineteenth-centuryAmerican political economist andsocial philosopher.

The Institute’s goals are to integratetheory and practice to better shapeland policy decisions and to shareunderstanding about themultidisciplinary forces thatinfluence public policy. TheInstitute seeks to improve thequality of debate and disseminateknowledge of critical issues in landpolicy by bringing togetherscholars, policy makers,practitioners and citizens withdiverse backgrounds andexperience in planning,development and property taxation,both in the United States andinternationally.

THE SONORAN INSTITUTE

A nonprofit organization establishedin 1990, the Sonoran Institutebrings diverse people together toaccomplish our sharedconservation goals.

The Sonoran Institute works withcommunities to conserve andrestore important naturallandscapes in Western NorthAmerica, including the wildlife andcultural values of these lands. Thelasting benefits of the SonoranInstitute’s work are healthylandscapes and vibrant, livable

communities that embraceconservation as an integral elementof their quality of life and economicvitality.

Through our approach, theSonoran Institute contributes to aday when:

• Healthy landscapes, includingnative plants and wildlife,diverse habitat, open spaces,clean air and water, extendfrom northern Mexico toWestern Canada;

• People embrace stewardship as a fundamental value bycaring for their communities,economies and natural landscapes;

• Resilient economies supportstrong communities, diverseopportunities for residents,productive workinglandscapes, and stewardship of the natural world.

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy www.lincolninst.edu113 Brattle Street

Cambridge, MA 02138-3400Phone: (617) 661-3016 x127

or 1-800-LAND-USE (800-526-3873)Fax: (617) 661-7235

or 1-800-LAND-944 (800-526-3944)

Sonoran Institutewww.sonoran.org

7650 E. Broadway Blvd. Suite 203 Tucson, AZ 85710 Phone: (520) 290-0828

201 S. Wallace Ave. Bozeman, MT 59715 Phone: (406) 587-7331

4835 E. Cactus Road Suite 270, Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Phone: (602) 393-4310