I'm not sure where this thread best fits, for it is both urban planning and public transit.

Tampa Contemplates Transit-Oriented Development Concept

By ELLEN GEDALIUS

The Tampa Tribune

Published: June 30, 2008

Updated:

TAMPA - Neighborhood activists and builders know that when a new development is planned for a part of town, the project can't have more housing units than what the zoning allows.

Now Tampa is looking at turning that concept upside down by regulating the minimum number of units allowed. The concept is known as minimum zoning, and if Tampa were to adopt that philosophy in its comprehensive plan, the city could be the first in the state to do so.

The planning tool is lauded as a way to encourage transit and a way to better prepare for an influx of people, but it is sharply criticized as a threat to neighborhoods and property rights. With that in mind, city planners last week decided to hold off recommending to the city council that they include minimum zoning requirements in the city's long-range comprehensive plan.

Yet city officials say they will further study minimum zoning to decide whether it could work in Tampa.

"We do recognize that minimum density is one of the characteristics used for transit-oriented development," said Cyndy Miller, the city's director of growth management and development services. But, she said, the city still has time to see whether it's the best approach.

Minimum zoning requirements could push people into certain parts of town ripe for transit.

Terry Cullen, team leader for urban planning for the Hillsborough Planning Commission, said projections show Tampa will gain 92,000 residents and 132,000 workers in the next 20 years.

"The city of Tampa doesn't have a whole lot more room to grow other than the boundaries it has now," Cullen said. "Where are you going to put all the people? We're looking at the future. The idea is you want to use your land more efficiently, it gets you ready for transit."

Under a minimum zoning concept, in some parts of the city developers would be required to build at least 15 units per acre.

"That kind of development supports transit," Cullen said. With minimum density requirements, the city could direct development - meaning residents and workers - into areas where transit stations are likely.

The effects, he said, would likely be felt more by developing areas, such as Central Park Village, Tampa Heights and the Channel District, rather than well-established neighborhoods.

Still, neighborhood leaders don't like the idea. Wofford Johnson, president of Tampa Homeowners, an Association of Neighborhoods, said his group opposes minimum density requirements.

"Our concern is that in many neighborhoods, this would lead to increased density that perhaps the neighborhood and the infrastructure can't support," Johnson said.

Developer Spencer Kass also has been vocal in his opposition.

"I'm not opposed to density," said Kass, owner of Landmarc Reality. "I'm opposed to being told I have to do it."

His offices, he said, are 2,000 square feet. But, he said, if minimum zoning requirements had been in effect, he would have had to build 4,000 square feet to meet the rules in his North Howard Avenue neighborhood. That would have dramatically increased his expenses.

Council members also are slow to support the concept.

Councilman Mary Mulhern said offering incentives for denser development would be a better approach.

Councilman John Dingfelder, too, would prefer offering more incentives to developers who want to build denser projects. He is concerned that mandating a minimum density runs afoul of property rights.

"Every now and then, something doesn't pass the smell test, and that didn't pass the smell test to me," he said.

For now, then, the city will hold off but will study the subject. Cullen, from the planning commission, says something needs to be done.

"A lot of people will say we don't want that growth," Cullen said. "The growth is going to come. We need to be ready for it."

Reporter Ellen Gedalius can be reached at (813) 259-7679 or egedalius@tampatrib.com.

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jun/30/me-tampa-looks-to-ease-transit/

Developer Spencer Kass also has been vocal in his opposition.

"I'm not opposed to density," said Kass, owner of Landmarc Reality. "I'm opposed to being told I have to do it."

His offices, he said, are 2,000 square feet. But, he said, if minimum zoning requirements had been in effect, he would have had to build 4,000 square feet to meet the rules in his North Howard Avenue neighborhood. That would have dramatically increased his expenses.

Gee all those Life-Safety requirements added cost too, lets drop those. Smoke detectors cost money, so maybe we should drop that requirement. Parking! Hells bells it costs a lot to pave a parking lot, why not use mulch. Tempered glass is pricey too, I mean when do children ever run through glass doors nowadays? Could save a few bucks there too. God forbid someone have to spend money. It amazes me how many cheap bastards there are in the area. People just don't seem to want the area to take the next step. Think how much better South Tampa would be if this had been done from the beginning.

I, personally, like minimum density requirements in certain areas. Increasing maximum density allowances tends not to produce the dense results planners hope for. Sometimes, developers need a little bit stronger "encouragement" to develop more densely.

A minimum density should instituted in the whole city. Just don't make the minimum the same in say in every part of the city. Right along Bayshore, Westshore, Channelside, Downtown, Harbour Island, Rocky Point, SoHo, Hyde Park etc all should have a higher minimum then say New Tampa.

I think better incentives for higher density would be a nice compliment. But don't just give incnetives for any project slapped together with high density, make sure it's also correctly layed out and planned.

I don't know.

On the one hand, I like that the city realizes it needs density. On the other, I don't think this is the way to do it.

Creating wide-spread "minimum density" zoning is probably going to reduce property values because people won't be able to do what they want with the property. Say that you want a single-family home on a lot in West Tampa. If the property is run down, like many West Tampa homes are, you'd want to be able to build a house that's not termite-ridden, water-damaged, or an energy hole.

But with minimum-density, you couldn't. So you won't buy that lot. Owners of poorly used properties will be stuck with those properties, and they will lie vacant and neglected for longer periods of time, particularly if not enough neighbors will sell their properties to make townhomes, apartments or condos feasible.

This policy probably wouldn't result in any more dense developments than you'd get if you let the market decide. If building multi-unit residential properties in an area is profitable, developers are going to build it. If they're not profitable, no amount of code-tinkering by the City is going to make them build there.

Perhaps if the city provided tax incentives for multi-residential, it would influence developer behavior. But I think enforcing a minimum density is going to result in waste.

^ But on the other hand, they may end up selling their lot to a developer who builds 4 units in the same space and the neighborhood has more taxable value and is a net win for the city.

Hey, way to go Tampa leaders. You're finally catching on to what people like us here have been suggesting for years now. Hell, I was sending in letters about minimum densities before SSC even existed. The scary part is that there's real doubt as to whether or not they will actually adopt any of these no-brainer, must-have zoning changes...


btw, increasing zoning density will do nothing but raise values. Moving forward,the demand for in-city living will continue to outstrip the readily available of housing supply pretty much no matter what the zoning is. Remember, just because it is zoned a certain way, doesn't mean that there won't be variances and waivers and so on. It will still boil down to what property owners want to do. The difference would be that inverting the regulatory resistance to change would encourage a more sustainable development pattern, not the horrific crap we have now. Presently, the resistance is geared to stamp out increased density above a certain threshhold, which forces development to spread out. Way out... It's vital that people understand that a regulated minimum density only exists to ensure that the city remains a fiscally sustainable place to live for its residents in the future. As the city exists now, there WILL come a day when it basically comes to a grinding halt, because the cost of maintaining everything to the expected standard of living will simply cost more than our taxable properties can sustain at a rate congruent to other cost of living factors... As we have all experienced in the past few years, the fiscal black hole has already begun to form. It's long since past time for Tampa to start growing up. We can no longer afford to grow out.

Minimum density infringes on property rights?!

Obviously these people aren't too aware of the number of US Supreme Court cases that fully authorize the use of these (or similar) practices. It's about time we change the zoning and adopt a more sustainable way of developing.

Christ, Tampa is hopeless at times. Even when it comes to the table - decades after the third world figured it out - it still takes time for people to wake the fuck up.

Should I just be glad people are talking about it? It's going to be so long before Tampa is a tolerable place to live again.

I don't know.

On the one hand, I like that the city realizes it needs density. On the other, I don't think this is the way to do it.

Creating wide-spread "minimum density" zoning is probably going to reduce property values because people won't be able to do what they want with the property. Say that you want a single-family home on a lot in West Tampa. If the property is run down, like many West Tampa homes are, you'd want to be able to build a house that's not termite-ridden, water-damaged, or an energy hole.

But with minimum-density, you couldn't. So you won't buy that lot. Owners of poorly used properties will be stuck with those properties, and they will lie vacant and neglected for longer periods of time, particularly if not enough neighbors will sell their properties to make townhomes, apartments or condos feasible.

This policy probably wouldn't result in any more dense developments than you'd get if you let the market decide. If building multi-unit residential properties in an area is profitable, developers are going to build it. If they're not profitable, no amount of code-tinkering by the City is going to make them build there.

Perhaps if the city provided tax incentives for multi-residential, it would influence developer behavior. But I think enforcing a minimum density is going to result in waste.

I feel like I could exchange "minimum density" for "sprawl" and have an equally, if not more true, argument.

The market decides development - absolutely. So why let developers run amock and built trash in the suburbs? Why not consolidate county and city comprehensive plans and work collectively to create TOD with minimum density that takes the countryside off the market (you can legally do this - property rights be damned, it's my planet and I'm sick of it being trashed by consumer America - people need to stand up for their city and take it back through stricter zoning and land use requirements that make it less attractive to develop outside of areas with capable infrastructure- it's not like it's an original idea to demand developers pay for infrastructure or walk away, yknow).

Look, people will always invest in the Bay Area. The climate and the location make it too attractive. Managing - god forbid! - that growth does not mean killing it. In any event, with the existing tax base and growth limits, we sure as hell could use time to slow down, catch our breath, plan for the future, and fix what we've got. As the forecasts show, tens of thousands will move into the city (and hundreds of thousands into the greater area) over the next several years - let's think a little more comprehensively and take risks. These people will come - it's time to get ready and mandate denser development in the existing core. Until you do that, you can't support a basic transit system that can be expanded/subsidized further to serve the fringes of the community effectively.

And, addressing your first point about West Tampa - minimum zoning is directed, not a blanket code. Obviously, certain areas are going to be subject to varying density requirements. It's not as if the entire city needs to be rezoned to 15 units/acre to see the results we're looking for. In no event should the historic character of a neighborhood ever be sacrificed, and that's not what minimum zoning indicates. At all. It's that sort of paranoid conflation that limits progressive planning in the region.

I applaud this. With rising gas prices, many people are going to be moving back to the urban center. Higher density will result in more plausible mass transit options. This is a win for the city if our leaders are smart enough to embrace it.