Part 1 of a three-part series:

This article is the first of three consecutive monthly articles that will focus on a unique land development strategy that is finally starting to be accepted throughout the United States. This article will focus on defining what “coving” is and why there is a need to create a new type of zoning ordinance. The second article, to appear in the November issue of Land Development Today, will unveil a sample ordinance that can be used as a starting point to initiate this neighborhood design concept in various municipal structures. A third article will be featured in December and will detail the numerous successful implementations of coved neighborhood designs.

Coving is a method of platting homes, walks, and streets to form organic flowing shapes with little to no  staggering. This design of a neighborhood creates a development that is preferred by virtually every prospective homeowner.

When the residents who live in these neighborhoods are served the best, both developer (builder) and municipality will benefit the most.

An Alternative to Cookie-Cutter Designs
A grid is easy. Organic free-form planning can be difficult. Today’s powerful software can produce development plans with hundreds of lots in minutes, not weeks like it used to take years ago. Coving is not easy…there is not a quick and simple mode to design it or an automated button to press. Coving design is an art.

For example, a typical 200-lot subdivision following ordinance minimums, with a few curves thrown in can be planned with survey-accurate geometry in a half a day. Assuming the planner is charging about $80.00 an hour, the cost of planning a 200-lot neighborhood is roughly $320.00.

The national median home price is approximately $200,000. Two hundred homes equal $40 million in housing. The cost to design the neighborhood is 0.0008% of the total value of the homes, or put another way, $1.80 per family went into the effort it took to create the neighborhood they will live in.

Statistically, a family will live in each home for only six years. The average family size is 3.14 according to the 2000 U.S. Census. Over a century, the 200-lot neighborhood will house roughly 10,500 people (100 / 6 X 200 X 3.14).

Therefore, during the next century, this neighborhood will cost just over 3 cents per person to design in today’s dollars.

The same technology that took us from designing a neighborhood from weeks to hours can also be applied to break free from cookie-cutter layouts. While more difficult, technology can make a more efficient and openly organic planning technique as coving possible.

A Minimums-Based Process
Today’s typical suburban ordinances are written with only the “minimum” dimensional control. 

Scenario, Developer “A” vs. Developer “B”
Two different developers approach the city with different 80-acre tracts for approvals on their site plan. Both developers use the same engineering firm that has done most of the subdivision work in town. The engineer always follows the minimum standards. The 10% park dedication will be exactly 10%, no less and no more. The 80’ minimum width lots will all be exactly 80.0000 feet, etc.

Developer “A” is known for shoddy cut rate neighborhoods. He has been an embarrassment to the community for years and those on the council shudder in disgust each time they see one of his plans, knowing the homes will be built with the minimum of landscaping and architecture. This developer has a sign behind his desk that reads: “A penny saved is a penny earned.” Those on the council must approve the plans because it meets the minimums and base zoning. The 10% open space becomes a featureless wasteland within a few years.

Developer “B” is a member of the Chamber of Commerce and heads up the local Sierra Club chapter. He is more interested in leaving a legacy than squeezing every dime out of the homebuyers. His homes have tremendous curb appeal because of the architectural elements and landscaping. A smile comes on the face of all council members when he walks into the meetings. Developer “B” makes sure that the neighborhood contains walks and meeting places in the neighborhood even though it is not demanded as a minimum standard. The 10% open space contains a man-made prairie from one of the top environmental landscape architects attracting wildlife.

From an actual “plat” standpoint, the engineer varies little between the two developers…both have the same density, same expenses. There is no incentive for any developer to go beyond the absolute minimums.

Developer “A” wants to develop a better product for the community and future homebuyers, but cannot see a profitable reason given the city’s codes.

Why PUD’s Don’t Work Well
A PUD (Planned Unit Development) ordinance is written to give developers and planners flexibility in design specifically to be creative. The planner’s presentation on PUD’s are often infomercials on an exciting new development complete with earth-tone renderings. Often the rendering misrepresents what the actual development will look like on the ground.

After the PUD is constructed, the council members may drive through the sea of concrete and rooftop (in areas they thought were to be greenspace) and start to question the concept of PUD. There are too many vague areas of the PUD that may be open to different interpretations. Another factor is competition. Often municipal planning consultants also design developments. A hard set of rules would solve many potential conflict-of-interest problems or concerns.

Another PUD problem is that a great presenter can get a mediocre plan approved easier than a great plan introduced by a mediocre presenter.

A “Win-Win” Ordinance
A Cove Ordinance is written to assure a minimum design standard. But, even more importantly, it rewards going beyond the minimums. With a good ordinance we can morph Developer “A” types into Developer “B” types.

Reducing barriers to good design is also a main goal. There is no particular “style” of a coved development. In theory, a coved design could use a grid street pattern and create what could be considered a “coved” layout. This would be a fairly inefficient way to design, but it could qualify as a “coved” design!

Proper coved design is about efficiency. The reason for the design is to create a neighborhood that is the same or cost less (hopefully significantly less) to develop than conventional subdivision, yet looks and feels far more spacious and luxurious.

Honoring the original intent of the municipality is important. Where do the physical “numbers” for the minimums come from? Some municipalities (or consultants) simply boiler plate some other town standards, while others start from scratch with workshops. In the end, many of the dimensions boil down to emotions: council members, Tom, Carol, Mike, and Angie agreeing that a 70’ wide lot is too small, but they would accept 80’ as a minimum.

One Size Does Not Fit All
Space is very regional. A 6,000 square foot lot would be considered far too small in many areas of the Midwest. Yet, that same 6,000 square foot might be considered a large lot in the south. One size cannot fit all.

A side effect of coved design (if properly done) is a significant increase in average lot size. If the local minimum is 10,000 square foot, it would not be unusual for a properly designed coved neighborhood to have a 14,000 square foot average. The benefit to both developer and municipality would be the result of greatly reducing public street length at similar densities to the conventional, while still following the same rules.

At first this seems like a win more for the developer. However, there is likely to be offset by other development expenses: increased manholes, sod surface, about one-third extra driveway surface, and, if there is rear yard screening, increased fences or walls due to the larger average rear yard space in most coved designs.

Unless the larger average lot is used to build a correspondingly larger home (unlikely), you may end up with excessive space. This is counter to smart growth principals. It makes far more sense to use the minimum lot size as an average allowing for a minimum coved lot to be about 25% less than the current ordinance minimum. The exception to this rule may be when the original minimum lot size is already extremely small.

From Subdivision to Neighborhood
But the object here is to develop an incentive-based ordinance, not a minimums-based ordinance, and to create neighborhoods with character, not just curved subdivisions.

Municipalities, and their officials, as well as the general public should determine the qualities that can build community character. A front porch, picket fences, and tree-lined streets may make sense in Boston, but in Santa Fe with the Adobe architecture and shortage of water it would not fit into the locality.

Municipalities that create too many demands on developers using a minimums-based system often find that the housing stock is far more expensive than surrounding areas. In today’s ever-tightening housing market, this is irresponsible planning.

The concept of writing an incentive-based ordinance is to lead all developers to a path which will help them add character to the municipality while gaining financial benefits to the ones that matter most - the home buyers in your community. SLDT
Part 2 - Next month: A sample of a Cove Ordinance