Regulatory Barriers and Opportunities in Developing Cohousing

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Regulatory Barriers and Opportunities in Developing Cohousing an Investigation into Small, Medium and Large Counties in Florida
Physical Description:
1 online resource (83 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Jacobs, Angeline
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( M.A.U.R.P.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Urban and Regional Planning
Committee Chair:
Jourdan, Dawn
Committee Co-Chair:
Larsen, Kristin E

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
beach -- capital -- cohousing -- consensus -- cooperative -- county -- durrett -- flexible -- florida -- housing -- howard -- martin -- mccamant -- okaloosa -- palm -- planning -- polk -- regulations -- sarasota -- shared -- social -- suwannee -- trade -- union -- urban -- zoning
Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
Cohousing is an underutilized housing type that allows individuals and families to live together, in higher-density developments, sharing both community and private spaces. Given the demands of affordable housing, particularly for single-parent families and the elderly, cohousing presents an alternative model of housing that can be affordable and sustainable and one that can foster safe and rationally governed neighborhoods that could change the dwelling-owner class (Widener, 2010, p. 1). This study seeks to analyze local regulatory barriers to the development and operation of cohousing communities. Employing a case study approach, six counties in the state of Florida were analyzed. The counties were selected specifically based on county size and characteristics. Using a framework constructed from best practices in the field, the comprehensive plans and land development regulations were reviewed in an effort to identify regulatory barriers to the development of cohousing. This study reveals that most of the counties reviewed do not consider cohousing significant and that its unique development needs are underrepresented in the various land use codes and regulations. Because of this limitation, the process of obtaining approvals for zoning changes, PUD support, and possible variances for the unique cohousing design features needs to be improved to support cohousing development in Florida
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local:
Adviser: Jourdan, Dawn.
Local:
Co-adviser: Larsen, Kristin E.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Angeline D Jacobs.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID:
UFE0044273:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 REGULATORY BARRIERS AND OPPORTUNITIES IN DEVELOPING COHOUSING: AN INVESTIGATION INTO SMALL, MEDIU M AND LARGE COUNTIES IN FLORIDA By ANGELINE JACOBS A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 201 2

PAGE 2

2 201 2 Angeline D. Jacobs

PAGE 3

3 Dedicated to Canaan, Lilikoi, Titus & Cassius

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I want to express my gratitude to my chair, Dr. Dawn Jourdan, Esq., who has gone beyond expectations to be supportive in guiding the process of writing a thesis. With her encouragement I persevered during life changes that could have easily derailed my pr ogress toward this goal. I want to thank Dr. Kristen Larsen, my co chair, for her valuable insights and critiques that have made my thesis stronger. I am also appreciative toward Stanley Latimer for his willingness to explain all things GIS and to Gail Eas ley for her mentorship related to professional development. Additionally, I want to thank my Dad, Pat, who has always been there to cheer me up and help formulate strategies for achieving my goals. I am also infinitely grateful to my husband, Canaan, wh o has been my most ardent devotee since I have known him. Without his emotional and motivational support I know that I would have faltered in this endeavor. I look forward to the future with our three children and the adventures we will continue to have to gether, Thank you! I also want to thank those people who have come into my life for friendship, mentorship and love. These people have helped to steer my path in small and large ways that have made life interesting and worthwhile.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 6 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 7 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ............................. 8 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 11 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 13 A Historical Perspective of Cohousing ................................ ................................ .... 13 Introduction to Cohousing ................................ ................................ ....................... 16 Cohousing Characteristics ................................ ................................ ................ 17 Cohousing Development ................................ ................................ .................. 21 3 STUDY DESIGN and LIMITATIONS ................................ ................................ ...... 27 4 DATA AND ANALYSIS ................................ ................................ ........................... 34 Small Counties ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 34 Suwannee County ................................ ................................ ............................ 34 Martin County ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 36 Medium Counties ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 38 Okaloosa County ................................ ................................ .............................. 38 Sarasota County ................................ ................................ ............................... 40 Large Counties ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 44 Polk County ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 44 Palm Beach County ................................ ................................ .......................... 46 5 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 50 6 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 52 APPENDIX : MATRIX CRITERION A 1 THROUGH A 6 ................................ ................ 54 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................... 80 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ............................ 83

PAGE 6

6 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Selected counties, described by size, population, and percentage increase. ..... 32 4 1 Simplified criterion matrix ................................ ................................ ................... 49 A 1 Suwannee County matrix criterion ................................ ................................ ...... 55 A 2 Martin County matrix criterion ................................ ................................ ............. 59 A 3 Okaloosa County matrix criterion ................................ ................................ ........ 64 A 4 Sarasota County matrix criterion ................................ ................................ ........ 67 A 5 P olk County matrix criterion ................................ ................................ ................ 71 A 6 Palm Beach County matrix criterion ................................ ................................ ... 76

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3 1 Map depicting location of selected counties in the state of Florida ..................... 33

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S BOCA Basic Building Code, by the Building Officials Code Administrators International ESA Environmentally S ensitive Area FLU Future Land Use IRO In fill Redevelopment Overlay LDC Land Development Code LDR L and Development Regulation MUD Mixed Use Development MUP M ixed Use Project PRD Planned Residential Development or District PUD Planned Unit Development or Di strict. The purpose of a PUD is to offer a residential development alternative, which provides a living environment consisting of a range of living opportunities, recreation and civic uses and a limited amount of commercial uses. RSF Residential Single Fa mily SBC Standard Building Code, by the Southern Building Code Conference International UBC Uniform Building Code, by the International Conference of Building Officials

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning REGULATORY BARRIERS AND OPPORTUNITIES IN DEVELOPING COHOUSING: AN INVESTIGATION INTO SMALL, MEDIUM AND LARGE COUNTIES IN FLORIDA By ANGELINE D. JACOBS May 2012 Chair: Dawn Jourdan Cochair: Kristin Larsen Major: Urban and Regional Planning Cohousing is an underutilized housing type that allows individuals and families to live together, in higher density developments, sharing both co mmunity and private spaces. Given the demands of affordable housing, particularly for single parent families and the elderly, cohousing presents an alternative model of housing that can be affordable and sustainable and one that can foster safe and rationa lly governed neighborhoods that could change the dwelling owner class (Widener, 2010, p. 1). This study seeks to analyze local regulatory barriers to the development and operation of cohousing communities. Employing a case study approach, six counties in t he state of Florida were analyzed. The counties were selected specifically based on county size and characteristics. Using a framework constructed from best practices in the field, the comprehensive plans and land development regulations were reviewed in a n effort to identify regulatory barriers to the development of cohousing. This study reveals that most of the counties reviewed do not consider cohousing significant and that its unique development needs are underrepresented in the various land use codes a nd

PAGE 10

10 regulatio ns. There are limitation s to cohousing development due to the process of obtaining approvals for zoning changes, planned unit development s special permits and variances There needs to be certain improvement s to the ir regulat ory operations to simplify the process of cohousing development in Florida.

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Many Americans, in the decades to come, will be faced with the probability that purchasing a home in a conventional single family subdivision will not disqualify many middle class Americans f or debt financed home ownership. Michael Widener, Cohousing: joining affordable, sustainable and collaboratively governed, single family neighborhoods. The r eality television show Sister Wives documents a polygamist family lifestyle that merges four women and their growing families. The current season depicts this family of 21, who were living in four different homes, and their desire to share their lives toge ther as a family under one roof. They spend the season wishing for a home in which each family unit has a private living area, with shared communal spaces for family integration and activities. In some ways, the home this polygamist family seeks is similar to those homes built for cohousing. However, families who typically choose to live in cohousing are not related and have separate homes with the addition of a communally shared space. If they choose to build a new home, the sister wives of the televisio n show will face the same regulatory obstacles that any cohousing development might encounter in developing their ideal home. Given the growing desire of families to live in nontraditional configurations, the current structure of housing regulations and z oning codes must be reviewed to increase the likelihood that nontraditional housi ng developments will be allowed. Local governments, planning and design professionals, and builders should be eager to develop strategies for adaptation and innovation, which will broaden the residential housing options for consumers. One possibility to diversify available housing

PAGE 12

12 is the development of cohousing. Many advocates espouse the multitude of benefits that cohousing communities offer (Hasell & Scanzoni, 2000; Hanson, 1996; Belk, 2006; McCamant & Durrett, 1988; Wann, 2005). The goal of this study is to explore the regulatory barriers that may prevent the development of cohousing in the state of Florida. Despite the 118 cohousing communities located throughout the Unit ed States, only one cohousing development is established in Florida. Four other cohousing groups are forming, but they have not yet reached the development stage. The study critically analyzes regulations and codes that frame housing development in the sta te of Florida to determine if these regulat ions are creating barriers preventing the development of cohousing.

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW A Historical P erspective of Cohousing Cohousing has evolved from the cooperative housing movement and its emphasis on cooperative housekeeping, resident operational control and communal living. Therefore, it is important to trace the roots of the cooperative movement in order to understand the reasons why cohousing has developed, its niche market, and why it can be app licable to the current and future housing market. The modern cooperative housing movement emerged in Europe and the United States for three main factors: the World Wars, the unionization of labor and the feminist reforms related to domestic tasks. In both post World War I Europe, and post World War II United States, cooperative housing models were developed in response to post war housing and financial shortages caused by the diversion of labor and resources. Specifically, in the United States, the develo pment of c ooperatives was facilitated development of cooperative housing for middle income families ( United States, 1950, PL 475 ) As a result, several cooperative developmen t groups formed, including the Foundation for Cooperative Housing (FCH) which provided technical assistance, services and training to build coop erative housi ng programs. By 1958, federal support helped to increase the cooperative housing stock by 100,000 units, 45,000 of which were directly financed (Siegler & Levy, 1986, pp. 16 19). Early in this period, trade unions recognized the ability of cooperative housing to provide supportive networks for members. Developed by Abraham Kazan, the founder of the Uni ted Housing Federation (UHF), but sponsored by the Amalgamated Clothing

PAGE 14

14 Workers Union, the housing cooperative used capital from pensions and traditional loans to secure housing for union members and their families. Originally this co operative started wit h 300 units, but eventually expanded to 1,400 units (Siegler & Levy, 1986 p. 14). Based upon the success of this and other cooperative housing ventures the UHF built the largest cooperative housing development Co Op City, completed in 1973, in the Bronx, New York City. This development houses over 40,000 people and offers schools, shopping centers, co op supermarkets, banks and other services Due to the initial support from the government and trade unions this and other cooperative housing was able to flo urish. Another important advancement in the cooperative housing movement came from early feminists who wanted to improve the lives of working women by attempting to alter These women saw the cooperative ho using movement as a compatible model for domestic reform. American feminist philosopher Charlotte Perkins Gilman identified the need for special apartments for working women that could receive services from businesses related to housework, cooking, and chi ld care. (Hayden, 1981, p. 189). Builder Otto Fick thought that her was a joint stock assoc iation specifically designed for childless but married working women which provided prepared food service, house cleaning and laundry service through an employed staff as a benefit of living there. (Hayden, 1984, p. 84) This service house thrived for more than 30 years and is an example of a successful feminist cooperative housing model.

PAGE 15

15 also influenced Ebenezer Howard, the founder of the Garden City movement that changed the shape of urban planning, to create wit hin his garden city an alternative housing option. H oward carefully designed which would fit into his ideal Garden City (Hayden, 1981, p p. 230 31). Howard designed address the needs of working women by providing a shared kitchen, dining areas and clustered public space s for all the residents to enjoy (Hayden, 1984, p. 85). Building on the interest in the cooperative movement already developing in Europe, social scientist Alva Myrda l and a rchitect Sven Markelius formulated a collective housing philosophy and design aesthetic that would influence the design and development of the cooperative housing movement. Urban housing, where twenty familie s each in their own apartment cook their own meatballs, where a lot of young children are shut in, each in his or solution?(Vestbro, 2008, p. 3) Their idea went even further whe n Myrdal and Markelius showcased the architectural col lective housing apartment s included a shared central kitchen, a staffed kindergarten and common play space, and sunbathing o n the roof (Vestbro, 2008, p. 3). These cooperative movement and supported communities of working w omen.

PAGE 16

16 Introduction to Cohousing Cohousing is a relatively new housing typology that fosters an intentional design and unique community structure based on shared expenses. The cohousing movement began in the 1960s during a time of discontent and willing ness to live in non traditional ways. Following various philosophical veins in the cooperative movement, the cohousing movement began as a way to address the frustrations experienced by some Danish people who were living a lifestyle they found unsustainabl e and socially isolating. Because of this trend, some Danes began to redefine what community meant to them and how to improve their quality of life. In 1964, a pioneering group of individuals, along with architect Jan Gudmand Hoyer, decided to change the course of their current lifestyles, which they believed to be isolated, overworked, and limited in social interaction. Their efforts helped them to understand what they were missing in their lives and to develop a strategy for addressing those needs from a community building perspective. Their efforts produced a new housing typology called a provided residents with both the private residence and the shared community conn ection and resources they felt were lacking from their lives. For many years, this group tried to establish a collaborative housing community, but the group did not develop until 1973 when two resident owned communities were completed (McCamant & Durrett, 1988, p. 95). In 1988, architects Kathryn McCamant and Charles Durrett introduced the concept of cohousing to the United States. They had spent a year studying cohousing in Denmark and published their findings in Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to Hou sing Ourselves McCamant and Durrett advocated and consulted on many

PAGE 17

17 communities in the United States and an equal number [are] in various stages of Margolis & Entin, 2011, p. 2). Cohousing Characteristics Cohousing is attractive to some because of the innovative conceptualization process that demands active participation from its residents, from inception and throughout their stay in the community. Moreover, cohousing communities are often typically condominiums or attached single family homes where each household participates in the design, planning, and overall management of the community. These qualities are attractive to many who are seeking a neighborly driven community. G the formation of a cohousing community. Th en, an indefinite period can pa ss in which ideas focus and develop; often, this is a time in which participants come and go from the project. Cohousing communities take an extensive amount of time to develop for many reasons, including group formation, interest in project, financing, p lanning, and design. Over time, the importance of streamlining the process becomes essential to the production of practical and engaging solutions. The design process and operation of cohousing neighborhoods have been synthesized down to the following s ix dist inct cohousing characteristics: 1. A participatory process of planning and design in which resident members contribute to the planning and design of their community from inception; 2. An intentional neighborhood d esign that encourages community interacti on and relies on ecologically sound practices;

PAGE 18

18 3. Extensive c ommon facilities for communal uses where community members can interact and share; facilities often include a dining area, a sitting area, a children's play room, a guest room, as well as a garden a nd other amenities; 4. Resident community management wherein joint meetings address minor issues like shared meal preparation and other issues; 5. A non hierarchical structure for decision making; all decisions are made through consensus; and 6. No shared community economy; everyone owns their own homes and works separately to earn an income. (McCamant & Durrett, 1988, pp. 38 42) These six characteristics have come to define cohousing developments, not because they are unique, but because when taken together consis tently, they contribute to the success of the entire cohousing development. Cohousing developments exist in all types of communities, and they are uniquely varied in their ideologies One of the biggest benefits of choosing to live in a cohousing communit y is the remedy it provides to social isolation associated with modern society and suburban living. Suburban living became the dream of most Americans after World War II, when community developments like Levittown became now 4, p. 7). The consumers for Levit town were veterans returning from World War II who had lived in military communal barracks and wanted to have privacy and relaxation which Levittown provided (Hayden, 1984, p. 8). uccess set the standard for the suburban housing market. This was the period designed: for a nuclear family consisting of a bread winning Father, a homemaking Mother and two to four children. Toda y, less than one quarter of the population lives in such households. Rather, the family with two working parents predominates, while a single parent household is the fastest growing type(McCamant & Durrett, 1988, p. 10)

PAGE 19

19 This change in family structure nec essitates a reevaluation of the housing options because a one size fits all housing mentality no longer applies. In Redesigning the American Dream: Gender, Housing, and Family Life Dolores Hayden argues that the spatial layout of many American subdivided communities required full time homemakers. This task typically was designated to women, who later became oppressed by the combined obligation to earn a second income for the family (Hayden, 1984, p p. 146 148). Cohousing offers a unique spatial arrangemen t and socially supportive environment that frees up valuable time and lessens the struggle demanded of mothers and single parent households by sharing the burden of childcare and other domestic duties across a community of socially supportive members. Hay den ( 1984 ) hypothesizes that home becomes a place in which one should find a sense of comfort and security and a place that offers a haven from the outside world. For example, if a mother or father is unable to relax because he or she is focused on grocer y shopping, household chores, dinner making, and work, the family unit suffers. Cohousing offers an internal network that allows the family more free time to enjoy more activities together, increasing their quality of life. Cohousing reintroduces the ide a of social capital and a sense of unity for people who are often geographically separated from their traditional families and who desire community support. Cohousing addresses this issue of social isolation through conscious site planning and pedestrian movement through the site, which allows for ease in social interaction. This socialization is designed into the community using open space and the clustering of homes.

PAGE 20

20 Social capital is important for a community to build trust and to develop valuable rel ationships. Cohousing offers a form of social capital that depends on the flow capability of the social inception of a cohousing group, it is essential to build this trust from which the community can nurture and create an atmosphere of solidarity necessary during the long process of cohousing development. Trustworthiness requires the willingness to receive, no less than give. A mutual support network requires both if it is to survive and hopefully thrive. To achieve those goals, group members would have to develop the capabilities to solve problems, resolve perceived inequities, and negotiate conflicts (Hasell & Scanzo ni, 2000 p. 8) Trust building can be difficult to achieve, but in order for a cohousing community to develop beyond the meeting stage, a plan must be established to handle disagreements and reach common solutions. Many cohousing groups utilize the conse nsus conflict management method which generates pro active, non hierarchical cooperation and allows everyone to be heard and understood. This method is employed to garner resolution and, thus, develop a stronger commitment and cohesi on among members to en courage mutual assistance with community chores and responsibilities, active neighboring, and the shared community meals. While the consensus process takes as much as a third longer to reach a decision than a majority voting process, proponents assert tha t it results in better solutions to problems, greater commitment to the implementation of e effective conflict resolution (Fenster, 1999, p. 12) The community members who subscribe to the cohousing lifestyle know that a consen sus decisi on making process takes longer, but members

PAGE 21

21 mechanism for dealing with these (Clurman & Hebard, 1970, p. 217) Cohousing Development Typically, the start up money for cohousing projects comes from the potential cohousing residents and through local traditional loans. Similar to the actions of the U.S. making it eas ier and less expensive to sponsored, index linked loans for new [decreasing] the initial investment and monthly mortgage payment Durrett, 1988, p. 143). But since this type of legislation ha s not been established in the United States cohousing groups depend upon traditional loans and a more complicated process of shared ownership. As mentioned before, cohousing is no t always the least expensive method to house people, but it has far reaching benefits for the residents in other ways. However, because this type of legislation has not been established in the United States, cohousing groups depend on traditional loans a nd a more complicated process of shared ownership. As mentioned before, cohousing is not always the least expensive method to house people, but it has other far reaching benefits for the residents. Because of conventional building practices and the need fo r traditional loans, many (Margolis & Entin, 2011 p.11). Nonetheless, not all cohousing units are owned outright, and s everal rental and ownership models have been successful.

PAGE 22

22 Almost all cohousing developments are being built from the ground up and therefore shoulder all the upfront costs related to land acquisition, design, planning, and infrastructure can sometimes be slightly more expensive on the front end (10 15% premium over traditional housing), it offers economic savings over the life p. 4). This type of cost savings for c ohousing members comes through the pooling of resources and goods like tools, gardens, car pooling, laundry fa cilities, savings on childcare, bulk purchase of food and other shared services. One cohouser commen ted on a message board connection in their community meant the y paid maybe $8 a month for high speed internet instead of $40 50. Garbage and recycling expenses were pooled and therefore p. 1). In addition according to an EPA study of the Nyland Cohousing Community in Lafayette, Co p. 2) These savings coupled with the strength of community can be alluring to those who choose to live in a cohousing community. Project feasibilit y issues for the development of cohousing communities are mostly related to how the local governments have established their comprehensive code, land use and zoning laws. Some cohousing developments become derailed because of density limits, setbacks and yard requirements, fire safety, common house definitions and treatment, parking requirements, child care (as a conditional use permit), and definitions of ownership (Hanson, 1996, p. 92). Cohousing shifts their perspective from single family detached housi ng in suburban tracts to favoring clustering homes, sometimes attached dwellings, and a walkable neighborhood design. Unfortunately, the

PAGE 23

23 feasibility of building this type of community conflicts with longstanding building codes and land use regulations whic h rely on the traditional detached housing arrangement. Traditional land use regulations, grounded partly in property values, favor detached single family housing. However, for many people detached single family housing is either inapp ropriate or priced b eyond reach (Malagrino, 2009, p. 3). Building codes are only one part of the regulatory structure that affects land and development. Building codes assure that a minimum acceptable level of safety has been met by the construction industry. Cohousing is no exception and is required to be built to these, and higher, standards. Building codes were developed to safeguard the larger community; they are not considered ineffective, but they do need to be able to adapt. In the past, building codes have been able t o adapt, and there have been: two major periods of expansion of the scope and complexity of the sanitation in dwellings and the New Deal era, when Federal government led a major restructu ring of the entire U.S. housing system and model codes became a significant factor in regulation (Kelly, 1996 p. 350 ). From this basic structure, building codes have adapted and there are now three widely used building codes : UBC, BOCA and SBC Each stat e and local authority chooses to adopt one of these building codes and uses it to guide regulatory control over new or proposed construction. All governmental authorities have the power to alter these codes to fit the particular needs of their communities. When they invoke this power, they create unique complexities to their development codes and land use regulations that which can make it increasingly cumbersome for nontraditional housing programs to develop. Some authorities have tried to develop separate building codes, but d ue to the complexity of building regulation, only the largest jurisdictions attempt to d evelop [them] 1996, p. 350).

PAGE 24

24 Given the characteristics of cohousing and its nontraditional neighborhood design, these regulations and c odes are not flexible and inclusive enough to be applicable to cohousing developments. Other regulatory process factors have affected cohousing developments; for example, zoning and subdivision regulations impose further demands on new developments. The s tandard zoning practice is based on Euclidean principles of separating areas traditionally seen as incompatible. This type of zoning segregates industrial areas from residential areas, and it creates zones of commercial areas that limit the activity allowe d on certain pieces of property in a community. This type of zoning is popular in the United States, but many cohousing developments find this zoning practice to interfere with their ability to build. Euclidean zoning controls density, setbacks, landscapin g, parking, traffic flow, and many other developmental factors. Cohousing is often designed at higher density, with limited, clustered peripheral parking, which changes the setbacks and landscaping patterns of the community. Euclidean zoning does not have the flexibility to manage or allow for these types of designs without a lengthy review process. Most state and local authorities have developed a process of relief through variances and incentives, which can mitigate the potential exclusionary aspects of t heir blanket approach to zoning, development codes, and regulations. However, these processes remain lengthy and costly to cohousing developments. The Survey of Cohousing Communities reports that over 46% of the responsive cohousing communities had to chan ge zoning to build on their site (Margolis & Entin, 2011, p. 8)

PAGE 25

25 While Euclidean zoning is the most prevalent zoning style in the United States, other zoning types exist, which are less rigid and more conducive to cohousing. For example, performance zoning establishes specific standards and criteria for determining appropriate uses and site design requirements, rather than prescribing specific uses and building functions related to density, height setbacks, etc. Moreover, performance zoning establishes crit eria ensuring that each land use is compatible with adjacent land uses and public facilities; more specifically, this zoning style determines that one land use will not adversely affect others Standard s of zoning are concern ed with traffic flow, density, noise and access to light and air. Developers can build almost any building that meets these performance standards for a particular district. Performance zoning allows for a great deal of flexibility. Performance zoning regulates based on four elements: open space ratio, impervious surface ratio, density and floor area ratio (Kendig, 1980, p. 25). Therefore, performance zoning allows greater flexibility, which makes it a very useful zoning tool, but it also complicates its administration (Holt, 2001, p. 3 ). With the flexibility of performance zoning, cohousing development would be seen as an appropriate use given the location, avoiding the immediate denial of permission under any Euclidean zoning plan. Despite the 118 cohousing communities located throu ghout the United States, only one established c ohousing development exists in Florida. This may be due to lack of interest in this type of housing, or it may be that local regulations are prohibitive and Currently f our cohousing groups have formed in Florida, but none has reached the development stage. It is doubtful that the cohousing model will stop being useful to people who are seeking the community

PAGE 26

26 building benefits it provides. Members of cohousin g groups realize that it is more expensive and has obstacles to overcome to reach a more widespread audience and community. This study seeks to determine if certain development regulations need to be changed to accommodate nontraditional housing like cohou sing.

PAGE 27

27 CHAPTER 3 STUDY DESIGN and LIMITATIONS Study Design The study will examine the opportunity or barriers to the development of co housing in selected communities in the s tate of Florida. Because cohousing is a relatively new housing phenomenon, Flori da might not have the regulations and criteria needed to support cohousing through its state legislation. The study will assess the tools used by local governments to manage the development of housing through comprehensive plans zoning and land developme nt regulations. The development of the matrix utilized in this study pr ovides a comprehensive assessment tool The first task in the study was to determine which criterion would be useful in reviewing the data con sistently. Each of the below criterion has been selected to address the research questions posed by this study. Below is a list of questions and explanations for application in this study: 1. Is cohousing defined in the county land development codes or zoning code or comprehensive plan? This study will try to determine if any regulations exist regarding general cohousing development qualities, including dense clustering of housing units, common house sharing, periphery parking, etc. If a direct linkage is not found, the researcher will seek to find relatable language that cohousing developments could utilize in applying for development. 2. How do the L and D evelopment R egulations or zoning codes relate to cohousing development? Similar to the above question this question further determines what codes and regulations would relate to cohousing. This might include developing through other types of innovative housing developments like PUD, PRD, MUD, MUP, cluster, overlay districts, or flexible zoning. 3. Level of nego tiability. This study will analyze the relationship of the cohousing application to the county to determine if there are restrictions to development that would cause a hardship related to zoning changes and variances used when there are justifications, suc h as unique circumstances or undue hardship, based on regulations, which do not interfere with the public welfare.

PAGE 28

28 4. Quality of urban form. Urban form relates to the density or compactness of the counties, revealing a relationship between urban and rural la nd uses. The use of relationship to the demands of growth and choices in regulations to curb sprawl and to encourage compact development. In addition, this study will seek t o find if performance measures exist that help the counties to meet their goals for a balanced urban form. In the Data and Analysis chapter the se criterions will be used as a guide for the reader through the review of the selected counties Th e matrix wa s filled systematically by taking the first criterion and reviewing the policies and regulations in a single county and filling in the code or reference number applicable to the criterion. The next step in filling in the matrix was to answer whether or not the code or reference number effectively answered the criterion question. To simply the codes in this category, two one word answers were given: exists or absent This study is based on an assessment of regulations in six counties in Florida. The countie s have been selected based on size, projected growth, and location to give a broad sense of inclusionary housing practices. This type of investigation is helpful in developing recommendations that will form more precise discussions of cohousing development in Florida The six counties will be grouped in pairs that meet each level of criterion for population size, projected growth, and location, which are varied in climate, social, and political attitudes. The projected growth and size of a community was c hosen to highlight the likely need for further housing developments in those regions. Considering location and pairing similarly sized counties as a criterion should provide a range of perspectives and a better gauge of whether the location in the state of Florida has an effect on housing regulations. In addition, pairing the similarly sized counties will provide added

PAGE 29

29 information concerning whether location has any additional effect on regulations. The size of the county is defined within the following ran ge: small county populations are equal to or less than 150,000; medium county populations are 200,000 to 500,000; and large county populations are greater than 500,000. The small county population category was based on the definition developed by the statewide alliance of county commissioners, the Small County Coalition of Florida, which identifies small counties for membership at a population of 150,000. The medium Sized Charter and Non at the University of West Florida; the samplings in their study used a range of 200,000 500,000 (Teasley & Steacy, 2008 p. 1). From that study, the researcher extrapolated that large counties would be those with populations greater than 500,000. A population discrepancy of 50,000 exists between the small and the medium county size, and this was solely dependent on the sources used for managing these criteria; it presents a limita tion of this criteria development. Each county chosen will need to have a projected growth rate of 25% or more from 2010 through 2030. This projected population growth is based on data retrieved cenario for the State of opulation growth data relied on the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR), which projects growth for all counties in Florida. Reliable BEBR data is only available up to the year 2030; the data available from 2030 to 2060 was calculated by the research team associated with the report and is not derived specifically from BEBR data.

PAGE 30

30 From each of the above categories, the six counties were chosen to fairly assess regulatio n standards to determine if any effect, either positive or negative, exists concerning cohousing development in those areas. T able 3 1 below indicates the requirements established and the selected six counties in Florida that fit the criteria. Limitation s. The research method of case study is best suited for the questions exploring the potential of cohousing within the regulatory framework in Florida. In Case study research, design, and methods Yin (2003) considers the case study to be an all encompassi meaningful characteristics of real In addition, and interviews of the persons involved in the strength is its ability to deal with a full variety of evidence documents artifacts, interviews and observations (Yin, 2009, p. 11) This study design will represent the range of regulations by capturing a sampling of coun ties, based on selected criterion, in order to approach the best possible discussion of the research question. The inherent limitations of this study are based on the consideration that regulations vary in each Florida county, and this study is focused on only six of the 67 counties in the state. The regulations and codes reviewed for this study were found either from a link at the county online webpage or through the online repository for regulations Municipal Code Corporation located online at http://www.municode.com/library/FL F urther limitation relates to the fact that regulations can be modified or new regulations approved at any poi nt during or after this study; such changes could affect the conclusio ns and suggestions reached by this study. This study will try to reach the best possible conclusions regarding a general pattern of the regulations in Florida counties, describing the opportunities and/or barriers concerning

PAGE 31

31 cohousing developments. Finally this study is not prepared to definitively address those limitations due to the parameters and time constraints. In addition, another limitation of this study is that it only deals with the regulations applicable to cohousing developments, and it does no t consider the interest in the housing market or public opinion regarding this type of housing development

PAGE 32

32 Table 3 1. Selected counties, described by size, population, and percentage increase Count ies: s mall to large 2010 Population 2030 Projected Po pulation Percent population increase SUWANNEE 43,944 57,837 31.615 % MARTIN 154,019 202,014 31.162 % OKALOOSA 206,225 264,260 28.142 % SARASOTA 398,370 515,053 29.29 % POLK 587,621 756,765 28.785 % PALM BEACH 1,412,447 1,916,213 35.666 %

PAGE 33

33 Figu re 3 1 M ap depicting location of selected counties in the state of Florida

PAGE 34

34 CHAPTER 4 DATA AND ANALYSIS This chapter will utilize the matrix developed to analyze the regulations that effect cohousing construction in the selected six counties in Florida. Th e respective counties are listed below according to population, from smallest to largest. The counties are then reviewed through the four criterion questions established for this review of regulations. The unique regulations of each county are filtered th rough the research criterion in order to analyze the effects the regulations have on potential cohousing developments. All documents pertaining to the various codes, regulations, and plans were reviewed. Such review began with a broad search using key word s cluster, flexible, cohousing, accessory, parking, incentive, and density which helped to narrow the review for each county criterion. After compiling the pertinent regulations into the criterion matrix, analysis occurred regarding the criterion questions An overall explanation of the relative support or hindrance of cohousing within each county is presented below. Table 4 1 simplifies this analysis, presenting the conten ts of the review in a manner for ease of interpretation and understanding. Additional ly, the entire matrices are found in Appendix A. Small Counties Suwannee County Suwannee County, Florida includes the incorporated areas of the City of Live Oak and the Town of Branford. It also includes the unincorporated areas of Dickert, Dowling Park, Fort Union, Houston, Luraville, McAlpin, O'Brien, Rixford, Slade, Suwannee Springs, and Wellborn.

PAGE 35

35 Is cohousing defined in the County LDRs, the Zoning Codes, or the Comprehensive Plan? Suwannee County does not specifically define cohousing in any of its reg ulations or codes. Do the LDR or the Zoning Codes support cohousing development? While Suwanee County does not specifically codify cohousing, it does include the possibility for promoting innovative housing developments with their Planned Residential Deve lopment (PRD) category, which encourages flexible and creative concepts of site planning and provides for an efficient use of land, resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets, thereby lowering development and housing costs. These qualities are supportive of cohousing development because of the basic efficiency of site design and clustering of housing, which results in the smaller network of resources and development costs. Suwannee County has developed an Affordable Housing Incentive Plan that c ould be supportive of cohousing developments if a development included an affordable housing strategy in its design. In such a situation, a cohousing development would benefit by increased density levels, a reduction of parking and setback requirements, an allowance of zero lot line configurations or developments, and modification of street requirements, all of which are standard development choices for cohousing communities. Quality of urban form. Suwannee County does not have a strategy that allows for a review of urban form. Level of negotiability. Suwannee County offers development relief through the Board of Adjustment under the terms of the land development regulations, and the zoning district involved has the authority to grant variances and special permits.

PAGE 36

36 Summary. It would be in the best interest for a cohousing community to develop in a PRD capacity in Suwannee County because the more conventional residential regulations are not outwardly supportive due to their unique design qualities. The hind rance in Suwannee County relates to Residential, (Mixed) Single Family/Mobile Home (RSFIMH) categories in the four zone districts: RSF/MH l, RSF/MH 2, RSFIMH 3 and RSFIMH 4. It is the intent of these districts to provide for single family residential areas family dwellings and individual mobile homes within designated urban areas as defined in the County's Comprehensive Plan. This regulation focuses on conventional low medium density single family dwellin gs, which does not coincide with the manner in which cohousing development structures their community. In addition, this regulation is concerned with minimum lot requirements that impede the preferred clustering and increased density features of cohousing. Martin County Martin County, Florida includes the incorporated areas of the Town of Jupiter Island, the Town of Ocean Breeze Park, the Town of Sewall's Point, and the City of Stuart. It also includes the unincorporated areas of Hobe Sound, Hutchinson Isl and part, Indiantown, Jensen Beach, North River Shores, Palm City, Port Salerno, Rio, Port Mayaca. Is cohousing defined in the County LDRs, the Zoning Codes, or the Comprehensive Plan? Martin County does not specifically define cohousing in any of its regu lations or codes. Do the LDR or the Zoning Codes support cohousing developments? While Martin County does not specifically codify cohousing, it does include the possibility of

PAGE 37

37 some options for promoting innovative housing developments with its Mixed Use P roject (MUP) and its Planned Unit Development (PUD) categories. The PUD option would facilitate cohousing development through its basic premise of encouraging innovative residential development in various land use areas. MUP would be helpful if the cohousi ng development chose to add a daycare option to its development or other supportive commercial aspect to the scheme. In addition, Section 6.4 of the Comprehensive Plan includes policies to support affordable housing development to serve the needs of curren t and future populations of Martin County. If a cohousing development integrates these policies into its design, the potential for density bonuses and other regulatory based incentives would be increased and lead to a more expedited experience. Quality of urban form. Martin County has established a Community Redevelopment Overlay District (CROD) that provides a zoning procedure that allows a review for increased density for traditional neighborhood design and mixed residential and commercial uses in redeve loping areas that preserve wetlands and native uplands on site in grouped, clustered orientation. This policy is supportive of cohousing developments because cohousing has clustering built into its development strategy, which could partner with the CROD, a llowing for the density increase needed in most developments. Martin County has also begun monitoring the housing needs of its population and developing residential land uses that support a range of housing types for a diverse group of residents. Level of negotiability. The Martin County LDRs offer some level of negotiability in development procedures. The Board of Zoning Adjustment can grant variances from the

PAGE 38

38 dimensional requirements of minimum lot area, minimum lot width, and maximum height and Structur e Setbacks. Summary. Martin County has some options available to those interested developing cohousing. Although its policies are not directly supportive of cohousing developments, opportunities exist in the regulations (e.g., PUD, density bonuses) that co uld potentially support cohousing. A possible hindrance to cohousing development is the parking regulations listed in Table 4.14.1. Often, cohousing developments choose to concentrate their parking on the periphery of the development with fewer parking spa ces for its units to promote ride sharing and public transportation. Martin county has specified regulations to set the parking standards and some negotiation would be necessary for development to move forward. This parking standard usually prevents develo pment through increased costs because many municipalities require 1.5 2 spaces per dwelling. Discussions of this issue on cohousing message boards indicate that cohousing developments prefer one parking space or fewer per dwelling. In practice, however, ma ny cohousers feel that they should maintain two parking spaces per unit for convenience of service vehicles, guests, and families who own more than one car (Olsen, 2005 p.1 ) Medium Counties Okaloosa County Okaloosa County, Florida includes the incorpor ated areas of the Town of Cinco Bayou, the City of Crestview, the City of Destin, the City of Fort Walton Beach, the City of Laurel Hill, the City of Mary Esther, the City of Niceville, the Town of Shalimar, and the City of Valparaiso. It also includes the unincorporated areas of Baker, Blackman,

PAGE 39

39 Campton, Deerland, Eglin AFB, Escambia Farms, Garden City, Holt, Lake Lorraine, Milligan, Ocean City, Seminole, and Wright. Is cohousing defined in the County LDRS, the Zoning Codes, or the Comprehensive Plan? Oka loosa County does not specifically define cohousing in any of its regulations or codes. Do the LDR or the Zoning Codes support cohousing development? Cohousing is not directly supported or codified yet in the Land Development Code (LDC) + Cluster Subdivisi ons, a design characteristic of cohousing developments, are only allowed in R 1, R 2, R 3, and Mixed Use (MU) zoning districts. Within this type of subdivision, setbacks may be reduced to a minimum of 20 feet front, 10 feet rear, and five feet sides to acc ommodate smaller lots. These setbacks would potential ly hinder cohousing development depending on the sit ing of the homes and the zoning of the land. The county encourages a variety of housing types, and if a cohousing development were in a MU district wit h a residential density not exceeding 25 dwelling units per acre, there would be a flexibility that could support it. Okaloosa County also offers incentives with a 25% density bonus for affordable housing in a residential development. Linked to this incent ive is an expedited review of this type of addition to a residential development. Quality of urban form. Specifically in the Land Development Code Overlay, Special and Floating Zones, there are Innovative and Flexible Site Designs that have the specific i ntent, within the PUD concept, to provide for and allow innovative site development designs using flexible development requirements. In this regard, certain traditional dimensional requirements, such as lot sizes, allowed uses, setbacks, building

PAGE 40

40 height, e tc., may vary from those in other zoning districts, thus contributing to the potential of cohousing developments in Okaloosa County. Level of negotiability. There is the potential for relief through Chapter 11 in the LDCs as it relates to the issuance of a variance in a residential development authorized only for height, area, size of structure, or size of yards. Summary. Okaloosa County has options available to a cohousing development through clustering, affordable housing, and in its mixed use zoned areas In addition, the PUD option is a useful tool for a cohousing development that would help to bypass the detailed regulations and have the county review a unique residential development. Sarasota County Sarasota County, Florida includes the incorporated areas of the City of Sarasota, the City of North Port, the City of Venice, and the Town of Longboat Key. It also includes the unincorporated areas of Bee Ridge, Desoto Lakes, Englewood, Fruitville, Gulf Gate Estates, Kensington Park, Lake Sarasota, Laurel, Nokomis, North Sarasota, Osprey, Plantation, Ridge Wood Heights, Sarasota Springs, Siesta Key, South Gate Ridge, South Sarasota, South Venice, Southgate, The Meadows, Vamo, Venice Gardens, and Warm Mineral Springs. Is cohousing defined in the County LDRs, the Zoning Codes, or the Comprehensive Plan? Chapter 7 of the Comprehensive Plan of Sarasota County range of development standards and incentives to facilitate co housi ng, live work, mixed use, accessory dwellings, single room occupancy, and other unconventional types of housing. Chapter 7 of the Comprehensive Plan highlights the need in Sarasota County for the elderly to remain in their own neighborhoods as their needs change; as

PAGE 41

41 such, it specifically supports co housing, shared housing, accessory dwellings, smaller homes, and other assisted residential living arrangements. This is only one of the regulations that Sarasota County has developed to support innovative resid ential developments. In addition, Sarasota County facilitates the production of mixed use developments comprised of residential commercial professional uses through the application of appropriate development standards, design flexibility, compatibility rev iew, and regulatory and financial incentives. Do the LDR or the Zoning Codes support cohousing development? Sarasota County supports cohousing through individual building zoning lots or sites that utilize the cluster development design technique. The hous ing types used can be any form of detached, semi detached, or attached housing. In addition, the Planned Unit Development Overlay District (PUD) provides flexibility in placement and clustering of residential units. Another supportive policy measure is the Density Transfer Program, which could be used if a cohousing development occurred as a conservation subdivision, allowing for the clustering of housing units in rural areas to create permanently protected open spaces. Further, if an affordable housing com ponent is combined in the cohousing development, Sarasota County offers incentives in areas with access to necessary services and facilities to support development. The proximity of local amenities and services are generally discussed when the cohousing gr oup decides on an appropriate site for building their community. Quality of urban form. Sarasota County defines this as a development pattern designed on a grid using a system of blocks that are limited in width and length, framed by a street system that prioritizes pedestrian activity and has buildings and structures

PAGE 42

42 that form a consistent, distinct edge, spatially delineating the public street and the private block interior. Within their policies, Sarasota County supports a broad range of housing opportu nities by allowing multiple residential development patterns. The county believes that urban sprawl is a problem and has established a model development pattern to create an opportunity for a new form of development. The key components include a broad rang e of family sizes and incomes in a variety of housing types that are integrated with commercial, office, and Public/Civic uses. Moreover, they want a connected system of streets and roads that encourages alternative means of transportation, such as pedestr ian, bicycle, and transit, and that integrates permanently dedicated open space. Level of negotiability. Sarasota County offers development relief for zoning changes and variances through the Board of Zoning Appeals. Additional information. According to a phone interview with the Manager of Community Housing in Sarasota County, cohousing was introduced into the comprehensive plan in 2001. The movement was spearheaded by a public private partnership formed in 2001; this private group was the Sarasota Count y Openly Plans wide process that brought the people of Sarasota County together to build a shared understanding of the qualities that make it a good place to live, work, ). Because of their input and shared interest in the community, Sarasota County considered SCOPE a stakeholder in the community and considered its opinions about alternative housing strategies.

PAGE 43

43 According to the Manager of Community Housing, the county wante d to notion of living together with four senior women living under the same roof with shared interests and cost sharing but not necessarily a familial connection. She ment ioned that Adult Congregate Living Facilities (ACLF) and accessory dwellings were already allowed in the zoning codes; because of similarities, the cohousing model was easily added without any significant changes to existing regulations. The Manager of Com munity Housing was aware of interest in cohousing and indicated that a couple of groups had formed in Sarasota County. These groups had reached out to the county for discussions, but none of these groups has applied for development at the time of this inte rview. The Manager of Community Housing cited potential cost reductions if a cohousing development included an affordable housing element or green building measures. The Manager estimated that approval from submittal to building permit could take four mont hs, and any specific needs of a cohousing development not supported by the existing regulations, like density or parking requirements, could be provided relief by submission of a variance. Summary. Sarasota County was significantly interested in consider ing a variety of housing development choices. The policy and outward administrative support of innovative housing development included cohousing. The clustering, density bonuses, and affordable housing incentives all could support cohousing developments. T he county does not have a specific policy addressing the structure of cohousing, but it allows for a range of possibilities for housing that deviate from detached single family residential developments. One possible hindrance could be Policy 6.5.4, which s tates

PAGE 44

44 that all cluster subdivisions require perimeter compatibility, but lots must match the applicable district's minimum lot area, not necessarily the size of neighboring lots. But it i f this occurs then it could require changes and restructuring that mi ght stall development. Large Counties Polk County Polk County, Florida includes the incorporated areas of the City of Auburndale, the City of Bartow, the City of Davenport, the Town of Dundee, the City of Eagle Lake, the City of Fort Meade, the City of Frostproof, the City of Haines City, the Village of Highland Park, the Town of Hillcrest Heights, the City of Lake Alfred, the Town of Lake Hamilton, the City of Lakeland, the City of Lake Wales, the City of Mulberry, the City of Polk City, and the City of Winter Haven. It also includes the unincorporated areas of Babson Park, the "Ghost Town" of Brewster, Combee Settlement, Citrus Ridge, Crooked Lake Park, Crystal Lake, Cypress Gardens, Fussels Corner, Gibsonia, Highland City, Homeland, Inwood, Jan Phyl Vi llage, Kathleen, Lakeland Highlands, Loughman, Medulla, Nalcrest, Pittsburg, Poinciana, Wahneta, Waverly, Willow Oak, and Winston. Is cohousing defined in the County LDRS, the Zoning Codes, or the Comprehensive Plan? Polk County does not specifically addre ss cohousing in its regulations. However, it offers policies that could support cohousing development. Do the LDR or the Zoning Codes support cohousing development? The Comprehensive Plan includes the possibility for promoting innovative housing developme nts that address critical issues such as eliminating substandard housing conditions in the county and providing increased opportunities for current and future

PAGE 45

45 residents to obtain safe, affordable housing in quality residential neighborhoods. By allowing Pl anned Unit Development (PUD) within the MU district, Polk County is encouraging desirable development patterns by providing a functional mix of commercial, office, retail, recreational, and housing uses. This mix of housing uses provides opportunities for cohousing developments. In addition, the Special Area Overlay District could be another option for the development of cohousing if the select use planning, relatable cohousi ng design strategies would be #4 Community Facilities, #5 Special Residential (over 15 DU/AC), and potentially #7 residentially based Mixed Use Developments. Quality of urban form. Polk County has established a New Communities plan that encourages the dev elopment of self contained new communities (sometimes referred to as "new towns") that exhibit design features that reduce many of the effects associated with "urban sprawl" and adverse effects associated with conventional suburban development. In addition the Selected Area Plan (SAP) is interested in incorporating features that discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl, promote urban design criteria, establish landscaping requirements, identify the hierarchy of road networks, protect natural, historica l, and archaeological resources, and preserve useable open space. Level of negotiability. Polk County offers the option for zoning changes and variances in order to preserve valid property rights. Summary. Polk County does not directly offer cohousing as a viable residential development option but other planning avenues would be useful in the negotiation of

PAGE 46

46 this kind of development in the county. The PUD residential development option is the most obvious route to receiving overall approval for a cohousing development. Palm Beach County Palm Beach County, Florida includes the incorporated areas of the City of Atlantis, the City of Belle Glade, the City of Boca Raton, the City of Boynton Beach, the Town of Briny Breezes, the Town of Cloud Lake, the City of D elray Beach, the Town of Glen Ridge, the Village of Golf, the City of Greenacres, the Town of Gulf Stream, the Town of Haverhill, the Town of Highland Beach, the Town of Hypoluxo, the Town of Juno Beach, the Town of Jupiter, the Town of Jupiter Inlet Colon y, the Town of Lake Clarke Shores, the Town of Lake Park, the City of Lake Worth, the Town of Lantana, the Town of Loxahatchee Groves, the Town of Manalapan, the Town of Magnolia Park, the Village of North Palm Beach, the Town of Ocean Ridge, the City of P ahokee, the Town of Palm Beach, the City of Palm Beach Gardens, the Town of Palm Beach Shores, the Village of Palm Springs, the City of Riviera Beach, the Village of Royal Palm Beach, the City of South Bay, the Town of South Palm Beach, the Village of Tequ esta, the Village of Wellington, and the City of West Palm Beach. It also includes the unincorporated areas of Belle Glade Camp, Boca Del Mar, Boca Pointe, Canal Point, Century Village, Cypress Lakes, Dunes Road, Fremd Village Padgett Island, Golden Lakes, Gun Club Estates, Hamptons at Boca Raton, High Point, Juno Ridge, Kings Point, Lake Belvedere Estates, Lake Harbor, Lake Worth Corridor, Lakeside Green, Limestone Creek, Mission Bay, Plantation Mobile Home Park, Royal Palm Estates, Sandalfoot Cove, Sch all Circle, Seminole Manor, Stacey Street, Villages of Oriole, Westgate Belvedere Homes, and Whisper Walk. Beach County

PAGE 47

47 Is cohousing defined in the County LDRS, the Zoning Codes, or the Comprehensive Plan? Palm Beach County does not define cohousing in an y of its codes, regulations, or comprehensive plans. Do the LDR or the Zoning Codes support cohousing development? To some degree, cohousing developments could occur through the process related to the Planned Unit Development (PUD), which offers a residen tial development alternative, with the intent of promoting imaginative design approaches to the residential living environments. The design approaches that relate, in general, to cohousing developments include the preservation of the natural environment; t he integration with perimeter landscape areas, which buffer the circulation areas; the creation of a continuous non vehicular circulation system; access to civic services and public facilities; the reduction of land consumption by roads and other imperviou s surface areas; and the provision for flexible innovative and quality site design. The cohousing design strategy of community development employs many of these uses, so the PUD planning process would be a beneficial guide when approaching the county for c ohousing development. Palm Beach County also offers cluster development and affordable housing incentives that can be utilized for a cohousing development if these are elements included in the development approach. Quality of urban form. Palm Beach C ounty is trying to improve specific locations in the county. The Westgate Community Redevelopment Area Overlay has the intent to remove blighted conditions, enhance PBC's tax base, improve living conditions, and preserve areas of low and moderate cost housing in the Westgate/Belvedere Homes area of unincorporated PBC. Within this overlay district, the goal is to allow for a

PAGE 48

48 pedestrian friendly environment, vertical integration of uses, and higher intensity and density, all of which support cohousing development s. Level of negotiability. Variances are allowed for change of zoning in Palm Beach Summary. Palm Beach County has established the PUD, which offers the most flexibility for a cohousing development to occur in the county. Other options exist that would help to support a cohousing development, but they would need to be reviewed on a case by case basis. (See Appendix A for the full Criterion Matrix.)

PAGE 49

49 Table 4 1. Simplified criterion matrix Criterion Que stion Suwannee County Martin County Okaloosa County Sarasota County Polk County Palm Beach County Is Cohousing described in any language pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan, L s or Zoning Code? Absent, but present by PRD Absent, but other forms pres ent by PUD, TND, MUP Absent, but other form is present with PUD, Cluster, Overlay Exis t s in language, also PUD Absent, but other forms of are present by PUD or new towns Absent, present by PUD Are there codes that identify specific incentives for county housing goals ? As a considera tion for cohousing development. Absent, some flexibility if affordable units or PRD use Exists for affordable units. Unclear Indirect language for density bonus not linked Absent, but support through conservation, a nd affordable units Exists affordable housing Absent, affordable and workforce housing Is there any stated negotiability regarding nontraditional development? (i.e. cohousing) Exists variance for denied development procedures Exists with development r eview, variances, zoning adjustment Exists for variance within a residential development Exis t s development review zoning and variances Exis t s variance procedures Exists board of adjustment for zoning and variance Does the Comprehensive plan link/int egrate urban/site design policies that support Cohousing? Exists, but potential changes Exis t s Community Redevelopment Overlay District for TND, MUP Exis t s Exists varied development patterns allowed Exists Selected Area Plan used to curb sprawl Exis t s for specific county development locations encourages infill

PAGE 50

50 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS More effective results would be achieved if [the government] concentrated investment; housing [was] linked to community redevelopment, economic development, and social service support and citizen participation in neighborhood planning efforts. Wilhem Van Vliet, Affordable h ousing and redevelopment in the United States. As identified in the literature review, cohousing c ommunities offer numerous benefits to th eir residents: environmental sustainability, economic security, and social examine the opportunities or barriers existing regarding the development of cohousing in the sta te of Florida. This research attempts (1) to determine whether specific regulations exist prohibiting cohousing developments; (2) to identify strategies used to facilitate cohousing developments and policies appropriate to alleviate the burden cohousing gr oups exper ience in the development stage. Only Sarasota County specified cohousing as a residential dwelling type. This discovery indicates that cohousing remains an uncommon and unknown dwelling type. Because most of the counties reviewed do not consider cohousing a significant enough housing typology to identify it by name indicates that its development needs are underrepresented in the various land use codes and regulations related to housing. Cohousing can fit into various codes and regulations, but the process of obtaining approval and variances for the specific design features would potentially be prohibitive to developments. The literature review notes that many cohousing groups needed to change zoning and to submit variances for periphery or less pa rking and shared common spaces.

PAGE 51

51 Often, these issues become impediments to the development of cohousing communities. M ost of the counties offered variances or development classification as a PUD as their methods negotiable to cohousing development. Some c ou nties were attempting new development typologies, like cluster developments, overlay districts, and mixed use developments that align with cohousing development, but again, in most instances, developments would likely need to apply for the administrative r eview, special exceptions and permits necessary to build. Counties attempt ing to be generous to residential developments utilize density bonuses if affordable or sustainable measures s and other paths to build, but this may only complicate development and a direct path to development would be ideal. The most appropriate place for cohousing on the spectrum of land development regulation is within multi family residential. However, the re should be an understanding that cohousing communities would fit nicely into the fabric of any type of residential language of regulations would be minor because this type of h ousing remains rare

PAGE 52

52 CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS Cohousing is an underutilized housing type that allows individuals and families to live together in higher density developments, sharing both community and private spaces. This study sought to analyze lo cal regulatory barriers to the development and operation of cohousing communities in the state of Florida Using a framework constructed from best practices in the field, the comprehensive plans and land development regulations were reviewed in an effort t o identify regulatory barriers to the development of cohousing. This study reveals that most of the counties reviewed do not consider cohousing significant and that its unique development needs are underrepresented in the various land use codes and regulat ions. Because of this limitation, the process of obtaining approvals for zoning changes, PUD support, and possible variances for the unique cohousing design features needs to be improved to support cohousing development in Florida. Cohousing was not mentio ned in five of the six counties regulations and codes reviewed in this study. Based on the findings of this study there are several ideas f or regulation improvement along with additional research needed for a thorough review There are short term and long term recommendations which can help to alleviate some of those challenges. The following recommendations are offered as a starting point in this endeavor. In the short term, counties might elect to develop a local government self assessment tool that dete rmines whether comprehensive plan elements include supportive policies and design support for cohousing. This would establish an understanding of their regulatory impediments. The information gathered would be used

PAGE 53

53 to guide local government s to make specif ic changes to their comprehensive plan elements to encourage supportive policies and practices By utilizing an online search engine for: Bellingham, WA; or City of Madison, Zoning Code ; or Frederick County, MD for examples of supportive cohousing ordinanc es to encourage this practice. An additional recommendation is to incentivize higher density required by cohousing development. This would support the clustering of the homes that is used to assemble open space and minimize parking requirements to achieve desired walkability in their development. In the regulations reviewed in this study the only density bonuses were used as a tool to encourage greater integration of affordable housing units and sustainable measures within a new residential neighborhood In order to achieve a long term solution to these restrictions the local governments could amend land use r egulations to adopt a new zoning code A key goal of zoning codes is to limit conflicting and incompatible use, but t raditional e uclidean zoning do es this by regulating land use and bulk. Performance zoning, also known as flexible zoning, is uniquely applicable to the development of cohousing in its approach to land use regulation, which focuses on the effects of land use rather than categories of us e. This might prove difficult to implement but it would help to foster not just cohousing, but a variety of developments that inspire unique and interesting communities throughout the state of Florida.

PAGE 54

54 APPENDIX MATRIX CRITERION A 1 THROUGH A 6 The regula tory review was meant to provide answers to the criterion questions. The matrix was utilized as a means to collect the regulations pertaining to the questions posed. The matrices have the direct language listed in the regulations and codes. In order to si mplify the reading of the regulations the entirety of the codes were often truncated. Additionally, the pertinent aspect of the code, for the purpose of this study, was bolded for emphasis. The study deciphered the codes and regulation to determine the imp lications related to cohousing. Due to the limitations addressed in the study design there is the possibility that these regulations have been changed or modified since the study began and therefore should not be solely relied upon.

PAGE 55

55 Table A 1. Suwannee C ounty matrix criterion Description Code/Reference Number Addressed in Policy? Is Cohousing described in any language pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan, Land Development Regulations or Zoning Code? Not discovered in Comprehensive Plan Not discovere d in LDR's/Zoning Absent Are other types of development styles stated? (i.e. PUD/PRD, Cluster, TND, Flexible?) PRD in LDR 4.17.1 D istri cts and intent The "PRD" Planned Residential Development category includes one (l) zone district: "PRD". The purpose of this district is to permit Planned Residential Developments within designated urban development areas as defined within the County's Comprehensive Plan, which are intended to: (l) encourage the development of planned residential development of land; (2) e ncourage flexible and creative concepts of site planning; (3) preserve the natural amenities of the land by encouraging scenic and functional open areas; (4) accomplish a more desirable environment than would be possible through strict application of the m inimum requirements of these land development regulations; (5) provide for an efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets and thereby lowering development and housing costs; and (6) provide a stable environmental character compatible with surrounding areas. Exists

PAGE 56

56 Table A 1. Continued Description Code/Reference Number Addressed in Policy? Are there codes that identify specific incentives for county housing goals for allowing increases in density, infill sustai nable clustering of housing, live work design affordable housing or other types of community development? (As a consideration for cohousing development.) There are some related incentives. Code of Ordinances Article Sec. 42 102. Adoption of Affordable Housing Incentive Plan. (4) Allowance of increased density levels. (7) Reduction of parking and setback requirements. (8) Allowance of zero lot line configurations or development. (9) Modification of street requirements. (10) Initiation of a process to ev aluate the impact of proposed county policies, procedures ordinances, regulations or comprehensive plan provisions upon the cost of housing prior to adoption by the county. (12) Other affordable housing incentives. Section 4.6 RSFIMH residential, (mixe d) single family mobile home 4.6.1 districts and intent The "RSFIMH" Residential, (Mixed) Single Family/Mobile Home category includes four (4) zone districts: RSF/MH l, RSF/MH 2, RSFIMH 3 and RSFIMH 4. It is the intent of these districts to provide for sin gle family residential areas of low to medium density for conventional single family dwellings and individual mobile homes within designated urban areas as defined within the County's Comprehensive Plan. Comp rehensive Plan includes variety of land use, but no l ive work Exists

PAGE 57

57 Table A 1. Continued Description Code/Reference Number Addressed in Policy? Level of Negotiability Is there any stated negotiability regarding nontraditional development? (i.e. cohousing) Code of Ordinances: Sec. 42 58. Procedure. (a) Any person aggrieved by an unlawful practice prohibited by this article must file a written complaint with the county commission or its appointed board within 45 days after the alleged unlawful practice occurs. LDR's 3.2.5 Board of Adjustmen t: Powers and Duties: Variances. The Board of Adjustment shall have power to authorize upon appeal such variance from the terms of these land development regulations as will not be contrary to the public interest and where, owing to conditions peculiar to the property and not the result of the actions of the applicant, a literal enforcement of the provisions of these land development regulations would result in unnecessary and undue hardship on the land as set out in Article 12 of these land development reg ulations. LDR's Article 12.3.1 Variance to Zoning Regulations: 12.3.2 Variances to the Subdivision Regulations. Where the Board of County Commissioners finds that compliance with the design standards for lot and street layout of the provisions of Article 5 of these land development regulations would cause unusual or extraordinary difficulties because of exceptional and unique conditions of topography, access, location, shape, size, drainage, or other physical features of the site, it may grant a variance f rom the subdivision regulations found herein so that substantial justice may be done and the public interest secured; provided, that the public interest is protected and the development is in keeping with the general spirit and intent of these land develop ment regulations Exists

PAGE 58

58 Table A 1. Continued Description Code/Reference Number Addressed in Policy? Quality of Urban Form Does the Comprehensive plan link/integrate urban/site design policies that support Cohousing? No d irect linkage, but offe rs the potential for change and review LDR 3.1.3 Planning and Zoning Board: Functions, Powers, and Duties: Generally. The functions, powers, and duties of the Planning and Zoning Board in general shall be: 9. To make any necessary special studies on the location, adequacy, and conditions of specific facilities in the County. These may include but are not limited to studies on housing, commercial and industrial conditions and facilities, recreation, public and private utilities, roads and traffic, transpor tation, parking, and the like. Absent Does the plan require and provide detailed design standards specific to development within residential zones? LDR Article Five. Subdivision regulations. Cohousing must follow the basic regulatory requirements like any other residential development. LDR: 4.3.6 minimum lot requirements (area, width) 1. Single family dwellings and mobile homes: ESA l Minimum lot area; Minimum lot width; ESA 2 Minimum lot area; 20 acres 550 ft. 10 acres (5 acres if developed as a Plan ned Rural Residential Development and an overall density of one (1) dwelling unit per ten (10) acres is maintained on site) 4.1.5 Application o f District Regulations The regulations, set by these land development regulations, within each district shall be minimum or maximum limitations, as appropriate to the use, and shall apply uniformly to each class or kind of structure, use, land, or water. Except as hereinafter provided: Zoning affects use or occupancy. No structure, land, or water shall hereafter be u sed or occupied, and no structure or part thereof shall hereafter be erected, constructed, reconstructed, located, moved, or structurally altered except in conformity with the regulations specified in these land development regulations for the district in which it is located. Zoning affects height of structures, population density, lot coverage, yards, and open spaces. No structure shall hereafter be erected or altered: LDR: 4.18.12 Development standards for planned rural residential developments Comprehens ive Plan Objectives & Goals: Rural Objective I.2.1 Exists

PAGE 59

59 Table A 2. Martin County matrix criterion Description Code/Reference Number Addressed in Policy? Is Cohousing described in any language pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan, Land Developm ent Regulations/ Zoning Code? Not discovered in Comprehensive Plan Not discovered in LDR's/Zoning Absent Are other types of development styles stated? (i.e. PUD/PRD, Cluster, TND, Flexible?) Comprehensive Code: FLU 4.1.B. Definitions. The following uni que terms are referred to within the various sections of the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan and are defined as follows: 1. The TND (Traditional Neighborhood Development Ordinance) is a declaration for new neighborhood planning to be guided by the s ensible and desirable attributes of "traditional neighborhoods." The TND Ordinance promotes social integration of age and economic classes by providing a full range of housing types, commercial and office opportunities. 6. A planned unit development is a unified development which is planned, approved and controlled according to provisions of a binding written document negotiated between the developer and the County as a special PUD zoning district and approved at public hearing. The purpose of such PUD dis tricts is to provide flexibility to the strict zoning and development regulations in a manner which is mutually beneficial to the County and the development, and to encourage enlightened and imaginative approaches to community planning. Benefits to the dev eloper may include such items as incentives to encourage affordable housing (housing element); transfer of density from wetlands (conservation and open space); flexibility in density distribution; flexibility and variety in land use, structure type and pro ject design; and greater intensity than would be achievable under straight zoning. In exchange, the County may acquire such benefits as preservation zones, buffers, density transition zones and recreation facilities in excess of the County's minimum stand ards. Specific PUD district regulations are negotiated voluntarily by both the developer and the County, and neither is guaranteed maximum benefits by right. Exists

PAGE 60

60 Table A 2 Continued Description Code/Reference Number Addressed in Policy? Are there codes that identify specific incentives for county housing goals for allowing increases in density, infill sustainable clustering of housing, live work design affordable housing or other types of community development? (As a consideration for cohousing development.) Comprehensive Plan FLU Section 4.2. Analysis of land use features. 4.2.A.6. Natural Resources and Vacant Land Potentials. As an overall environmental constraint, all development must preserve wetlands and native uplands on site in grouped, clustered orientation with relationship to off site regional natural resources in accordance with the policies in the Conservation and Open Space Element (chapter 9) and the Coastal Management Element (chapter 8). Comprehensive Plan Conservation & Open S pace Objective 9.1.G. Natural systems. To protect and preserve the many functions and values of wetland and upland natural systems, including flood control, groundwater aquifer recharge and wildlife habitat. (8) Density transfer. All property owners have the right to transfer density to the upland area on any site containing wetlands pursuant to the following stipulations: (a) The development must be submitted for review as either a planned unit development or a clustered multifamily project in one of the multiple family residential zoning districts. Comprehensive Plan Section 6.4. Goal, objectives and policies. The provision of a safe, diverse and affordable housing stock which is adequate to serve the needs of current and future populations of Martin C ounty. 6.4.A.4. Objective. Provision of adequate and affordable housing for very low, low and moderate income households, including households with special housing needs, such as rural, farm worker and elderly households. b. Policy: Density bonuses up to an additional five units per acre may be awarded to very low and low income residential developments which attempt to accommodate in medium and high density designated areas, provided such developments conform to the criteria established in section 4.4.M.1 .d.(5) of the Future Land Use Element. Exists

PAGE 61

6 1 Table A 2 Continued Description Code/Reference Number Addressed in Policy? 11. Objective: Martin County shall increase private sector participation in the development of affordable housing through incentive based regulatory programs, subsidy funding and enhanced public/private partnerships. Comprehensive Code FLU 4.1.B.Definitions. The following unique terms are referred to within the various sections of the Comprehensive Growth Management P lan and are defined as follows: 18. Mixed Use Project (MUP) is a parcel of land, with one or more buildings, containing more than one land use type where the land uses are in close proximity, are planned as a unified, complementary whole and are functiona lly integrated for the use of shared infrastructure. Mixed use projects shall contain both nonresidential and residential components. The nonresidential component shall be made up of commercial or light industrial uses, which shall include a use from one o r more of the following: COR, LC, GC, and compatible Industrial consistent with the requirements of section 4.4.C.1. The residential component is important in order to encourage residents to live, work and shop in the same neighborhood. Mixed use projects shall be functionally integrated for the use of shared vehicular and pedestrian access and parking areas. The mix of uses may include residential, institutional, retail, office, recreation and open space and other appropriate uses. Comprehensive Code FLU E lement 2.2.b: Traditional neighborhoods. Martin County shall provide opportunities for a diversification and integration of residential, retail, professional and business office uses and coordinated systems of recreation and conservation open spaces to be located in close proximity to each other in mixed arrangements to meet the needs of the population, provide residents with a variety of choices in lifestyle arrangements and experiences, and reduce infrastructure impacts, while protecting residential nei ghborhoods from adverse impacts of nonresidential uses. Residential land use. Martin County shall provide for appropriate and adequate lands for residential land uses to meet the housing needs of the anticipated population and provide residents with a var iety of choices in housing types and living arrangements throughout the County.

PAGE 62

62 Table A 2 Continued Description Code/Reference Number Addressed in Policy? Level of Negotiability Is there any stated negotiability regarding nontraditio nal development? (i.e. cohousing) LDR's Article 10 Development Review Procedures 10.2.D. Review and Analysis. 4. The County Administrator shall review the resubmittal and issue a report within the time period set forth in section 10.2.D .1. d. If the report identifies other processes that must be completed prior to the issuance of the development order, the required period for response by the applicant shall be automatically extended until the other processes are completed, not to extend beyond one year from the date of the report. Examples of other processes include, but are not limited to: issuance of permits from another reviewing agency; processing of land use or rezoning applications; completion of an environmental waiver process, var iance application pending Board of Zoning Adjustment action; completion of a water/wastewater agreement; completion of an alternative compliance request; completion of the land donation process and judicial proceedings. LDR's Article 9 Sec. 9.5. Board of Zoning Adjustment. Decision Making and Administrative Bodies 9.5.A. Powers and duties. To grant variances from the dimensional requirements of the following provisions: a. Article 3, Zoning Districts, Table 3.12.1 Development Standards as to minimum lo t area, minimum lot width and maximum height; provided however that pursuant to section 4.5.A.2.c. of the Comprehensive Plan, no variance shall be granted authorizing a height in excess of four stories or 40 feet. b. Article 3, Zoning Districts, Table 3.12 .2 Structure Setbacks. Exists

PAGE 63

63 Table A 2 Continued Description Code/Reference Number Addressed in Policy? Quality of Urban Form Does the comprehensive plan link/integrate urban/site design policies that would support cohous ing? LDR Zoning Districts Div. 6 Sec. 3.260. Community Redevelopment Overlay Districts (CROD); in general. 3.260. A. Purpose and Intent. Community Redevelopment Overlay Districts are established to provide an alternative zoning procedure that may be us ed to implement comprehensive growth management plan policies by providing opportunities for traditional neighborhood design and mixed residential and commercial uses in redeveloping areas. Comprehensive Plan Section 6.4. Goal, objectives and policies 10 .Objective. Provision for ongoing housing implementation programs and the monitoring of housing trends. Exists Does the plan require and provide detailed design standards specific to development within residential zones? Land Development Regulations Di vision 2 Standard Zoning Districts Sec. 3.12. Development standards. The land development standards set forth in Tables 3.12.1 and 3.12.2 shall apply to all lands zoned in accordance with this Division. LDR's Development Standards Table 3.12.1 & 3.12.2 E xists

PAGE 64

64 Table A 3. Okaloosa County matrix criterion Description Code/Reference Number Addressed in Policy? Is Cohousing described in any language pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan, Land Development Regulations/ Zoning Code? Not discovered in Com prehensive Plan Not discovered in LDR's/Zoning Absent Are other types of nontraditional development styles stated? (i.e. PUD/PRD, Cluster, TND, Flexible?) Land Development Code (LDC) Chapter 2 Zoning Regulations 2.18.00 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 2 .18.03 Cluster Subdivisions: The cluster subdivision is intended to permit a reduction in lot area and bulk regulations, provided there is no increase in the overall density of the development, so that the remaining land area may be devoted to open space, recreation, or preservation of environmental resources. 3.01.02. PUD Defined. For purposes of this section the term "Planned Unit Development" shall mean a contiguous area of at least four (4) acres in size to be planned, developed, operated, and maintaine d as a single entity under unified control, and which contains one or more residential clusters or mix of housing types, and which may also contain one or more public, quasi public, commercial, industrial, recreation, or other non residential land uses in such ratios or percentages as may be specified herein. LDC's: Ch. 3 Overlay, Special and Floating Zones: 3.01.08. Innovative and Flexible Site Design. It is the specific intent of the PUD concept to provide for and allow innovative site development desig n using flexible development requirements. In this regard, certain traditional dimensional requirements such as lot sizes, allowed uses, setbacks, building height, etc. may vary from those in other zoning districts. LDC's Ch. 2 Zoning Regulations 2.18.03. Cluster Subdivisions. The cluster subdivision is intended to permit a reduction in lot area and bulk regulations, provided there is no increase in the overall density of the development, so that the remaining land area may be devoted to open space, recre ation, or preservation of environmental resources. The following requirements shall apply to cluster subdivisions: Exists

PAGE 65

65 Table A 3. Continued Description Code/Reference Number Addressed in Policy? Are there codes that identify specific incentives for county housing goals for allowing increases in density, infill sustainable clustering of housing, live work design affordable housing or other types of community development? (As a consideration for cohousing development.) One indirectly discovered in t he Comp rehensive Plan Future Land Use. Table 1. Indicates the use of density bonuses related to allowable density for categories. Indicating the potential for use in various land uses. Residential Design Alternatives 1. Cluster subdivisions are allowed onl y in R 1, R 2, R 3 and Mixed Use zoning districts. 2. Permitted/conditional uses and bulk regulations shall be the same as for the R 1, R 2, and R 3 zoning districts, except that setbacks may be reduced to a minimum 20 feet front, 10 feet rear, and 5 foot sides to accommodate smaller lots. 3. Allowable density shall not exceed the allowable densities for the R 1, R 2, and R 3 zoning districts. 4. The subdivision must be located on one contiguous parcel of land. 5. A minimum of 25% of the overall parcel mu st be set aside for open space, public or private recreation, or preservation of environmental resource. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Objective 6 Policy 6.2 Environmentally sensitive lands, as defined in Conservation Policy 3.5, shall be protected t hrough the process of development, redevelopment, land use plan amendments, and changes in zoning. Policy 6.3 The protection of environmentally sensitive lands, as defined in Conservation Policy 3.5, shall be accomplished by one or more of the following t echniques, based on the degree of protection required: limitations on development density and intensity; LDC's Ch. 2 Zoning Regulations 2.07.01 Purpose: The purpose of the Mixed Use (MU) district is to provide areas for a variety of housing types as well a s a functional mix of residential and non residential land uses. 2.07A.01 Mixed Use 1: Shall be the same as described in Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Policy 10.1, incorporated herein by reference. Residential density shall not exceed 25 dwe lling units per acre. Nonresidential intensity shall not exceed 0.75 floor area ratio and 65% impervious surface coverage. The MU 1 district may be allowed either inside or outside the urban development area boundary. Unclear

PAGE 66

66 Table A 3. Continued Descrip tion Code/Reference Number Addressed in Policy? 2.07.04 Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted as of right in the MU district. All other uses are permitted by special exception or prohibited. 1. Residential Uses. All R 1, R 2, and R 3 permi tted uses. Comp rehensive Plan Future Land Use Table 1: MU Allowable Intensity. Level of Negotiability Is there any stated negotiability regarding nontraditional development? (i.e. cohousing) LDC's Definition VARIANCE: A quasi judicial action approving, b ecause of unusual or unique circumstance, a use of land, building, structure or property, which is otherwise restricted by this code. Variances may be authorized only for height, area, size of structure, or size of yards. Reference Chapter 11. Exists Qual ity of Urban Form Does the comprehensive plan link/integrate urban/site design policies that would support cohousing? Policy 6.3 The protection of environmentally sensitive lands, as defined in Conservation Policy 3.5, shall be accomplished by one or more of the following techniques, based on the degree of protection required: limitations on development density and intensity; b. limitations on building placement, such as required clustering on the non sensitive portions of the site; c. limitations on build ing coverage or impervious surface coverage; d. setbacks and landscaped buffers sufficient to provide protection to the resource; e. evaluation of proposed plan amendments to ensure that they do not contribute to urban sprawl that fails to protect natural resources. Exists Does the plan require and provide detailed design standards specific to development within residential zones? Comprehensive Plan Ch. 6 Development Design Standards: 6.01.04 Design Standards: General: Sub dividers should make every eff ort to conform to the natural topography and features of the tract in improving the tract, and in establishing the size and shape of blocks and lots. LDC's Ch 2 Zoning Regulations 2.17.00 S chedule of bulk regulations t able Exists

PAGE 67

67 Table A 4. Sarasota C ounty matrix criterion Description Code/Reference Number Addressed in Policy? Is Cohousing described in any language pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan, Land Development Regulations/ Zoning Code? Comp rehensive Plan Chapter 7 Policy 1.1.5. Provide a range of development standards and incentives to facilitate co housing, live work, mixed use, accessory dwellings, single room occupancy, and other alternative types of housing. HOU Policy 1.3.3. Enable the elderly to remain in their own neighborhoods as their needs change by supporting co housing, shared housing, accessory dwellings, smaller homes and other assisted residential living arrangements and by informing seniors on market based options to remain in their homes. Exists Are other types of nontra ditional development styles stated? (i.e. PUD/PRD, Cluster, TND, Flexible?) Zoning Code Definitions: Residential structure type (4) Cluster housing development: A development of individual building zoning lots or sites which utilizes the cluster develo pment design technique. The housing types used can be any form of detached, semi detached, or attached housing. ARTICLE 6. District Development Standards 6.11. Planned Development District Standards. 6.11.1. All Planned Development Districts. Compr e hensive Plan Ch. 7 Housing Policy 1.1.3. Facilitate the production of mixed use development, comprised of residential commercial professional uses, through the application of appropriate development standards, design flexibility and compatibility review an d regulatory and financial incentives. Article 4. Zoning Districts 4.8. Planned District Intent Statements. 4.8.1. Planned Unit Development Overlay District (PUD).b. The PUD Overlay District will provide flexibility in placement and clustering of residenti al units, while providing amenities for residents and preservation of open space. Exists

PAGE 68

68 Table A 4. Continued Description Code/Reference Number Addressed in Policy? Are there codes that identify specific incentives for county housing goals for allo wing increases in density, sustainable clustering of housing, live work design affordable housing or other types of community development? (As a consideration for cohousing development.) Comprehensive Plan Resource Management Area System Objective TDR2 To create a Density Transfer Program for the development of Conservation Subdivisions. Policy TDR2.1 Conservation Subdivision Intent The creation of Conservation Subdivisions is an important program component to the natural resource protection initiatives of the county. This alternative development option allows for the clustering of housing units in rural areas to create permanently protected Open Spaces that can be added to the interconnected network of conservation lands and Open Space, pursuant to the G uiding Principles for Evaluating Development Proposals in Native Habitats, contained in the Environment Chapter of The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, that are protected in the Greenway RMA and Village/Open Space RMA. Only me ntioned in Rural and Semi R ural not quite specific in Urban Comprehensive Plan FLU Ch. 9 Semi Rural Areas. The clustering of dwellings is suggested as a means to retain open space, protect native habitats, and allow small scale (non commercial) agricultural activities...Hamlets are collections of rural homes and lots clustered together around crossroads that may include small scale commercial, civic buildings or shared amenities. Although their size is determined through the master plan, ideally, Hamlets would include between 50 to 1 50 dwelling units, FLU Policy 3.1.9. Residential development in the Future Urban Service Area shall have a maximum density of th e underlying land use area. An amount equal to a total of thirty percent of the residential receiving zone and the Urban Reserve sending zone shall be set aside as open space in perpetuity. The open space may be reserved in the Urban Reserve sending zone and/or the residential receiving zone, unless otherwise required by the Zoning Regulations. Open space reserved in the residentia l receiving zone may be counted towards the open space requirement of the cluster provisions of the Zoning Regulations provided that any recreational use of the open space shall be restricted to activities such as hiking, bicycling and canoeing, that have minimal ecological impact. Exists

PAGE 69

69 Table A 4. Continued Description Code/Reference Number Addressed in Policy? Code of Ordinances Appendix A: Zoning Regulations: 12.1.1 Affordable Housing Overlay. a. General Provisions.1.The intent of the Aff ordable Housing Overlay (AHO) is to comply with and implement Future Land Use Policy 3.1.7 of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan and to encourage the development of affordable housing in combination with market rate housing in areas with access to nece ssary services and facilities to support development. i. The following zoning districts are implementing districts for the AHO: (1) Any residential single family size zoning district within a Planned Unit Development Overlay. (2) Any modification to an app roved Planned Unit Development shall be consistent with Article 6 of the Zoning Regulations. ii. In order to utilize the additional density provided for in this section, an application for the proposed development must include all lands in the Affordable H ousing Overlay and must be filed and approved in accordance with the process for a rezoning application as specified in Article 3 of the Zoning Regulations. Article V. State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program Sec. 38 114. Definitions (21) Local H ousing Incentive Plan means the plan addressing Affordable housing incentives required pursuant to F.S. § 420.9076. Exists Level of Negotiability Is there any stated negotiability regarding nontraditional (i.e. cohousing) development? Code of Ordinances: Appendix A Zoning Regulations Article 2 Development Review Bodies 2.3.8. Powers and Duties. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall have the following powers and duties: a. Administrative Appeals, b. Variance, c. Duplicate Building Determination. d. Nonconformi ties, e. Other Powers and Duties. Exists

PAGE 70

70 Table A 4. Continued Description Code/Reference Number Addressed in Policy? Quality of Urban Form Does the comprehensive plan link/integrate urban/site design policies that would support cohousing? Comprehe nsive Plan Ch. 7 Housing; HOU Policy 1.1.5. Provide a range of development standards and incentives to facilitate co housing, live work, mixed use, accessory dwellings, single room occupancy, and other alternative types of housing. Exists Does the plan r equire and provide detailed design standards specific to development within residential zones? Article 6. District Development Standards 6.5. RSF District Development Intensity. 6.5.1. Types of Residential Development. Article 4. Zoning Districts 4.6. Residential District Intent Statements. 4.6.1. Residential Estate District a. The RSF Districts permit single family residential densities, which may take the form of single family detached or cluster subdivisions. Cluster subdivisions may include l ot line, traditional, patio, villa, atrium, duplex, or townhouse units. Sec. 74 33. Subdivision design standards. All subdivisions shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the attached Subdivision Technical Manual Depends on D evelopment Type: Code of Ordinances 11.2. Village, Hamlet and Settlement Area Regulations. Article 11. 2050 regulations Definition: Urban Development Form: A development pattern that is designed on grid using a system of blocks that are limited in wid th and length, that are framed by a street system that prioritizes pedestrian activity, and that has buildings and structures that form a consistent, distinct edge, spatially delineating the public street and the private block interior. Article 6. S ecti on 6.2.3 density a. Within the Urban Service Area, cluster subdivisions may be developed on multiple unplatted parcels that are abutting or across a right of way with different Residential Single Family (RSF) zoning districts, provided that the maximum de nsity for the entire subdivision is calculated using the density district development standards: all owed by the lower density RSF d istrict. Exists

PAGE 71

71 Table A 5. Polk County matrix c riterion Description Code/Reference Number Addressed in Policy? Is Coh ousing described in any language pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan, Land Development Regulations/ Zoning Code? Not discovered in Comprehensive Plan Not discovered in LDR's/Zoning Absent Are other types of nontraditional development styles stated? ( i.e. PUD/PRD, Cluster, TND, Flexible?) Policy 2.204 a6: [ Revised by CPA 2002A 01 (Ord. 02 38); Adopted by BoCC 10 JUL 2002] Polk County shall develop, within its Land Development Code, an administrative site plan review process for residential developments which incorporate innovative approaches to site design (clustering, zero lot line, etc.) as a technique to reduce housing costs. Comprehensive Plan Glossary: Planned unit development (PUD): The use of mixed use development land use districts, which repre sents a planning technique which, when used properly, can result in more desirable development patterns by providing a functional mix of commercial, office, retail, recreational, and housing uses Comprehensive plan future land use (FLU ) other plan featur es: special area overlay districts and areas c the third level FLU: C. New communities The Plan encourages the development of self contained new communities (sometimes referred to as "new towns") which exhibit design features that reduce many of the impa cts associated with "urban sprawl" and other adverse impacts associated with conventional suburban development such as excess automobile dependency. New towns that include neighborhoods using a "traditional town" design and function are encouraged. FLU Spe cialized Uses residentially based mixed use development allows for the placement of mixed uses development in all residential land use categories (except A/RR), subject to County approval. Exists

PAGE 72

72 Table A 5. Continued Description Code/Reference Number Addressed in Policy? Are there codes that identify specific incentives for county housing goals for allowing increases in density, infill sustainable clustering of housing, live work design affordable housing or other types of community development? (As a consideration for cohousing development.) FLU policy 2.102 a7: T opography considerations Polk County shall evaluate all development within unincorporated Polk County with regard for, and for impacts on, existing topography. The County's Land Develop ment Code shall specify necessary protection and/or mitigation requirements. Development standards shall include, but not be limited to, the following guidelines: c. Where possible, cluster development should be used whenever sites contain steep slopes or other physiographic characteristics Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.204 A10: Polk County shall provide regulatory and other incentives to encourage the development of housing for the special needs populations including but not limited to impact fee waivers, d ensity bonus points, and bonus scoring points on applications submitted by public, private, and non profits applying for funds to construct housing for special needs populations including farmworkers. CP Housing for Special Needs Groups a. increasing affor dable housing opportunities for low income residents and others with special housing needs b. developing nondiscriminatory criteria for locating group living facilities c. supporting housing programs for the homeless Redevelopment District; The Redevelopm ent District Revitalization Plans shall contain strategies developed with public input from those areas affected to preserve, rehabilitate, revitalize, and/or redevelop those areas. e. implementing programs to facilitate the development of affordable hous ing; f. developing special incentives, provisions, restrictions, or requirements in order to ensure that redevelopment and revitalization activities occur in accordance with sound planning principles and local community objectives; Exists

PAGE 73

73 Table A 5. Co ntinued Description Code/Reference Number Addressed in Policy? Policy 2.203 A10: Polk County shall provide monetary incentives, such as mitigation or waiver of impact fees, and regulatory incentives, such as streamlined processing, to encourage the pri vate sector to develop cost saving and innovative techniques for affordable housing initiatives. Policy 2.203 A11: By 2012, the County shall adopt an ordinance providing developer incentives for the provision of workforce (low and moderate income) housing opportunities within new developments or at nearby off site locations. Policy 2.204 A5: Polk County, with review assistance by a lay advisory board such as the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC), shall continue to evaluate impacts to the cost of housing in its economic impact evaluation of proposed County ordinances, resolutions, and policies adopted by the Board of County Commissioners and recommend amendments as appropriate. Polk County, Florida, Code of Ordinances >> CODE OF ORDINANCES >> Cha pter 8.7 IMPACT FEES >> ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL >> Sec. 8.7 4. General legislative findings. The board desires to provide incentives to develop and provide workforce housing stock within the county so that moderate income persons who desire to live and to work in the county may have access to housing, and thus to offset the negative consequences of the shortage of such housing Level of Negotiability Is there any stated negotiability regarding nontraditional (i.e. cohousing) development? Comprehensive C ode section 4.306 variances In circumstances where a property owner considers implementation or application of this Plan will deny him or her of all beneficial use of the subject property, the property owner may apply to the County for a variance from su ch provision(s) in order to preserve valid existing property rights. All petitions for a variance shall be submitted in writing by the property owner, and shall include the following information: A. the property owners name, address, and telephone number; B. the parcel number; Exists

PAGE 74

74 Table A 5 Continued Description Code/Reference Number Addressed in Policy? C. the year the property was purchased or acquired; D. a specific and complete description of the valid existing right involved, including the date when such right was acquired and any action of the County creating such right; and E. the specific Plan policy or policies from which a variance is sought, and the minimum variance necessary to preserve such valid existing right. Quality of Urban Fo rm Does the comprehensive plan link/integrate urban/site design policies that would support cohousing? P olicy 2.204 A6: Polk County shall develop, within its Land Development Code, an administrative site plan review process for residential developments wh ich incorporate innovative approaches to site design (clustering, zero lot line, etc.) as a technique to reduce housing costs. Comprehensive Plan Glossary: S elected area plan (SAP): A detailed, integrated land use plan for an area of the County that includ es a future land use map overlay with objectives and policies establishing a mix of land uses, the densities and intensities of the land uses, a capital improvements plan for roads, potable water, sanitary sewer and parks and recreation facilities. The pur poses of the SAP are to incorporate features that discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl, promote urban design criteria, establish landscaping requirements, identify the hierarchy of road networks, protect natural, historical and archaeological resou rces, and preserve useable open space. Chapter 2 land use districts and regulations Section 202 Development Areas Five Development Areas are designated and mapped on the FLUMS. Development occurring in any of the Development Areas shall conform to the crit eria specified. A. Urban Development Areas (UDA) The purpose of UDA s is to serve as a foundation from which a future urban pattern is established, and to provide areas for development at urban densities and intensities. B. Urban Growth Areas (UGA) The purp ose of UGAs is to serve as a foundation from which a future urban pattern is established, and to provide future areas for development at urban densities and intensities. C. Suburban Development Areas (SDA) The purpose of SDA s is to provide for areas of su burban intensity growth. D. Utility Enclave Areas (UEA) The purpose of UEA s is to recognize existing isolated areas Exists

PAGE 75

75 Table A 5 Continued Description Code/Reference Number Addressed in Policy? of urban development that contain centralized wat er and sewer systems. E. Rural Development Areas (RDA) The purpose of RDA s is to provide areas for rural activities such as agricultural uses, mining activities, and rural residential development. Does the plan require and provide detailed design standar ds specific to development within residential zones? Policy 2.102 a6: Development standards All development within unincorporated Polk County shall conform to all County land development regulations, shall meet or exceed all applicable County construct ion standards, and shall comply with the level of service standards established within all elements of the Polk County Comprehensive Plan, including levels of service standards listed within the following elements: Land Development Code. Chapter 7 S ite de velopment standards The purpose of this Chapter is to establish minimum site requirements for the development and use of land within Polk County. The standards outlined herein shall be construed as minimum requirements and shall apply to the use, developm ent and redevelopment, expansion or increase in intensity of land or buildings, except as otherwise provided for in this Code. Exists

PAGE 76

76 Table A 6 Palm Beach County matrix criterion Description Code/Reference Number Addressed in Policy? Is Cohousing d escribed in any language pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan, Land Development Regulations/ Zoning Code? Not discovered in Comprehensive Plan Not discovered in LDR's/Zoning Absent Are other types of nontraditional development styles stated? (i.e. PUD /PRD, Cluster, TND, Flexible?) Unified Land Development Code Supplement No. 10 (Printed 06/11) Article 3 Overlays & Zoning Districts Section 2 Planned Unit Development (PUD) A. General 1. Purpose and Intent The purpose of a PUD district is to offer a res idential development alternative, which provides a living environment consisting of a range of living opportunities, recreation and civic uses and a limited amount of commercial uses. Residential PUDs shall correspond to a range of land uses in the Plan. T he intent of a PUD is to promote imaginative design approaches to the residential living environments. These approaches include but are not limited to: h. the provision for flexible PDRs to promote innovative and quality site design. Option 1 Rural Clust er, 1) Land Area; A minimum of 100 acres. 2) Open Space; A minimum of 60 percent of the land area shall be designated on the master plan as contiguous and compact open space, unless otherwise determined by the Existing Resources and Site Analysis. Open sp ace satisfying this requirement shall have a minimum width of 150 feet and be designated as common area on the master plan or dedication in perpetuity as a preserve, in accordance with Article 3.E.2.F.3.h, Perpetual Preservation. Exists

PAGE 77

77 Table A 6. Cont inued Description Code/Reference Number Addressed in Policy? Are there codes that identify specific incentives for county housing goals for allowing increases in density, infill sustainable clustering of housing, live work design affordable housing or other types of community development? (As a consideration for cohousing development.) Section 15 Infill Redevelopment Overlay (IRO) The purpose and intent of the Infill Redevelopment Overlay (IRO), is as follows: [Ord. 2010 005] 1. Establish optional dev elopment regulations to facilitate revitalization of commercially designated lands in the Urban/Suburban Tier, by incrementally retrofitting commercial corridors and isolated land uses with sustainable development that creates a sense of place, improves st reetscapes and successfully integrates into the surrounding community; Section 14 WCRAO, Westgate Community Redevelopment Area Overlay The Westgate/Belvedere Homes Community Redevelopment Agency (WCRA) was created pursuant to F. S. §163 Part III, Communit y Redevelopment, to remove blighted conditions, enhance the PBC's tax base, improve living conditions, and preserve areas of low and moderate cost housing in the Westgate/Belvedere Homes area of unincorporated PBC. The WCRAO is established with the purpose and intent of encouraging development and redevelopment of the Westgate/Belvedere Homes area. Mixed use development is required to implement the goals of the WCRA Plan to allow for a pedestrian friendly environment, the vertical integration of uses, and h igher intensity and density. Section 15 INFILL REDEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (IRO) The purpose and intent of the Infill Redevelopment Overlay (IRO), is as follows: [Ord. 2010 005] 1. Establish optional development regulations to facilitate revitalization of commer cially designated lands in the Urban/Suburban Tier, by incrementally retrofitting commercial corridors and isolated land uses with sustainable development that creates a sense of place, improves streetscapes and successfully integrates into the surrounding community; Exists

PAGE 78

78 Table A 6. Continued Description Code/Reference Number Addressed in Policy? PALM BEACH COUNTY CODE, Chapter 14 HOUSING CODE ARTICLE V. AFFORDABLE HOUSING Sec. 14 243. Policy and purpose. It is the policy of the board of c ounty commissioners and the purpose of this article to: (a) Provide the necessary means to help meet the county's growth needs with affordable housing being classified as a growth related need. (b) Recognize that decent, safe and sanitary housing is direc tly linked to a healthy economy and meaningful environmental program as well as to other government functions such as education, criminal justice, and social services. (c) Invest in the preservation and revitalization of our neighborhoods, the development of healthy, safe and viable communities, and the security of having a quality environment in which to raise families. Comp Plan. Housing Policy 1.5 requires new residential developments the opportunity t o provide a percentage of housing units for households with incomes from 60% to 150% of area median income as a means to meet affordable housing needs and to disperse that needed housing in the unincorporated County. Incentives shall include: 1. For LR 1, LR 2, and LR 3, a density bonus of up to 30%. 2. Traffic performance standards mitigation, 3. An expedited permit, zoning, and land use site plan approval process including engineering plating procedures. 4. A method to effectively offset impact fees and o ther development fees for the Workforce units only may be included. Density Bonus Greater than 30% For land uses MR 5, HR 8, HR 12, and HR 18 a density bonus greater than 30%, up to 100%, shall be permitted when all program criteria are met and the increas ed density creates no compatibility issues with adjacent properties. When a density bonus of greater than 30% is sought, the Workforce Housing development evaluation shall address the specific criteria (#1 6.) listed above and in addition the f ollowing c riteria: 1. Eligible developments must be located inside the Urban/Suburban Tier; 2. Developments are required to be located near mass transportation and/or employment centers in order to receive a 100% density increase; 3. Existing very low and low income concentrations in order to discourage undue concentrations; and 4. Review of County Housing Study Sector.

PAGE 79

79 Table A 6. Continued Description Code/Reference Number Addressed in Policy? Level of Negotiability Is there any stated negotiability regarding nontraditional (i.e. cohousing) development? Palm B e ach county code >> Chapter 7 B uildin gs and building regulations >> A rticle iv. a mendments to building codes applicable in unincorporated areas > S ection 116 B uilding board of adjustment and appeals 1 1 6.3 Powers. The Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall have the power, as further defined in 116.4, to hear appeals of decisions and interpretations of the building official and consider variances of the technical codes. Unified Land Development Code Section 8 Exceptions to General Requirements A. Authority The County Engineer is hereby empowered to make certain exceptions to the platting requirement of Article 11.A.3.A, Platting Requirement, and required improvements installation requirement of A rticle 11.A.3.B, Required Improvements Installation Requirement, in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in this Section. Exists Quality of Urban Form Does the comprehensive plan link/integrate urban/site design policies that would supp ort cohousing? Comp. Plan Housing Element A. Purpose : The purpose of the Housing Element is to: 1) identify existing and projected deficits in the supply of housing to meet the needs of the County's population, particularly the very low and low income fa milies; 2) analyze housing trends and the causes, scope and nature of any housing problems, 3) develop appropriate plans, programs and policies to bring about the accomplishment of the necessary housing, whether through private sector efforts, non profit, public/private partnerships or the public sector, and 4) to guide and coordinate all housing activities to eliminate duplications and increase efficiency of the housing delivery system. Exists Does the plan require and provide detailed design standards s pecific to development within residential zones? Unified Land Development Code Article 11 Subdivision, Platting, And Required Improvements

PAGE 80

80 LIST OF REFERENCES Abraham, N. (2007, April 2). Cohou sing fact sheet. Retrieved from: http://www.cohousing.org/docs/NatlFactsheet.pdf Belk, C. (2006). Cohousing communities: a sustainable approach to housing development. Unpublished manuscript, Sustainability and the Built Environment Certificat e Program, UC Davis Extension, Davis, CA. Retrieved from : http://extension.ucdavis.edu/unit/green_building_and_sustainability/pdf/resources /co_h ousing.pdf Clurman, D., Hebard, E. (1970). Condominiums and Cooperatives. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. The Cohousing Association of the United States. (2011). How does cohousing differ from other kinds of collaborative living arrangements, such as intentional communities? Retrieved from http://www.cohousing.org/node/53 Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95 120. Emerine, D., She not, C., Bailey, M., Sobel, L., & Susman, M., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). International City/County Management Association (ICMA). (2006). This is smart growth. Washington D.C.: Smart Growth Network. Retrieved from : http://www.smartgrowthonlineaudio.org/pdf/TISG_2006_8 5x11.pdf Fenster, M. (1999). Community by covenant, process, and design: cohousing and the contemporary common interest community. Journal of Lan d Use and Environmental Law, 15, 3 54. Hanson, C. (1996). The cohousing handbook. Vancouver, British Columbia: Hartley and Marks. Hasell, M. J., Scanzoni, J. (2000). Cohousing in HUD Housing Problems and Prospects. Journal of Architectural and Planning R esearch. 17 no2, 133 45. Hayden, D. (1984). Redesigning the American Dream: The future of housing, work, and family life. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. Hayden, D. (2002). Redesigning the American dream: gender, housing, and family life. New Y ork: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. Hayden, D. (2003). Building Suburbia: Green Fields and Urban Growth 1820 2000. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Heather, M. (2009) Village of Wales Comprehensive Development Plan Chapter II Housing. Wales, WI. Retrieved fro m: http://www.vi.wales.wi.gov/docview.asp?docid=5294&locid=174

PAGE 81

81 Holt, C. (2001) Applications of performance zoning for industrial uses in Hanover county: A technical assistance pr oject. Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, Richmond, VA. Retrieved from: http://www.richmondregional.org/Publications/Repor ts_and_Documents/Planning/ Hanover_Industrial_Zoning.pdf Kelly, E. (1996). Fair housing, good housing or expensive housing? Are building codes part of the problem or part of the solution. John Marshall Law Review, 349. Kendig, L. (1980). Performance zon ing. Washington, D.C.: Planners Press. Malagrino, D. (2009). Applying communal theories to urban property: an anthropological look at using the elaboration of common property regimes to reduce social exclusion from housing markets. U.C. Davis Business Law Journal, 10(1), 33 64. Margolis, D., & Entin, D. (2011, September 20). Survey of cohousing communities 2011. Retrieved from : http://www.cohousing.org/docs/2011/su rvey_of_cohousing_communities_2011.pd f McCamant, K, Durrett, C (1988). Cohousing: A contemporary approach to housing ourselves. Berkeley, CA: Habitat Press / Ten Speed Press. McCamant, K., Durrett, C. (1989) Building A Cohousing Community. Caring for F amilies, 21, 42, Retrieved from: http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC21/McCamant.htm Mensch, D. (2007, November 26). Cost of living after move in [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from : http://lists.cohousing.org/archives/cohousing l/msg26967.html Olsen, F. (2005, October 3). Parking in Cohousing [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from : http://lists.cohousing.org/archives/cohousing l/msg22189.html Padilla, L. (1998). Single parent Latinas on the margin: seeking a room with a view, meals, and built 3(2), 179. SCOPE Website. (2011) Retrieved from : http://www.scopexcel.org/about.html S ie gler, Richard and Herbert J. Levy. (1986) Brief history of cooperative housing, Cooperative Housing Journal of t he National Association of Housing Cooperatives, Alexandria, VA, pp. 12 20. Retrieved from: http://www.coophousing.org/uploadedFiles/NAHC_Site/Resource s/nahc%20histor y%20Siegler.PDF Teasley, W., & Steacy, D. (2008). Taxes in Florida medium sized charter and non charter counties. Informally published manuscript, Whitman Center for Public Service University, of West Florida, Pensacola, Florida. Retrieve d from http://haas.uwf.edu/charter/taxstudy.htm

PAGE 82

82 United States. Housing and Home Finance Agency. Office of General Counsel (1964) Chronology of Major Federal Actions Affecting Housing and Community Development. P. 20 21. United States 81st Congress, 2nd Session, April 20, 1950, PL 475 Housing Act of 1950. US Census Bureau. (Producer). (n.d.). Florida county selection map. [Print Map]. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/maps/florida_map.html Van Vliet, Willem (1997). Affordable housing and redevelopment in the United States. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Vestbro, D. (2008) History of cohousing internationall y and in Sweden; National Collaborative Housi ng Organisation, Retrieved from: http://www.kollektivhus.nu/pdf/colhisteng08.pdf Widener, M. (2010). Cohousing: joining affordable, sustainable a nd collaboratively governed, single family neighborhoods. Zoning and Planning Law Handbook Chapter 16. Wann, D. (2005). Reinventing community: stories from the walkways of cohousing. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing. The World Business Council for Sustainabl e Development. (2008, December 12). Sustainable consumption: facts and trends from a business perspective. Retrieved from http://www.wbcsd.org/DocRoot/I9 Xwhv7X5V8cDIHbHC3G/WBCSD_Sustainable_ Consumption_web.pdf Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: design and methods: applied social research methods, 4 th edition. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research, design and methods, 3rd edition. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Zwick, P., & Carr, M. (2006). Florida 2060 a population distribution scenario for the S tate of Florida. Manuscript submitted for publication, GeoPlan Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Retrie ved from : http://www.1000friendsofflorida.org/PUBS/2060/Florida 2060 Report Final.pdf

PAGE 83

83 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Angeline Jacobs was born and raised in San Diego, CA. In high school she took her first drafting class and was hooked. Over several years her career ambitions formed and she wanted to develop sustainable communities So, after high school, with a year of community college under her belt, she made the brash d ecision to move to New York City, the architectural epicenter in the United States, far from any support network. She was accepted to City College, CUNY where she flourished and applied her ideas and interests While at City College she enjoyed a summer abroad in Spain, and upon returning she established an on campus architectural club called Studio Trek that used grant funding for students to travel to nearby architectural sites. She later shifted gears from the architecture program into the art program and graduated with a Bachelor Degree in Art. Nonetheless, her training in architecture has been invaluable for broadening her career vision. Her broadened interest in affordable housing and sustainable development led her to the University of Florida and its Masters in Urban and Regional Planning program. While in the program she achieved the Interdisciplinary Concentration and Certificate in Historic Preservation, was awarded the Florid a Housing Coalition Scholarship and was acknowledged by the Florida P lanning and Zoning Association as an Outstanding Student Scholar. She sought out additional educational opportunities as a graduate assistant focused on sustainable curriculum development, as an intern with t he City of Archer and assisted developing the Ev aluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) for t he City of Alachua. It is her desire to become AICP certified with the objective of assisting communities in improving their natural and built environment.