.__——
——
—___—

 

THS

 

F LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/07 p:/CIRC/DateDue.indd-pr1

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

PLAN B RESEARCH PAPER
A STUDY OF DEVELOPMENT COSTS:

AN OPEN SPACE SUBDIVISION VS. A CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION
IN WILLIAMSTOWN TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN

Prepared for
Michigan State University

Department of Urban and Regional Planning

Prepared by
Amy R. Golke

Haslett, Michigan

May 2000

.l _
(fina-

.'| .\
l-."i
.. ,-_ ,.
L;:"\IN

A C KNO WLEDGEMEN T S

Many people have supported, directed and encouraged my
efforts with this Plan B Research Paper. I especially
appreciate Professor Rex LaMore ’3 help in developing the
idea and Ms. Mickie Martin and the Williamsth
Township stafl for providing me with the information and
materials needed

Thank you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE NO.
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... l
1.1 Study Area ..................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Limitations of Report .................................................................................................... 5
2.0 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Definition of Cluster Subdivisions ................................................................................ 6
2.2 Variations with Cluster Subdivision Ordinances .......................................................... 7
2.3 History of Cluster Subdivisions .................................................................................... 9
3.0 THE IMPORTANCE OF CLUSTER DESIGN ................................................................ 11
3.1 Cluster Design and Sustainability ............................................................................... 11
3.2 Cluster Design and Agricultural Preservation ............................................................. 12
3.3 Cluster Design and Affordable Housing ..................................................................... 13
4.0 SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR THE COST
BENEFITS OF CLUSTER DESIGN ................................................................................ 17
4.1 1971 Real Estate Research Corporation Study .......................................................... 17
4.2 1986 National Home Builders Association Study ...................................................... 19
4.3 1992 Melissa Armstrong Study ........ 21
4.4 Other Related Studies ................................................................................................. 23
5.0 WILLIAMSTOWN TOWNSHIP CASE STUDY ............................................................ 25
5.1 Williamstown Township’s Program ............................................................................ 26
5.2 Case Study Subdivisions ............................................................................................. 27
6.0 COST COMPARISION METHODOLOGY .......................................... . ......................... 29
7.0 CALCULATIONS ............................................................................................................ 35
8.0 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................... 39
8.1 Total Costs Reviewed .................................................................................................. 40
8.2 Soft Costs versus Hard Costs ...................................................................................... 42

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded)

SECTION PAGE NO.
9.0 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS ............................................................................ 43
10.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................... 45
11.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................. 47
FIGURES
Figure 1 Location Map ............................................................................................................. 3
Figure 2 Site Location Map ...................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3 Example of a Conventional Subdivision and a Conservation Subdivision ............... 6
Figure 4 Multiple-Family Dwelling ....................................................................................... 16
Figure 5 Steeplechase Subdivision, Williamstown Township ............................................... 27
Figure 6 Cherry Valle Subdivision, Williamstown Township ............................................... 28
TABLES
Table 1 Summary of Possible Costing Categories ................................................................. 18
Table 2 Subdivision Measurements ....................................................................................... 21
Table 3 Method A Means Cost Categories ............................................................................ 33
Table 4 Method B Cost Categories: Generic Sources and Questions .................................... 34
Table 5 Method A Calculations Worksheet ........................................................................... 36
Table 6 Method B Calculations Worksheet ........................................................................... 37
Table 7 Summary of Calculation Costs Worksheet ............................................................... 40
Table 8 Summary of Soft Costs ............................................................................................. 42

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Cluster, or conservation, design subdivisions group homes on smaller lots,
allowing the remaining land to be preserved. While this planning technique is not new, it
is growing in importance for rural communities desiring to maintain a rural feel in the
face of residential development. That is the reason Williamstown Township, Michigan,
implemented a Rural and Open Space Environment (ROSE) Overlay district option,
which allows for conservation designs in residential zones. Although the Township may
prefer conservation design subdivisions to platted, conventional subdivisions, developers
are usually the final decision maker and as such, it is important to demonstrate the
financial benefits in terms of development costs, not including density bonuses or sub-
standard infrastructure incentives.

The purpose of this study is to compare the development costs of two
subdivisions in Williamstown Township. The hypothesis being that conventional designs
are more expensive because of more linear feet of road and utilities required.
Steeplechase, the conservation subdivision, is approximately 65 acres and consists 22
lots. Cherry Valle, the conventional subdivision, is approximately 59 acres and consists
of 17 lots. The development costs, such as property purchase, surveying, site design and
infrastructure installation, were calculated for each subdivision under two methods.
Method A costs were calculated from RS. Means Inc. Means Residential Coit Data from
1999. Method B costs were calculated from estimates provided by local industry
professionals.

The results show that indeed development costs are greater for conventional
design subdivisions, by approximately 40% per lot. The results also indicate that soft
costs (e.g. engineering, government review and site design) are not necessarily less for
conventional subdivisions, an argument often made by those who feel upfront/soft costs
are a deterrent for would-be conservation developers. The limitations and considerations
associated with the methods and final outcomes are also addressed.

The findings of this project are not surprising. However, the importance of
conservation design, in terms of promoting affordable housing interests, forwarding
sustainability objectives and reducing land use conflicts make it a topic worthy of

consideration.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Cluster subdivisions are an alternative to the conventional, platted subdivision. Cluster
subdivision designs concentrate smaller-lot homes on a certain portion of the site, leaving the
remaining land undisturbed. Communities, residents and environmentalists are easily sold on the
merits of this growth management tool because it preserves natural features such as woodlands,
wetlands, scenic landscapes and agricultural land, and provides an avenue for passive recreation.
Planners like cluster designs because it can reduce conflicts inherent between agricultural and
residential land uses. Developers embrace cluster designs only when development costs are reduced
and there is a market for closer, smaller-lot homes surrounded by a natural feature.

Since developers are the party most likely to develop a residential subdivision, convincing this
group of the financial gains is important. Although the cost savings of infrastructure is somewhat
obvious--less linear feet of road means less money spent on paving-~the initial costs (i.e. design, time
spent in government review) can be a deterrent. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the cost
savings of cluster development by comparing the development costs of an actual cluster subdivision
and an actual conventional subdivision in Williamstown Township, Michigan. The hypothesis is that
conventional development costs are greater than cluster development costs. The single-family
residential subdivisions under consideration are located in Williamstown Township Michigan: Cherry
Valle, a conventional subdivision, and Steeplechase, a conservation subdivision. Two methods were
employed to determine development costs. Method A entailed selecting development cost categories
used in similar construction-cost comparison studies and then calculating costs based on the

subdivision dimensions and R. S. Means Company, Inc., Means Residential Cost Data, 1999. Method

..
,\

l'.

'9‘

“I.

 

 

B involved selecting development cost categories used in similar construction-cost comparison
studies and then calculating costs based on estimates obtained fi'om industry professionals.

From planner’s perspective, cluster subdivisions are a very important tool. Cluster
subdivisions save the community money through infrastructure costs, and preserve resources. This
type of development is an alternative to large-lot zoning, which has been connected to exclusionary
zoning and loss of rural open space. If not properly implemented, cluster developments can have the
same efl‘ect, however, such designs also present an excellent opportunity to include affordable

housing opportunities within the community.

1.] Study Area

The subdivisions under review are located in Williamstown Township, Michigan (Figure 1).
Williamstown Township consists of 16,100 acres and is predominantly rural. As of 1992,
approximately 12,553 acres were reserved for agriculture and approximately 5,050 acres remained
vacant (Master Plan 1992). In an effort to retain the rural and open space character in the wake of
development, the Township adopted a Rural and Open Space Environment (ROSE) Overlay Option

which allows for cluster designs to be implemented by—right under certain zones.

 

 

Figure 1: Location Map
Source: I/Net Inc. (www.inetmi.com)

The two subdivisions under study are located in the southern portion of the Township (Figure
2). Steeplechase is the name of the ROSE subdivision and Cherry Valle is the conventional

subdivision. Both projects were initiated in 1997. The sites are discussed in detail in Section 5.2.

 

Figure 2: Site Location Map
Source: Williamstown Township Zoning Ordinance, 1997.

4

1.2 Limitations of the Study

The benefits of cluster developments reach beyond costs to the developer; planning
subdivision developments with open space produces many intangible benefits. However, the technique
for placing a dollar value on a scenic landscape or a shortened commute is a study unto itself. While
this paper acknowledges the many real and perceived benefits of cluster designs, it only attempts to
measure the costs of development for two residential subdivisions in Williamstown Township,
Michigan.

Another consideration is with the self-reported error associated with Method B. Cost
estimates received by industry professionals were not validated in any way. While there is no reason
to suspect that the answers were not genuine, there is no way to ensure that the responses were not

true or accurate.

2.0 BACKGROUND
At first glance, the cluster development concept is rather easy to grasp. Perhaps it is not until
a planner or community chooses to adopt a program that the many nuances of a program are realized.
Since this study compares two developments in Williamstown Township, it is necessary to review the
components of its program. As supplementary information, this section also provides a history of

cluster designs and explains their importance.

2.1 Definition of Cluster Subdivisions

Cluster subdivisions concentrate buildings on a portion of the site, leaving the remaining land
undisturbed. This is in contrast to a conventional, platted subdivision, which develops the entire
parcel of land. Figure 3 illustrates the design differences between conventional and cluster
development. Note that the cluster design has the same number of lots as the conventional plan; the

net effect is that lots are smaller and open space, the lake and woodlands are preserved in perpetuity.

 

 

Permanent
Open Space

 

 

 

, .. yup-‘17." I»:
v ' .K ,7 f'hi. ’ fl
' if. y: t\ _~.‘(y"i‘ _ Na!
' ' ' ' -"-’l
' . ”are _ «~
' l

. 2'1' .
‘, j 1- “1.93;:

. ,x 4‘ ,.;.;_~;jl .g be
Irral/ fifw‘j’i'xp: .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure3: Conventional Subdivision (left) and Conservation Subdivision (right)

Source: Arendt, Randall, 1994. Rural by Design, 31.

Cluster programs are referred by many names: conservation, open space, or other acronyms.
For example, Williamstown Township, Michigan uses the Rural and Open Space Environment
(ROSE) title, while Livingston County, Michigan uses Protect Environment, Agricultural, and Rural
Landscape (PEARL). Although cluster is a popular term, proponents caution its use because of the
negative perception cluster developments received when first introduced in the 19603. To some,
clustering was abused by developers and is synonymous with density increases and retention basins

that double as open space (Thompson 1997, 71).

Cluster developments are not Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), also referred to as
Planned Developments (PDs). Distinguishing features are that PUDs usually offer a mix of housing
types, are required to preserved less open space, and include community facilities to residents of the
development (WA State 1984).

2.2 Variations Among Cluster Subdivision Programs

The grouping of homes to preserve energy or natural resources is the concept behind most
cluster development programs. Since every community is unique, each cluster program will vary
accordingly to meet that community’s needs. This section reviews three common variables of cluster
programs: the method of implementation, the provision of density bonuses and the amount of land to
be preserved.

2.2.1 Variation in Implementation

Implementation of cluster programs through an ordinance is common. Cluster designs can be
written into a zoning code as a by-right, an overlay district, or a floating zone. The most effective
methods are the by-right zoning or overlay districts (Arendt 1997, 139). By-right means that the
developer would not have to apply for a special use permit or another similar review that adds time
and cost to the review process and therefore the development. Lengthy review and associated fees
are often obstacles to developers opting for conservation over conventional designs. Overlay
districts are applied to portions of land within the community and either add to or over-ride the
current zoning conditions. Williamstown Township has implemented cluster design options through

a Rural and Open Space Environment (ROSE) overlay district. Zones that have the ROSE overlay

can develop either the conventional platted subdivision or opt for a conservation design, at the
developer’s choice.

Adoption of by-right zoning or zoning an overlay district is not usually politically
controversial topics for communities. Neither tool involves down-zoning, tax subsidies, or
complicated development right transfers—all of which can be obstacles to adoption. Another reason
for the preference of by-right and overlay zoning is that takings claims cannot be brought against the
municipality because both programs allow the developers to develop the land at its full density
(Arendt 1998, 22).

The use of floating zones—zones that are not tied to a geographical area—is not
recommended:

“Several clusters could pop up throughout the countryside, causing

increased traffic congestion and the typical leap-frog development that

fragment the land base and make farm operation and expansion difficult”

(Daniels 1997, 133).
Although the above quote is addressing conservation developments in predominantly agricultural
communities, the leap-frog of developments could occur and thwart any effort at preserving a
network or large area of a natural feature.
2.2.2 mum in Density

One of the most controversial aspects of cluster ordinances is density. Good practice dictates
that the overall density of a cluster development be equal to the density allowed under the
conventional subdivision. To ensure that more homes are not squeezed into a cluster design,

ordinances will require both a conventional and a cluster design for the same parcel. The density of

the cluster design is determined based upon that amount used in the conventional design.

Some communities offer density bonuses as incentives for developers to build cluster designs
(Armstrong 1992, 13). As a result, there is a negative connection between cluster designs and
unnecessary and unearned density increases for the developer (Thompson 1997, 71). Communities
implementing cluster programs should be aware of citizens making this association.

2.2.3 Variation in Ratio of Preserved to Developable Land

After density, the community decides the ratio of land developed and land preserved.
Generally, 50 percent to 80 percent of the parcel must remain undeveloped For example,
Williamstown Township’s Rural Open Space Overlay District Option requires cluster developments
to comply with a 50:50 open-space to developed-space ratio in Rural Residential and Rural Estate
districts. The Township allows for a 65:35 ratio for Agricultural Small Farms and AG-C
Commercial Agricultural districts. Suburban Residential districts require only a 35:65 area ratio.
2.3 History of Cluster Subdivisions

The grouping of homes is not a new concept. Mediterranean Hill Towns, Artic igloo villages,
American Indian pueblos, and African villages are referred to by some as the true beginning of
conservation design (Gauch et a1 1978, 2). Although these examples arguably developed as a result
of social order and necessity--not to preserve open space or rural character per se--the design may
have survived because of its efficiency as well as cultural tradition.

Perhaps a more relevant point of origin can be found in Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City
Movement of the late lSOOs/early 19008. Howard, an English Court Stenographer, dedicated himself
and his resources to promoting environmentally-sound development, advocating that a city should be

surrounded by an agricultural belt, or greenbelt. Howard’s Garden City Movement had a greater

influence in Great Britain than in the US.

The first US city to include the greenbelt concept and associated clustering of residences was
Radbum, New Jersey (Gerckens 1998, 20D). Radbum was constructed in 1928 and designed by
Henry Wright and Clarence Stein. The idea of preserving open space was later furthered in 1963 by
the "New Town" designs developed in Columbia, Maryland by James Rouse and of Reston, Virginia
by Robert Simon (T ibbets 1998, 4)(Gerckens 1998, 20D and 121)(Maryland 1994, 1). These designs
are characterized as being "neighborhood units surrounded by greenbelts with bicycle and pedestrian
trails separated from the road systems" (Gerckens 1998, 121). During the 1960s and 1970s, the idea
of residential cluster developments complimented the environmental movement and was promoted
as a method to conserve resources such as energy, environmental, and open space (T ibbets 1998, 4;
Gerckens 1998, 20D and 121; Maryland 1994).

Unfortunately, many Americans embraced a large-lot philosophy long before Howard
developed his theory. The American dream of owning land can be traced back to 1785 when the
Northwest Territory was divided into 640-acre sections and parceled into one-acre lots. The one-acre
lot became the standard, acceptable size for which a family could farm and support itself. Frank
Lloyd Wright added momentum with his 1935 book, Broad Acre. His sentimental idea of returning
to an agrarian society fast became the guideline for developing suburban neighborhoods (Gerckens
1998, F-15). The vision was of a civilized society: "no less than an acre to each individual man,
woman, and child (Knack 1991, 9)." While open space is maintained through one-acre lot sizes,
sprawl is the end result. The large lot mind set is believed to be a prominent reason for the slow

acceptance of cluster developments (even single-family detached cluster developments) (ibid. 9).

10

3.0 THE IMPORTANCE OF CLUSTER DESIGN

A planner should be concerned with cluster design as it is a valuable planning tool, borrowed
by many interest groups as a solution for planning challenges. Environmentalists contend that
clustering forwards the goals of sustainable living: minimizing the ecological footprint, conserving
resources used in building developments and improving air quality by reducing commuting
distances. Agricultural preservationists argue that, used with density decreases, clusters reduce the
likelihood of land use conflicts. Economic developers may view cluster design as a method for
increasing property values in a community. While some affordable housing advocates may shun
cluster for appealing to the more well-to-do, others may apply cluster’s cost-saving designs to
affordable housing and take advantage of integrating affordable housing in up-scale cluster
developments. The following sections expand upon each of the above—mentioned causes that cluster
designs can forward.
3.1 Cluster Design and Sustainability

Sustainability is defined as "development that meets the needs of the present ’without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (World Commission on
Environment and Development, 1987, 43)" (Beatleyl994, 143). Sustainability is accomplished when
economic, social and environmental objectives are balanced; sustainable projects are those that
increase economic activity, promote social well-being and benefit, or at a minimum not harm, the
environment. Cluster designs fare nicely when compared to these standards.

Cluster designs protect resources by minimizing the ecological footprint of a development

(Porter 1997, 83-4). Historically, attempts at preserving open space were made through large-lot

ll

zoning (Arent I992, 186). Although large lots do preserve open space, they also promote sprawl,
increasing driving distances and by doing so, increase air pollution. Not only do cluster designs
protect the resources immediately adjacent to the developments, but they also reduce the resources
used during construction. Using fewer materials saves energy with regard to material manufacturing
and transportation and to the building of the subdivision, another sustainable characteristic.

Cluster subdivisions can place the environment at risk in situations where private septic
systems were installed in the 19603 and 19703. Those systems are eroding in the 19903 and 20003,
causing water pollution (Daniels 1997, 134). Not only is this an environmental hazard, but a costly
problem of these communities in terms of providing services to the developments and cleaning-up
the polluted water. However, with modern technology, septic systems installed today should stand
up adequately over the long-term (Arendt 1997, 141-2).
3.2 Cluster Design and Agricultural Preservation

Agricultural land uses frequently generate nuisances. Nuisances are not a problem in rural
areas where there is plenty of space between homes and farms, or where every home is owned by a
farmer. However, property owners who moved to the country for fresh air and scenic views often
later complain of the adjacent farm’s noise, odor and traffic jams caused by its slow-moving tractors
that travel on county roads from the garage to the field. After-the-fact solutions to the land-use
conflict between residential zones and agricultural zones are difficult, if not impossible to
implement. Since the development is going to occur, clustering the homes on the site furthest away

from the farm may help reduce the noise, odor and traffic grievances.

12

Cluster designs can be used to reduce land use conflicts in agricultural areas, however, the
success of this technique relies in appropriately reducing the density. For example, for a 20- acre
parcel of land that could support 40 lots, the density should be reduced to 5 or 10 homes and grouped
on the parcel in a manner that minimizes adjacency to agricultural uses in the area. Trees or hills
should be used as natural barriers between the homes and the farms. (Arendt 1997, 138-140). Still,
some contend that even with the reduction of density, cluster designs will not resolve land use
conflicts between farmers and residences; even though the residents are grouped, traffic, noise and
odor problems will ensue. More damaging is that the new subdivision unbalances the farmers’
political base within the community. Rather than 1 farmer to every 5 people, new subdivisions can
reduce the ratio to 1 farmer for every 50 people. If the farmer’s voice was slightly heard without the
developments, it may be drowned by opposition brought on by subdivision developments (Daniels
1997, 132).

If the community's goal is to preserve farmland and its economy is heavily based in
agriculture, then designating an exclusive agricultural district is the most recommended preservation
method (Daniels 1997, 136) (Arendt 1997, 141).

3.3 Cluster Design and Affordable Housing

Cluster design can either be a detriment or a benefit to affordable housing advocates. That
cluster housing can drive affordable housing out of an area is a legitimate argument (Arendt 1994,
71). The assumption is that open space is a valued commodity and increases the values of adjacent

properties to the point of non—affordability. A review of history shows this example to be true.

13

Radbum, New Jersey is a classic example. Devel0ped in 1928, Radbum was originally
designed for moderate-income households. However, Radbum quickly became--and continues to
be—a neighborhood for higher-income households. The reason is attributed to Radbum’s once-
unique design: clustered homes, pedestrian pathways and open space (Arendt 1994, 321). Another
example is Central Park in New York City. During the park’s construction, designer Frederick Law
Olmstead found that property values decreased with distance from the park: “at 40 feet, the park
accounted for 33% of the land value, at 1,000 feet, 9%; and at 2,500 feet, 4.2%” (Arendt 1994, 286).

Homes in cluster designs can also appreciate at higher rates, again demonstrating that property
values may rise, making them no longer affordable (Lacy 1992).

Another aspect of clusters being detrimental to housing affordability is the intentional use of
clusters as an exclusionary technique. Ordinances that require a minimum lot size, floor area or
excessive development fees have been found to be exclusionary (Orfield 1998, 58-9). Lot sizes of
cluster designs tend to be a function of soil type and septic system, as dictated by the Health
Department. However, lot sizes that are larger than that required could be construed as a deliberate
attempt to ensure that such developments are only for the wealthy.

From the above literature, it appears as though one cannot be a proponent of cluster and
affordable housing at the same time. This conclusion would be false. The tendency for cluster
designs to be thousands of dollars less in terms of construction costs than platted subdivisions has
kept its application to housing affordability viable (see Section 4.0). The National Home Builders
Association (NHBA) prepared an entire document in 1974, and updated it in 1986, that illustrates

affordable housing strategies through cluster design (see Section 4.2). Smaller lots, angled

l4

placements, detached garages and exteriors that give the appearance of large, single-family attached
homes are just a few of the techniques offered by the NI-IBA. The idea being that reduced costs in
land and construction translates into less costs passed on to the homeowner:

“Cutting the lot size from the lot size from 10,800 square feet to

7,200 square feet would save an average of $3,600 dollars per unit in

land costs and $3,750 in utility fees. Smaller lots would also reduce

costs of street maintenance, snow plowing, garbage pickup, and other
municiple services” (Orfield 1998, 59).

Although small, detached houses on small lots is also supposed to appeal to the lower and
moderate-income brackets, Radbum, as discussed above, shows this not always to be true. One
solution is to incorporate affordable housing into up-scale cluster developments. The community
could adopt an inclusionary zoning standard. However, this may be controversial and difficult to
pass. An alternative means would be to establish a land trust, which would incorporate affordable
houses within a high-income cluster development (Arendt 1994, 170-1). For more urban areas, other
funding sources could be diverted toward this effort. Myron Orfield describes the use of a Metro
Fund, money obtained from property tax base—sharin g, to provide housing opportunities in suburban
areas (Orfield 1998, 81). Money from the Metro Fund could be applied toward affordable homes in
cluster designs. Designs show that affordable homes do not have to look affordable or out-of—place

in up-scale neighborhoods (Figure 4).

15

fl ' “.g

is

 

'1'.qu :1. 1..
3*. , l -
_ L’- tebiiii 2 .
Figure 4: Multiple-Family Dwelling
Source: Randall Arendt, 1994. Rural by design, 156.

at":
l l

r - .I
".5"
.n _,3,
.. _.

.1

While interspersing affordable and higher-income homes in clusters makes a land trust to
appear as “caring as much about the human resources ...as they do natural resources,” (Arendt 1998,
170) it also makes sense economically. The economic soundness is supported by Myron Orfield’s
solution to reducing poverty in inner cities: the decentralization of poverty. The ‘push of
concentrated need’ and the ‘pull of concentrated resources’ is diminished by diffusing poverty
throughout the region. In the present context, Orfield’s theory is extrapolated to suburban clustered
developments; integrating affordable housing in cluster developments reduces the concentration of
poorer households in a downtown center. The integration also reduces the need for the upper class to
move further away from the impoverished—in effect, reducing the perpetuation of urban sprawl.
The economic viability of the community is also more secure when needs and resources are evenly

distributed throughout the region (Orfield 1998, 2).

16

4.0 SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR THE COST BENEFITS OF CLUSTER DESIGN

Cluster designs gained momentum in the 19603 and the studies that demonstrated their cost-
effectiveness, in terms of development costs, began in the 19703. The studies identified in this
literature review were not straight-forward comparisons; the studies did not compare different
designs of the same size parcel and with the same type of housing. Rather, studies compared the
development costs of single-family detached conventional subdivisions with single-family detached,
attached and multiple family cluster developments. Studies of this nature tend to conclude that the
cost of clustering is cheaper because infrastructure costs are divided among more people in cluster
developments and that clustering—because of the higher density--negatively impact the environment.

Although not apple-to-apple comparisons, the studies noted below do provide support for the
research question of this paper: that development costs of single-family conventional developments
are greater than the development costs of single-family ROSE/conservation developments.

4.1 1974 Real Estate Research Corporation Study (RERC)

The RERC study produced The Cost of Sprawl in 1974, which compared two hypothetical
situations, or "prototype development patterns," with various housing arrangements to determine the
costs of different neighborhood types, and to identify public and/or private costs. Each development
type included 1,000 units on 6,000 acres, and consisted of single-family cluster homes, single-family
conventional homes, town houses, walk-up apartments, and high-rise apartments. There were a wide
range of variables analyzed, including costs to the environmental, deve10per, resident and
community. A summary of site development costs from the study are provided as Table 1 (on the

following page).

17

Summary of Cost Factors

TABLE 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Costs to the Costs to the Costs to the
Study Costs to the Developer Environment Residents Community
RERC 1974 Residential Capital, Air Pollution, Water Time Usage, Open Space,
Infrastructure & Pollution, Erosion Psychic Costs, Schools &
Utilities Noise, Vegetation, Travel Time, Traffic Public Services
Wildlife, Visual Accidents & Crime
Effects, Water &
Energy
NAHB, 1986 Street & Pavement, Curbs & Street Trees
Gutters, Driveways, Storm Grading & Seeding
Drainage, Water Distribution
Sanitary Sewer, Grading,
Clearing & Grubbing &
Sidewalks
Pieser, 1984 Land, Infrastructure Site Property Taxes Property Taxes
Preparation & Development,
Marketing & General
Administrative
Lacy, 1990 Assessments
Armstrong, Survey & Engineering,
1992 Government Review,
Infrastructure & Sewer
Treatment Plant
Trust for Wildlife Corridors Property Taxes Generated
Public Land, Revenue
1997 Public Services
Schools
Property Taxes
Productive Farm
Fields
Bond Ratings

 

18

 

The methodology utilized for RERC study included reviewing literature to obtain costs and
then apply the costs from literature to the hypothetical developments. Standards for costs were
obtained through the literature review. When there were multiple sources of standards, RERC
determined a “reasonable single standard” (RERC 1974, 30) Development costs were calculated
from “reference texts or averages of case studies for each cost category, employing the same criteria
used to obtain standards” (RERC 1974, 31). The methodology also included phasing the
developments and discounting each phase to account for present value.

The study concluded that building at higher densities lowers economic costs, lowers costs to
the environment, lowers natural resource consumption, and lowers personal costs (e. g. travel time,
traffic accidents, crime). The caveat was that the findings do not necessarily hold for the
development of a given land parcel and the features of the site can substantially impact the costs.
Also, several factors were not taken into account, such as housing preference or the amount of
revenue generated by different development types. While this study demonstrated cost savings with
regard to cluster developments, it also made a strong argument that development densities were
central to costs.

4.2 1986 National Home Builders Association Study

The second most well—cited reference is Cost eflective site planning: single-family
development by the National Association of Homebuilders (N AHB) in 1986. The purpose of this
study was to provide guidance for developing affordable, hi gher-density housing on smaller lots.
Environmental (i.e. housing placement for energy conservation), economical, and architectural

aspects of developing residential housing are also taken into consideration.

19

Part of the study is dedicated to comparing cluster and conventional subdivisions. The study
used a 472-unit conventional development and a 472-single and multi-family unit cluster
development (20.2% of total area preserved as open space; 0.6% preserved for commercial use).
Variables measured were: street pavement, curbs and gutters, street trees, driveways, storm drainage,
water distribution, sanitary sewer, grading, clearing and grubbing and sidewalks. Engineering fees
were calculated as 5.8% of the total estimated cost. The result was that the conventional subdivision
development cost was $4,344 more per dwelling unit than for the cluster subdivision. A summary of
site development costs from the study are provided as Table 1.

The methodology utilized in the study was to choose variables for each subdivision, as listed
above, put costs to each of those variables, total the values and compare the results. The means for
determining the costs are not listed; the acknowledgments cite consultant James P. Krawczyk of
County Engineering, Inc. as the provider of engineering and development cost input (NHAB 1986,
ii).

The summary of the study reviewed several points for consideration concerning cluster and
conventional subdivisions:

0 Costs savings due to less infrastructure associated with the cluster design may not be realized
if the developer does not exercise sound business judgment.

0 The development review process must be organized and well-thought out by the local
government.
0 Local opposition to cluster designs is due to the misconception that a cluster development

means increased density. However, increased density does not have to be a component of the
program. Also, open space can serve as a buffer between the homes and the adjacent lots.

0 A wider range of housing styles and prices is possible with the cluster design. By
comparison, conventional lots have not historically been able to allow for incorporating
changes in housing stock within a neighborhood.

20

0 While the main selling point of a conventional lot is the surrounding neighborhood, there are
many ways to market a cluster subdivision: appeal to open space, out-door living, etc.

0 The cost of the houses in clusters will be less as less development costs will be passed on to
the buyer.
0 Costs to maintain the open space must be factored into the equation at some point. If the

land remains in a natural state, then costs will be low. Similarly, residents must realize

assessments for lawns or gardened open space (NAHB 1986, 118-120).
4.3 1992 Melissa Armstrong Study

A 1992 journal article "A comparison of private development costs" by Melissa Armstrong
compares the costs of lot splits, standard subdivisions, and cluster condominium developments,
subdivisions with open space and condominiums with open space. The purpose of the article was to
demonstrate the cost savings of rural development designs. Recommendations for successful
conservation design programs were also provided.

Two consultants provided comparison costs for this study, each applying a slightly different
methodology. The first consultant provided cost data for the same hypothetical 60.6-acre parcel
under five different development scenarios. The scenarios under consideration were a 6-lot lot split,
a 40-lot platted subdivision, a 40-lot cluster condominium development, a 6-lot subdivision with
open space, and a 6-lot condominium development with open space. The development costs
calculated included: soft costs (surveying and engineering) and hard costs (infrastructure, roads,
water, sewer or a package plant sewer treatment plant).

The second consultant calculated development costs for a lot split, a cluster condominium

development and a standard subdivision. Unlike the first consultant, the development costs were not

21

calculated for the same hypothetical parcel nor were the number of lots per development type
considered. The development costs were calculated to provide a “range of anticipated costs in a
typical development situation” (Armstrong 1992, 8). The general cost categories were sirrrilarto the
first study; government review expenses were included in this study. Also, the soft costs were more
detailed, including the costs of the following: boundary, topographic, preliminary and final designs,
plat or condo documents, construction and road drainage staking, stake lots, meetings, construction
inspection and attorney expenses. A summary of development cost factors from the study are
provided as Table 1.

The number of lots for the standard subdivision was greater than for the open-space
subdivision; where the platted and open space designs contain the same number of lots, the open
space consists of multiple family dwellings. As previously stated, Williamstown Township's ROSE
allows for the same number of units to be built on a parcel as allowed under a standard subdivision,
and all units are single-family detached.

Conclusions drawn are that a "thoughtful cluster design will almost always save the
developer money on road construction expenses (Armstrong 1992, 12)," and that "the high cost of
designing a smaller scale project as well as providing the necessary infrastructure is sometimes
prohibitively high " (Armstrong 1992, 12). This study concluded that development costs per lot were
less for cluster designs. She also acknowledges the need for more similar studies to demonstrate the

cost savings of cluster design.

22

4.4 Other Related Studies

The following studies are reviewed to provide a balanced discussion of cluster development
literature. The studies do not necessarily compare the costs of development, however, their inclusion
demonstrates the benefits of cluster design in other areas (e.g. assessed values).

"Does it pay to plan suburban growth?" by Richard Peiser in 1984

This study compared the costs associated with a planned development and an unplanned
development in Houston, Texas, with an emphasis on transportation costs. Although the study’s
development types are not comparable to those in Williamstown Township (all development is
planned), the study introduced interesting measures of cost: land value, property taxes, infrastructure,
site preparation and development, marketing, and general administrative costs.

The conclusion is that costs-~land development, transportation, and social--are less for
planned developments than for unplanned developments. However, this study is more relevant to
the costs of sprawl than to costs appropriated to designated residential developments.

"Selling cluster" by Ruth Knack (1990)

This journal article discussed Randall Ardent’s nationwide promotion of cluster developments in
lieu of conventional developments. He suggests that localities will be successful in its efforts to
preserve open space through cluster design if 1) cluster developments are mandatory 2) the developer
is required to submit both cluster and conventional plans. The latter statement is practiced by
Williamstown Township and therefore supports the assertion that Williamstown will be successful in
its effort. Ardent contends that "the enemy is not the developer but the pattern of development

(Knack 1990, 7)."

23

Comparison studies are necessary to defend the merits of cluster developments.
Development cost savings is one approach, another is property appreciation rates. This article quotes
Jeff Lacy’s study (Section 7.4) as evidence that cluster developments "appreciate at a significantly
higher rate (Knack 1990, 8)." Also, New York, and towns in Maine and Massachusetts have seen the
most success with cluster developments because they have adopted enabling legislation, allowing for
mandatory clusters.

“The one-acre habit is hard to break” by Ruth Knack (1991)

This journal article provides a counter argument to Knack’s 1990 article and provides
evidence against my hypothesis if marketing costs are included in the cost measurement. Knack
presents reasons for the N AH’s finding that the American homeowner’s desire for a one-acre parcel is
"still the gospel (Knack 1991, 8)." Other reasons for the public’s resistance toward cluster
neighborhoods include the ability to market one-acre sites based on the American dream and the
exclusionary benefits of large lot zoning. A personal preference poll by the University of Illinois,
Chicago in 1989 found that of the 75 persons interviewed, all said that land ownership was
associated with status, and the more land owned meant higher status. Everyone wanted more land,
no matter the size of their current holdings. Knack speculated that maybe this would change when
people realize that their children and parents cannot afford to buy a home.

Another insight is that septic systems may to be the key to lot size. For example, in Nevada,
the l-acre minimum is necessary for adequate septic fields and wells. Through conversations with
Williamstown Township, it is known that porous soils mean that more space between residences may

be required, rendering cluster developments more difficult to implement.

24

Economic benefits of open space compiled by Pamela Iguchi (1997)

Pamela Iguchi compiled excerpts from fifteen studies that provide evidence for the value of
open spaces versus developed land uses. The conclusions of each of the fifteen excerpts suggest that
it is less costly for local governments to maintain land as open space than to develop that same piece
of land; and, more importantly, for the purposes of the research hypothesis proposed in this paper,
that open space will actually make land within the community more valuable.

Although this source of information does not directly relate to the research hypothesis, it does
provide insight into measurements of development costs. These include town debt ratings, tax
revenues, education costs, and property taxes among the indicators of open space benefits to a
community.

5.0 WILLIAMSTOWN TOWNSHIP CASE STUDY

Williamstown Township’s rural environment has been very attractive to home owners in
recent years. Developers have responded to this demand by building homes. Left alone, the platth
subdivision would jeopardize the rural nature of the Township; by moving to the township, home
buyers would be jeopardizing the very reason for moving there.

To ensure that the rural character was maintained in the face of subdivision development, in
1996 the Township adopted a Rural and Open Space Environment (ROSE) Overlay District. The
overlay district allows developers the option of building cluster subdivisions rather than conventional
(platted) subdivisions in zones where single-family housing is a permitted use. Rather than

spreading homes uniformly across the landscape, thus eliminating any large patch of open space,

25

grouping homes in one area of a property allows the preservation of open space or other natural
features.
5.1 Williamstown Township’s Program

Williamstown Township’s 1992 Master Plan provided the reasoning for adopting a ROSE
Overlay Option:

“To build on features that the residents find most appealing—the Township’s
rural character, the open spaces, woodlands, farmlands, meadows, rolling
topography, wetlands and streams. The plan is designed to allow development to
meet current and future needs, while preserving rural and open space, farmlands
and environmental quality.

Toward this end ... The master plan sets forth innovative planning concepts, such
as Rural and Open Space Environment (ROSE), that are intended to preserve the
rural qualities sought by residents and visitors” (W illiamstown 1992, v).

The Master Plan goes on to recommend that the zoning ordinance be revised “to require
recreation/open space facilities in new subdivisions and condominium developments”
(Williamstown 1992, Recommendation #4, Recreational Facilities Section). Subsequently, the
subdivision ordinance was revised such that sketch plans of both conventional as well as
conservation designs are required for each application (W illiamstown 1997b, Article 3, Section 3.5).

Additionally, the zoning ordinance was revised to incorporate a ROSE overlay district in July of
1997 (W illiamstown 1997a, Section 8.03, Part C). Systematically changing the Master Plan, Zoning

Code and Subdivision Regulations is a recommendation of The National Land Trust’s Growing

Green Program (Arendt 1998, 20).

26

5.2 Case Study Subdivisions

Williamstown Township is an excellent community for a comparison study on development
costs; since the adoption of the overlay district in 1996, at least one conventional and one ROSE
development have been developed. Steeplechase is the only ROSE development in the Township
and is located on the east side of Zimmer Road (Figure 2). The project was initiated in 1997. Lot
prices range from approximately $59,000 to $140,000. The total acreage is 64.86 acres, a single lot
size is approximately 0.67 acres and the cluster design preserves 33.27 acres of open space (51% of

the total acreage). The land was divided into 22 parcels. Figure 5 (below) presents a site plan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: provided by Williamstown Township

Cherry Valle was selected as the conventional subdivision for comparison to
Steeplechase. Cherry Valle is located west of Zimmer Road (Figure 2). The project was initiated

in 1997. The price per lot ranges from $50,000 to $60,000. The total area of 59 acres has been

27

divided into 17 lots, with the average lot size being 2.5 acres. There is no open space preserved

in this development. Figure 6 (below) presents a site plan.

 

 

  

 

 

 

ZIMMER ROAD

  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6L;e Mi —_ramistown Township
Source: provided by Williamstown Township
One other conventional subdivision was considered for comparison: River Run. The
subdivision was initiated in 1998, had a total area of 103 acres, which was divided into 15 lots. Lot
prices ranged from $56,500 (for a 2-acre lot) to $103,500 (for a 5-acre lot). However, the site plan
was rather different in that one lot consumed nearly 40 acres. Given this atypical platting, River Run
did not appear to be a good basis for comparison. Cherry Valle was selected as the conventional

subdivision for the comparison as it is a typical platted subdivision and its acreage and number of

lots are more similar to Steeplechase than were River Run’s statistics.

28

That Cherry Valle and Steeplechase are in close proximity to each other—and therefore
located in the same part of the Township—controls many external factors that might otherwise add
or detract value to either subdivision. For example, the utilities for both subdivisions would
essentially be the same: connections to city water, electricity and gas as well as the soil type for
septic systems. Differences that impact personal preferences would also be negligible: commuting
distances to major Lansing employment centers, distances to schools, grocery stores, libraries and
other public buildings and open space. Also, both subdivisions are in close proximity to agriculture
and natural features: Steeplechase backs up to the Red Cedar River while Cherry Valle is nearer to
agricultural areas (Williamstown 1992, Maps 4 and 6).

6.0 COST COMPARISON METHDOLOGY
This study compares the development costs of two actual subdivisions in Williamstown
Township, Michigan. The process for calculating costs involved a sequence of steps:
1. Selecting the categories for which costs should be calculated
2. Determining the measurements of each subdivision
3. Estimating construction costs using with RS. Means Company, Inc. 1999. Means
Residential Cost Data (Means) (Method A), and
4. Estimating construction costs using data collected from industry professionals
(Method B).
Each step is discussed in the following text.
Step 1. Category Selection

Cost categories were first identified by reviewing the cost categories of previous

development-cost comparison studies. The studies, with completed references provided in Section

11.0 of this report, included:

0 The cost of sprawl by the Real Estate Research Corporation, 1974

29

0 Cost efi‘ective site planning: Single family development. National Association of
Homebuilders, 1986

”Does it pay to plan suburban growth?” Richard Peiser, 1984

0 “An examination of market appreciation for clustered housing with permanent open
space: Executive Summary.” Jeff Lacy, 1990

“Cost Comparison of Private Development Costs,” Melissa Armstrong, 1992, and

Economic benefits of open space. Trust for Public Land, 1992.

Although each of the above-listed studies has their own nuances, each contributes cost
factors, which may be applicable in a cost-comparison study. Table 1 summarizes the cost factors
utilized in each study. 1

Since this study compares development costs, the first column of Table 1, “Costs to the
Developer,” was used for initial identification of potential categories. Costs were then selected based
on two criteria: 1) the occurrence of the category in multiple studies and 2) the ability to calculate the
cost using either Method A or Method B. For example, infrastructure appears in more than one
study. The repeated occurrence deems infrastructure a standardized factor in cost comparison studies
and is therefore used in this study. Similarly, government review or administration costs also appear
in more than one study. Administration costs may include permit fees, legal fees, time spent
reviewing designs with city planners and engineers or time spent at public hearings. However, since
Means does not have such categories, these ‘soft’ costs were not included in Method A calculations.
This is a limitation of this study (see Section 7.1).

The development cost factors used for Method A included: property purchase,

engineering (topography and surveying), site preparation and excavation support, earthwork (on-site

30

cut and fill), site design, stormwater management and installation of infrastructure (roads, septic
systems, water, gas and electric). The development cost factors used for Method B included:
property purchase, engineering (topography and surveying), earthwork (on—site cut and fill), site
design, stormwater management, installation of infrastructure (roads, septic systems, water, gas and
electric) and restoration.
Step 2. Determining Measurements of Subdivisions

Subdivision measurements were determined using site plans. Most linear dimensions are

noted on the site plan. Table 2 presents a summary of the calculated subdivision measurements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 2

Subdivision Measurements
Measurement Steeplechase (cluster) Cherry Valle (conventional)
Total Acres 64.86 59
Total Lots 22 17
Amount of Acreage 31.59 59
Developed (for grading) (49%) (100%)
Linear Measurement of Road 2800 3950
Paved Area (square feet) 100,800 142,200
Linear Measurement Doubled 5600 7900
Dwelling Units per Acre 2.95 3.47

 

 

 

 

 

Notes/Assumptions
o Paved area for Steeplechase total: 100,800 square feet

(Bridlewood Lane: 1900”“36’ = 68,400 square feet)
(Trotters Lane: 900*36’ = 32,400 square feet)

0 Paved area for Cherry Valle total: 142,200 square feet
(Cherry Valle: 1800”“36’= 64,800 square feet)
(Fruit Belt: 2150*36 = 77,400)
The linear measurement of road was calculated using the center line of the street
The paved area was calculated using the linear measurement of the road and a 36-foot wide road. Site plans for
both subdivisions indicated a road width of 66 feet. This distance includes a 36-foot wide road, seven feet of
grass, seven feet of sidewalk, and one foot to the property line edge.

0 The linear measurement doubled was calculated for curbs and utilities, which must be installed on both sides of
the road.

31

Step 3. Estimating Construction Costs Using Method A

Method A calculated costs using itemized, per unit costs provided by RS. Means Company,
Inc. 1999. Means Residential Cost Data (Means). The selected per unit cost categories are presented
in Table 3 (on the following page). These numbers were applied to actual subdivisions in
Williamstown Township.

RS. Means Company, Inc. has supplied construction costs since 1942 and is considered a
reputable source of construction costs. Means is one of the sources listed for building cost data in the
Urban Land Institute’s (ULI’s) Residential Development Handbook (ULI 1978, 16). MEANS derives
costs data by “analyzing all facts of the industry and continuously monitoring developments in the
construction industry in order to ensure reliable, thorough and up-to—ate cost information” (RS.
Means 1991, ii). The purpose of the company is “to provide the construction industry professional —
the contractor, the owner, the architect, the engineer, the facilities manager — with current and
comprehensive construction cost data” (RS. Means, 1991 ii). Means engineers contact industry
manufacturers and suppliers daily for cost of time and material information.

Means data is organized in an outline format. The general topic is assigned a number and
construction activities under the general topic are classified as sub-numbers. Many of the topics
allow the user to choose from several options. For example, 022 200
Excavation/Backfill/Compaction is under general topic, 022 Earthwork. To backfill, Means provides
costs to perform the duty by hand, or with a dozer. Costs for adding a vibrating plate, necessary if
the dozer-method is chosen, are itemized separately. For consistency, the proper technique must be

applied to each development.

32

TABLE 3

Method A: MEANS Cost Categories

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Means No. I Category/Purpose l Cost J Unit
A. Submittals
013-306-0010 Survey Conventional Topo (minimum) $165 Acre
013-306-0320 Lot location & lines (average) $440 Acre
013-306-0900 Property lines. perimeter for wooded land $0.77 Linear Foot
013-408-0050 Shop drawings/renderings (average) $1025 Each
B. Site Preparation & Excavation Support
021 - 104-0300 Clear & grub: cut/chip heavy trees $8500 Acre
02 1- 104-0350 Grub stump removal $4875 Acre
021-108-0400 Medium clearing w/ dozer,ball & chain $915 Acre
C. Earthwork - Onsite Cut and Fill
022-238-0200 Excavation using a front-end loader $1.15 Cubic Yard
022-204-0300 Compaction & Vibratory Plate $1.34 Cubic Yard
D. Pavement
025-100-0500 Road paving asphalt concrete 6" stone base, binder course 3". $0.72 Square Foot
l"-thick topping
025-250-0300 Curbs: concrete 6"x18" woodforrns, strought $5.56 Linear Foot
025-250-1800 Curb: insets (guttermouth) strought $180 Each
E. Gas
022-258-1050 Excavating trench 4"x12" $0.26 Linear Foot
022-262-0800 Backfill $0.82 Square Foot
026-850-0100 60 psi coilc, 1h” diameter, SDR 9.3 $1.91 Square Foot
E. Electric (1)
022-258- 1050 Excavating trench 4"x12" $0.26 Linear Foot
022-262-0800 Backfill $0.82 Square Foot
026-850-0100 60 psi coilc, W’ diameter, SDR 9.3 $1.91 Square Foot
G. Water System
022-258-1050 Excavating trench 4"x12" $0.26 Linear Foot
022-262-0800 Backfill $0.82 Square Foot
026-686-2700 PVC pipe, 2” diameter $2.81 Linear Foot
H. Stormwater Management
026-050-0050 J Manholes/cleanouts: utility vault precast 6", 5'x10'x6' high, 1b [ $2,325 I Each
1. Septic Systems
027-404-0100 Tank: 2,000 gallon $1,125 Each
027-404-1150 Leaching field chamber l3'x3.7'x14" standing $845 Each
027-404-2200 Excavation for septic tank $5.25 Cubic Yard
027-404-2400 Excavation 4' trench for disposal field $2.27 Linear Foot
027-404-1000 Distribution boxes. concrete, outlets $107 Each
027-404-2600 Gravel fill, run of bank $11.85 Cubic Yard

 

 

 

 

(1) no MEANS data for electric-~used same numbers as gas (recommended by Dr. Matt Syal of MS U)

33

 

For each construction activity listed in Means, there are two types of costing data. One type
is termed Bare Costs. Bare costs separate materials, labor and equipment costs. The second type of
data is termed Total Including Overhead and Profit (0&P). The Total includes materials, labor and
equipment costs as well as a 10% markup. The markup—overhead and profit--represents the profit
margin. The Total Including 0 & P costs were used for this study.

Other important qualifiers with regard to the data are: productivity based on an 8-hour
working day; overtime is not factored into the costs; and projects are expected to be within a 20-mile
radius of a major metropolitan area.

Step 4. Estimating Construction Costs Using Method B

The second method of calculating development costs was to obtain estimates from industry
professionals. Similarly to Method A, the categories for costs were selected from previous studies
(Table 1). The advantages of calling industry professionals for costs are that categories not
accounted for in Means, such as administrative review, could be estimated and that parties
interviewed were able to provide costs on a local basis. The category, general information source,
question and response are summarized in Table 4. As part of agreeing to provide cost data, the

names and businesses of industry professionals are confidential.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 4
Method B: Cost Categories

Category Comments/Qualifications Cost Unit
Engineering Includes topography. construction staking & platting $700 Lot
Site Design

Conventional Design $100 Lot

Conservation Design $200-$250 Lot
Government Review

Conventional Design $100 Lot

Conservation Design More involved due to preserving open space. floodplain $150 Lot

 

 

 

 

 

 

34

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category Comments/Qualifications Cost Unit
Clearing and Grubbing Includes leveling the site $7500 Acre
Roads
Excavation No off-site removal of dirt $2.75 Cubic Yard
Sand $3.00 Square Yard
Gravel $3.50 Square Yard
Asphalt $5.50 Square Yard
Curb and Gutter $8.00 Linear Foot
Gas Installation is waved due to revenue to be generated by 0 NA
homes
Electric $10 Linear Foot
Watennain 8 inch pipe. not located under street or sidewalk $16-$18 Linear Foot
Stormwater management
Manholes & cleanouts 4 foot diameter $1,400 Each
Piping 12 inch piping, not in roadway $18-$22 Linear Foot
Septic Systems Entire Installation for 2,000 gallon tank $3,300 Each
Restoration Topsoil & mulch between curb and right-of-way $1.00 Square Yard
Notes

Utility costs include excavation and backfill in the estimate unless noted.

7.0 CALCULATIONS

Calculations for Method A and Method B costs are presented as worksheets in Table 5 and
Table 6, respectively. The tables are spreadsheets, and column headings are identical for both
Methods. The first two columns of each table list the category and unit. The categories are not the
same for both methods. Costs for property purchase, site designs, roads, septic systems, water
connections, electric, gas and stormwater management are calculated for both methods. Method B
costs for water, gas, electric and septic system installations include excavation and backfill, whereas
excavation and backfill costs needed to be calculated separately for each infrastructure type under
Method A. While both Methods account for site design costs, only Method B distinguishes

conservation and conventional design costs. Under Method A, only one design cost was provided—

specification as to type of design was not provided.

35

 

TABLE 5

Calculated Costs Per Subdivision - Using MEANS Data

.__,,

 

If

CHERRY VALLE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'EGORY Per Unit Subdivision Per Unit Subdivision Between ROSE
UNITS Cost Amount Total Cost Amount Total 8‘ Platter!
Erry Purchase (1) acre $5,600.00 64.86 $356,730 $2,500.00 59 $147,500 "$20602”
reenng ___2 __ __ 2 , ,m, ,w. _.. _.---1 .--__.._ .--
opography , 2 _2 222 2 acre 2 $165.00 ,2 2 64.86 --. $10,702 ”5165. 00 22259 ,5 $9,735 -- 22 $967
1rveLlot locations & lines acre $440.00 31.59 $13, 900 $440.00 59 $25,960 -$12,060
Preparation &Eggayafion Support (2), .. _g _ _- -_ -_ __2 , Mw_ - $02
tear 81 1111111 macre_'__ $8,500. 00 ___'_31,‘59: _2 $268, 515 "88‘, 500 "“00 59 8501; 500 -$232, 985 ..
rub stump removal acre 84, '87’5. 00 31. 59 2 5154, 0'01 34" 875 .00, , 59 2_ $287 625 -5133, 624
edium Clearing acre $915.00 31. 59 $28, 905 $915 00 59 $53, 985 -$25, 080
1work- Onsrte cut and fill _ _1 2 _ __ _2 .--_. _ $0
xcavation 412;; .. 2cy ,_ 51.15 _____509652»_2, $58, 610 $11.5“..- 85668 n... 898,518 639 908
imp action & Vibrating Plate cy ”$1.34 50965 $68, 293 $1.34 85668 $114,795 ."$46,502
Design- shop drawings/renderings 2 _ 2 _, _ _ 2 .. 2 2, 2 ,
onventional each . na 20 $0 .. 22$_1.025.00 2 l2 *2 $1,025 _ -$1 .025 .
luster each $1,025.00 1 SL025 na 0 $0 $1,025
1513) __ _fi 4__, 2 ....-. - --.
ase course & paying(4)_ 22st,, 80. 72 ,5 100800 “'2‘ $72,576 1 _ 50,72“ .-.142200: $102, 384 -$29 808
urbs: concrete 2lf_ $5. 56 __._ 5600 ...... $31,136 “$556 7900 $43, 924__ ....-$.12- 7882 2_
urgs: gutterrriouth Insets 2 each $180 00 6 $1, 080 $180.00 8 $1, 440 -$360
1: ys_t__cms
301: __ .. each, $2, 000. 00 -.----... 22.---- $424,000 _ $2, 000. 00 g H “172““, $34, 000 m $10, 000
caching 1:16-16 61111111661” 2..- 999b,...“ 5845. 00 --..-522'---_..-.- 518399.; 8845. 00 17 814, 365 _fjs4, 2225_ - ,2
16111111611 (62116221111 (lOcy/tank) may, , _ 515. 25 ,, __, “22,022“ 31,155 65:25 ______ 1 ,70 ,_ 43893? , _ $263 2
xcavation 4’ trench for disposal_ field (5) If $2. 27 12760 $28, 965 82,27 9860 $22,382 $6,583
travel fill, run of ba_nk (6) cy $11.85 1100 $13,035 $11.85 850 $10,073 $2, !"963
erConnectron . .. - .. . .. - . , .... a 1 _-
xcavation (12’2' _deep 11 4" wide) , 22 1f ,2 $0. 26 , . 5600 $1,456 , 2_2___$20,226 .. ....-.7900 $2,054 , -$2598
ackfin mm... sf so 82 5609 .... $54 592 I--...-...so.._82 7900 ....56478 ,. .-.-$1.886.
train Pipe lf $2. 81 “”5600 $15, 736 $2.81 7900 $22,199 -$6.463
mwalerManagement (7) . ,, ,2 2 2, -mm_,,,m,-, _ ,, , --,z..___,_--.-._...-.-._ ,5 .- . -....-
lanholes, cleanouts each $2325.00 6 $13,950 $2,325.00 8 $18,600 -$4,650
riggayation (12" deep x4" wide) ___lf “$026 H” 5600“ T ~$1 456 $0. 26 79_O_0 $2,054: $598
tackfill _ _, 2 “W... ,2 . 2, sf -_ $0.82_ _____________ 56002 .--- $4, 592 $0. 82 , _72900,__ g 2_ $6,478 -2$l.886
ias seérvice and distribution If $1.91 5600 $10,696 ”$1.91 7900 $15,089 -$4,393
tric( ) ... . -
xcavatiojr (12" deep x 4_" wide) 2 ,12f .- .. $0 26 5600 r$1,456 , “$0. 2622 _ 2279020 $2 054 -$598
ackfill "sf” so. 82 _ ,2 5600....-. 84', 592 so. 822 2, ..7900.. w':$6 478 2 -$1,886
Wuhan If $1.91 5600 516.999 81.91 7900 515.089 -$4.393 ~
AL COST $1,240,440 $1,566,677 -$326,237
4 BER OF LOTS 22 17 5
IT PER LOT $56,383.62 $92,157.44 435,774

 

 

 

 

:s/Assumptions

‘he cost of 6116116111661" 11.661111661111111. The ‘6681’6161/1666'18" 65366611611161 '6696166 111.111.111'wrriraa‘grawfi8.1111111." 111 8.111.111.1118881111
{ed Cedar River are estimated between $5,000 and $6,000 per acre and other parcels are estimated between $2,000 and $3,000 per acre. The
age of the estimated prices was take for both properties. Since Steeplechase backs up to the river, the price per acre is $5,500; Cherry Valle is

ldjacent to the river, so the price per acre is $2. 500.

loth sites were initially vacant, relatively flat, with medium forest coverage before purchased by developers.

 

“ghain County standard for a light residential road (< 25 lots) is: 3" asphalt. 6" gravel, and 8" sand.

 

...—M mm"-.>-

he soils are suitable for the pavement (no mucking necessary; standard road construction standards applied)

 

 

.. _--.-.. -.--- ---”..H.-.

rIlpically, this consists of4 to 5 runs of 75 to 100 feet apiece with 20 feet of piping between (Source: lngham county Drain Commission).
this calculation, 5 runs of 100 feet apiece was used with 80 feet of piping between each _run (total: 580 If)w

“...—......

my cy 0f gravel per house is typical (Source: 11111611111 County b11111 Commission)

"Sham County standard is one inset every 300 feet to 600 feet 500 feet is an acceptable estimate 7 '_ ' I 2 7
Mdoes not have electrical data; cost estimates for gas were applied.
cels were deve10ped to the point of sale for develop ment; site improvements after lot sale, such as landscape and sidewalks, were not included
5 “0““ ”P. 35.59.19.991"- C951 Wei“? 195991.11-999.199.1999“.. .. .

36

l

L

i

 

[7

Calculated Costs Per Subdivision — Using Industry Estimates

TABLE 6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STEEPLECHASE (CONS ERVATION) CHERRY VALLE (CONVENTIONAL) Meme,
‘0 RY Per Unit S ubdivision Per Unit S ubdivision Between ROSE
UNITS Cost Amount Total Cost Amount Total 8‘ Platter!
Fpurchase (1) acre $5,500.00 64.86 $356,730 $2,500.00 59 $147,500 $209,230
E: (topography, staking & platting) 161 $700.00 22 515,400 $700.00 17 $11,900 $3.500"
[recur/n11. clear/grub acre 57,500.00 31.59 $236,925 $7,500.00 59 $442,500 3205.575
'Ign-shop drawings/renderings
1111111611111 ” ‘ " ” 161 ‘ 1111"” ‘ 0 50"" 3100.00“ W 17 *Mm‘fifioo" "‘-31',700“ ‘
161(2) 101 $225.00 "22" ' '1 $4,950'"" ' na ' ’0'” _ “ ’ $0 ‘ ' " 34.950 "
L , so so
11111611 cy‘ $2.75 " “ 3,733” $610,266 ””821‘7’5m'" ‘55“,2'677”"“814148'4" """-’s4.2'19"""
's’y’ 33.00 ‘ " 100.800 ’ ”$302400 ' " $3.00m" ""142200'““$426,600“ "43124200“
,, sy $3.50 ‘ 100,800 $352,800 8350’” “142.200 ” $497,700 ”$144,900
11111 sy 55.50 100.800 ‘ "8554.400" “$5.50 " " "142,200” :57‘82500” " 4227.700
Land Guifer ... ‘ ‘ W” W ' “"“8‘8700‘” ‘“5’,60'0"”'”"'344’.806‘“ $8.00 7,900 “ $63,200 -818J4‘00
NA 50.00 NA so $0.00 NA so so
fi it 510.00 5,600 $56,000 510.00 7,900 $79,000 -$23,000
1111 (3) 11 8 17.00 5,600 $95,200 817.00 7,900 $134,300 -$39,100
ater management
98(5) ’11 820.00 5.600 “$112,000 "3’2000 ”7.900“ $158,000 ” ""4s46.000 ”
6111:1115 each $3,300 22 $72,600 $3,300.00 17 $56,100 $16,500
1161 sf 81.00 28,000 $28,000 51.00 39,500 $39,500 -$Il.500
.cosr $2,250,871 $2,865,784 -$6l4,914
EROFLOTS 17 5
91212 LOT $102,312.31 $168,575.54 -$66,263

 

 

 

 

Issumptions

cost of each {Joel 18361166231121? The eBSt'pr'o'videh 16111151111811 61118166181611 1118116111w‘111'116‘13166‘11 16611311111'.""1‘11‘gcacr;1‘.‘6arceis1161;1111 1181*
.iver are estimated between $5,000 and $6,000 per acre and other parcels are estimated between $2,000 and $3,000 per acre. The average of the
3d prices was take for both properties. Since Steeplechase backs up to the river, the price per acre is $5,500; Cherry Valle is not adjacent to the
vthe price per acre is $2,500.

55111111111: 11111661820016 $250 661161", 11116116,; 499111111. . .2

 

1 estimate fige: $16 to $78. average applied

“C9999 819999499.9999199119491499300499001991:5.0969119 9949999449199999434195.._H.f_.‘j.';_f§ '

testimate range: $18 to $22, average applied

The Per Unit Costs column values will differ because of the sources used to obtain the

numbers: Method A values were obtained from Means and Method B values were obtained from

estimates provided by industry professionals. The Property Purchase per unit cost was the same for

both tables because this number was provided by the Williamstown Township Assessor; neither

Means nor industry professionals could provided a better estimate for land value.

37

 

The Subdivision Amount columns are the same for both Tables 5 and 6. The values in these
cells were obtained from those provided in Table 2, Subdivision Measurements. The values were
calculated using the site plans as submitted by the developer to Williamstown Township. The values
under the Total columns are result of the Per Unit Cost multiplied by the Subdivision Amount.
Specific assumptions and details of calculations are also provided for each table.

The final column, labeled Difference between subs provides the difference between Total
values. For example, the estimated cost of the Steeplechase subdivision was $356,730 and of the
Cherry Valle subdivision, $147,500. The difference being $209,230.

7.1 Limitations and Exceptions of Methodologies

There are limitations and exceptions associated with both methodologies. The nature of
limitations associated with Method A is that the development cost was not listed in the costing
source, RS. Means Company, Inc. 1999. Means Residential Cost Data (Means), and was therefore
omitted from the study. The limitation associated with Method B is that these estimates were taken
from industry professionals for hypothetical developments and estimates are only as good as the
sources providing them. While recognizing these limitations is important, they do not compromise
the integrity of the study.

0 Method A does not include government review or administrative costs to the developer. The
reason for the elimination of the category is that Means does not include such costs.
Although studies indicate that more time--in terms of meeting with local government
officials-—is required for conservation design subdivisions than conventional subdivisions, the
conclusion has also been drawn that the difference in costs is minimized when the
municipality has stream lined the site plan review process. Stream lining is evidenced
through the municipality’s incorporation of conservation design review into its subdivision
regulations and zoning ordinances (Arendt 1996, 114) (Armstrong 1992, 12). Although the
additional time required of conservation designs seems a logical assumption, Williamstown

Township has stream lined the process by providing an avenue for review in its subdivision
regulations and zoning ordinance, such that this discrepancy should be minimal.

38

Method A does not differentiate the cost of preparing a conservation design and conventional
design; the design cost for a conservation design is the same as the design cost for a
conventional design. The reason for treating the costs alike is that Means does not provide
costs for different types of development. The Williamstown Township subdivision
ordinance can require both a conservation design and a conventional design for every
subdivision development regardless of the developer’s intent, the two design costs—each of
$1025.00—was applied to both situations.

Method A applies the same cost data for electrical utility installation as for gas utility
installation. The reason for treating the two utilities alike is that Means does not list
development information for electrical utilities. Under the guidance of a Michigan State
University Professor in the Building Construction Department, adopting the gas installation
costs for electric installation costs is acceptable. Although the study strived for accuracy of
cost estimates, the theory is that the actual cost is not as important as ensuring that the same
cost-whatever it may be—is applied appropriately for each subdivision. That is to say that the
cost difference between developments is demonstrated not by the cost of grading/cubic foot
per se, but by the amount of grading/cubic feet required by each development.

Finally, there may be errors associated with the numbers shown in the Tables 5 and 6. These sums

result from an exercise to determine cost differences. The substantial differences between the two

methodologies does not mean that one is more correct than the other in terms of estimating costs.

The reader should be careful to distinguish between the costing details (i.e. the cost of pavement per

linear foot) and the general concept that more pavement is needed for conventional designs.

8.0

RESULTS

The hypothesis of this study is that development costs for Cherry Valle, a conventional,

platted subdivision, were higher than the development costs of Steeplechase, a cluster subdivision.

The rationale for the hypothesis is that conventional subdivisions require more linear feet of utilities

and square feet of paving, which translates into more expense. However, previous studies have

indicated that up-front costs, also referred to as soft-costs (i.e. engineering and administrative costs)

are higher for conservation design and therefore serve as a deterrent for developers to opt for

39

implementing cluster. This section first reviews the costs of each development and then compares
the soft costs to see if they are as much as a deterrent as purported in the literature.
8.1 Total Costs Reviewed

The total cost of developing the subdivisions as calculated under Method A (using Means

data) and Method B (using estimates from industry professionals) is summarized in Table 7, below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 7
Summary of Calculation Costs
Total Cost Cost Per Lot
Method A Conventional $1,566,677 $92,157
Method A Conservation $1,240,440 $56,383
Difference $326,237 $35,774
% Difference 20% 40%
Method B Conventional $2,826,284 $166,252
Method B Conservation $2,222,871 $101,039
Difference $603,413 $65,213
% Difference 21 % 40%

 

 

 

 

 

The above table shows that the conventional designs cost more than conservation designs
Based on the figures presented, both methods indicate that development costs of conventional
developments are approximately 40% more than development costs of conservation designs.

The above results suggests two questions: are these numbers realistic and are these numbers
significant enough to sway developers? To answer the first question, return to Sections 4.2 and 4.3
to review what other studies found. The N AHB study (Section 4.2) found that conventional
subdivision development costs were $4,344 more per dwelling unit than for the cluster subdivision.
Melissa Armstrong’s study (Section 4.3) found that conventional subdivisions were $2,975 more per
lot (Analysis 1) or between $4,065 and $12,920 per lot (Analysis 2). The numbers calculated in this
study are three to nearly thirty-three times greater than industry estimates. There may be several

reasons that may account for the differences, the greatest factor being the number of lots that each

40

subdivision was being split into. For example, the NAHB study was concerned with 472 units on a
165-acre parcel. The total cost for conventional subdivision development was over six million
dollars and nearly four million for the conservation development. More importantly, the percent
difference between the two developments was approximately 34%. With regard to the Armstrong
study, Analysis 1 considered a 60.6-acre parcel, very similar to Steeplechase (64.86 acres) and
Cherry Valle (59 acres). However, the Armstrong study divided the parcel into forty lots, where
Steeplechase and Cherry Valle divided the parcel into nearly half that amount. The percent
difference between developments in Analysis 1 of Armstrong’s study was 24%. Armstrong did not
provide total costs or total number of lots with the Analysis 2; costs were only provided on a per-lot
basis. The percent difference between development costs ranged from 20% to 44%.

Another important factor that explains the differences in results is that the NHAB study is
fourteen years old and the Armstrong study over 8 years old. Inflation rates and the costs of
materials and labor may have increased substantially since the time of these previous studies.
Additionally, the engineers and consultants responsible for computing the figures in the NAHB and
Armstrong studies may have lumped sums or made other assumptions--since the exact
methodologies for identifying costs was not provided, such differences may only be speculated.

It may be concluded that even though the values for the development costs calculated herein
are considerably higher than those found in other studies, the results are consistent with the theory
that development costs for conventional designs are more than the development costs for
conservation designs. Given the percent difference of costs between subdivision types, it appears
that although the estimates of this study may be high, the percent savings to developers falls within

that determined by other studies.

41

8.2 Soft Costs versus Hard Costs Reviewed

The second question to be answered concerns the argument made that up-front soft costs are
higher for conservation designs and therefore are a deterrent to developers. That is to say that even
though a developer may understand the cost savings in infrastructure, if conservation designs mean
more of the developer’s time spend in meetings and revising site designs, he or she is less likely to
opt for these additional headaches. Potential increases in lot value at the time of sales due to
proximity to open space are even more distant and therefore less like to persuade the busy deve10per.

To answer this question, the soft costs of developing Steeplechase and Cherry Valle are

compared and summariZed in Table 8, below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 8
Summary of Soft Costs
Site Design &
Engineering Government Review of

Costs Design Costs
Method A Conventional $35,695 $1,025 (2)
Method A Conservation $24,602 $1,025 (2)
Difference $11,093 $0 (2)
Method B Conventional $11,900 $1,700
Method B Conservation $15,400 $4,950
Difference [$3,500] [$3,250]

 

 

 

 

 

(1) Means does not provide values for government review.
(2) Means provides only one site design value.

The results presented in Table 8 for Methods A and B conflict. Method A comparison does
not support the assertion that up-front soft costs are always less for conventional subdivisions, rather
it shows conventional subdivisions cost more in terms of surveying.’ The reason for this is that the
acreage to be surveyed was so much greater for Cherry Valle (59 acres) compared to the amount of

acreage to be surveyed for Steeplechase (31.59 acres). Steeplechase had less acreage because the

42

homes were clustered on a smaller amount of land. Method A therefore shows cost savings beyond
infrastructure for conservation designs.

Method B supports the assertion that up-front costs are higher for both engineering and
administrative review. Interestingly, the reason for seeing a higher value in the conservation
subdivision is that it has more lots than the conventional subdivision and the estimate is based on the
amount per lot. For either subdivision, the engineering work is $700 per lot. Therefore if this study
compared two hypothetical subdivisions with equal number of lots, there would be no cost savings
for either design. The only soft-cost savings that appears to hold true is with the site design.
Although this cost is also calculated on a per-lot basis, the conservation design is estimated to cost
$125 more per lot than the conventional design.

The answer to the question of whether up-front soft costs are greater for conservation designs
is that there is only cost savings in design, not engineering work. Depending on how the contractor
bills time (either on a per-lot basis or a per-acre basis), the engineering work could add or subtract
costs from either type of subdivision.

9.0 DISCUSSION & IMPLICATIONS

The results of the study indicate that the development costs for conservation subdivisions are
indeed less than the development costs for conventional subdivisions. This finding is not
revolutionary. However, it is one more piece of evidence to assist developers interested in
subdivision construction in Williamstown Township, Michigan. Although the final goal of cluster
developments is not to save or make developers money, developers tend to be the final decision

makers and money is often the greatest appeal that residents and Township officials can offer. (Note:

43

other financial incentives, such as density bonuses or allowing cheaper/sub-standard roads, are not
considered in this analysis.

Encouraging developers to build cluster is not enough; communities must have regulations
in-place so that cluster developments are allowed. Best practice suggests that communities plan for
cluster design, first by making necessary recommendations in the Master Plan and subsequently
revising the zoning and subdivision codes. Communities that do not undertake a systematic effort
are probably setting themselves up for an unsuccessful program.

Communities that are prepared to implement a cluster program should also consider the
impact of cluster developments on affordable housing. As previously discussed, cluster
developments can have the effect of increasing home values to the extent that housing is no longer
considered affordable (see Section 3.3). Communities must realize this and plan accordingly.
Otherwise cluster developments—which do promote economic, environmental, health and quality of
life causes--will again take on a negative connotation: exclusionary. Solutions include ensuring that
affordable housing is provided and maintained in other areas of the community, adopt an
inclusionary housing provision or, through a land trust, purchase and/or provide subsidies for
affordable housing within cluster developments.

The implications of what a cluster development can do for a community are numerous, and to
this end Williamstown Township’s Rural and Open Space Environment (ROSE) program is a very
good example. For one, the cluster program forces a community to practice long-range planning. By
creating areas for cluster, a community must methodically determine where it should grow, how it
should grow and what resources must be preserved to maintain the community’s character in the face

of growth. Through the master planning process, Williamstown Township identified its desire to

44

protect its rural and open space character as residential subdivisions are built. Through an overlay
zone, the Township made the process possible. The Township also made provision for its fair share
of affordable housing (site study). To maximize the benefit of its cluster program, Williamstown
Township may consider designing a greenway belt or an openspace network. The resources being
preserved—forested land, wetlands, open space, agricultural lands—would then be linked, avoiding
scattered patches of preserved land throughout the township (Arendt 1994, 265).

Another implication of cluster development is on affordable housing. As discussed in
Section 3.3, cluster developments can raise property values and drive affordable housing out of the
area—they can be exclusionary. However, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) as
well as leading proponents of cluster design have produced materials on using cluster to build
affordable housing (NHAB 1986) (Arendt 1996). Less development costs means less costs passed
onto the homeowner. The lesson learned from Radbum, New Jersey is that since much care goes
into designing affordable housing cluster developments, the homes may quickly be purchased by
upper-incomes that also appreciate the energy-saving placement of the homes, the walkability of the
area and proximity to open space.

10.0 CONCLUSION

Cluster developments should be seen as one part of a larger planning movement, the fight
against sprawl. Large lots and platted subdivision are connected to environmental degregation, high
utility costs and social displacement. Moreover, as people sprawl to the far corners of the
community in search of space, the lower-income community members are left in the older areas of
town—the areas that not only pay for services to the suburbs but will also be immediately affected by

the old infrastructure that will soon be in need of repair.

45

Cluster designs offer an alternative to sprawl. Condensing homes and allowing the remaining
land to be preserved as open space reduced the need for people to move further out for that same
open space environment. The added benefits are that people do not have to be inconvenienced with
long commuting times from the suburbs to town centers and municipalities do not have to be
overtaxed with long extensions of infrastructure. Cluster developments promote sustainable
development principles of reducing environmental degradation, improving the economic status of a
community and promoting social interaction (through closer homes and sharing of open spaces).
Affordable housing opportunities are also available through cluster developments.

There are many tangible and intangible cost savings associated with cluster design, and most
often selling this program to residents, business owners and public officials is not difficult.
However, most often it is the developer who makes the final decision—to build or not to build. The
most effective way to sell cluster designs to this audience is to demonstrate the cost savings and that
is the purpose of this study. By demonstrating the substantial cost savings to developers, hopefully a

Township concerned about maintaining its identity and quality of life can achieve exactly that.

46

1 1.0 REFERENCES

Ambrose, John E, 1995. Cost effective groundwater protection through hazardous substance overlay
zone ordinances. APA Planning Michigan 8(1): 1-5.

Arendt, Randall, 1996. Conservation Design for Subdivisions. Island Press: Washington DC.

 

, 1997. Basing cluster techniques on development densities appropriate to the area.
Journal of the American Planning Association. Winter 63(1): 137-144.

, 1998. Connecting the dots. Planning. 64(8): 20-23.

 

Armstrong, Melissa. 1992. Cost Comparison of Private Development Costs. Planning and Zoning
News. May: 7-13.

Brueckner, J .K., 1990. Growth controls and land values in an open city. Land Economics 66: 237-
248.

Chown, Glen A., 1991. “Protecting natural land and community character with conservation
easements.” Planning and Zoning News. May: 6-13.

Daniels, Thomas. 1997. Where does cluster zoning fit in farmland protection. Journal of the
American Planning Association. Winter 63(1): 129-137.

Frank, James E., 1989. The costs of alternative development pattems: A review of the literature.
Washington, DC: The Urban Land Institute.

Gauch, Richard, Jay Feldman, Bryan Patchman, Joe Svatos and David Garfinkel. 1978. “Cluster.”

Builder Magazine. Eighteenth Annual Land Use Report sponsored by the National
Association of Home Builders. August 7.

Gerckens, Laurence C. 1998. Urban Planning 801 Course Pack. Hilliard, Ohio: On-Call Faculty,
Inc.

Gottdiener, Mark, 1997. Planned sprawl: private and public interests in Suburbia. Beverly Hills,
California: Sage Publications.

Iguchi, Pamela, 1992. Economic benefits of open space. Trust for Public Land, March.

Knack, Ruth Eckdish. 1990. Selling cluster. Planning. September: 4-10.

41991. The one-acre habit is hard to break. Planning August: 8-11.

47

Lacy, Jeff. 1990 An examination of market appreciation for clustered housing with permanent open
space. Amherst, MA: Center for Rural Massachusetts, University of Massachusetts
Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning.

Lerner, Steve and William Poole. 1999. Economic benefits of parks and open space: How land

conservation helps communities grow smart and protect the bottom line. The Public Trust
for Land: San Francisco California.

Maryland. 1994. Managing Maryland '3 growth: Clustering for resource protection. Maryland:
Maryland Office of Planning.

RS. Means Company, Inc. Means Residential Cost Data. 1999.

Peiser, Richard B. 1984. “Does it pay to plan suburban growth?” American Planning Association
Journal (Autumn): 419-433.

Porter, Douglas R. Managing Growth in America ’s Communities. Washington DC: Island Press.
1997.

Real Estate Research Corporation (RERC), 1971. The cost of sprawl. Prepared for the Council of
Environmental Quality; the Office of Policy and Development and Research, Department of
Housing and Urban Development; the Office of Planning and Management, Environmental
Protection Agency. Washington, DC: US. GPO.

Tibbets, John, 1998. Open space conservation: investing in your community. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. 1998.

Thompson, J. William, 1997. New ruralist. Landscape Architecture. Spring 15(1): 68-69.
Urban Land Institute (ULI), 1978. Residential Development Handbook. ULI: Washington, DC.

Williamstown Township, 1992. Master Plan. Prepared by McKenna Associates, Inc. Farmington
Hills, Michigan. September 15.

 

J 1997a. Zoning Ordinance. Prepared by McKenna Associates, Inc. Farmington
Hills, Michigan. July 2.

 

, Subdivision Ordinance. Prepared by McKenna Associates, Inc. Farmington
Hills, Michigan. January 7.

Washington State, 1984. Affordable Housing-Local Government Regulatory and Administrative
Techniques. Washington State Planning and Community Affairs Agency. Olympia, WA.

48

HlATEGNSTA

llllllllll lllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

 

31293 02637 8228