THE REPORT OF AN INTERNSHIP IN URBAN PLANNING AS PERFORMED AT THE PIMA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TUCSON, ARIZONA, JUNE 15, 1965 TO SEPTEMBER 15, 1965
Item Type text; Internship Report-Reproduction (electronic)
Authors Lusteck, Joseph Anton Jr.
Publisher The University of Arizona.
Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
Download date 30/09/2021 06:48:49
Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/555393 THE REPORT OF AN INTERNSHIP IN IZZMi FWHNING AS PERFORMED AT TIE Pim COUHTY PLAtEMHO DEPARTHEtn* TUCSON, ARIZONA, JUNE 15, 1965 to SEPTEMBER 15, 1965 by JOSEPH ANTON LUSTECK, JR.
An Internship Report Submitted to the COMMITTEE ON URBAN PLANNING . . . . , In Bor+lol Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY Of ARIZONA
1966
Approved: Date:_ Director of Internship STATS::;ir cv Aurim
This Internship report has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements fer an advanced-doorco c t the University of Arizona and Is deposited with tiio Committee on Urban Planning to bo node- evollcblo to borrowers under applicable conditions to be set by them. DrIof quotations from this report ere allowable without special permission, provided that accurate ccunowlcdrcmant .of scarce is made. Requests fer permission fer extended quotation of portions of this manuscript ray be rranted by the cl*Imam of. the Committee on Urban Planning when in his judgement the propoeed uso of the meterloI is in the interest of scholarship. In oil other cases, however, this permission must be obtained from the author.
SIGNED; Joseph A. Lusteck, J r. A0Kt:0::LE35r'HLT
The author vlshca to express his appreciation to tho Pirn County Docrd of Supervisors for providing-tho opportunity to carry cut this Internship In tho office of tho Pins County Planning Dopertnont end to tho staff of that'deportment, especially John S. Tsaguris, Planning Director and Alex R. Garcia, Assistant Planning Director, for tiioir supervision end helpful suggestions during tho internship period, in addition. Dr. Andrew U. tJiison, Chairman of tho Ccmltlco cm Urban Planning, deserves special mention for hie guidance In the- preparation of this internship and throughout the intern’s college education. Finally, tho Intern wishes to thank his wife. Happy, for her encouragement end for tho many hours of secretarial assistance given to tho preparation of this report.
Ill FURPC-SE
The purpose of this report is to present on account of the author's activities and observations during a three month period of employment in tha office of the Plcn County Planning Department as an - Internship In Urban Planning. Tho report will bo presented in four parts. Pert one will contain historical background. Included In th is sect Ion will be s brief historical sketch of -Plm County- Arizona, o historical description of the development of the organization of Pima County and an account of the evolution of planning for its growth and development as a function of government. The section will Include on explanation of-county organization for planning and the orgcmlzation of tho County Planning Department along with the intern's ccnnsnts Thereon. . Part Two will be a description of Tho intern's assignments and duties during tho three month period. It will contain an account of the Planned Unit Development Study as an example of tho work performed. Observations made during this period will be reported. Part throe will contain The intern's evaluation of the Internship particularly emphasising consideration of tho Planned Unit Development Study. Comments will ciso be rede upon the organization and methods used in carrying exit the study. Tho appendix will contain s copy of the study, ’’Planned Unit Development, Part 2, Local Application”, which the intern was assigned to proporo during tho internship period.
Iv TABLE CF co-.TErrrs
Paoo Stataw nt by Author - ■ ■ " . •' II •Aeknotflcdgnon-r • ; ill ■Purpcao , . ; . Iv
Tablo of Ccntcntc _ v Lint of Tables vl List of iI lustrations vl I Historical Background of Pine County I Organization 8 County Organization for Planning 15 Description of the Internship 37 Evaluation of the Internship 40 Selected Bib!Iography 50 Appendix, "Planned Unit Development,Pert 11, Local ApplIcotlon" 50
v UST CF TACLCj
Poga Teble I, Number of State and Local Govcrn::.cntoI Units 12 Table 2* Planning Coporhsont Personnel 53 Table 3» Comperetlve Personnel Ratios . 54 Table 4, Education of Professional Planning Staff 54
vi LIST Or iLLU31P»AT3C:,!3
: Peso Figure' I, Orronlzotlcml Chert, Pine County, 1020 : II Figure 2, Crgontza-Mcnal Chert, Pine County, 1053 14 Figure 3, Functional OrganIzotlcnal Chert, Pirn County Planning Department 35 Figure 4, Personnel Organizational Chart, Fima County 'Planning Department • 35
vii HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF PIMA COUNTY
PlrnD County v;os ono of tho four original counties Into which the territory of Arizona was divided In l£G4, ito boundaries were then cot as follows: "On tho cast by the 109th meridiem of lemgltudo, on the line of the territory of New Mexico, on the north by tho middle of the main branch of tho Gila River, on tho west by tho line of II3°20* west I longitude, end on the couth by the Sonora lino." The lands described above were acquired by Spain through dtewvery and exploration In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and by occupa tion In the eighteenth and nineteenth. They become pert of Mexico in IG2I by tho Mexican tier of Independence with Spain, end were rode part of the United States through tho Gadsden Purchase from Mexico which was proclaimed In 1894. Plro County Included all of Arizona south of the Gilo River, 2 north of tho Mexican boundary and east of Yura County. This crca Is nearly all of tho Gadsden Purchase. The City of Tucson has oIways been the County Scat. Previous to 1054 most of Pima County, as originally termed, and all of tho County, as It ncv.' exists, had been port of PJmerle 3 Alta, the northern portion of Sonora under Spain and Mexico. Tucson was 1. Horry L. Hopkins, Administrator, Inventory of tho County Archives of Arizona. No. 10, Pima County; Phoenix, Arizona: Works Progress Administration, July, 1938. p. 3. 2. Jbl % M d . I a proaldlo on tho Apacho frontier end tho principal cottlcniont, above the present Sonora lino, in Finerla Alto. No non-lndlon settlements ere known to have existed prior to 1054 In what Is now Arizona north of tho 81 la River, or boyond Plncrle Alt®. Th® region was named for the Pina Indians native to It and Pina County’s name too tho sarao origin. Tho none Tucson Is derived from the PInan "Sluyk-son" which means dork or 4 brown spring. DeMIzs explored Pima County In about 1540. Coronado and his army crossed It In 1540. A century and a half later tho Jesuit, Father Kle®, extended his explorations and tho mission field from Finerla Baja north ward to tho Oil®, making his first ontrada across tho modern Sonora lino In 1691. In 1692 Kino addressed 800 Sobaipari Indians end baptized sons of their children at a largo rancher Io which ho named Son Xavier dot Bee. In the vaclnlty of this rancherIa. Kino laid tho foundations of tho noted mission of the same nan© In 1700, Son Xavier del Bac, nine miles from Tucson, received Its f ir s t permanent missionary In 1701, and became tho 5 greatest mission In what Is now Arizona. It Is maintained to this day by the Franciscan Order. For protection against the Indians, a presidio was established a t Tubac In 1752, which was moved about 1776 sene fifty miles north to 6 tho Puebllto do San Augustin do I Tucson on the Santa Cruz River. Tho 4. Jack Cross, Elizabeth Shaw end Kathleen Scholflol, Arizona. Its People and Resources. Tucson, Arizona: The University of Arizona Press, I960, p. 74. 5. Hopkins, on. c l t ., p. 4. 6. Ibid. 5 presidio VS5.lotcr. moved c short distance, to the site where the court house in Tucscn now stands, end there an edebe pueblo and church end a wall twelve feet high with towers end firing platforms for defense were b u ilt, Spanish rule was overthrown by Ivowlco in 102! end by IC4G Mexico was et war with the United States ever their northern possessions. After the conquest of Mew Mexico, Lieutenant Colonel Coehe of the Moreen Dotal I ion . 7 leek Tucscn in December, IC40 driving the Mexicans from the presidio. After the Gadsden Purchase was red!fled by Congress Dona Ana County was 8 attached to the Mow Mexico Territory. Military possession of this terri tory ves effected by the United States on March 10, 1050 by stationing four companies of Dragoons In Tucscn. I# 1850-ICOO the B utterfield Overland Stage Route passed through Tucscn which contributed to the Increase; of the American population to several thousand. Initial settlers wore dissatisfied with being joined to distant Mot; Mexico which resulted in a convention in 1056 a t Tucson which rxaoriollaed Congress fer organisation of the territory of Arizona end elected o delegate to Congress, 9 Who was not seated. A subsequent convention hold in IEGO at Tucson formed e provisional government to exist until the Territory of Arizona was created end a constitution and laws adopted and officials elected. Judicial districts and counties were laid out. The proceedings of th is convention 'were printed at Tucson end ere the first public document of this type printed In what is today Arizona. Is the coma year tho state- 7. Mel I Marborger, Ghosts of tho Adobe V.'nlio. Los Angeles: Western loro Press, 19C4. p. 179. 8. Hopkins, on. c l t ., p. 5 9. Ibid., p. 4. 4 of tlou Mexico created o now county, Arizona, from Dona Ana County and made 10 Tucson the County Scat, This act went unnoticed and was repealed In 1862. Another convention mot a t Tucson In 1551, and sentiment being for the Smith, elected a delegate the the Confederate Congress. In February 1062 Captain Hunter occupied Tucson with o force of Texans for the Confederacy, This v/as only retained until May of that year when tho First California II Volunteers, under Colonel Carlcton drove thorn to tho Rio Grande. Carloton later proclaimed himself m ilitary governor of Arizona until such time that a civil government could bo established. , In February 1555 Congress passed the ect which created the Territory of Arizona. Pursuant to this act, the Governor established o temporary local government under three judicial districts which lasted eight months in 1864, Tho f ir s t assembly of tho sta te legislature In 1865 provided for tho creation of counties and th eir governmental organization and named their first official*. This creation of counties by the first legislature greatly reduced tho original area of Pima County, Portions of It wero Included In Maricopa, Pinal, Graham, Cochise and Santo Cruz Counties. Pima County covers 9,241 square miles today. 10. Ibid, 11. Marbargcr, p. 181. 12. Hopkins, on. e f t ., p. 8. 13. Byrd H. Granger, Arizona Piece Mamas. Tucson, Arizona: The University of Arizona Frees, I960, p. 256. 5 Tho first county officials wore located In rented butIdtngs, A stone and adobe courthouse and Jail were built In tho military plots In 1888. Additional lend was bought and a contract was lot fer a now building In 1881. This site was extended In 1928 fer tho erection of the 14 present courthouse. The south wall of tho original courthouse sdjoins the southeast corner of tho original presidio wall. During 1965 the first major county building program was outlined for the county and on January 18, 1966 the voters of Pima County approved the expenditure of 15 $11,860,000.00 to provide new county facilities. Pima County has been Influenced to a considerable degree by the customs, religion and festivals of the Spanish and Mexican people who were Its original Inhabitants. Spanish Is still spoken by their descendants. . . . „ .. : 16 Further a rich background In Indian culture Is present in the county. The Tucson Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area consists of tho 9,241 square miles of Pina County, Tucson has a long standing 17 economic activity In vacation and health resorts. The dry desert climate with warn winters and arid hot summers attract many 111 people in need of this climate. The city is served by over two dozen hospitals, . - ' . ; - - 10 senItorlo and health clinics Including a large veterans hospital. This 14. Hopkins, op. c l t . . p. 5. 15. John S. Tsagurls, Director, Pina County Governmental Center Plan, Tucson. Arizona: Pima County Planning Department, January, 1966, p. 7. 16. Cross, cp.f_cjt,, p. 17. Donald J. Boguo end Calvin L. Beale, Economic Areas of tho United States, f.'ow York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1961, p. 523. 18. Ibid, 6 should not give the impression# however, thot the winter population of Tucson Is all sickly. Winter visiters# University of Arizona studants and staff# Davis Monthan servicemen as wot I cs a rapidly growing year round population teke advantage of winter recreation areas In the nearby mountains, dude ranches# hunting and many picturesque or historic points of Interest that attract many tourists. Although the area has grown steadily untlI the past few years It 19 has only a modest economic base In government, mining and tourism. Additional factors in the economy which should be considered include the University of Arizona and the Air Force base. Pima County Is traversed by the Santa Cruz River# which provides Irrigation to many acres of cotton. Moot of tho area's rural population lives In Its valley. The western portion of the county Is an Indian reservation for the Papago tribe where several thousand Indians live In poverty. The Saguaro National Monument# with Its rare and spectacular cactus. Is a recreational point of Interest. Ajo In the western portion of the area is a mining town which has a considerable copper output but Is little Intergrated with Tucson because of Its distance away, 132 miles. As the Tucson area Is quite dependent upon tourist activities and In the long run is experiencing considerable growth# It Is an area In need of Increased development. Of principal concern should be the economy's base as very IIttlo basic money comes Into the community through Its productive activities. Also o potential exists and an economic need 19. David Shirley, editor. Goals For the Community. Tucson, Arizona: Community Goals Committee, 1966, p. 60, exists for development of health and recreations I fa c ilitie s , perhaps In conjunction with the Indian reservation lands In tho ores. Hero recreation could be developed and employment and economic return could bo realized by the thousands of Indiana who currently live In poverty on their lend. Organize: Hon • Ti'.o F irst Terr I te r la I Assembly,- t-rhlch r.ret -Treo So'vc~bGr 20 to 2:0 Fovc-jor 10, If]04 adopted two basic lc:/s. Ti'.o f ir s t v;es a nlnlng' lew end tho RoecncJ vns a genera 1 code, colled the Usvoll Co-Jo. Prevision v;ns rode In-the-cede ‘fer.tho "fermnfien end rights of counties,’5 which were - established-«s bodies corpercte"and:pofItle fer the following purposesi' "to sue end be sued; to purchase end hold real end personal covato for tho purpose of erecting end repairing county buildings, and fer building of bridges; to echo ell noccsscry contracts, end to Co oil other necessary acts In relation to tho property and concerns of- tho county". Tho first eotmty o fficials tee!: office January 1, 1869, In 1910 Congress passed en enabling act one In 1912 Arizona entered tho Union as o state. The state constitution continued the county as a body p o litic and corporate with sim ilar powers. -' The county offices created by the First Assembly were the- following: Probate-Judge, Sheriff end ncecrder, t:ho together constituted the Board of County-'Cesnics 1 cncro, and Justice of-tho Fcaco, Constable, Coroner, and 21 Treasurer. : Tho Prebate Judge was Chairman of tho Beard of County Commissioners, Tho Recorder ties clerk of tho Board, and also ex officio clerk of"tho Probate Court. The Sheriff was ex officio Assessor and Tax Col lector. AlI of those-positions wore elective except fer that of 22 Probate Judge which was appointive by tho Governor. 20, Haskins, en. c it.» p. C. 21. Ibid. 9 Tte off I co of ."the .Beard of County - Cocai sb 1 cners was the cuecutlvo and leglelativo authority .of .t»>o county, and administered its financial affairs.':in:l8Gi5 this beard tac.abolished onU Its direct successor in functions end duties, the Beard of Supervisors i-:cn established. This throo reefer Ooard, .elected. Independent :of eny .ethor .office, remains tho ' 23 executive and legislative authority of tho Courriy. It has not been metertelly changed .by cubocqeant statures cr the. State Constitution. The posers of.the County.cro exercised.through the Coord of Supervisors, ft supervises a 11 other county of f less other than those pertaining to tho \ Superior Court, tabulates and canvasses election returns, nr.nagosthe . - County finances, regulates end fixes County taxes, denies or alleys all claims ageInst the County, manages a il County property and enacts 24 ordinances nacoesery for the public peac® end safety. • : : "By■1938 the structure of County Government hod lost none of its 25 pacers and importance es a local governmental unit. : In:feet. If anything, they had been expended, **ost offices wore filled by election with the exception of Clerk of the Docrd of Supervisors, County Engineer, Super intendent of Public Health, Board of Public v.'olfarc, Juvonile Probation 25 Officer, and certain minor officials. These exceptions v/ere appointed > by the- Beard:of Supervisors. : Tho elective positions-In 1938 t;crc chosen at largo with tho exceptJcn cf tho Daerd of Supervisors which ere selected from throe SsTHbld., p. 9. 24* Ui LeI* 1 * : ■ ' ' i...... : ; 23.‘ •.Ibid,, fi. 15. '/• - 26. ibid. 10 Supervisorial districts and the Justice of the Peace and Constables who are selected by precincts. E1ect1ve officials served two year terms, 27 except for those In Superior Court who served for four years. Figure I Is an organizational chart of Pima County In 1938. Since 1938 Pima County’s functions have developed consistently with county governments throughout the nation. Historically, counties have served as administrative sub divisions of the state to facilitate local performance, of state functions. Especially In rural ereos, counties have become the most familiar level of government to the average citizen and have undertaken functions relating to his everyday life, such as health, welfare, agriculture, lend ownership records, vital statistics, road maintenance and the local court system. Counties are circumscribed In their functions and operations by state laws which often specify detailed procedures as well as organization 28 and policy. The sizes of counties vary markedly and there are major differences between rural and urban counties. These two facts significantly 29 affect the way they operate. In recent years counties have increasingly assumed additional functions under county, as contrasted to state control. These functions are usually initiated by the local citizenry and, although often requiring permissive state legislation, they frequently Involve less state supervision than do the more traditional state functions that have been decentralized 30 to counties for several decades. 27. Ibid. 28. Edward F. R. Hearle and Raymond J. Mason, A Data Processing System for State and Local Governments. Englewood C liffs, New Jersey: Prentice Kell Inc., 1963, p. 17. 29. Ibid. 30. U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Governments -In The United States, Washington# D. C.: U. 5. Government Printing Office, 1962, p. 21. FIGURE 1 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART PIMA COUNTY, 1 9 3 8 P e o p le o f Pima County Z^X z^X z^X / ^ \ f B°o?d ) /Constable Z JustlceXZ Sheriff \/Super!or\/C lerk Supervisors Jf /j C o u n ty \ ( AssessoA/RecorderX0 /Treasure |\ /( Attorney r — ------1 I i jC o r o n e r | J u v e n ile | Agent of j Tax P r o b a tio n 1 State Motor j C o l l e c t o r O f f i c e r } Vehicle Dept.1 I Registrar of T , County Board of County Supt. Clerk of the County — VB oard o f l C ou n ty | |Vital Statistics! Social Security o f Board Engineer llEqualization [ Agricultural; I I and P u b lic Public Health o f 1 ! A gen t | W e lfa r e Supervisors 1 I______! L L______J Elective and Established by Constitution Appointive and Established by Statute SOURCE: H arry L . H o p k in s, I n v e n t o r y o f th e County Archives of AFrzbna,NoelO, \------j Ex O fficio, or Functional by Virtue of Pima County; Phoenix, Arizona: Works j | Holding Another Office or Appointed by Progress Administration, 1938. p.18. L ______% Another Jurisdiction or Agency. 12 Counties'ere generally governed by on 'elected legislative body but oelders have central executives, typically tho people elect a series of adiTilnistrative cfficlQls os volt, Such officers often Include on assessor, auditor, clerk, coroner, ccnstcblo, district attorney, justice of tho peace, public odainistrotcr, recorder, sheriff, superintendent of 51 schools, tax cot lector# license' col lector-end treasurer. County1s cro -o consistent form of - gover nment by tholr nature. As o' unit of local government they renaln essentially'stable In nor&crn. Table I tabu lotos the- total nunher of various local governaenta1 units I* the' United-States during I9S2; Slnso cour.tios cover the notion. In fact, they ore not effected jurisdictionally by growth as aro other units. This Is part of the reason thet their functions change with urbanization. ■ Table 1 1 I I o State and Local Unit* Type of Unit ’ tLiabcr of Units _ - • ' *9*2 1957 1932 1942 States 50 43 48 43 Counties 3,043 3,047 3,049 3,050 Cities 17,997 17,103 16,778 16,220 Townships & Towns 17,144 17,193 17,202 13,919 School d istric ts 54,673 50,446 50,360 103,579 Special districts 10,325 14,405 12,319 8,299 TOTAL 91,235 102,327 105,742 155,113 SOURCE: U. S. Department of Comerce, Bureau of the Census, Governments In tte United States. Washington, D. C.: U. 5, Government Printing Office, 1062. 51. Hear Io, op. cit., p. 17. If Is interesting to note that while the number of states and counties has remained stable during th is period of time the number of cities end special districts have increased during each period end the number of townships and towns and school districts hove decreased during oach period just as has the total number of governmental units. Due to the rapid urbanization of the Tucson or©a Pirn County has had to toko on mere and more urban, city like, functions. Today the number of public officials In appointed positions is over one half the numbor in elected positions. Those people tend to be specialists in particular fields rather than political figures. Although the county Is following the trend towards administration by professionals, the county. In several cases, still lacks truly professional administrators. The appointed officials would bo. In fact., cub-auainIstratero in many jurisdictions. Thoro Is no clearly definable administrative head, such as ci County Manager, to whom they arc responsible. Figure 2 shows the current organization of Pino County. FIGURE 2 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART PIMA COUNTY, 1965 PEOPLE OF PIMA COUNTY /SUPERIOR \ / COUNTY \ \ / \ / A / BOARD Of \ /^HO^/^LER kX / X /jUSTICBs\ / X ^COURTS ( 8 1 I ATTORNEY I f SHERIFF j f ASSESSOR f RECORDER| fSUPERVISORSj f SUPT. If O F ^ HE 1 (TREASURER! ( £ £ A™ 5 ( 4 J FONSTABLE3 ADULT PROBATION JUVENILE PROBATION X COURT COURT OF PURCHASING FINANCE CLERK OF THE ENGINEERING PLANNING PARKS AND HEALTH COUNTY COMMISSIONER CONCILIATION DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT BOARD OF DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT RECREATION DEPARTMENT HOSPITAL SUPERVISORS DEPARTMENT -JZL" J! TUCSONTUU3UN AREAAHh'A j [s AnT t ARYJ fAGRICULTURaD I TRANSPORTATION! jDISTRICT EXTENSION ! STUDY | INUMEER 1, |SERVICEin v i u n« 1| ELECTIVE AND ESTABLISHED BY CONSTITUTION SOURCE: Pima County Annual Report. Tucson, Arizona: Pima County | | APPOINTIVE AND ESTABLISHED BY STATUTE Finance Department, 1965 ! *1 EX OFFICIO, OR FUNCTIONAL BY VIRTUE OF I | HOLDING ANOTHER OFFICE OR APPOINTED BY L______! ANOTHER JURISDICTION OR AGENCY County Organization for Planning The f ir s t community planning organization In the Tucson Area was 32 Tucson Regional Plan, Inc. which was Incorporated on May 6, 1938. Tho purpose of this non-profit citizens1 organization was to sponsor the preparation of a comprehensive plan for Tucson and its envoirns and to establish the ways and means for Its accomplishment. With this organization the seeds of the City-County Planning Department were planted. Tucson Regional Plan, Inc. was founded by a group of citizens who had tried and falled voluntary methods of protecting their home neighborhoods from the 1ntruslon of adverse influences. They discovered, through their experience, th at comprehensive planning and zoning, as a function of local government, was an answer to the community wide problem. The organization convinced Pima County and the City of Tucson of this need and through a Joint arrangement engaged Mr. Ladtslas Segoo, a nationally prominent city planner, to undertake a comprehensive survey and to submit o plan for 33 the Tucson Area. This effort was funded one third from the City of Tucson, one third from Pima County and one third from contributions raised by Tucson Regional Plan, Inc. members. As Is often the case, the private sector had to make a personal 32. Andre M. Faure, Planning and Zoning. Tucson-Pina County. Tucson, Arizona: City-County Planning Department, 1955, p. 1. 33. Ibid. 15 Invcotnont to gov government to accept Its responsibility in providing; planning end zoning service. The notlod ov citizen investment in this coco v.'cs successful In getting planning activities started in the Tucson Area. , • • INrlng 19"0 ifr. Sogoo boson his study. Tho plan for tho Tucson 24 ' Aren, which uos prepared under hi# direction uas submitted in 1545. Tho City of Tucson Planning end Honing Co-mission wan firmly established during th is period of tin s and o generaS revision of tho City Zoning Ordinance uoo initiated, teny comunitlc-s had zoning ordinances long, before they had plans. This seems somewhat peculiar as zoning today Is, at least theoretically, thought of os an inplcmontory tool of planning. Early zoning was but a tool to control nuisances anti was first established in Tucson during 1920. Tho new Zoning Ordinance, which was directly tied • rg to the Segoo Plan, was odefrled in 1944. ' In'IMS the legislative passed an enabling lev; which permitted 26 the orconization of a Post War Planning Docrd. Such a.board was created In Pima County during that samo year. Tho enabling lew further preyidad for the creation of Post War public works reserve funds and levies, Tho Post her Planning Board specifically was to adviso tho Beard.of Supervisors cn allocations and levies under tho act for public works reserve funds. In addition this.body functioned olong tho lines of tho City Planning and Zoning Ceeailsslon with tho exception that tho Board did not consider zoning matters. Tho Beard, among other things, initiated tho studies --4*.-. JMiL*# P».2. 23. jh id . 20. • IbLd.j p. 1, , : 17 37 yhich Icoti to the creation ov Fire County Sanitary District iio. 1. The Planning activities ov tho Board continued even after the creation ov the County Planning end Zoning CxnisGlon. The enabling lot/ which permits Arizona Counties to ongono in 3G planning and zoning was passed by tho legislature in *9*#. fn eesence, the act provides that the Board of Supervisors my plan anti provide for tho future growth and dovcloptnnt of the area under its jurisdiction In •• order to preservo tha health, safety and concrol welfare of its residents. 39 This enabling law was patternod after the Standard Planning Enabling Act, Tho Eased,under tho Act, was to coordinate nil public improvements in osccrdanco with their plan# create a planning and zoning commission to consult with end ntivlso it regarding matters of planning end zoning. The Board was also ratio responsible for adoption end enforcement of such rules, regulations, ordinances and plane that ray apply to theso natters under Its jurisdiction. the Planning and. Zoning Cossnlsclen, which wes fur nod in 1949, consists of nino members nhn arc qualified doctors, residents end real property cv/ncrc of the county* Three of tho appointments ere- to bo node fron each of tho tires Supervlserlnl Olntrlcts and not rcro then cr.o of tho three my bo tho resident of on Incorporated municipality. CaWaslon members servo without pay. They cro compensated reasonable travel expenses. Terms of tho Commission members run for fw r years. Tho in itia l terra were staggered co that only one third of the Cemissien could change of one tie s . In re a lity , many members serve- several tern s. Tho Board of 37. " ib id .. D. I. 36. Section l 1-302, Arizona Revised Statutes, S t. Paul, Minn.: Vest Publishing Co., 1956, Vol. 3, p. 739. 33; Charles it. Haar, land Use Planning. Boston: little Brown and Company, 1959, pp. 344-345. 18 Supervisees roy remove n Commission comber fer'esuno. Tho'Ccnmloblcn receives odvlsory services by lev/ from the County Assessor,-County - Engineer, end County'Attorney. In addition,the Commission receives services frem thb County Finance Dcporiinent, the"Board of Supervisor's legal council end various other County departments. The- Coen!osIon In Fima County is of the traditions 1 typo. The only exception from the pure fern of cemission is the appointment of members by supervisorial district. In feet th is pcrn|-to each mooter of tho Board three- appointments. The provision which prohibits but cno of the three appointments per supervisor to bo made from residents of municipalities reflects the dominance of rural areas which existed until this year In the State legislature. Organizational details of tho Ccnaisslon vero legally'established 40 by tho State legislature. The Commission elects a chairman from among its members to servo a cno year tern. At least ono regular meeting Is held In the Counf-y each month. Rrocodurai rules cro established by tho 'Ccdnlsslon and o record of the Commission's a c tiv ities is hepI in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. This record is open to tho public. Any official action of tho Corlission requires o majority vote of a majority quorum of its membership. The Planning Ulrectcr of tho County Planning and Zoning Department is flic only other officer of the Commission. He servos os Executive Secretory of tho Commission for cno year, terms. , Tho Board of Supervisors may employ persons cr contract for services and establish a Planning Department to carry on the work and 41 enforcement of Planning and Zoning mottors. This point of law differs 40. Section 11-004, Arizona Revised Statutes, on. e l f ., p. 740. 41. Ibid. 19 frc:.) cany other jurisdictions. Often tho Corral ns I cn nay hire consultants or- personnel. In th is coco they cro hire:; by tho uoord end, in feet, tho employees servo as c staff tiopertnent of tho Coord end only provide requested services to tho Comission, Under this crrcnocrxmt mch staff time in spent providing services to tho Docrd of Supervisors to tho point, in fact, that tho Comics ion’s requests have, tin occasion, been subordinated considerably to tho staff level projects. By lee* tho County . may provide services to incorporated cities and teens within its jurisdiction ufwi their request after the Heard has hired consultants cr employees If they deem it proper to do so. The power of tho Comission is purely advisory to the Hoard of 42 Supervisors. Tho Comission makes reports and rcccmondntione to tho Beard, when requested, in connection with any matter relating to tho development of tho County, Tho Commission must operate within the limits of the funds available, by lew, in preparation of its reaps, reports, end recommendations. This point was of particular significance to tho intern In the publication of the Planned Unit Development Study. Tho Department is operated under this limitation also,so a yearly amount is cot aside 43 by lino item. In addition to tho Commission the County organization for planning Includes ono cr rooro Beards of Adjustment composed of not less than three 42. Ibid. 43. Jesso Burkheeu, Govornmontol Budgeting, Mow York: John Ui jc-y and Sons Inc., 1965, p. 128. 2 0 44 nor more than five members. Again the rural dominance In the legislature Is evident In that each Board member shall bo appointed from the uslncerpcrotcd portion of the suporvlsoriol district In which the Zoning Ordinance has boon applied. Members servo for four, years and must be residents and taxpayers of tho district In which they are appointed end ■ 45' serve* In essence the Board of Adjustment may do the following things: A. Interpret the meaning of eny ward# section# or phrase of the Zoning Ordinance ebout which there Is any doubt. Arbitrate dispute# between the Zoning inspector and tho appellant and clarify the locetlon of district boundaries. B. In the case where the strict Interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would work an unnecessary hardship on the owner of a property the Board may grant a variance as long cs the general Intent end purpose of the Zoning Ordinance Is preserved. C. Any decision made by the Board nay be appealed within 50 days to the Superior Courts. Enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance Is provided for by enabling legislation which permits the Beard of Supervisors of the County to withhold building permits, to establish the position of County Zoning Inspector and to appoint such deputy Inspectors as ere necessary to 46 " '■ ' ' enforce tho ordinance. After these positions Neva bean created by iha 44. Section 11-807, Arizona Revised Statutes, op. c l t . . p, 741. 45. Ibid. 46. Section 11-608, Arizona Revised Statutes# op, c l t ., p. 742. 21 Board of Supervisors It Is'necessary that o person who Intends to build in a Supervisorial District which has boon zoned to obtain a building permit. To do so It Is necessary that tho applicant provide tho Inspector with sufficient Information for the enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance. Tho Inspector may Issue a permit only If tho proposed Improve ment fully conforms to the Zoning Ordinance otherwise he must withhold It. A reasonable fee Is charged for a building permit. Any person who violates tho Zoning Ordinance Is guilty of a misdemeanor and each day that the violation continues is a separate offonse. Appropriate action may be instituted to prevent, abate cr remove any violation of the Zoning 47 Ordinance; Planning activities of the local governments wore carried out from 1949 to 1965 by the City-County Planning Department. This organization developed from tho early consultant work of !4r. Sagoo and the subsequent work of Mr. Andre M. Faure who served as resident planner during the period of time that Mr. Segoo was retained as a planning consultant for the Tucson Urban Area. Mr. Faure later became director of the City- County Pfenning Department. Tho organization served tho City of Tucson, Pima County, the City Planning Commission, and the County Planning Commission. Tho department was financed jointly by the City and tho 47. Ibid, 2 2 County tilth the County actually contributing cbcut 70,5-of the cash 48 operational coats. Under th is arrangement, which. In fact, yao advanced for its day, regional planning which disregarded jurisdictional lines was passible. The Planning Department received its biggest advancing Influence 49 from the Federal Governments post war planning funds. Curing the early 1950’s a considerable amount of Federal money was spent in the area for planning a c tiv itie s . These funds for the cost port paid for base copping, the basic ccjcr streets and routes plan, end the first County Zoning Ordinance,which became effective February 15, 1952. The County Zoning Inspection Department was established within th# City-County Planning Department. This agency was headed by a County Zoning inspector and staffed with several deputies. For practical reasons, particularly budgetary, the agency was operated in o see)i-autonomous manner since the City Inspection Deportment was entirely separate from the Planning Department. Only certain clerical end crofting services as well as primary management was provided to the Inspection Department. The rest of this .function was handled by the Zoning inspector. The Planning Department served all of the Coords and Commissions Involved in planning with service of some type. Personae I of the depart ment numbered as high as 30 people during the early 1950's. During this 48. John S. Tsagurls, Address to the Retail Trade Bureau. Tucson, Arizona: Pica County Planning Department, June 25, 1964, p. I. 49. Fairs, sd. ctt., p. 3. ■23 ttmo obout A of tha employees of the departmanf were City personnel end 50 3/4 were County. Those City employees worked under the- civil service errangemant and the County employees, although not required to pass competitive exams, were selected for their training and experience comparability te th® City civil service raquiremsnts. Wags scales established by the City were met by the County far comparable positions. This joint City-County Planning Department underwent severe criticism during the late 1950'b and early 1960's. Its downfa 11 was brought about, however, for a large part by an Administrative Study 51 conducted by The American Society of Planning Officials In 1963. This 52 .study offered the following major points of criticism : I. The staff should be placed under the supervision of an assistant city manager who would act as planning director until such tins as a separate planning direct®* is needed. 2. The ratio of professional to non-professional .employees Is skewed heavily to the non-professional side. 3. The Planning Department's engineering approach to planning should be do- emphnslzod. 4. No pin point responsibility exists as the department answers to 5 bosses; the two Commissions# the Board of Supervisors, ; the Mayor and .Council and the City Manager. 5. There seems to be li t t l e or no comprehensive planning, 50. Tsogurls# o p . clt.. p. I. 51. Dennis 0*Harrow, An Administrative Study. Cltv-County Planning Department, Tucson and Pima County, Arizona. Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials, 1963. 52. Ibid. 24 m planning that gives tho sense of the whole city cr the whole urban creo. 6. Because of the leek of comprehensive plawMng the Tucson orca cccrr.s to be on tho way to "out Leo Angelos Itself." There is a sense of plcnlcssness. 7. Tho area lacks a transportation plan end plans for water and sanitary facilities. 8. There should be extensive internal reorganization of tho staff to develop clear lines of authority and to assign definite duties, responsibilities and functions. test of these criticisms were strong but probably well founded. Tho problem that this study created, however, is greater than those criticisms It mado. Tho study lead directly to elimination of tho most Ideal form of planning ogoncy possible, one which did not knew Jurisdictional limits. As a result of tho A. S. P. 0. study cn January 15, 1064, tho teycr end tho Council end tho Board of Supervisors sittin g In joint executive session, created the separate posts of City Planning Director 53 #*d Oswwfy Plsmaln* Director. Thus, after several years of discussion, studies and recommendations one of the most advanced forms of organization for planning was discarded by this community. Discussion of this subject with tho principals involved, f'r. Feuro and te . Tsagurlo revealed th at a t th is time the department*# public relations were lev. In fact they hod both been hung in offIgy for their 54 proposals on flood plain zoning shortly before tho spilt, t*o one in the ' 53. Tcaguris, on. elf., p. 3. 54. "Flood Plain Foes Erupt at Hearing," Tucson Colly Cltlsen, May 23, 1963, p. I. 25 croontZQticn would disagree that sonvo internal reoroanisatlon was necessary but few connected with local public planning in any way could quite accept the strength of the A. 5. P. 0. report’s criticism . The Department suffered frustratIons durlug this period of time which resulted, among other things. In considerable turnover In personnel. The story now goes that the selection of separate directors for the departments was decided literally by drawing names from a hot. Each dIreefer u|wi his appointment was advised by his respective legislative body that this selection was the final extent of reorganization by the policy nehers end that further chengcs were to bo made by the two directors. At this time also the City of Tucson stated th at the Mayor and Council would do their best to provide an Increased portion of the budget contribution In view of the fact that County expenditures during the period 1959 to 1954 amounted to G6> and ■■ 55 ...... „ . .... those of the City 34£. Interestingly, subsequent City budgets have allocated considerably more money to pfenning activities each year. During 1954 the result of increased a I locations was a balance In personnel between tho City and the County within the Joint off Ice. The two planning directors appointed by the respective legislative bodies agreed to a practical working arrangement for the administration of 56 tho Joint City-County Planning Department. It was agreed early In 1954 that samo separation of personnel would become necessary, but th is would be kept as minimal os passible,, Then it was later decided that since each director was responsible to a separate Jurisdiction that each should have ~ 55* Tcogurlc, on. elf., p. 3. 56.- Ibid. -■ ' ' ' ' "■ : ■' ■ ■■ 2 6 m assistant to servo separately end still devote ccxno tlr.o to i'm, administration of joint affairs end technical prcblcrs of the■joint Dopertosnt. In juno of I9G4 the County Planning Director said in a speech to the Rotoi1 Trade Bureau, "Wo are now entertainIng the possibility of generally applying the City professional staff to City prcblcrna end the County professional staff to the County problems with an Interchange 57 of staff for joint projects*" ; ^ .... , . Thus developed the s p lit in the Planning Department. While those organizational changes were going on from the top, tho staff level ogro and rssro realized that planning for this area cannot step at physically fictitious political boundaries. This indeed would bo a disservice to tho overall community. Yot lit tle by lit* la the "joint" operations ceased to exist. By late In 1964 only tho clerical and drafting personnel were wood jointly and all professional level planners worked on cither City or County projects. This was tho situation in June of 1965 when tho author was cv.ploywd by PIr« Ccwnty, ...... Upon tho intern’s employment by tho Pima County Planning Deportment ho was told that, he was employed as a .member.of the Planning Deportment sta ff ver tha Board of Supervisors. This seemed clear cut since they were tho body who aads the appointment end signed the paychecks. Further, in addition to serving.the Board, the Planning Department provides sta ff services to the Pina County Planning and Zoning Commission. .Jt was explained that tho Commission's role was to guide the physical development of the County through its master plan and its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, in Its rolo oo professional staff the Planning 57. ibid, *7 Dapartront.pc-rvcrcs three basic functions: I. To assist in fcrouletloo of fh® Gonsral objectives end plans on leny range co^ranity objectives end caesuras to guldo orderly Growth and dovolppnont, 2. To verk with other governmental departments in plan correlation end coordination of public developments with such plans anti policies. 3* To assist end work with the public In correlating their own plans with adopted policies end master plans of the County, in light of emerging trends, and with other public and private developments. 1 At this time an organizational chart of the City-County Planning Department and simply tho County Planning Department was non-existent. For the first two cr three weeks the authcr worked under the County Planning Director exclusively. It seemed at the time that everyone clso above tho draftsman position did likewise. Tho director of the organisation, If tho intern's observation is correct, hod o tremendous span of control. With the responsibility of the position it would seem near impossible to 59 supervise noro than three or four major assistant#* end certainly not • staff #f 12 Including two new employees fresh from the col lego classroom. It.quickly became apparent that tho Planning Department was under going substantial change. Bafero Ally it was known that tho City Manager would direct tho separation of City and County Planning Departments. At thio tine the City hired drafting end clerical personnel. Werd seen was 35. da-soph A. Lustock, Planning AcccmaMr.hmonts. Tucson. Arizona: Plrra County Planning Department, I960, p. I. 59. Burkiiead, eg. c i t . , p, 04. 23 about fho office that tho City Pfenning Cc-ertnint vculci bcdcr.:o the. City Flwmliig Division of tho City of Tucson's Dspcrtnsnt of Csmunlfy Dovoldjmnt* Aa tho cunr-cr progressed the physical separation frea the Joint quarters a t 55 Vest Congress Street bcccoo r.sro evident, Dy August tho City personnel v;ero making preparations to novo their operation to new quarters in City W#ll. Early In September tholr r.evo veo made ending a sixteen year old start toward a root useful fern of planning organization. Incidentally, later that nonth tho County operation ves moved to 41l Phoenix Title Building as tho former space was much Dsro than v;ac actualiy needed by tho County Planning Department, - Tremendous changes havo occurred in the Internal organization of tho Pima County Planning Qopertaent during tho year 1055. Tho split of fho jo int City-County Planning Department Into two separate agencies accounts for tho occurrence) of o great number of theso changes. The- led; of clear cut organizational lines In tho former organization accounts for i.rjra of than end tho character■ of 'fh# operation Itself accounts for further changes. In general tho Department can bo described os a loose structure as is tho rest of tho County Government. Responsibility falls directly frem tho legislative body to the Planning Director. This lino, however, is broken in many Instances, for oxo-plo. In tho Planning for the County Governmental Center a committee of four department heads"vas appointed to ## the planning work. Thus some responsibility and authority was token from tho Planning Director. SiDtlarily tho Technical Advisory Co-.rniticc-, and tho Tucson Area Transportation Study cro doing work that could bo under the Planning Director-I# a tighter orcsnlcotIcn. It Is the author's observation that the County Government is r.aro concerned with getting the Job done than in the crQORizollcr.al erronncocnrc accessory to ccccropUmh i t . This mey not reflec t good monsgeaent practice but it does reflect practical efficiency. : .Fraa the Meaning Director the Deport cent nay bo divided info CO four functional ereasj advance plans, current plans, land use and ordinance revision. The functional organisation chart of the department. Figure 5, cn page 35 Illustrates this. Advance plans oncer,pass such tilings as the preparation c.* compre hensive plans, urban research, urban design projects end special studies. Comprehensive plans arc outlines fer long term county development which provides the Board of Supervisors and the Planning and Zoning Ccr.nicsisn with the information with which the*/ can evaluate County needs In decision making. They embody the Information, judgement, and objectives col looted and formulated by tha sta ff as a predictive and guiding to o l. A ccmpro- hemeIv# plan need not bo a rap cr any other single document but cay consist of maps, ilsts of proposals and various other forms of pier, presentation. A comprehensive plan is ever changing and never complete. Urban Research is a relatively now activity for local planning which was formerly mcro engineering oriented. As design must be- firmly based on on understanding of tho character, needs and values the people Involved, th is function of tho Planning Department is engaged in to interpret envoirnmentaI influences, to dsterraino community values end to provide an adequate basic for sound cccprc-henslvo planning. This Is dene through Inventory analysis of several components, including economics#: population end land uso, which characterize Plata County. 60. Lusted;, on. clt.. p. 3, : Urban Daclgn covers, o x/ido range of overlapping functions which rengo Ircrn.tho express!om of corrrxtnlty objectives In ccnprchcnolvo plans to three dcfninlsionai aspects of proposed t'cvolopaontal dijoctlvos* It also liwolvos cons!deration of ti>o anonitloa cf developments, as uoll as the economic - provlsi on of. adc-quotc public fa c ilitie s to scr/o then. ; . ; Special. Studies-cro informational, reports which rosy bo dccnod to bear on tho planning nnd tiovoIopaent of tho County. . These studies and reports describe new techniques and-additions I inv err ation.ob out tho area under study, as a basis for* planning decisions. . The Planned Unit Dovolbpment Study,- which is tho appendh: to thin repart, is a special study concerned with the application of tills development-technique to the'Tucson Urban Area. The current plans .function, of tho department, is.concerned with tho trwslatlen and correlation of comprehcnslvo.plcn objectives with specific development plens of individuals, particularly those which lead to engineering and other technical measures. This octlvity includes street'-plena review, subdivision;plat review, development plan review ,:utility ccordleitlw i, capita I budQCtIng and project:review. .Tho principal function of street plans review Is to develop gccnotrlc.designs,.for ultimate street improvements. In collobsratlo*'with oth^r county departments,.In consideration of existing and projected■ lend use, as o guide to right of way acquisition and preparation of construction plans. S^division plat review Involves engineering, land planning and ministerial, functions,•1* review of subdivision plans submitted by land '' ' ' developers and engineers for conformity to County Subdivision Regulations. Development plans oro cimi is r lly 'rovic.vod' in "light of the considerations for subdivisions plats and often oro reviewed in connection with a rcsonlng 31 application. In general Development Plan review Is more detailed than subdivision plot review. Project review Is a new area In which advance plans and land use analysis are combined to evaluate substantial public and private projects In light of existing and projected conditions. The Capitol budgeting function Is actually carried out on a team basis between various County departments, As this Is an Important Implementary tool of planning the department works closely with the County Finance Department In providing analysis end determination of capital Improvement program priorities. Utility coordination Is a function of correlating the requirements of various public and semi-public agencies concerned with provision of utilities to various types of developments. Lend use Is a professional and technical function of the planning staff concerned with tho preparation and modification of area plans, neighborhood plans and the continuous updating and extension of basic land use data. In general area plans are refinements amending and supplementing adopted comprehensive plans. As area Is a geographic portion of the county composed of two or more existing or potential neighborhoods which are generally defined by natural features such as mountains and rivers and major man made features. A neighborhood is a portion of on area the size of which when fully developed, will contain a population by which one elementary school Is required. These type of plans then propose general types of land uses, densities, character of developments, extent and location of major stree?s am* community fa c ilitie s . In addition the lend use function encompasses rezoning and variance analysis. Rezoning analysis involves professional and technical staff services in processing applications for rezoning. Verinneo ennlysis . Ic analyzing end rcconrssnding action on technical aspects or variances from the zoning ordinance where they rotate to adapted plans or regulations. A very comprehendvo cot .of.base and-land use end plan mops are maintained , and.updated by.this functional area of.th e .department. The land use function of the department*g operation is the most nan hour consuming and uses the most technical and clerical skill of any of the four functional crocs. Due to the reduction in the- building industry in the past months it has cent more into balance. This area Is the one in which the greatest amount of.organizational streamlining.should take place. Ordinance* revision eo n Planning Department activ ity Involves the analysis of ever changing local conditions in the light of the zoning ordinance, such as Pawning .analysis, variance analysis and land use analysis, and the preparation and recommendation of changes In the ordinance to further planning objectives. This functional area of the Department produces.-the? end resu lt, of much of tho Pfenning fieri:' e f t ho County, that is, regulations designed to guide the development of the community.along the lines preposod in o fficially cricptod plan#* If Is nest difficult to apply personnel to this functional organization system.. Essentially personnel In tho office* fall into one of four professional position classifications tr one of four technical .position classifications. The one exception.to this rule Is the inspection Department which has two separate positions. Zoning inspecter end Deputy Zoning Inspector. It is sufficient to point out for th is purpose that this operation is staffed by a Zoning ln*poctcr, six assistant Inspectors, and one secretory• The employees of the Planning Department ere appointed 35 by the Board of Supervisors upon'rccornznczficn from ‘rho Planning Director. No civil service system or-ccrpctatlvo cxnr.e rro v.fcd in personnel selection. Fay scales in -.ho doprrtr.c-nt oro nearly identical to the conporeb 1 o poaivion in viio City of Tucson’s civil service cystco. Personnel of tho office fol* into the following positions;-, Tcblo 2 - • - ■ ' Planning Deportment Per c anno I - - Planning Director I Assistant Planning Director I Senior Planners 2 Planning Analysts 5 FTofesslone 1 Staff 9 i 1 lustratoro -... 2 Craftsmen 3 Secretary * 3 ■ 'Clcrh Typist - I • : ' Technical Staff 9 Total Staff • IS Actually tho use of this position analysis is faulty because one senior planner,- in- fact, works' co-tho office manager and one planning analyst is the head of the draft?ng end illustrating eetlvltica. This in all reality would put tho ratio at seven i^rofessloncl staff 'members to eleven technical sta ff inecfcors.'f Under the personnel' policy of the ' " department when a person has served roll and faithfully vero long period of tir e In a modest position he may be promoted to a higher position even if he does net r.cot tho professed qualifications for tho position. Frcx.i a professional point of vie-.; this seems east undesirable but practical$y it keeps wo!I trained experienced people 'on the payroll. Of the entire staff eight people arc col logo graduates. All of the professional staff lisvo some higher education. Five professional staff members have bachelor’s Vcrrccs end one has an cdvancod degree. Experience of the professional r.iembars of iho staff averages 9 years, which Is rothor high considering that the author and two other rienbers v.'oro hired in 1965. Table 3 Comparative Personnel Rot1os 61 92 Counties Pima Count"/ Draftsmen to Planners 1:3.3 1:1.2 Clerical to Planners 1:2.2 1:2.0 Others to Planners 1:2.5 1:3.5 Table 4 Education of Professional Planning Staff C2~ 31 Counties PjQSLCowntv Percent of Staff holding D.A. 52.4;: 44.5^ M.A.-Planning 13.35 0 M. A.-Technical # «",/d i s. i;; H. A.-Other 4.0^ 0 Ph.D. . 3 w 0 Without Degree 26.7*; 44.4% With Degree 73.3y 53.6?; In light of the- above statements the following two Dopartnonta1 organization charts arc forwarded. At the tino of this writing only the functional organization. Figure 3, can bo agreed to by the staff. The personnel organization is most difficult because with such a snail professional staff each person must {xrfom several duties. Figure A- shows the organization of department pcroonnol by position one! that function which tahe-s the principal orsount of the position tine. 61. Leopold A. Goldschmidt, ExpandIturos. Staff and Salaries of bocal Planning Agencies. A.S.P.O. Planning Advisory Service, Report Mo. 205; Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials, iterc'i, I960, p. 25. 62. ibid., p. 26. 35 FIGURE 3 FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL CHART PIMA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT DIRECTION ZONING OFFICE • INSPECTION MANAGEMENT Secretarial ADVANCE LAND ORDINANCE CURRENT PLANS USE REVISION PLANS Comprehensive A re a V a r ia n c e Subdivision P l a n s P la n s A n a l y s t s P l a t s U rb a n Neighborhood R e z o n in g Development D e s ig n P la n s A n a l y s i s P la n s U rb a n M aps an d O rd in a n c e C a p i t a l R e s e a r c h S u r v e y s W r i t i n g B u d g e t S p e c i a l U t i l i t y S t u d i e s Coordination FIGURE 4 PERSONNEL ORGANIZATIONAL CHART PIMA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT d i r e c t o r I ASSISTANT DIRECTOR EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ZONING INSPECTOR OFFICE MANAGER - CHIEF DEPUTY RECEPTIONIST - DEPUTY SECRETARY - DEPUTY SECRETARY - DEPUTY -I DEPUTY {LEGAL CONSULTANT - DEPUTY ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SECRETARY T 1___ HEAD DRAFTSMAN SENIOR ARCHITECTURAL URBAN SUBDIVISION REZONING PLANNING PLANNER RESEARCH ANALYST ANALYST ILLUSTRATOR ENGINEER ANALYST 4 DRAFTSMAN | DRAFTSMAN DRAFTSMAN DRAFTSMAN BESCaimOH Cf TIE lilTmrC'HIP Owing the spring sozcstcr 1505 tho cirirlisr- tcs!; one of tlio required courses ver the coster's derree, C. E, 205, vrern John S. Tscgurls, tho County Planning Dlroatcr t/ho taught tho cccrso ns o visiting Instructor. At tho tine the County Planning Deparirsnt v;as In tho process of crrsnl2stlcnal choice, brought about by tho '"split" described in the previous section, end there were two vacant positions on tiro Pfenning Department s ta ff. By April of that year the Intern had applied for o suamcr position with tho Department to f u lfill the Internship.requirement ver tho degree. $b was Infcroud that there vero no temporary positions evnllcblo. Later ho vas coked if ho would be* Interested in c full vitro ■. appointment to which an affirmative reply was given and subsequently the Coord of Supervisors appointed the Intern to the position of research analyst on tho Planning Department S taff. E’o retains that position a t this writing. This internship report therefore describes tho first tiros months of regular employment with the Pirn County Planning Department. This period ©# employment was not an ergoniced Internship per co but contained many of tho elements that would bo desirable If one was truly aval lablo in tho Tucson area.* Through tho Planning Director end tho Assistant Planning Director the intern was immediately exposed to the functional operation of tho department. A good deal of tlm wso spent, by tho Planning Director, during tho first few weeks, in pxplcnoticn of the department's role in the governments I planning process end In methods of operation. Through this process the intern quickly became* acquainted 37 38 with the workings of the planning process studied in his coureenwfe* Tit® most important single thing derived from this Initial "get acquainted" period with the Planning Department is that th is department is not only e staff agency to the Board of Supervisors but also Is a service agency to the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Beards of Adjustment, various other committees, other governmental agencies and the public. Thus* although a good deal of staff time goes directiy to doing staff work for the Board of Supervisors Indeed a similar amount of time Is spent providing services to the various boards and commissions along with the public. The internship period was centered about a single project. Within the first week the Planning Director assigned the intern to a study project which was to examine the concept of Planned Unit Development,(residential) and evaluate i t and current developments In the Tucson Are® to determine if if could be used locally and whet could be done to, of least, further some of Its better attributes. This project came from the Planning and Zoning Commission and not from the Board of Supervisors. A history of activities related to Planned Unit Development can be found In the study report which Is the Appendix to this report, in essence, the concept was brought up by seme local land developers who were Interested In producing a more marketable home package. The Commission and staff did limited study on th® subject and formed a committee made up of sta ff members and Interested citizens to draft a preliminary ordinance for public hearing. This was dene and a t the public hearing, which the Intern attended as a field trip for one of the required courses, e group of 27 neighborhood associations voiced th eir objections to the provision for 39 Planned Uni : Development In the genera I provisions of the County Zoning 63 Ordinance as proposed. Subsequent to th is the Commission returned the topic to the staff for full investigation. At th is time the Planning Department contracted with a technical writer to Investigate the technical literature available and prepare a preliminary report defining Planned Unit Development# end outlining some of Its characteristics. The result of this Investigation was "Planned 64 Unit Development Part 1# A Preliminary Survey". This document Identified the three basic components of Planned Unit Development and presented reprints of several articles out of technical publications In 65 support of and to detail the definitions. No conclusions were drawn at this time but the tone of the publication was one of caution. Later the Intern concluded that this caution In the part one publication reflected the attitude of the department. This was perhaps because of the tremendous lull In the construction Industry end because of the severe pub IIc beating the department suffered a few years earlier on a similar subject# flood plain zoning. This Influence continued through the later publication. Part TWo which In some places was tempered before being approved for publication. The Intern was assigned to work with this technical writer In preparing the study. No clear division of labor was established from the top of the organization but Instead was left up to the two people Involved. 63. Minutes of the January 26, 1965 Meeting, Pima County Planning and Zoning Commission, Tucson, Arizona: 1965. 64. John P. Arnold, Planned Unit Dovslopment, Part I, A Preliminary Survey. Tucson. Arizona: Pima County Planning Department, 1965. 65. Ibid. 40 Tho initial v;crU cn the project centered on fcml 1icrlastIon with rho subject. For this purpose a rather extensive bibliorrcphy, see Appendix# was prepared. Material obtained free thcoo sources was discussed between tho intern, the technical writer and tho Planning Director end his assistant. A feu field trips were taken to Tucson Green Valley and serso of the local subdivisions to got a f ir s t hand look a t tho kind of development that was occurring locally. . After this initial Investigation which wee carried on during tho first isonth of the Internship, along with the orientation described earlier# attendance at various public castings and assignment of routine duties, in tho intern’s case maintenance and recording of new library materials, a tentative outline for the study report was developed. This outline v/as reviewed by tho intern, tSu technical writer# the Planning Director end his assistant. The intern’s original thought was io pre pare o well documented synthesis of "Pert Ono” and then create a model for its cpplication locally. UnfcrtuRatoly no neighborhood analysis work had ever been done in the Tucson Area so the idea was discarded. Then at the Director’s suggestion a cursory survey of soma of tho planned neighborhoods In tho Tucson Urban Area was added to the study. About a week after this happened a directive was received-by tho intern to 'examine Planned Unit Develop,went in light of tho Zoning Ordinance. Tho final outline for the study resu lted : in -the SmfHiy - document In ft* Appendix of th is report. During the process of preparing tho report a good deal of supervisory time was given to review of tho individual sections of the report. In fact, each section of the attochod report could easily stand as a separate report by Itself with lift la difficulty, '.than this Iergo amount of information was obtained considerable editing was found necessary. 41 cases it vca decided that information should bo retained for the purpose of recording it even though it was not really necessary to the study, it t/05 found practical to page- the material in such a manner that it would not result In confusion within Individual sections, then the chapter end page system was used. This system turned out to be bothersome anti, in fact, never carried the Intern1a endorsement. Chapter one of the study consists of guncrcl examInation cf Planned Unit Development. In th is section the concept itse lf vos defined end discussed as Interpreted from technical literature and discussion wifi« its local proponents. Much of tills section was library type research cs was carried out by the intern in severei of Ms courses. This part of his educational background made the library portion of the Investigation c rapidly completed port of the- project. Tho area of discussion of the topic with Interested parsons In the community was a newer experience which was discussed In corns of the courses cs o study tool but was not experienced by the intern to any considerable degree until, tins tine. In study of this type face to face contact and spontaneous reaction r.ro the desired components to the accomp11shment of the desired goal. Through the use of th is type of Interchange immy valuable- opinions, from such .. people cs the Tucson HomabuiIdero Association end members of the Society ■ of Real Estate Appraisers, were obtained. This Information not only provided tho insight into loco! thinking on tho subject, which was mot necessary io evaluation of the Planned Unit Development concept, but it also paved the way ver tho dissemination of information to further tho tho concept locally from tho planning office as a step towards implementing measures to noho the use of tho concept more realizable. - - . 42 The first section of the report contains soverol Illustrations of developments In the Tucson Area which aro at least In the direction of Planned Unit Development. Those Rhow the effective local application of lot size reduction and the attendant contribution of excess lands to open space. One of the major, problems found in such local developments is the lack of provision of automatic membership Homo.Owners' Associations In these projects which are, in real tty, highly dependent upon the operators of country clubs and golf courses. It is the intern's opinion as well as that of the Planning Department that If open space Is to be created by any method In residential areas which is not pub I leally maintained some provision must bo made to Insure Its maintenance in the future when the second or ;third owners reside In the neighborhood. • . The mixture of land use Is viewed with caution In local planning agencies, not only because it violates the older pfenning principles upon which local planning operates but also because they realize that serious social and economic consequences might resu lt from such mixture. Land uses have been mixed by typo In many communities. The question Is to what degree does this common Ity desire mixture. In light of the requests received In the Planning Department Office during the past three yeers for rezoning and variances the public does not went much land use mixture; especially where the mixture of residential and Industrial land Is concerned. These observations were made through not only library research and discussion but through review of the several flies of old applicable rezoning and variance cases. Section 11 of the report Investigates the relationship of Planned Unit Development with the "Master Plan". The Intern concurs with most 43 prod*Icing Iccal planners th at iho Tucson Area does have a "{'aster .Plan". Tho plan locks coordination la mny places and is certainly fragmented Into such things as the General 'land use plan, school plans, library plan . end-so forth, A second big problem with the local "Master Plan" is that the cumulation of those plans has not been put together Into a single document and called a neater plan, general plan cr whatever is fashionable. Nevertheless, the elements of a "Master Plan" exist and this is what was studied. , - - The neighborhood unit concept has been used effectively In the Tucson Area. An evaluation of Planned Unit Development In light of the neighborhood unit concept is found In Section II of the report. Title evaluation was developed to the point of designing and analysing a hypothetical application of Planned Unit Development In the Wheeler neighborhood complete with a cost breakdown on developing and maintaining common open space Improvements. In preparing this the intern secured the cooperative assistance of the Pima County Perks and Recreation Department. White this section was bolng prepared the Intern became familiar with TAC or the Technical Advisory Committee which meets once a month on planning natters. This Is an Intergovernmental organization node up of staff loveI o fficials such as Planning Director, Engineer, Parks end Recreation Director from several of the local jurisdictions. Through discussion of tho hypothetical application of Planned Unit Development: with some of the members of this group many design changes and Insights Into tho problems It presents were obtained. Section 111.which is concerned with local residential development as I t has occurred in tho past examines tho status of neighborhood and 44 area planet ng In fho Tucsen Urban Area oriel then focuses' dean' on' bo looted'' Roighberbeods' te r r.cro dotal led analysis. In ttso.Rotghborhocd end crco plan status portion of tho section tlio analysis consisted of clccslfIcavlon of each neighborhood in tho area by'def ined c rite ria ond'cn-Inventory of plans In existence. This data vac mapped for presentation. - rThe cxro-dotallod lock at several neighborhoods"required measurement: on land use naps of- physical characteristics of tho Individual neighborhoods'ond tho Investigation of population characteristic# In fh# neighborhood In such sources as census block data, school enrollment date •Md’pollco department records. The data obtained v;cs tabulated for presentation In mcanurcr.isntc end percentages end sor*.o averages and other simple nothcsnaticol computations v.cro made to provide averages for comparative purposes, . A portion of this section was devoted to a projection of the potentIbl optimum development of o neighborhood unit as possible'under tho existing zoning ordinance. This projectlen,which can bo found In the attached study,'shcv;od• that cn overall density"of .0.52 persons per net residential cere could be conceivably produced In the neighborhood unit which, at the current average of ,"G elementary students per housing unit that District F I Is experiencing at this tine, mould require an elementary school with o capacity of 1,220 students. V.'hen cno realizes that the ratio of students per housing unit is much higher tn the newer residential neighborhoods It Is clear that-tho"density-potential In' terns of school ; demand could result In disproportionate sized school facility per ■ helgtAbrtiobd'If a single elementary school per neighborhood cent1need to be the policy. ■'•'i; - ■" ' • : - : :' '': ' - ' : : "• 45 Section IV again was largely a paper research project which consisted of classification of characteristics of the Zoning Ordinance, description from technical literature of some of the desirable characteristics of legislation eImed.toward providing for Planned Unit Development and discussion with the Planning Director and his assistant on the rational© behind some of the county zoning regulations. The section deals with the principal planning tool In Pima County, the Zoning Ordinance, and presents, at. least, some Ideas, such as sliding scale lot size reductions, which might prove beneficial, yet would be controversial If and when they would be placed before a conservative commission or, board. Although no recommendation was. made at this point, the Intern tried in this section to plant some practical ideas about the kind of things any pro-Pleaned Unit. Development legislation might include. ' Section V then continues this more positively. Originally Sect!on IV was to be the finish of the study but os time passed the.Intern was directed to spel I out in more detai l the kinds of things which were desirable in Planned Unit Development zoning provisions. At this time. Incidentally, the technical writer was about to begin editing the completed sections, which It seems to the intern he should have been doing all along. His contract was up before any final editing was done leaving that part of the study in the Intern's hands also. - The Section V dotal Is those things desirable to the realization of the advantages of Planned Unit Development* This section discusses in general terms zoning ordinances and elements which should be Included to further Planned Unit Development based on technical literature and the intern's generalization of discussions and study to this point- 46 Further, the three basic elements o f’Planned Unit Development were discussed separately. In detail. In terms of cluster, types of homes associations, and mixture of land uses. ''' '' 1 Section VI of the report outlines conclusions of the study. This portion was reviewed very carefully by the Planning Director and the Assistant Planning Director to the point Where some of the conclusions were slightly tempered from those presented originally by the Intern. In doing this the Director and his assistant brought additional information or viewpoints to the study. The changes wore discussed In detail before being made and were. In each case, checked for consistency with the tex t. In reality these changes arid additions probably Improved the report. In the conclusions the most Important portion Is the proposal of alternative approaches to provide for Planned Unit Development In the Zoning Ordinance. From these the intern, with the concurrence of the Planning Director and the Assistant Planning Director, selected the ’ Introduction of a superimposed Planned Unit Development Zone In the ordinance as the most desirable alternative. In the preparation of this study the intern did all of the research and analysis work up to the point of review by the Director. In some cases at this level some conclusions were softened and a couple of things were left out at the Director's suggestion. The intern wrote the entire text and proofread it. He was in charge of two secretaries who typed the manuscript to his page layout and a draftsman-illustrator who prepared 47 the Illustrations to the Intern's directions. Although it did not occur during the three month internship period the Intern directly supervised the printing of the study 11 lustrations at the County Duplicating Department. The study original Iy was set up in the 1965-66 budget with $800.00 ■ 66 - ■ :■■■■■'■' ' : ' for printing so that the color illustrations could be done In a commercial print shop. The illu stratio n s were set up to be done in this manner. Due to unexpected additional publications necessary for the governmental center project some of the money budgeted for tho Planned Unit Development Study had to be transferred to printing other reports. Thus, the study was printed a t the County Duplicating Department entirely by multi 11th process at a cost of $200.00 to the Planning Department. Planned Unit Development Part 11 was distributed to the Pima County Planning and Zoning Commission at their April, 1966 meeting. To this writing a week later no feedback has been received by the intern. Probably, the study will be reviewed by the Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Since this project originated with the Commission after studying it they will probably direct the staff to write a proposed Planned Unit Development Provision for the Zoning Ordinance. 66. Budget Document, Pima County Planning Department, June, 1965, p. 4. EVALUATION OF THE IfTTERfCHIP , Working cxpcricnso In or.y tcchnlcol cr professions! field, in the intern’s opinion. Is tho-rccl test of his educations! bschgrouiKl. It Is the contlnoetlon of-h!o college Icorning experience which teeners the numerous' tfiecrctlco! concepts I corned end developed into usable- tools to ccccnpItch'given tasks. In light of this fremtverk the Internship - reported here was o nest valuable pert of the Intern's training. The opportunity to conduct the type of study th at wes done, rather then doing 'drafting or other such t/crh tint interne often' ere subjected to, rode the experience'even ixro valuable* ■ ■■ 1; - ''...... - ' : 1 In th is pert cf the Intern's study progron the Instructors wore several. The Pfenning Director and the Assistant Pfenning Director were the Imediate superiors end the principal Instructors. Their pat 1once and helpful explanations of various'olezents of the crtpnlxetloh and the study proved cost valuable. Their concept of the loose knit organization made discussI cm'and'Intarchnnge of Ideas 'on th e 'study-- rest free and useful. Tha relaxed atncsphcrc of the organIzohlen ves nest conducive to v/erk. The fact that the organization hes o snail staff also urns'valuable to tha Intern me he was able- to ccxiunlcoto with the* •' organization’s head without going through others In the holrcrchy. In addition to the organizational heads there were several ether sta ff "swprtbers; who.clco contributed to the Intern's learning experience. ; ; - The Planning Department Is v In the Intern's opinion, cf diminishing returns. In fact, os a natter of 40 49 regular operation the director only delegates authority over other personnel to 3 persons other than himself. This makes It difficult to schedule work when on Illustrator, draftsman or secretary is working on three projects at a time. Another weakness In the organization lies in the inadequate number of people in technicol and secretarial positions. If the organization has five major functional divisions at least one secretary and one 111ustrator-dra ftsman show Id bo provided for each plus a receptionist and executive secretary to tho Director. Today, there are four secretaries, one;of whom doubles as recaption!st end another as secretary to the Director. - Simi lar!ly, the drafting section has five persons which would be an adequate number 1f they did this work for the separate functional areas. These people must also spend considerable time keeping up land use, zoning and base maps and drafting rezonlng applications which, according to their supervisor, who Is one of the five, takes up 3/4 of the ran hours of this section*. • ' - ;: . : At the professional, level there are more expreionced personnel than college educated people. Although the ratios are comparable to those 67 for; the average county agency for counties of this size certain areas could be improved. The Intern Is the only person who conducts basic research for the organization. At least one more person with comparable education and/or experience Is needed to do an adequate job especially in the area of economic research. The engineering area of the operation Is well staffed as the Director and the Assistant Director as well as one other;staff member have engineering backgrounds or degrees. The staff 67. Goldschmidt, op, c l t .. p. 26. : 50 could use a graduate architect or landscape architect to work with the urban design man who has architectural training and experience. This area could be expanded greatly as a function of the planning operation. The Planning Department does not operate on a civil service basis; thus, many problems exist in employment with the organization. Thera are no clear cut levels of employment and similarity no standards for achievement of authority of salary level. Salary levels wore formerly comparable to City of Tucson wages before the "split" but today no two people earn the same wage. As can be clearly seen under th is arrangement it could be difficult for a prospective employee to evaluate a position offered by the organization. Perhaps, this is one of the problems In recruiting people to fill the positions indicated needed above. Another problem that the Planning Department faces is that of budget lim itations. The County is on older form of government which In some cases has not been very greatly Influenced by tho reform movement. Political ties and personality power of some departments or officials, in some cases, influence the decisions made at budget time. This, coupled with o 10 per cent statutory budget increase limit, makes expansion of the operation and hiring of additional personnel difficult, according to the department's office manager, r . These organizational and personnel characteristics of the department had a substantial effect on the Intern's experience with the department as we 11 as on the Planned Unit Development Study. For example, the lack of secretarial help made It necessary for the Intern to do a good deal of the preliminary draft typing of his own material. The fact that the Intern was to use the services of a part time illustrator ;; resulted In o three nonvh.wait ter the completion,of:the lllustretlw s. The fact that net ^enough conoy was allocated ter printing end publishing for the wtire;cpsratten.resulted. In the study being printed by rrultlllth process at the County Duplicating Department Instead of being done by.a commercial print shop using a better process. All of these inconveniences resulted in a.less polished report eg wo11 cs.consumption of. o great:- - deal of tha Intern’s tir.io which could h:.vo been better used In producing a higher quality study. . 1 . , • t. .. Considering the time and cost cxpcntfod.cn the:study It could be rated.03-c-success.- It was to Investigate"Planned Unit Development an presented in technical literature ond present Information about it In light of tha local situation for the Commission's review. This the? study doss. -:There, ore, however, set.!© additional things that could have been tionoto provldo m:ro information for tho commissi on to use In evaluation of the concept, Ufifortvnetelyi the basic planning studios needed never have been done:In Tucson end there woo not money In tho budget to do i t . •:•, Ono.oueb.study would bo o mere detailed neighborhood.ora lysis of each neighborhood In tho Urban Area. Thin typo @# study takes a detailed look at tho physical and - population.characteristics:of tho neighborhoods within the community and through simple statistical manipulation finds 66 correlations eed trends In many areas. Through the uso of this tool Pennsylvania: Design Collabceatlvc, 1965, p. 4, 52 planners aro able to predict certain happenings within neighborhoods based on other things or characteristics which have developed In other neighborhoods in the past. Perhaps, some of this type of study wi11 be done under the City of Tucson's Common Ity Renewal Program which Is being instituted at this time. A cost benefit analysis could have been done on the hypothetical application of Planned Unit Development to determine the effect of this type of development on not only the local government, who would provide ' ' ■ ' ' 69 services to It, but also on the developer and the ultimate resident. This type of study could be done, In a limited manner, without an economic base study, which Is sorely needed In the area, but would have required considerable data gathering and use of electronic data processing equipment both of which the department was ill equlped to carry out. Since last summer. Incidentally, the Intern has outlined, in preliminary form, a data bank system for the planning department which was submitted for consideration In the 1966-67 budget for the department. This program would, hopefully, be carried out in conjunction with the City of Tucson's Community Renewal Program and the Tucson Area Transportation Study work. Finally, the study could have had some legal assistance In the form of review of the suggestions regarding the Zoning Ordinance. This type of assistance Is available from the Board's legal counsel but probably was not obtained because of the County,'s preoccupation with the governmental center project and this person's Involvement In it. From this 69. Walter I sard and Robert Cough I in. Municipal Costs and Revenues. Wellesley, Mass.: Chandler Davis Publishing Company, 1957, p. 21. 93 comment 11 • chsu 1 d' scc:.i x I cur that the top priority' project' c t th is tlrpo i-23 tho covcrncehtcl center.: Ti;t Beard of Supervisors sets these priorities and oil other‘projects often'stand still In favor of those with priority. In this case 6nd"others,-however, tho Flcnntno Director sees to It that tho-psrocnnsl' ccn devote time to pleiwlng ratters through his osoignzent ©f personnel' to the Beard’s priority projects. ' •' * The methods"used to carry w the study were devised by the intern from his■ previous'training In the Urban Planning Fregren. The library research portion was very of ml lor* t o :much "of the courscrork. On© disappointment in this "portion cos tho Insistence of tho technical v.rIter that footnotes in a study of th is typo tscro unnecessary. :As'can be seen In the appendix he conceded the-point to :-s limited’degree'at least, however, only after the- Intern discussed the prebieen with tho’Director. Even of that"the'order was to heep'footnoting t o ’the minimum because'I t often confuses'the Issue. Dosed on six years cf writing term papers tho intern s t i l l disagrees. ' '■■■'• ' : 1 ' ; ■ :; • ''The discussIon-and Interview portion' of tho study were most interest log to tho Intern. On metty cccosicns staff members, cr other Interested persons would stop to'discuss the subject, in'fact,'bn'two occasions the Intern and the Assistant Planning Director' presented ■ discusslons'ot'nedtlngs'of‘Interested groups; the Tucson" liomebul Idor’s Assoclot Jen and'the Society o f 'Heal Estate"ApproIsersi These talks also served as a 'two way - street of Information with careful notes taken oh 1'': tho o ud 1 « ko 1 s ' ccKiacnts. ' The Pi arm lug Doper tment uses this tool cost ’ effectively, tho Intern later found out end. In fact, does a considerable amount of sales work for planning proposals In th is manner. 9 4 Th@ measurement, tabulation, analysis end presentation of data used In the study was done with methods learned In the Urban Planning Program as well as those learned as a research assistant In tho Bureau of Business and Public Research. The Information gathered was nearly all pertinent to the study at hand. The only unfortunate thing Is that time and money were net aval table to do a more complete job In terms of the points presented above. The conclusions of the study as mentioned, were not solely those of the Intern. As the Planning Director said "we have to live with this study" so the conclusions were carefully reviewed so that they reflected the opinion of the department. The department likes the status quo and the old ways of doing things untiI they can be shown something b etter. This was the case throughout the discussion about tho cone I us 1ons. Experience won out in many cases where other factors came into play. If needed. In several places these other factors were carefully Inserted In tho text of the report to avoid Inconsistency. The intern does not want to convey the Impression that conclusions went from black to white, they were simply tempered in areas of comparable grey to a moderate degree. To conclude, therefore, the intern found this three month period of work with the Pima County Planning Department a most beneficial portion of his educational program. He feels that it put to use many of the tools learned In the Urban Planning Program and,offered a fine opporlunity for the start of a career In planning. It is the sincere desire of the intern that more students from th is Urban Planning Program have the same opportunity 55 with th is agency* In the future the department Is bound to expand. In expansion It t'ould be most desirable if rhe Planning D 2 pari mo ni would keep closer contact with the Urban Planning Program at the University as o source cf new personnel and, if the proposed Urban Research organlection is created therein, ec a cooperative- agency with them In the study of tiiO area of its jurisdiction. SELECTED Blf-UCSRAR.Y These sources were used In propering the Internship report Its e lf. Tito bibliography used In conducting the Flortned Unit Bcvolopnont Study Is to be found in the report In the appendix. Arlzcm Revised Stet utr-n. St. Fbul, Minn.: West Publishing Company, 1950. Vo I. % Arnold, John' P. Plnnned. Unit D’-vnlonrcnt. Fort I, A ProljnlRerV-Suryoy. Tucson, Arizona: Pico County Planning Oeperirent, 1905, Boguo, Donald J . and Dcoio, Calvin L. Pc.or.cnlc Arran of,, the United States. *!cv: Yerh: Free Press of Glencco, IDO!. Burkhced, Jesse. CovcrnesntnI fin e, net; York: 'John v;{ loy end Sons Inc., 1005. Cross, Jack; Shaw, Elizabeth and Scholflei, Kathleen.- Arizena..jts People nnd Resources. Tucson, Arizene: The University of Arizona frees, I960. Design ColIcbcrotlvo. weif'hbsrhcrd Analysis, ■■tsrcsr.cn, Penrtr.yfvenic. Pittsburg, Pennsylvania: Design Collaborative, 1955. Faurc, Andre M. Ptannln end Zrnlnc. Tucson-Pire Csunty. Tucson, Arizona: CI*lY*Csunty Planning Deperteenf, 1955. '-Flood Plain Fees Erupt at Hearfog” , Tucson Dally Citizen. Tucson# Arizona: May 23, 1362. p. I. Goldschmidt, Leopold A. Expenditures, Staff end Salaries of Local PIannItvi Anone?os. A.S.P.O. Planning Advisory Service, Report No. 203. Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials, March, 1966. Governments In the United States. U. 5. Department of CDmerco, Department Bureau of the Census. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1902. Granger, Byrd H. Arizona Place t.'arce. Tucson, Arizona: The University of Arizona Press, $060. !-ber, Charles M. t end Use Planning. Boston: l i t t l e Brown and Company, 1939. 56 57 Hcsrlo, Edv.'r.rd F. R. end Macon, Raymond J. A Fry in Frr.^crnln^ Sycfca fer Sven-o end Lena I Onvrrn^:nfn. Englczood Cliffs, t.’su Jersey: Front?co Ma15» 1953. Hopkins, Horry L., Administrator, Inventory of tho Connty Archlyos of Arizona. No, ID, Pine County. Phoenix, Arizona: VJcrlzs Rrogrcsn Administration, July, 1950. I send, Halter end Coughlin, Robert...... Wellesley, Mass.: Chandler Davis Publishing Company, 1957, Lusteck, Joseph A. PIonnino Aeccmo11shmonts. Tucson, Arizona: Plea County Planning Department, 1906. • Harbarger, Hall. Chests of tho Adobe Wells. Loo Angelos: WesternIcro Press, 1554. 0* 1 iorrotsf, DennIs, An Administrative Study. City-Csnnfv Flonnim Poorrviacnt, Tucson and Pima County. Arizona. Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials, 1953. Pima County Planning and Zoning Commission. Minutes of tho January 20, 1555 Meeting. Tucson, Arizona: 1955, Pino County Planning Department. Dudnot Dccumeat. Tucson, Arizona: Pina County Finance Department, June, 1555, Shirley, David, editor. Goals for tho Car-unity. Tucson, Arizona: Community Goals Committee, 1950. Tsagurls, John S. Address to Rota11 Trade Ourcau. Tucson, Arizona: Pina County Planning Department, June 25, 1964. Tsagurls, John S „ Director. Plea County Governmental Cent er Fion. Tucson, Arizona: Pimm County Planning Department, January, 1950. APPENDIX Yiic fol lot'ilntj Id n copy of the Plr.c County Planning Departments study Planned Unit Dovotopment# f-’ert 1$, Local Application, which the intern prepore-d during his internship period, it is submitted as an example of the* intern's work during the internship period♦ The report uas placed in tho appendix os published so it contains its mm table of contents, page r.ueiboring system, bibliography and footnotes. 50 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Pima County Planning Department 41i Phoenix Title Building Tucson, Arizona January I, 1966 County Planning and Zoning Commission Re: Co8-64-3 Planned Unit Development Gentlemen: I am pleased to transmit herewith the report of our study of Planned Unit Development, Part 2, Local Implications. The study was carried out by the staff of this department at the di rection of the Commission to evaluate the concept in light of the local situation. The study details many of the numerous considerations that must be made in the evaluation of such a development technique. During the pre paration of the study discussions have been held with several County depart ments, individuals in the residential development industry and such groups as the Tucson Homebuilders' Association, and the Society of Rea! Estate Appraisers which provided many insights and opinions on the subject. It is felt that the study represents a thorough investigation of the planned-unit development concept and the possibility of its local applica tion. This volume contains much of the data necessary for consideration of furthering the concept in Pima County. The provision for Planned Unit Development in the Zoning Ordinance should only be made to further time tested concepts and principles for res idential development as applied locally and by no means should be used as a device to lower standards or increase density within residential neigh borhoods . The study is submitted for review by the Commission and otner inter ested people and is recommended for use In evaluation of the concept and development of measures to further it in the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Respectfully submitted, cc Pima County Board of Supervisors PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PART TWO LOCAL APPLICATION Prepared By Joseph A. Lusteck Research Analyst John P..Arnold Pub Iication Editor Barry Rothrock I Ilustrator Cordella Chambers Karen Lans Composition Typists Pima County Planning Department Tucson, Arizona 1966 PIMA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION John M. Harlow, Chairman Glenn E. Hutton, Vice Chairman Charles Brady Alton C. Nether I in Charles B. Maguire Robert E. West Frank D. Beiser Mary Miller John L. Krmpotich PIMA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT John S. Tsaguris, County Planning Director Alex R. Garcia, Assistant County Planning Director TABLE OF CONTENTS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL ...... i TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... i i INTRODUCTION...... ANALYSIS OF PLANNED-UNIT DEVELOPMENT...... CLUSTER HOUSING ...... 1-2 Modern Techniques ...... 1-4 Density Considerations...... 1-6 Arguments Favoring Cluster...... MO Criticisms of Cluster ...... l-l I Row Houses...... 1-13 COMMON OPEN SPACES...... 1-17 MIXED LAND USES ...... 1-20 Neighborhood Units...... 1-20 Residential Mixtures...... 1-22 Combined Commercial and Residential Uses 1-23 Total Mixture of Land-use Categories. . I- 27 THE MASTER PLAN AND PLANNED-UNIT DEVELOPMENT. . I l - l MASTER PLANNING AND PLANNED-UNIT CONCEPTS . I l-l THE NEIGHBORHOOD UNIT ...... II - 3 APPLICATION OF PLANNED-UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO A LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD...... 11-7 LOCAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ...... 11 l - l NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS ...... 111-2 NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER IST ICS...... 111-5 Hud low Neighborhood...... I I 1-6 Wheeler Neighborhood...... I I 1-6 Kel lond Neighborhood...... 111-6 Schumaker Neighborhood...... 11 1-8 Steele Neighborhood...... 111-8 Corbett Neighborhood...... I 11-8 Harrelson Neighborhood...... IM-8 RELATION BETWEEN SCHOOL CAPACITY AND ENROLLMENT...... 111-17 TRAFFIC SAFETY...... N 1-21 NEIGHB0RH00D COMPARISON...... 111-23 EXISTING vs POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT...... 111-26 DENSITY CONSIDERATIONS...... 111-26 THE PIMA COUNTY ORDINANCE...... IV-1 SETBACK AND HEIGHT REGULATIONS...... IV-2 ZONING ORDINANCE USE PROVISIONS ...... IV-4 LOT-SIZE REDUCTION PROVISION...... IV-9 BUILDABLE AREA OF RESIDENTIAL LOTS...... IV-10 REALIZATION OF THE ADVANTAGES OF PLANNED-UNIT DEVELOPMENT ...... V-l ZONING AND PLANNED-UNIT DEVELOPMENT ...... V-2 CLUSTER...... V-7 Minimum Lot Size...... V-8 Sliding Scale Lot-SizeReduction ...... V-IO Yard Requirements...... V-l I OPEN SPACE...... V-l4 Types of Homes Associations...... V-14 Automatic Membership Homes Associations...... •...... V-l8 MIXTURE OF LAND USES V-20 OTHER. CONS I DERAT IONS...... V-22 CONCLUSIONS...... Vl-I BIBLIOGRAPHY...... VIM List of II lustrations Figure 1 Examples of Various Types of Cluster ...... 1-5 2 Rolling Hills...... 1-9 3 Green Valley ...... 1-15 4 Typical Functions and Degree of Success of Automatic Membership Homes Associations...... 1-19 5 Skyline Country Club Estates ...... 1-24 6 A nos da Oro Rezoning...... 1-26 7 Land Use Comparison Existing and Redesigned Wheeler Neighborhood ll-ll 8 Relation between Planned-unit Development and Existing Development Patterns ...... 11-12 9 Neighborhood Plan Status ...... 111-3 10 Neighborhood Units ...... ill-4 11 Analysis of Seven Neighborhoods...... 111-7 !2 Hud i ow Ne t ghborhood...... I 11-10 i 3 Whe© I er Nei ghbor hood...... I ll-ll 14 Kellond Neighborhood ...... 111-12 15 Schutraker Neighborhood...... 111-13 16 Steele Neighborhood...... 111-14 17 Corbett Neighborhood ...... 111-15 18 HarreIson Neighborhood...... 111-16 19 Neighborhood Population Characteristics...... 111-18 20 Relation between School Capacity and Enrollment...... 111-20 21 Traffic Accidents...... 111-22 22 Neighborhood Comparison...... Ill-24 23 Plans for Wheeler and Hughes Developments...... 111-25 24 Existing vs Potential Neighborhoods...... 111-27 25 Setback Regulations for.Residential Uses ...... IV-5 26 Uses Permitted under County Ordinance...... IV-6 27 Zoning Characteristic Comparison ...... IV-II 28 Relation between Lot Sizes and Number of Dwelling Units . . . at Various Densities...... IV-II 29 Buitdable Areas. 8,000 Square Feet, CR-3...... IV-12 30 Buiidable Areas, 7,000 Square Feet, CR-3 with Section 24 . . . . IV-13 31 School Needs Based on Residential Densities...... V-9 32 Sliding Scales of Lot-size Reductions...... V-10 33 Bu i I dab I e Areas, 6,000 Square-foot Lots...... V-12 34- Bui I dab Ie Areas, 6,000 Square-foot Lots with Assumed Setbacks . V-15 v INTRODUCTION The Pima County Planning and Zoning Commission became interested in planned-unit development during the latter months of 1964 through discus sions with local developers, planners, and engineers. As the result of these meetings, the chairman of the Commission appointed a committee to make a thorough study of this technical innovation and to recommend legislative measures for its regulation if it should prove acceptable for the Tucson area. The committee, composed of the Commission chairman, a member of the Commission, the county planning director, the assistant director, and three subdivision designers representing engineering and development companies, drafted a tentative planned-unit development ordinance. This ordinance did not represent a proposal of the Commission and, in fact, did not necessarily bear the endorsement of all members of the study committee. Nevertheless, at the request of the Commission, the committee submitted the draft ordinance, and at the -January 26, 1965, meeting a proposal for planned-unit development in suburban CCR-i} zones was ordered advertised for a public hearing. CA similar proposal for CR-2 and CR-3 was held in abeyance at the request of the planning director.) The hearing was held in February and, as anticipated, there were objections to the proposed ordinance. In view of this opposition and at the recommendation of the planning director, the Commission ordered the planning department to study planned- unit development in depth and report the findings in 90 days. A research analyst was retained to analyze and review the available literature and present a preliminary report to the Commission. Part 3, Planned-unit Developments A Preliminary Survey, was published and presented to the Commission at 1 he June 29, 1965 meeting after it had been discussed at a prior evening study session. This first report described the fundamental concepts of planned-unit development — cluster housing, common open spaces, and mixed land-use categories — as they are defined in the technical literature and reviewed the proposals of those who favor the relaxation or alternation of conventional zoning controls that are deemed necessary or desirable to realize the advantages of planned-unit development. This second report investigates the relationship between planned-unit development and its application to local conditions under the Pima County Zoning Ordinance. Briefly, it provides a critical analysis of the character istics and fundamental concepts of this type of development, reviews the progress of local development under the Master Plan and the neighborhood- unit principle, and suggests possible coordination of the best features of both. The study method for the second report Included the following: Cl) Examination of the characteristics of planned-unit development as described in the technical literature and other sources to determine the advantages and disadvantages inherent in its principles. (2) Study of existing residential development in the Tucson area to measure its characteristics and evaluate the effectiveness of the neighbor hood-unit concept as expressed in the Master Plan. (3) Study of the Pima County Zoning Ordinance under which this development occurred to determine its character and the possibility of including provisions for planned-unit development. <4) Examination of the relationship between the Master Plan and the concepts of planned-unit development to determine whether it augments the 2 neighborhood-unit concept and whether it could be effected under existing regulations. (5) Investigation of alternative methods for advancing planned-unit development in Pima County and identifying areas of the zoning ordinance that may require changes to do so. 3 Section I ANALYSIS OF PLANNED-UNIT DEVELOPMENT The essential components of planned-unit developments—cluster housing, common open spaces, and mixed land-use categories—require thorough analysis, particularly with regard to their desirability and validity under local conditions. An interesting side light of such an examination is the fact that Tucson developers have successfully employed the first two of these concepts under existing legislation. Whether the concepts constitute what its advocates regard as full-fledged planned-unit development is not readily discerned. On this account, the problem is not the endorsement (within reasoned bounds) of the separate components, but in the advisability of accepting planned-unit development in its entirety with all the implications and possible long-term consequences. The problem is compounded and confused by an awareness that many designers do not appear to subscribe to the concept of intermingling all land-use categories, except possibly the proposals to mix commercial and residential uses. Again, there is seemingly little agreement to what extent zoning controls and subdivision regulations must be modified for successful and profitable developments of this nature. Finally, it should be noted that planned-unit designers have utilized many of the principles of conventional developments without acknowledging the inspiration or sources. Despite the uncertainties it is possible to examine the concepts for the purpose of determining their relationship to the needs of Pima County and the advisability of modifying the existing ordinance to permit greater scope for I oca I appIicat ion. 1-1 Planned-unit development stresses these principles: (1) Clustering of dwellings as a residential module to produce surrounding open space, to increase the efficiency of land use, and to allow a greater degree of design freedom. (2) Open spaces gained by clustering will be developed and maintained by one of three possible means: a. By public agencies b. By developer or non-resident individual or corporation c. By an automatic membership homes association (3) A mixture of land uses can be consistent with the objectives of the community providing: a. No increase in density of development b. Variety of residential types or styles (4) AM designs will be submitted to the public agency for approval based on established standards regarding improvements, land uses, and open spaces. (5) Utility, street, and school requirements will be given foremost consideration in the design of the development. (6) The amenities and safeguards of conventional development in regard to health, safety, and general welfare will be maintained while using the innovations and concepts of planned-unit design. CLUSTER HOUSING The practice of building houses in intimate relation to each other is as old as urban civilization. The impulse to do so is understandable: mainly for protection, but also for convenience, social intercourse, and other amenities. These groupings, which usually achieve the obvious aims, 1-2 often produce undesirable results, notably and disasterousIy in the areas of health and sanitation. Witness the medieval town. Fifty years or more ago "cluster” in its traditional forms showed signs of falling into disfavor, due (it may be suspected) to dissatis factions with city living. Those individuals who had the inclination and means fled to the suburbs to escape the trials and inconveniences of the city. The detached house on a spacious lot in a suburban setting—a man's own castle—became an ideal. The automobile made this practicable when mass transit failed to keep pace. Cluster, therefore, became less marketable, especially in the high price ranges. But in the mid-1950's cluster appeared to be making a comeback. Nationally, several factors encouraged this reversal: (1) Land speculation had boosted raw land costs on the urban perimeter to a point where the land and its improvement took an inordinately larger share of the total building cost; (2) Communities were employing large-lot zoning to reduce the costs of education and other services; and (3) The realization that large-lot zoning was not necessarily keeping subdivisions in check, but merely causing wholesale intrusion into the land scape at the urban fringe. This is not the case in Tucson where large-lot zoning (CR-I) has been successful. Other more subtle causes were and still may be at work; changed buyer preferences, time and cost of maintaining a large lot, less housing for the money due to the high cost of land, the necessity to go farther out to obtain the desired isolation, and possibly the attraction of innovations in subdivision design and practice.* * Text references are listed at the end of each section. 1-3 So cluster is re-emerging, refurbished by a promise of greater con veniences and amenities. It is becoming popular over the nation, and Pima County has recognized its attractions. Modern Techniques What precisely is "clustering"? It is characterized by design and site planning in which a limited number of houses are grouped on a tract of land. Each cluster is set off from others like it by an intervening space that helps to define the group. Cluster also implies the concept of common open spaces. The technique of laying out a subdivision to conform to the lot size requirements of the zoning ordinance is equally applicable to a grid or curvi linear street system. Each lot is a module on which structures may be variously designed or virtually identical. Where large lots are concerned, the character of the land may be preserved, but with smaller lots where the coverage is greater, the site requirements are more critical and may possibly result in drastic alteration of the natural landscape. in the design of cluster subdivisions, structures are often oriented about a crescent, square, or some irregular pattern. This frequently requires that lot frontages must be substantially reduced. The effectiveness of the cluster module is governed by lot size. In the case of small individual lots, cluster may be little more than a unique means of using land intensively, hardly an improvement over conventional designs if there are no density controls. Figure I gives examples of clustering at different densities in contrast with those of conventional patterns. To pro vide this increased efficiency and range of choice requires a legal basis for reducing large-lot zoning, ample setback requirements, and other controls. 1-4 CLUSTER TYPES W K I I m m m M ...... " m I m ^ s i s I p K;X\\vavav: /y P P x W e l >:• is ■ _ » j 3 s W ™ S x * ■ l l l k 1 NW « / | | p i l P x -'^-//Iv.v.'.v.'.v.v s & m m ® The existing, somewhat rigid controls prove satisfactory when there is nothing in the market or prevailing competitive conditions to justify a departure„ Today there may be factors that would admit the necessary concessions. Density Considerations In its bulletin. Legal Aspects of Planned Unit Development, the Urban Land Institute presents a model ordinance which uses a residential density factor to control cluster. It states that "the standards may vary the density or intensity of land use, otherwise applicable to the land within planned unit residential development in consideration of (A) the amount, location, and pro posed use of common open space, (B) the location and physical characteristics of the site of the proposed Planned Residential Development, and (C) the location, design, and type of dwelling units . . . over a period of time to encourage flexibility . . . (The act) . . . authorizes a deviation in each section of land to be developed from the density established for the entire planned unit development . . . allowing for a greater concentration of density or intensity of land use within some section or sections of develop ment . . . than upon others. A greater concentration of density may require that a lesser concentration be developed to offset it or that an appropriate reservation of open space be made in the achievement of desired flexibility. Based on this legislation the ordinance, under the heading of Standards and Criteria for Planned Unit Development, contains the following provision; "The total ground area occupied by buildings and structures shall not exceed . . . percent of the total ground area of the planned unit develop ment unless previous development in the neighborhood of the P.U.D. has a greater ground coverage, in which case the plan may increase the ground coverage of buildings and structures to correspond with the average coverage I -6 in the neighborhood. For the purpose of this subsection total ground area shall be computed as follows; (here insert an appropriate method)."^ This act requires developers to state how the requested departure from standard zoning would be in the public interest. It also requires the local authorities to disclose their intentions and reasons. The planning staff must therefore report on the application, and this must become public record at least five days before the required hearing. The local government must hold the hearing within a specified time after the complete application is made and must announce whether the result is a grant or denial of tentative approval. In addition to the conclusions, it must state the findings with respect to the facts presented. Through such procedures, using the proposed technique of the Urban Land Institute, it is possible to avoid many of the criticisms of zoning ordinance modifications for planned-unit development. This part of the legislation reflects the preconceptions, convictions, and aspirations of the community regarding cluster. It is not suggested here that this is a generally applicable method for the control of cluster; each community must determine its own. It does, however, reflect the compromise between the control desired by the planners and the flexibility desired by municipalities and developers. In any case, flexible standards create a risk of arbitrariness, and procedural standards can avoid this risk only in a limited way. This type of density control does provide for articu lation of specific controls outside of the ordinance if the administrative regulations are of public record and if once filed they cannot be modified except by the same procedure. The model ordinance provides for clustering when common open spaces are provided. The control is the direct density of development and the 1-7 provision for specific areas of open space. The Pir-ra County ordinance provides for cluster in specific zones under another approach. Sections 2424, 2425, and 2426 specify reduction of lot sizes for CR-i, CR-2, and CR-3, and Section 2427 requires approved plat recording for lot-size reductions These sections allow lot reductions from 36,000 to 24,000 square feet in CR-I, from 16,000 to 12,000 in CR-2, and from 8,000 to 7,000 in CR-3. The sections also specify that there shall be no greater density in the sub division than would normally occur under these zones, that full and adequate drainage be provided, and that open space including (draInageways, parks, and recreational areas) may not constitute an area less than the total area reductions of lots in the development from the standard lot size. This means that up to 12,000 square feet in CR-i, 4,000 square feet in CR-2, or 1,000 square feet in CR-3 may be deducted from the standard lot size and placed under common ownership or public dedication. Furthermore, a minimum of four acres is the smallest size permitted for a park or recreation area and this space must be reasonably available to all lot owners. Further control is provided by Section 2427 which requires that no reduction is effective until a subdivision plat complying with the Commissions^ findings is approved by the Board of Supervisors and the certification recorded. Under this section the developer can create a cluster development in Pima County; in fact, successful examples of the application of this section are to be found In the Tucson area. These include the Roiling Hills sub division (Figure 2), New Tucson #9 and #10, and the Green Valley Fairways #1 and #2. Although these subdivisions may not reflect the more advanced designs of planned-unit development, there is no reason why they cannot be employed under the existing ordinance. 7 m i rx v i i ™ii ROLLING HILLS SUBDIVISION Figure 2 It may be desirable to reduce lot sizes under Article 24 for planners and developers who wish to take advantage of these advanced designs. It is significant, however, that few developers have chosen to reduce lot sizes to the possible 7,000 square feet. Undoubtedly, the problems of maintaining the resultant open spaces may be a deterrent. Arguments Favoring Cluster The soundness of the cluster principle is evident in the best examples of planned-unit development, and its advantages are presented in the technical literature both by theorists and practical designers. These are some of the claims; (1) It offers opportunities for preserving rapidly disappearing open land in residential areas and increases the recreational possibilities of neighborhoods by the provision of common open spaces for parks, play, and other uses. (2) It encourages neighborhood cohesiveness and enriches community living by increasing leisure through maintenance provisions ensured by permanent stipulations running with the land. (3) Through the application of good design it can offer privacy, relieve the monotony of the conventional row of houses on identical align ments, provide the amenities of intimate groupings, and produce a continuity of landscape design between the open spaces and the individual lots. (4) It makes use of natural features which may be unbuiIdable under conventional methods, reduces lot sizes to more usable and readily main tained areas, brings buiIding-to-site and preparation costs to more reason able proportions, and generally provides more usable space than conventional development techniques. 1-10 (5) It affords an economical and practical method of providing access and service while increasing freedom from through traffic and making possible a more efficient and economical design of streets and utilities. (6) It permits development on whatever lot sizes and types of dwellings that are desired, provided the number of housing units and general quality of development corresponds to the intent of the zoning ordinance. It can be used, in fact, to reduce neighborhood density, thus effecting a more positive control of school, utility, and service requirements. (7) Under certain conditions it permits a mixture of land uses, appears to outsell conventional developments as reported in national sales figures, and demands an entirely fresh approach to house design. Criticisms of Cluster Some critics, as well as officials who must ultimately cope with planned-unit development, detect certain weaknesses in the cluster method which demand legislative safeguards or specific regulation. Here are some of the questionable areas; (!) The vitality and permanence of the homes associations, in lieu of public ownership, have not been completely established. Considering that the association may fail, it is possible that the open space could revert to a single ownership and a successful appeal for a variance be made cn a hardship basis. This could defeat the purpose of the open space. (2) The approval of an application for a cluster subdivision requires more specialized training and experience than for conventional designs, in many instances the local agency is not sufficiently staffed to process such requests. Exacting decisions are necessary since there is a narrow line between the degree of design freedom and a violation of the l-l I principles upon which zoning and subdivision controls are based. There is also the possibility that the community may ultimately acquire the responsibility for the open spaces and have to maintain them. (3) If site groupings are made without any attempt at variation, or to exploit all the advantages of superior design, the resulting development could be. as ugly and monotonous as those cluster professes to supercede. The tendency to standardize cluster designs that have been found to be readily marketable stifles the need for further ingenuity and tends toward the monotony of conventional practices. There is also little visual evidence that some developers have taken advantages of landscaping possibilities due to high preparation and maintenance costs. Furthermore, developers seem to be unaware of the design possibilities allowable under existing ordinances. A better understanding would relieve the pressures tor ordinance revision. (4) It is necessary for the homes association to be established and supported by the developer before the houses are sold. After transferral to the ownership group, the association must be responsible for local taxes, liability insurance, and the maintenance of the common facilities, and it must also have the right to adjust assessments to meet changing conditions. It is difficult to schedule the building and transfer of the common open spaces to the homes association due to fluctuating market conditions„ Care fully drawn convenants are required to avoid chaotic results. (5) Membership in the homes association must be mandatory for each home owner whether original or successive, and each owner must pay his pro-rated share of taxes and the assessments levied by the association. This should be provided for as a lien on the property. On the other hand, any design savings should be reinvested in the development to compensate the buyer for reduced standards. 1-12 C6) Reduction of let sizes may reduce the degree of privacy unless compensated for by good design, and undesirable densities are quite likely without proper controls. (75 To be effective, the development should be at least the size of a sub-neighborhood. (Locally, a reasonable size !s considered to be 160 acres.) (8) Although there are instances where cluster developments have outsold conventional housing, there 5s little satisfactory evidence that these are exclusively preferred by the,general public. Row Houses Planned-unit development has revived the row housing of a half century and more ago under the more palatable name of "Town houses'*. In a modified form and with improved design principles. It seems to fill a gap in the housing market, especially for the under-25 and over-55 age groups who find that the single-family dwelling or apartment does not meet their needs. Furthermore, the row house Is a variant of the cluster concept. Certain advantages accrue to the modern row rouse; lower lot cost, lower building costs, and lower maintenance costs per unit. Competent architectural design, in conjunction with more liberal zoning regulations regarding setbacks and placement of the structure on the lot, may contribute to greater privacy and other amenities In comparison with apartment dwell ings. The increased density offers an alternative to the land-consuming, single-family residence and tends to decrease public service costs. The drawbacks to row houses are only too well known, but they are not of such a nature that good design and protective zoning cannot ameliorate. Architects have learned to avoid the monotony of endlessly repeating a 1-13 single house design by employing different, but compatible styles with staggered setbacks to present a continuously varying facade for the entire row or cluster. An example of this competence may be observed in the town houses in the Green Valley development (Figure 3). The restricted let widths characteristic of row houses deserve special consideration, and the intimate relationship between structure, lot, and street requires that the planning agency must be concerned with the interior design of these unit groupings. Older communities generally have effective zoning controls for setbacks, party walls, and sanitation. A satisfactory solution for on-lot parking and storage of private automobiles is still being sought, although some planned-unit developments suggest plans for community parking and courtyard facilities. The Philadephia Redevelopment Authority has outlined the following factors that should be considered in the arrangement of various yard spaces in row developments:^ (1) Does the lot size and position of house, and automobile parking space conform to an arrangement of maximum utility? (2) Have unusable open areas been eliminated as far as possible? (3) Does the balance between front and rear yards and their design relate proper Iy to the use and position of the rooms opening on them. (4) is there adequate space for— a. Children's play separated from automobile traffic, but easily supervised and accessible from the houses? b. Adult recreation, active and passive, with adequate privacy? c . Gardening, outdoor work, and storage? d. Clothes drying and rubbish disposal convenient to house, but as much out of sight as possible? 1-14 / / !!! TUCSON GREEN VALLEY SUBDIVISION Figure 3 (5) The design and amount of planting and other outside work done by the developer should encourage individual development of open areas by the owner and still tend to avoid "anarchy" for the row or group. Fencing also should be provided, (especially in the Tucson area) to ensure the privacy essential to the success of any housing. The advantages of row housing may be summarized as follows:^ Economic (1) More livable space per investment (25 Lower maintenance and operating costs per unit (3) No need to care tor large private yards Amenity (15 Relatively more privacy than apartments (2) Small amount of private yard (3) Individual ownership imparts a responsibility and a desire for better upkeep than rental property. Community (1) Offers an alternative to the single-family house (25 Flexible densities (3) Reduced municipal service costs (45 Increased usable open space (5) Stability of individual ownership The disadvantages of row housing are deemed to be; 7 (S 5 Width of lots generally too narrow for adequate interior planning (2) Little privacy without fenced yards (3) Thin party walls transmit noise from adjoining units M6 (4) Lack of proper ventilating equipment results in uncomfortable units (5) Exterior uniformity, if present, is more depressing that the monotony of the single-family tract. (6) Front yards are generally useless (7) If no off-street parking is provided, the street becomes a parking lot (8) Row houses often are not located near the essential elements of urban living such as schools, shopping fad 11- ties, etc. COMMON OPEN SPACES The corollary to cluster is the reservation to the use of all home- buyers in a subdivision of certain areas for recreation and other purposes. This is a device to compensate for the reduced lot sizes that cluster entails. The ultimate ownership of this common property could conceivably be public or private, or preferentially and most fairly, be jointly owned and maintained by all of the owners in the development. The Urban Land Institute recommends a non-profit corporation of the Type designated the "fully automatic homes association , operating under recorded land agreements wherein each home buyer acquires, automatically, membership in the association and who is charged with a proportionate share for mdntdnmg the commoh property end other dctivmes of the orgodzetion.8 This was discussed In more detail In Part I; Sect5o The advantage of this association Is that it can provide facilities and services which are not economically feasible for the owner to perform, or ‘-hlch cannot be obtained through local government. Thus the association does 1-17 not require public funds for special benefits in a specific residential " area, and the developer and the home owners are not required to locate open spaces intimately related to their residences under public control and use. Figure 4 lists the typical functions of the homes association and the degree of success in practice. The common spaces, their facilities and services, should be designed with these objectives: (I) that the appeal to the buyer will produce an increment in home value at least equal to their costs; (2) that the long-term utility and amenity will be sufficient to hold owner interest in the association and its facilities, and (3) that the operation and maintenance costs will be reasonable in relation to the owners' benefits and economic circumstances.^ These objectives pose specific questions. How much open space must be provided in the development? Are small recreation areas desirable? Must common areas have street frontage? Does the street pattern affect the use and maintenance of the common properties and the strength of the homes association? How can common facilities be planned and built to make mainte nance easy and complaints few? How will these areas be policed? The answers to these questions lie in an examination of the planning differences inherent in this concept as applied in a residential area. In Pima County there are now the beginnings of the use of common open space under the zoning ordinance and in practice. Group ownership of common property, without being specifically required, has been established in Rolling Hills (Figure 2), New Tucson, and in several cooperative and condominium apartment developments. When designers and developers under take more advanced designs, it will require an ownership and maintenance device such as the fully automatic homes association be provided. 1-18 Figure 4 Typical Functions and Degree of Automatic Membership Homes Associations Type of Common Property Clearly Largely A.H.A. (233)1 Clearly^ Largely' A.H.A. All Price Low, Low-Medium A.H.A. A.H.A. (165) Ranges & Medium Price (165) (233) Recreation areas less than. 1/2 acre 22% 25% 23* 8* 8* Streets serving home sites W% 13* 20* 0 0 Larger recreation areas 58% 47* 41* 3* 4* Off-street walkways for access to common space 25% 2!* 20* 0 0 Swimming pools 27% 27* 26* 2* 3* Off-street storm drainage 12% 13* 18* 0 0 Landscaped parks & national preserves 64% 50* 23* 5* 5* Neighborhood entranceways 48% 42* 13* 5* 5* Buffer fence or plantings 50% 27* 15* 4* 5* Common halls, rooms or gym 16% 18* 8* 7* 8* Trash and garbage d i sposa1 27% 20* 8* 0 0 10. Text reference. 1. Percentage of automatic homes associations having common property. 2. Percentage of automatic homes associations having common property and reporting dissatisfaction. 1-19 MIXED LAND USES The statement made in Part I that mixed land uses are a controversial feature of planned-unit development requires some qualification. Actually, the mere inclusion of various residential types (single family and multiple family) or diverse land-use categories (residential, institutional, and commercial) in a residential subdivision is conventional and generally unobjectional if suitably allocated. Such controlled uses are permissable and employed by developers under the Tucson neighborhood—unit plan. What is radical, and therefore controversial, is the degree of mixture and the relative location of these uses as proposed by some designers. The sug gested inclusion of industrial use in the neighborhood scheme presents difficulties even under the strictest regulation. The kind, degree, or intensity of land uses desired under planned-unit practice is not clearly presented in the literature and possibly is not too clearly conceived by its advocates. For the purpose of this report, it is useful to consider some of the possible degrees of inclusion and mixture as related to local conditions. Neighborhood Units Under the neighborhood-unit plan the developer is permitted to establish commercial uses at the major intersections of a subdivision, residential in the interior, transitional and multiple family on the peripheral arterial streets, and.an elementary school site is specified for a central location. * * Thus churches, hospitals, schools, storage garages, well sites, and other similar uses are currently permitted in single-family residential zones. Furthermore, the neighborhood unit is not a frozen concept, unduly restrictive to the designer with regard to size or shape of the development. 1-20 The shape is not arbitrary, and natural conditions of topography or man-made barriers may modify the stipulations. The terrain is a primary consideration in governing residential densities and other uses. This type of unit development, aside from its overall logic, is a significant concession to real estate economics and practices, to the interests of the developer, and to the merchant. The economic implications for the developer are that he can produce a single-family residential sub division at a modest profit and realize more substantial returns on his investment from sales of the commercial, multiple-family, and transitional lands that surround it. The merchant is favored by the location on arterial streets where the increased traffic potential and convenient access will fV enhance his business. The location of transitional and multiple-family uses between the com mercial corners is based on practical design considerations and the delibr erate intent of discouraging commercial strip development. The transitional zone provides locations for such traffic generators as churches and offices which also derive benefits from arterial locations. This placing of multiple-family dwellings on the arterials does not contemplate relegating their residents to second-class citizenship, since these units can be set back sufficiently to decrease the possible nuisance of heavy traffic. The increased separation reduces the disadvantages of the location and further serves as an additional buffer for the single-family residences of the interior. Finally, the central location of the elementary school is undisputed under any kind of development. These facilities must be situated to afford convenient access, maximum safety, and a low level of high-intensity develop ment nuisances. Figure 5 shows an acceptable land-use mixture under the current concept of the neighborhood unit. 1-21 Residentiai Mixtures The second degree of mixed land use would combine residential uses by type. In this case, commercial would be retained at the four corners and the elementary school would be in a central location. The different dwell ing types would then be grouped in desirable locations in the interior of the subdivisions. This would remove multiple-family units from the arterials and allow them to be placed in the interior, which might reduce the number of units affected by the adversities of location on arterial streets. If this were done and if single-family houses on small lots were placed on the arterials, a buffer would have to be provided with a frontage road to separate them. Location of the denser multiple-family units in the interior would increase traffic on the interior streets and might require increased street widths to accommodate the loads. Adjacent single-family units might be affected in value by the increased traffic and human nuisances. Furthermore, multiple-family units are often built after the single-family dwellings have been established and, if these units are in the interior of the development, unattractive, vacant areas might be left for some time. This degree of mixture should encourage design flexibility in that it would permit the designer to create a more interesting landscape by mixing the bulky multiple-family complexes with the single-family dwellings. The location of the multiple-family units in the interior would equalize the benefits of situation in the neighborhood between the multiple-family and single-family residents, thus making multiple-family living a more integral part of the neighborhood. Finally, by limiting commercial to the corners and only allowing residential uses in the remainder of the development, the 1-22 possibility of strip commercial is as effectively reduced, if not more so, than under the current method, especially whe-'e a transitional zone permits office development which may in time revert to commercial. In the Tucson area, the Skyline Country Club Estates offers an example of a well-designed mixture of single-family and multiple-family residential development under present legislation. The multiple-family units are located at the center and surrounded by single-family dwellings. Good design sense was required as this is an area of large lots with a golf course through it, to provide separation by open space. (Figure 5) Combined Residential and Commercial Uses A more intense mixing of land uses is possible and advocated by some designers; this is the proposal to distribute commercial uses anywhere in the residential area. It is difficult to find examples of successful combinations; in any event, there are many reasons why it is undesirable. The commercial use attracts greater volumes of traffic to the interior, violating one of the basic principles of the neighborhood unit. This increased traffic causes increased nuisance and a lack of safety. The interior location of commercial use would require the construction and maintenance of greater capacity streets. The type of businesses that normally locate on commercial corners cannot survive on a trade area limited to 640 acres; in fact, merchants choose locations where they will get the maximum possible traffic to their doors. When located at the corners, commercial use creates a buffer from intersection nuisances and by virtue of the fact that the corner often represents a large parcel of land, it can protect itself from this undesirable condition. Moving the commercial to the interior. i -23 / / \\HOV% * MMVX Wl^VOVUXVkV M ltkS 7 \ ( i MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREAS -CZ 1 SKYLINE COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES Figure 5 protection for the interior is lost, so that if the land is to be developed, some residential will require a great amount of buffering. If one neighboi— hood unit in an area has not fully developed its commercial potential, it may not be desirable to set aside as much land for this use as currently pro vided. The effect of commercial on adjacent residential uses must be con sidered with regard to property values. It is a generally accepted fact that single-family units close to a commercial use will suffer excessive economic obsolescence.^ This mixed land use allows a good subdivision designer a great degree of flexibility. The technical literature does not suggest this, although some theoretical publications indicate that this mixing can produce a unified development by the use of such concepts as the neighborhood core, which is the socio-economic heart of the neighborhood. Under this concept, the core comprises a school, recreational facilities, special facilities, and a convenience shopping center with in easy walking distance of every resident.i3 The combination would furthermore centralize facilities so that the neighborhood would have one commercial grouping instead of the four which would develop under the existing concept. This could create a greater economy and increased shopping convenience for neighborhood residents in that parking and other necessary facilities could be combined for one- stop shopping. The Anos de Oro plat (Figure 6), which was approved for rezoning on March 30, 1965, is an example of this degree of mixing under existing regulations. While it departs from the usual pattern and does not conform to the General Land Use Plan, it was approved because it is a good and 1-25 I I TR I I CR-4 I > SR ■ ■ CR-3 Figure 6 reasonable design. This action expresses the opinion of the Commission regarding mixed land uses by application of zoning. Total Mixture of Land-use Categories The final degree of intensity of mixed land uses combines residential and commercial and adds the possibility of industrial use in the neighboi— hood unit. In practice this would involve very large tracts as in the case of New Towns or integrated community developments. The development becomes, in fact, a self-sustaining entity. Transportation costs are greatly reduced, and all the required commercial and shopping facilities are provided, except majoi—item shopping. Jobs are provided as well as schools. Conceiv ably a confirmed stay-at-home could live in such surroundings without incon venience and without venturing far from his door. Industry in residential areas requires stringent regulation in the form of performance standards controlling such things as nuisance abatement, park ing requirements, and even architecture and landscaping. Under strict con trol, hypothetically at least, light industry could be a good neighbor. Designing that makes industrial plants look like country clubs and emphasis on a park-like setting could make manufacturing a welcome entrant in a neighborhood. Special problems would plague industrial uses in the neighborhood. Increased traffic in and about the area might include trucking. On the whole, industry prefers to locate where school taxes are minimal or non existent. Unless the concept is accepted widely, this location of industry would adversely affect the value of real estate. Again, industry may not like the degree of control that exists in neighborhoods, nor the fact that it might have to buy developed residential properties insteadr of raw lands 1-27 in order to expand. This total mix of land uses grants the degree of flexibility desired by some theoretical designers. It does not seem popular with developers and designers of urban real estate. The preference nationally is to use the industrial estate which provides an environment of the most efficient and pleasant standards. With few exceptions, residential areas are not generally sought as sites, for industry understands the desirability of separation of home and work, that school taxes are costly, that resi dential standards often cannot be met without excessive cost, and that industry to be completely effective must maintain its identity in the economy of the community by being industrial and not residential in character.I4 1-28 References I . William H. Whyte, Cluster Development, American Conservation Association, New York, 1964, p. II. 2. Richard F. Babcock and Jan Krasnowieci, Legal Aspects of Planned Unit Development, Urban Land Institute Technical Bulletin 52, Washington, 1965, p. 79. 3. Ibid., p. 85. 4. Pima County Zoning Plan, Pima County Board of Supervisors, Tucson, as amended 1953, pp. 63-a-63b. 5. Eastwick New House Study, Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority, Philadephia, 1957, p. II. 6. Row Housing, Planning Advisory Service Information Report 164, American Society of Planning Officials, Chicago, 1962, p. 2. 7. Ibid. 8. Byron R. Hanke, et a I., The Homes Association Handbook, Urban Land Institute Technical Bulletin 50, Washington, 1961, p. 33. 9. Ibid., p. 24. 10. Ibid., p. 21. 11. General Land Use Plan. City-County Planning Department, Tucson, I960, p. 54. 12. Alfred A. Ring, The Valuation of Real Estate, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1963, p. 147. 13. Fredrick Gibberd, Town Design, Architectural Press, London, 1959, p. 225. 14. Bryce, Murray D., Industrial Development, McCraw-Hill, New York, I960, p. 148. 1-29 Sect ion II THE MASTER PLAN AND PLANNED-UNIT DEVELOPMENT Certain relationships exist between the concepts of planned-unit development and the Tucson Master Plan. While the plan still serves to bolster the neighborhood-unit concept as a guide to residential develop ment, planned-unit development appears as a new tool which may be used to improve subdivision design. As planning moves to a higher and more complex level to meet the exigencies of changing conditions and technical advances in the building industry, it becomes necessary to examine the worth of pro posed innovations to determine what legislative actions are desirable to further the objectives of local planning. As a useful example of possibilities, a subdivision design is pre sented here, using some of the basic principles of planned-unit development that comply with existing regulations. It will illustrate what can be done through design under the existing zoning ordinance. What improvements are possible by means of legislative revisions are discussed later in the text. MASTER PLANNING AND PLANNED-UNIT CONCEPTS The relationship indicated in the preceding paragraphs is a concern both of the developer and the local authorities. The developer can be encouraged to produce substantial and lasting subdivisions by the actions of the planning department. Fortunately, however, he does not have to cope with involved and arbitrary regulation under the Pima County Zoning Ordinance to devise more advanced projects of the planned-unit type. This much is required: (I) An understanding of the possible applications of the existing zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations. I l-l (2) The design competence to employ the new concepts within the framework of public regulation. If these conditions are met, then the areas in the regulations that need updating or improvement can be evaluated according to the needs of the community. For this purpose it is worth considering what are the common deficiencies in urban development practices. These include:15 (1) Inefficient use of land and public services (2) Excessive development and maintenance costs to the developer, the home owner, and the community (3) Monotony in total Iiving environment (4) Lack of usable open space (5) Failure to orient development to increased use of the automobile: . An evaluation of the foregoing deficiencies suggests these remedies: (1) A reduced cost per unit of development value (2) An environment with increased variety and vitality (3) A substantial Iy increased amount of developed open space to serve more people within reasonable proximity The new concepts of planned-unit development may be a means of countei— acting these defects and lead to improved developments, providing the two factors previously mentioned are observed. Of the three concepts, the homes association is of the utmost importance, for it may make the difference between an attractive neighborhood and one with undeveloped open spaces by providing for common area improvement and maintenance. Although cluster and other devices such as town houses about greens are not new designs, they differ from the usual suburban development of evenly spaced, single- family detached houses of the average community. Because these ideas have I 1-2 been tried, locally to a degree, with some success suggests that their use should be permitted as tested methods to meet current needs. The local authority plays a crucial role in initiating improved plan ning principles in new developments. In fact, it is its responsibility to do so when the best interests of the:community are involved. On the other hand, the developer has the burden of using these devices to promote good design under existing regulations. His contribution to a better urban environment will not only be of value to the community, but the effort will produce a more marketable product which has its own financial reward. In encouraging the desirable concepts of planned-unit development, the local agency may decide that some changes in regulations are necessary to clarify and amplify its best characteristics. The clarification locally would avoid the confusion that appears to exist between the written ordi nance (with the misinterpretation of its degree of regulation) and the ordinance as applied to actual situations. Other than this, it may be found that some of the regulations can be improved to provide for a pro posed increase in variety without changing the character of the ordinance itself. Areas that should be investigated include lot-size reductions for better clustering and increased open space, provisions requiring automatic membership homes associations for the maintenance of open space, adjusted setback requirements to create more variety in locating buildings, and revised street standards to make possible more functional circulation systems. THE NEIGHBORHOOD UNIT A study of the applicability of planned-unit development to the Tucson area under the Pima County zoning ordinance must include an exami- I 1-3 nation of existing conditions. Today, the neighborhood unit is the dominant pattern in residential development. The question to be answered is whether planned-unit development or its principles can augment the orderly planned evolution of the neighborhood concept. If it does, it deserves the utmost consideration; if it appears as a disturbing factor, it should be viewed with caution despite any pressures in its favor. On the other hand, this much can be said for the status quo: the introduction and refinement of the neighborhood concept marks a high plateau in the pro gress of deliberately planned subdivisions coinciding with the natural growth patterns of the city and county. The neighborhood-unit concept as delineated in the Tucson Master Plan is a modified version of a formulation by Clarence A Perry in 1929. The objective as he describes it, is to create a residential neighborhood which will meet the needs of family life in a unit related to the larger com munity that possesses a distinct entity characterized by the following factors:* ® (1) A centrally located elementary school which will be within easy walking distance; that is, no more than a half mile from the farthest dwelIing (2) Scattered neighborhood parks and playgrounds to comprise about 10 percent of the whole development (3) Local shops to meet daily needs grouped together at accessible points on the periphery of the neighborhood (4) A residential environment, in part the result of harmonious architecture, careful landscaping, centrally located community buildings, and a special internal street system with deflection of all through traffic, preferably on thoroughfares that bound and define the neighborhood. I 1-4 The International City Managers Association defines the neighborhood units as residential areas that have been subdivided into identifiable u n i t s . I t points out that their size varies with the degree to which the particular area has been developed, the density of population, the network of thoroughfares and transit lines, and other features of municipal develop ment . *® It is thus possible that in the central portions of the city, where land costs and population densities are likely to be high and where streets and transit systems are usually closely spaced, there will be smaller and denser units such as apartment house neighborhoods. Similarly, the size of the neighborhood may increase in proportion to the distance from the center of the city which tends to develop at lower densities and have lower land costs. Prior to 1940 the grid pattern of streets prevailed in Tucson. Official planning began about this time under the Regional Plan directed by Ladislas Segoe, whereby an active program was initiated for the protection, improve ment, rehabilitation, and redevelopment of neighborhoods. When County Zoning was first authorized by the State in 1949, a new pattern of curvilinear streets had been in effect for some years. The system was designed with longer blocks which had the effect of reducing some of the street areas and other rights of way that previously had exceeded 40 percent of the neighborhood land use. The grid pattern, now considered obsolete, was wasteful of land, and its 4-way intersections became and remain hazardous with increasing traffic volume. The present neighborhood unit was introduced with the adoption of elements of the Master Plan. The Plan for School Locations in 1955 pre sented it officially and it was reaffirmed in I960 by the General Land Use Plan. The concept, as adopted by the City of Tucson and later by Pima I 1-5 County required future neighborhoods to conform to the principle. The area designation of the neighborhood unit is currently determined by the Planning Department and is based essentially on Perry's description. Coordination has been effected between the neighborhood unit and other elements of the Master Plan. The square mile today provides for as many as 7,000 residents in an average of 1080 dwellings. This population represents about 450 elementary school students. During the past fifteen years the City-County Planning Department has cooperated with local developers and engineers in improving the neighborhood unit. Neighborhoods conforming to the concept are listed on page I I l-r4. The Terra del Sol subdivision is frequently referred to as an example of coopera tion between developer, engineer, and the public agency to enhance the neighborhood-unit principle. Although not perfect, it is a good example of the application that resulted in an attractive, orderly, and stable neighbor hood . Planned-unit developments, therefore, can be built under the General Land Use Plan and within the framework of the neighborhood-unit concept. Consequently, this type of development is not something opposed to the pui— pose or intent of the Master Plan, but instead is a proposition to be worked with it. Any real difference is within the neighborhood itself in respect to the arrangement of land use and, in fact, is at a micro-planning level. Again, such developments are consistent with the Master Plan if density is not increased. It is a method of deriving more utility from the land at greater total earnings and of advancing the concept of the neighbor hood unit. The neighborhood unit of the General Land Use Plan is flexible in application. The corners of the square-mile neighborhood do not have to I 1-6 develop commercially. It is true that they usually do in practice, but in the case of well conceived designs may be located even in the interior of neighborhood through the application of zoning. Multiple residential is not invariably relegated to the arterial streets; again by application of zoning it can be located elsewhere. The basic concepts of the neighborhood are all applicable to the uses of planned-unit development. In fact the two are complementary. Planned- unit development is an effective tool for the builder, the community, and the home buyer in that it is a complete planning process which exactly reflects the neighborhood needs, arranges the land use accordingly, and makes guarantees to ensure the success of the development. No other plan ning tool is so exact. Not only does planned-unit development give the designer more flexir bility and freedom of design, but it gives the government agency an increased degree of control in implementing the Master Plan by its required standards and approvals. Past planned-unit developments have been desirable to the home owner, as the neighborhoods thus created have generally been long-lived, more attractive, and better maintained through homes associations than conventional developments. APPLICATION OF PLANNED-UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO A LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD This hypothetical example of planned-unit development illustrates what can be done in a CR-3 zone under Article 24 of the existing ordinance to improve the quality of the neighborhood unit. The Wheeler neighborhood was selected as a frequently cited example of local development and re designed according to planned-unit principles under the following conditions: (I) Density was to remain the same, and the unit count by type was to be identical. I 1-7 (2) The existing zoning ordinance was to be observed. (3) Open space was to be improved by the developer and maintained by a fully automatic homes association. (4) Land-use distributions could be changed. (5) Any new design technique might be used as long as it did not violate the ordinance. The Wheeler neighborhood was considered to be an advanced design by local standards at the time it was developed. The original design was pre pared by a local firm and included open space. This was thought to present too many problems, particularly with regard to the improvement and main tenance of the open areas, and was finally rejected in favor of a more con ventional design. The neighborhood now contains lots of at least 7,000 square feet arranged about a modified grid-curvilinear street system with several four-way intersections and entrances from abutting arterial streets. The school site is centrally located and of acceptable size, although it does not effectively meet the neighborhood needs. A large block of commercial land was reserved at the northwest corner, but to the present time only one business and a large apartment development has been located on the site. An office complex is now being built on the Twenty-second Street frontage more than 1,000 feet from the corner, and the multiple- family zoned area next to it has not been developed. The streets in this neighborhood occupy a much greater proportion of the land than was con templated in the General Land Use Plan. The improved design combines elements of planned-unit development to produce a neighborhood of unique design. Clusters are used in superblock fashion and open spaces are provided about each. The varied shapes in the open spaces, clusters, and lots add variety to the development. Substantial I 1-8 savings in lineal feet and area of public rights-of-way and streets have been realized. Although no alleys were provided in the redesign, easements through open spaces are feasible by means of underground utilities. Land use was modified so that less area was available; even the six remaining acres were not considered likely to be fully developed. Multiple-family and transitional uses were also reduced in accordance with the prevalent development pattern of the community. In preparing the hypothetical model of the application of planned-unit development to the Wheeler neighborhood, consideration was given to the facilities and landscaping of the open spaces. The County Parks and Recreation Department reviewed the recommended redesign and suggested: (1) That a wide range of choices is available for the use of open spaces. (2) That attractive and functional development is preferable to a development based merely on cost considerations. (3) That it is unwise to assume that natural landscaping would remain unaltered. (4) That the design presents these problems: a. That grassing would be costly due to the various irregular shapes scattered over the site. b. That maintenance would be expensive because of the scattered, irregular shapes, non-grassed areas would be dusty, weed control and erosion problems would occur, and maintenance by the neighborhood association might not be lasting. c. That policing would be difficult, as much of the open space does not open to the streets, and the scattered nature of the plan would make foot-patrolling impracticable. 11-9 d. That it would be difficult to keep non-residents out of these areas. e. That liability insurance would have to be provided by the neighborhood association. (5) That three areas should be considered in the development of open spaces: a. Intensive recreational development of five major areas which would be entirely grassed and suitably landscaped. Based on the suggested improvements, including picnic facilities, swimming pool, tennis courts, play facilities, and the like, the development cost would be approximately SI 10,000, or $150 per housing unit. b. Six intermediate-size areas could be held in reserve for future development. These would not be grassed, but would have water avail able for trees and shrubs, or perhaps the areas could be left in the natural state for later development. c. Six smaller areas could become tot lots or playgrounds for smaller children. These would be provided with playground equipment, but need not be grassed, although this would be desirable. (6) The opinion was also expressed that $40,000 per year, or $4.60 per housing unit per month, would be necessary to maintain the open space, including three full-time employees, repair and replacement costs for equipment, maintenance facilities, and similar expenses. Figure 7 shows the land-use statistics for the existing 172 acres, and the hypothetical example of the use of planned-unit development on the same tract. Figure 8 illustrates the plan of the existing neighborhood as well as that of its redesign. 11-10 Figure 7 Land Use Comparison Existing and Redesigned Wheeler Neighborhood Existing Redesigned Single family residential 78.00 Ac. 45.6# 83.67 Ac. 48.62 Multi-family residential 9.21 Ac. 5.32 7.06 Ac. 4.12 Commercia1 20.60 Ac. 1 1.92 6.12 Ac. 3.52 Transitiona1 3.53 Ac. 2.02 -0- -0- School site 4.51 Ac. 2.62 4.51 Ac. 2.62 Pub lie rights-of-way 56.15 Ac. 32.62 37.69 Ac. 21.22 Arterials 10.08 Ac. 5,860 Ft. 10.08 Ac. 5,860 Ft. Col lector streets 1 1 .29 Ac. 8,200 Ft. 8.80 Ac. 6,390 Ft. Loca1 streets 34.57 Ac. 28,310 Ft. 18.81 Ac. 16,390 Ft. A1 leys 10.21 Ac. 22,250 Ft. —0— -0- Open space -0- -0- 32.95 Ac. 20.02 Single family house count 503 • 503 Average lot size 7,246 Sq. Ft. 7,000 Sq. Ft. Multi-family unit count 222 222 I l-l I FIgure 8 .JU UU UU UU UU UU U C3J u u u u u u 22ND STREET gjoblolPlpHc EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY COMMERCIAL AREAS □ RESIDENTIAL AREAS ■ RECREATIONAL AREAS QUASI-PUBLIC AREAS OPEN AREAS HYPOTHETICAL ------ISO 300 410' U U UU UU UU UU UU U DU UU UU UU l References 15. Frederick Grantham, Housing as Environment. Columbia University Press, New York, 1963, p. 13. 16. James Dair, The Neighborhood Unit Plan. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 1947, pp. 17-21. 17. Mary McLean, editor, Local Planning Administration, International City Managers Association, New York, 1959, pp. 111-112. 18. Ibid., p. 23. I 1-13 Section 1 11 LOCAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT This section examines residential development in the Tucson area under existing regulations. It includes a description of the application of the neighborhood-unit concept by a study of selected neighborhoods. The dis cussion is limited to information pertinent to the future use of planned- unit development as a technique under the Pima County Zoning Ordinance. The survey of selected neighborhoods was made to determine the char acter and effectiveness of the neighborhood unit as it is expressed in the Master Plan. Not only does the neighborhood unit reflect local conditions, but it also points out the strength and weakness of the concept as locally applied. The analysis includes a statement of neighborhood plan status, an inventory and classification of neighborhoods, their physical characteris tics, population, school implications, a traffic accident survey, the com parison of a grid neighborhood with the neighborhood-unit, a comparison of existing and potential neighborhoods, and a consideration of density. The general conclusions to be drawn from this section are: (1) The Tucson urban area is represented by neighborhood plans on all perimeters except the south. (2) Many of the local neighborhoods conform to the neighborhood- unit concept; in fact, the newer ones all do. (3) The distribution of land uses in the neighborhood units studied does not meet the projections made in the General Land Use Plan. (4) The single-family residential use is still favored in neighbor hood developments. (5) Considerable amounts of land are devoted to public rights of way. Ill-I (6) Much vacant land exists in neighborhoods as the result of small tract land ownership before the neighborhood develops. (7) School enrollments in neighborhoods are exceeding expectations and increasing due to younger marriages and early family raising, thus addi tional school demands over present facilities exist. (8) Parks and open space in the neighborhood are deficient. (9) The neighborhood unit has substantially increased traffic safety in terms of accident reduction. (SO) The neighborhood unit is trade up of younger residents than those in the grid type, has much greater school demand, and considerably less non single-family residential use. (II) The potential of the neighborhood unit, if met, could substan tially increase density, thus creating problems in terms of traffic, school, and public utility needs. NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS A quantitative analysis was made of six urban and one suburban neigh borhoods for comparison with planned-unit development. These were selected as representative examples of the neighborhood-unit concept. Such analysis is useful in determining whether planned-unit development will provide, as its advocates claim, better use of land and less publicly maintained rights of way, such as streets, drainageways, and common open space. Of primary importance is the accident record, which shows that the curvilinear plan and the elimination of through streets has improved traffic safety in the neighborhood. Accidents in the interior have been practically eliminated; in one instance, for the same time-period, two occurred in a curvilinear subdivision for 105 in a grid aubdivis ion. 111-2 Approval of neighborhood planning is implied by the fact that, as of November, 1964, 50 neighborhood plans and 14 area plans had been adopted. Nineteen of these plans were in the urban area and twelve in the suburban. Forty-five neighborhoods meet the general characteristics of the neigh borhood concept as described in the General Land Use Plan. Fourteen neigh borhoods have been more than half developed under the concept. There are also 56 neighborhoods that do not meet the standard with regard to (I) cen tral elementary school and (2) major street boundaries. The latter were developed prior to the adoption and application of the neighborhood plan (Figures 9 and 10). Figure 9 Neighborhood Plan Status A. Neighborhood Plans adopted — 50 as of 11/24/64 B. Area Plans adopted — 14 as of 9/31/64 C. Adopted Urban Neighborhood Plans in the Tucson Urban Area — 19 D. Adopted Suburban Neighborhood Plans in the Tucson Urban Area — 12 E. 45 Neighborhoods or Planned Neighborhoods meet the general characteris tics of the neighborhood concept as outlined in the General Land Use Plan. F. 14 Neighborhoods have been more than one-half developed under the con cept. G. 56 Neighborhoods do not comply with either (I) central elementary school (2) bounded by arterial streets. 111-3 APPROVED SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS 1 ORO VALLEY I LINDA VISTA 3 SITE 19 4 MESA VERDE 5 INA RD.-CANADA 6 CANADA-INA RD. 7 SECTION 39 • HORIZON LAND-THORNVDALE 9 ORANGE GROVE 10 SECTION 6 II COLONIA TAXCO 12 CLOUD RD. APPROVED URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS 13 LAGUNA 14 ANKLAM-SHANNON RD. 19 MARY LYNN 16 JULIA KEEN 17 RO GERS 16 SABINO CREEK-TANQUE VERDE 19 BALLFINCH 20 VAN HORNE 21 PANTANO SPEEDWAY 22 WRIGHTSTOWN 23 SHUMAKER 94 SITE 97 25 SITE 11 26 SITE 79 *7 GALE 26 STEELE 29 REGINA CLERI 30 SITE 96 4^I 31 FORD NEIGHBORHOODS WHICH: a. ARE BOUNDED BY MAJOR STREETS b. HAVE A CENTRAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 31 FT. LOWELL 3 3 BROWN 3 4 SEWELL 35 HUDLOW 3 6 KELLOND 3 7 BOOTH 3 8 CORBETT 39 WHEELER 4 0 DIETZ 41 BRICHTA 4 1 TULLY 4 3 SITE 57 4 4 DUFFY 4 8 WRIGHT NEIGHBORHOODS WHICH DO NOT COMPLY K s J TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT IS AREA PLANS NUMBER OF POTENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS WHICH ARE WITHIN AREA PLAN Figure 10 NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER!ST!CS An analysis was made to determine some of the characteristics of neigh borhood units which have been developed under the neighborhood unit concept. These neighborhoods; Hudlow, Wheeler, Kellond, Schumaker, Corbett, Steele, and Hare I son were chosen as examples of the newer residential areas. All of these areas, with the exception of Harrelson, are 640 acres or one square mile in size, bounded by arterial streets, and have an elementary school near their center. The degree of development of these areas is a local characteristic, the range being from 51.25 to 88.59 percent of complete de velopment. The phenomenon, often referred to as "skip development", which is the result of land transactions which divide a neighborhood into many parcels, thus leaving undeveloped areas in the neighborhood. This, of course, is a natural process, as land ownership is diverse, but it does constitute a real problem in some developments. Residential uses in these neighborhoods have a range of 13.53 to 46,19 percent of the total land area, and puolic rights of way account for 26.26 to 40.73 percent of the total area. This relationship is one that can be corrected by better design, which in turn will result in more efficient land use distributions and street circulation patterns, as well as reduced con struction and maintenance costs, and increased lot and open space yield. Vacant land takes up 11.40 to 79.04 percent of the area in neighbor hoods. This is undesirable for the developer, the resident, and the commu nity, in that it is costly in terms of investment which is not yielding a proper return for the developer, and in public improvements, and services which must be installed and served without producing an adequate return of revenue to the community. I 11-5 Figures II through 18 itemize some of the physical characteristics of these neighborhoods. Each neighborhood is shown in graphic form. A brief explanation of the individual characteristics of each neighborhood is given below. Hud low Neighborhood Approximately 100 acres of this area are controlled by the Sisters of St. Joseph, on which are St. Joseph's Hospital and St. Joseph's Academy. A portion of the land was sold to the City of Tucson for a library. Several builders participated in the development; however, the northwest corner (Harold Bell Wright Estates) is a large-lot subdivision developed over sev eral years. The mixture of single-family developments is excellent. The east perimeter, bounded by Pantano Wash, includes an industrial use: the Tucson Rock and Sand complex and two sanitary-fill sites. These apparently have detracted very little from the neighborhood. Wheeler Neighborhood This subdivision includes almost all of the desirable ideas of the neighborhood concept. Schools occupy a large area: a 40-acre high school (Palo Verde), the standard 10-acre elementary school site, and a 10-acre parochial school. Construction was carried out by different developers, providing a good mixture of construction types and price ranges. Kellond Neighborhood This neighborhood has a 30 plus acre park near the center, which is much larger than the desired standard. There are two drainageways running north and northwesterly, a developed shopping center at the southwest cor ner, and a partially developed general business area at the southeast cor- 111-6 Figure I I Analysis of Seven Neighborhoods * Hud low Per Wheeler Per Kellond Per Schumaker Per Stee1e Per Corbett Per Harre1 son Per Acres cent Acres cent Acres cent Acres cent Acres cent Acres cent Acres cent T re ^ * M-u.bU 04U.UL 04U.UU cwu.bv 21 bU.liU Complete Development 65.62 80.59 0/.65 51 .24 85. 13 /y .29 39.vu Single Family 211.93 33.11 263.76 41.21 234.51 36.64 86.60 13.53 190.82 29.81 278.79 43.56 866.73 40.24 Multi-Family 1.15 .01 8.78 1.37 4.01 .62 12.56 1 .96 18.80 2.93 7.92 .04 :Number)of Housing Units (658.00) (1706.00) (1387.00) (503.00) (1120.00) (1791.00) (351.00) Transitional 1 .08 .17 3.78 .59 5.56 .02 Commercia1 9.99 1.56 4.59 .71 14.17 2.21 6.89 1.08 3. 18 .50 13.58 2.12 9.67 .04 Public Rights-of-way 148.87 23.26 241.94 37.80 234.23 36.59 150.13 23.45 260.68 40.73 179.75 28.09 243.93 1 1.32 Parks 2.55 .04 3.67 .57 33.96 5.30 .68 .10 35.86 5.60 .72 . 1 1 3.34 .15 Schools 24.26 3.97 36.67 5.72 8.83 1.37 72.15 11.27 10.10 1 .58 7.83 1 .22 17.41 .81 Other 21.17 3.31 7.51 1.17 31.75 4.88 1 1 .45 1.79 4.26 .45 4.18 .65 75.88 3.52 Vacant 220.00 34.38 73.08 11.41 79.04 12.35 312.10 48.76 115.97 19.20 132.57 20.71 944.62 43.86 [Density)- Housing Units Per Residential Acre (3.22) (6.25) (5.82) (5.81) (5.87) (6.02) (.40) 160 Acres Available (No) (No) (No) (No) (No) (No) (Yes) Lineal Feet)in Streets (64,632) (137,540) ( 143,323) (76,801) (155,218) (124,879) (138,671) * Source: Pima County Land Use Maps. 11 1-7 ner. The design characteristics are good, although developed by several builders. The design was produced by one engineer, thus providing the co ordination within the neighborhood. Schumaker Neighborhood This neighborhood contains three schools, an elementary, junior high, and high school. Drainage of major proportions runs through the area. A. commercial strip exists from Garni no Seco for about one-half mile east. Three developers have been involved in improving the neighborhood which still is far from complete. Steele Neighborhood This neighborhood has a high precentage of public rights-of-way. There is also a considerable area of drainageways, a 40-acre regional park, and quarter-line streets which have a full 90-foot width. The Spanish Trail passes through its northwest tip leaving a small triangle of undeveloped land. Corbett Neighborhood This neighborhood shows some subdivision of fairly large areas, com mercial acre lots which have been developed in mixed uses of multiple fami ly, single family, and one or two instances of commercial in the interior. In addition, some strip business occurs at Craycroft Road and Twenty-second Street. The eastern half was developed last and follows closer to the neigh borhood concept. Hare I son Neighborhood This is a suburban neighborhood comprising approximately four square III-8 miles. There are two schools, which are in the Amphitheater School District including 17 acres of land. The neighborhood is only about 60 percent com plete, and there are nine and one-half acres of commercial development. This area is not designated for trailer development, but a housing-unit count includes 57 trailers. 111-9 Figure 12 I 11-10 Figure 13 KELLOND NEIGHBORHOOD-LAND USE SINCli FAMILY RESIDENCE » I QUASI-FUBUC MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE T* COMMERCIAL Figure 14 I 11-12 Mary OZZ3U W t - : Chase ■ /• z 1-mWwWga u z u % m !2 m : ■ ! ■■■■■■•■•- mmmmm mm i r u P 22 : m - L E broaoway '« '* •00 In n r ^ r r w n . . . C J SCHUMAKER NEIGHBOROOD - LAND USE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE a QUASI-PUBLIC A [XI PARKS AND RECREATION GS COMMERCIAL eoo' Figure 15 7/5^®ffl / COMMERICAL Figure 16 J 11 r f t l 0 If :.o 3 f ■ ■ J I ■■ i^SmgHil J□qljt: <>: .*.tl” .ve .u j u j j ^juILOj u j c : i i - « w □ I::::::: # # # 0 , _1_GZ_ JUAREZ ST mmemmmsmmm#JUANEZ ^ ST. ^ : : Z : : = : rr^x.'g r '!i " r- [ n n ^ ^ n a E *-»*■ ■■■■■■■■■■■! 1 : ■■ — 1 ------_,------' CnWlM^WI^q) JuasooziDC^OL:: ,:,TH' ila .'!' I" i ^ W M H B e e H :I5"¥*?"!":•*"f *• *■! ^ C o rb e tt .— "==:::: c z g & s i§ r a [titess”: e a e s s m i "ImM'U# i"' |" /# I /# L#|m| 9 0 ea «.■■■• •«• — : — ■*■■■■ I ■y _____ " - T i______z c______: ■ * * “ ,: ■—i^PWWleeeel *##**#*»«»■««■■» |"00m##0#0000i"*4 ' r ?«TM sT...... iT ? - ■■■■■■•■*******»*| ;!■*■** *M***mm*#*m** *1 . r ' tb--^ ...... _: I g W B .5 m■******************* ** p # e !1 ■■■■ « •■■ i o a n . fO' * golf iLINKS INK $ onTn ~r777777777777777?777777. CORBETT NEIGHBORHOOD-LAND USE | <*% » j SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE | %3I gj QUASI-PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATION j MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE COMMERCIAL Figure 17 I I 1-15 AESN NEIGHBORHOOD HARELSON LA CHOLLA BLVD. N ROAD INA MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREAS FAMILYSINGLE RESIDENTIAL AREAS QUASI-PUBLIC AREAS COMMERCIAL AREAS AGRICULTURAL AREAS AK AD RECREATIONALPARKS AREAS AND s\ iue 18 Figure II 1-16 QAS N MILE ONE EQUALS PRX 2 " e / 7 2 APPROX. A - POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS The population characteristics of these neighborhoods were studied to illustrate their composition (Figure 19). The neighborhoods ranged in pop ulation from 1,160 to 6,850 persons in the 1964 estimate for the school plan, and the households had from 3.40 to 4.03 persons residing in them. These characteristics generally follow the trend for the community as a whole, but the figures for the school enrollments and the age distribu tions present a different picture. The range of elementary students per housing unit is from .53 to .70, which is much higher than the School Dis trict I average of .36 students per housing unit. Theoretically, enroll ment follows a curve which may explain this high student ratio which rises quickly in the first few years to a peak high and then falls to a lower level for several years. With the high student enrollment is an age distribution which does not lean heavily to the younger side, but actually has a broad range of 21.46 to 34.14 years, compared to Pima County's average of 26.8 years. This relationship is especially relevant to the criteria of the neigh borhood unit regarding a size that can be served by one elementary school. If this trend continues and if the density of the neighborhood comes closer to its potential, some adjustment may have to be made. RELATION BETWEEN SCHOOL CAPACITY AND ENROLLMENT Large-scale developments in Tucson present a difficult problem. These outlying housing projects are particularly attractive to young parents with large families. This fact, combined with the application of modern planning principles, has resulted in more efficient land use and increased density of development. 111-17 Neighborhood Population Characteristics 0 - 4 ^ -—34- vO v — — ov 4- JO ui 4- Q < M n e in O L. O 3 _ CLl_ o 4- m 8. l_ >- 3 C O) >- o c c c I ZD * X I Housing Units I960. This kind of development results in concentrated population growth in given areas in a short period of time. Two alternatives were proposed in the 1957 school plan to relieve the pressures caused by these developments. The first was to reconsider the size of the neighborhood unit, and the sec ond was to revise the present school policy limiting the maximum number of rooms in an elementary school. In 1957 a planning Department study of the Corbett School was undertaken based on current and projected enrollments. Occupancy was predicated on the full square mile with 720 students. Enroll ment was predicted to climb for seven years to a peak of 1,120 in 1964 and drop back to 720 in 1972.19 However, enrollments have exceeded these pro jections and reached 1,300 in 1964 and are expected to reach 1,400 in 1965 (Figure 20). Obviously, it would not be economical or practical to build schools to meet the peak demand, but it is difficult to ascertain what span of time is to be considered reasonable to maintain overcrowded facilities. No single solution can be presented in this study, but must be deter mined by the community in terms of type and quality of education desired as it may be affected by the physical facilities the community is willing to pay for. Several measures have been used at times to meet the overcrowded con- dit ions separately or in combination: 20 (1) Transporting students to less crowded schools (2) Use of substandard or makeshift classrooms (3) Double sessions (4) Increasing number of pupils per classroom. As these solutions are generally undesirable, the following remedies 111-19 NUMBER OF ELEMENTARY PUPILS EAINHP EWE SHO CPCT AD ENROLLMENT AND CAPACITY SCHOOL BETWEEN RELATIONSHIP iue 0 1957-1960 1957 BuiIdinq Plan, Figure 20 o r e City-CountySource: Planning Department have been suggested: (1) Construction of 34-room school (2) Construction of two 17-room schools per neighborhood (3) Construction of new schools in adjacent potential neighborhoods. Overcrowding has been alleviated in Tucson by the use of portable class rooms in areas of little developed land, slow rates of growth, existing or potential parochial schools, and by temporary overcrowding. Furthermore, the 1964 school plan recommended that the maximum elementary school size be set at 24 classrooms. These solutions are only a step in the direction of meeting the problem. TRAFFIC SAFETY A traffic accident survey illustrates the point that the principles of the neighborhood-unit concept contribute greatly to the safety of its streets. An analysis was made of the traffic record of several Tucson neighborhoods, including Hughes as an example of the older grid-type pattern, to confirm the effectiveness of the principle (Figure 21). The record of the first half of 1965 is typical of the long-term characteristics of accidents on neighborhood streets. Neighborhoods developed under the neighborhood-unit concept show a considerable improvement over the grid system. Traffic ac cidents were classified for more detail and in every type considered the neighborhoods developed under the concept were more successful from the standpoint of safety. The hazards that exist in many neighborhoods can be eliminated by sound planning based on good design practices. Statistics are available which show where accidents occur, and from these it is possible to draw conclu sions regarding safe design. These include, according to the Traffic 111-21 Figure 21 Traffic Accidents (January I, 1965 - June 30, 1965) Type Neighborhood of Major Intersection Interior Interior Injury on Injury on Neiqhborhood Development Street With Major Street Intersection Mid-Block Major Street Interior Street Corbett N. U. * 50 12 9 5 17 4 Hud low N. U. 31 10 2 — — 10 1 Hughes Grid 208 93 86 14 78 27 Kellond N. U. 48 12 4 1 15 3 Schumaker N. U. 3 — — 2 2 Steele N. U. 7 2 3 — — 2 — — Wheeler N. U. 12 4 5 1 1 1 * N. U. - Neighborhood Unit Source: Tucson Police Department, Traffic Division, Pinboard. Il1-22 Quarterly, the following:^ (1) Maximum safety is provided through limited neighborhood access design, preferably limited to quarter-mile access points. (2) Service or marginal streets contiguous to major streets are best treated by the use of back-up, side-on, or cul-de-sacs. (3) Contiguous streets from one major street to another should be avoided. (4) Collector streets are satisfactory where there is no contiguous cross streets or if they feed into only one major street. (5) Four-way intersections should be used infrequently. (6) T-type intersections are preferable as they afford only three potentia I collision points. (7) Such designs as multi-1 egged intersections with more than four legs, Y-type intersections, an jog intersections should be avoided. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPARISON Another analysis was made by comparing the physical, social, and traffic characteristics of a representative neighborhood (Wheeler) developed under the neighborhood-unit concept and Hughes which was developed under the grid system. This comparison shows the changes which have occurred in the plan ned evolution of the neighborhood (Figures 22 and 23). It is interesting to note the difference in age distribution and elementary school develop ment. There are also great differences in density of development, traffic accidents, and in commercial, transitional, and multiple-family development. The application of the neighborhood unit has greatly improved the neighbor hood; perhaps planned-unit development, or some of its principles, could contribute further to the development of residential neighborhoods. 111-23 Figure 22 Neighborhood Comparison Hughes Wheeler Area 640.00 Acres 640.00 Acres Percent Developed 99.50* Single-family 88.59* 253.90 Acres 39.06* 263.76 Acres 41.21* Multi-family 14.67 Acres 2.25* Number of Housing 8.78 Acres 1.37* Units 3, 105 1,706 Transitional 6.50 Acres 1.01* Commercia 1 47.75 Acres 7.34* 4.59 Acres .72* Public Right-of-Way 266.50 Acres 41.00* Parks 241.94 Acres 39.80* 27.26 Acres 4.19* 3.67 Acres .57* Schools 3.67 Acres .56* Other 36.67 Acres 5.72* 26.56 Acres 4.09* 7.51 Acres 1.17* Vacant 3.17 Acres .50* Density - Housing Units 73.08 Acres 11.41* Per Net Residential Acre 8.65 Lineal Feet in 6.25 Streets 128,431 137,540 160 Acres Avallable No Drainageways (Feet) No 1964 Population 10,419 Estimate 7,330 Persons Per Housing 6,110 Unit 2.36 Elementary Students 4.03 Per Housing Unit .12 Age Distribution .70 Estimate 0 - 4 544 1,099 5 - 1 4 663 1,466 15 - 24 743 794 2 5 -4 4 2,646 1,523 45 - 64 1,697 887 65 plus 1,036 Median 367 45.77 21.46 Traffic Record: January thru .lima lOAs Accidents on Majors 301 16 Interior Accidents 100 Injuries Resulting 6 105 2 Source: Pima County Land Use Maps. Guide to Census Tracts, Tucson Standard Metropolitan Area. City- County Planning Department, I960. 1964 Population Study. City-County Planning Department, 1964. City of Tucson Police Department, Traffic Division, Pin Map. 111-24 MMCU If tlOf MCI ouavi-^usik hughes neighborhood- land use 0 5 3 QD ■um-Nuiwr utiMMci COM M lfClAl Figure 23 l-n3 a a NMKS AMO ilC il AtlOW 111-25 WHEELER NEIGHBORHOOD-LAND USE EXISTING vs POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT The relationship between existing and potential development must be shown to gauge the direction that the neighborhood unit may be heading in the future. The urban composite presented in the table (Figure 24) is based on six neighborhoods developed under the neighborhood concept. The theoretical potential is grounded on the General Land Use Plan. Substantial differences exist in multiple family, transitional, commercial, and park uses in the plan that appear to be overestimated. The General Land Use Plan also underestimates the public rights-of-way, although the neighborhoods all have considerable amounts of land in drainageways. The table shows that a potential development exists, in theory, under the neighborhood concept which could become alarming in terms of intensity of development, public facilities, and school needs. Actually, there are no examples of neighborhood development which approach the potential, but it is necessary to be aware of this potential and provide for its control before development approaches it, especially with regard to multiple-family development. Planned-unit development under a specific density control could be use ful as a tool to keep the neighborhood unit and its demands on the community and the residents within the scope of its original intent. DENSITY CONSIDERATIONS Under the neighborhood-unit concept 180 acres of multiple-family resi dential use are available.^ Since this is a gross figure 25 percent of this area must be deducted for streets, alleys, easements, etc., leaving I!5 acres of net residential land for development. Conceivably, this could be developed with 2,004 housing units under CR-5, which permits a minimum I I 1-26 Figure 24 Existing vs Potential Neighborhoods Urban Theoretical Composite Potential Area in Acres 640 Acres 640 Acres Percent Developed 76.25* 100.00* Single Family 32.97* 38.02* Mu 11i-Fami1y 1.14* 13.22* Transitiona1 .13* 6.61* Commercial 1.36* 11.03* Public Right-of-Way 34.35* 21.31* Parks 1.16* 4.16* Schools .43* 1.65* Other 2.04* —— Vacant 24.47* — — Density Per Net Residential Acre 5.50 6.52 Urban Composite is based on 6 neighborhoods studied. Theoretical Potential is based on the typical neighborhood unit of the General Land Use Plan. City-County Planning Department, I960. 111-27 of 2,000 square feet per unit. Similarly, 345 acres are available in the neighborhood for single-family residential. Again, 25 percent must be de ducted, leaving a net area of 259 acres for this use. Under CR-3 this land could support 1,410 housing units at 8,000 square feet per unit. In this case 3,410 housing units could be built in a one-square-mile neighborhood. Among the implications of this possible density of 8.5 housing units per residential acre is the effect of this intensity of use upon the ele mentary school. At the current average of .36 students per housing unit for School District #1, the neighborhood would require an elementary school with a capacity for 1,228 students. As this figure is not characteristic of newer developments, another average should be used. Five neighborhoods on the east side of Tucson (Sewell, Rogers, Corbett, Kellond, and Wheeler), which were developed in the past ten years under the neighborhood concept, have an average school enrollment factor of .57 students per household. Using this figure, the hypothetical neighborhood would need a school capa city of 1,944 students. Obviously, either figure is much larger than de sirable; currently the largest elementary school has a capacity of 1,200 students.23 111-28 References 19. 1957-1960 School Building Plan. City-County Planning Department, Tucson, 1957. 20. Ibid. 21. Harold Macks, Subdividing for Traffic Safety. Eno Foundation Traffic Quarterly, Southgate, Connecticut, 1957, p. 332. 22. General Land Use Plan, op. c it., p. 55. 23. 1964-1968 School Plan. Tucson District #1. City-County Planning Department, Tucson, 1964, p. 8. I 11-29 Section IV THE PIMA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE The development characteristics of neighborhood units discussed pre viously were produced in compliance with the County ordinance. The follow ing study was made to determine if the ordinance is too restrictive to allow the use of planned-unit development. It has been shown that a development can be designed that takes advantage of clustering and open space with sub stantial reduction in public rights of way and utility installation costs. While the ordinance does not prohibit or exclude any of the principles of planned-unit development, it does not provide the criteria for development of open space, and it does have restrictions which could be altered to im prove this type of development. The present survey outlines the major regulations of the zoning ordi nance with regard to height, setback and use of regulations, and lot-size reductions. It also views the ordinance in terms of buiI dab Ie areas for residential lots which becomes a primary consideration, especially in CR-3, in relation to the current building trends in house and lot sizes. Although this study is not detailed, it does present the character of the regulations and tabulates height, setback, and lot-size reduction pro visions of the ordinance. These conclusions may be drawn from the survey: (1) The existing ordinance does not preclude the use of planned- unit development; however, improvements can be made to further its use. (2) Height and setback regulations are based on sound and reason able considerations. (3) The regulation of land uses permits a degree of mixture. It must be determined whether this should be increased. IV-I (4) Provision is specifically made for the reduction of lot sizes and the grouping of residences to produce open space. These standards may need readjustment. (5) The buiI dab Ie areas under lot-size reduction may become unusable under the present trend for larger ranch-style housing. It is not desirable to produce lots with maximum building coverage that prohibits personal pro perty improvement. .(6) Any change in the zoning ordinance must be accompanied by regu lations and conditions for application which provide, at least, the degree of protection of the existing regulations. SETBACK AND HEIGHT REGULATIONS Setback and height regulations offer a broad range of housing possibil ities in the various residential zones. The uniformity of the height stipu lations is necessary in Pima County for safety reasons, because the state enabling legislation prohibits a building code, and because the County does not have a fire department. The 20-foot front yard minimum was established as one off-street park ing space must be provided for each residence, and that depth is necessary to park a car in the yard at a 90-degree angle to the street. Furthermore, the depth provides for separation from the nuisance produced by passing traffic. Side yards are necessary for th’e lanes. Criteria for the exact size is not established, but it seems reasonable that some minimum standard should be applied that is nearly uniform for each zone. Not only is safety a consideration, but there is also a practical reason for providing access to the side of a building for maintenance without trespassing on the neigh- IV-2 boring property. These spaces also give some privacy and reduce the inten sity of nuisances from abutting property. It is easy to say that rear yards are too large, since it is possible in the case of a smaller lot to have only 15 feet of back yard when an alley is provided. In many cases this is not enough space to allow for an ade quate patio, and important feature of most Tucson homes. This lack of patio space may have unfavorable results, including the loss in value due to func tional obsolescence, which is incurable where adjacent property is unavail- able for expansion.24 The use of a lot-width minimum avoids platting of unusable lots. Early local development took place on 50-foot lots (25 feet in some cases), which today are unsaleable in a market that demands ranch-style houses in nearly every price range. Minimum area per housing unit is also a necessary con trol to preserve the character of the neighborhood, as well as being a de vice for predicting public service needs for the neighborhood. These are but a few reasons for the regulations imposed by the zoning ordinance. It must not be forgotten that zoning is based on the preserva tion of health, safety, and general welfare of the community and that, if any minimum standards are to be changed, those that replace them should afford the same degree of protection provided under existing regulations. Since the advocates of planned-unit development demand more freedom of de sign to produce better developments, the community may find that some por tions of the ordinance are too restrictive for the purpose. If a regula tion is found to be too restrictive and planned-unit development can con tribute to improved environment, then the regulations can be changed. This change, however, carries the responsibility of providing the community with IV-3 the same protection guaranteed by the existing controls, and "thus implies that other regulations and the special conditions for their use be designed to replace the more restrictive ones. Figure 25 outlines the setback regulations for residential uses embodied in the Pima County Zoning Ordinance. ZONING ORDINANCE USE PROVISIONS It is evident that the regulations of the Pima County Zoning Ordinance regarding permitted uses is not one of wholesale restriction. The follow ing analysis (Figure 26) presented here consists of uses permitted by zone, including ten zones that are principally residential in character: Suburban Ranch Suburban Homestead CR-I Single-family Residential CR-2 Single-family Residential CR-3 Single-family Residential CR-4 Multiple-family Residential CR-5 Multiple-family Residential Trailer Homesite TransitionaI General Rural The uses provided for in the ordinance are generally accepted as sound contributions to successful neighborhoods. Such uses as residential of vary ing intensities, public and quasi-public facilities, parking facilities, and commercial-residential uses allow a desirable mixture for diversity in neigh borhoods. Although these in many cases are included in residential zones, the ordinance carries permitted uses a step further and reflecting forward IV-4 F ig u re 25 Setback and Height Regulations for Residential Uses Zone Height Front Yard Rear Yard Side Yards Distance Minimum Lot Minimum Minimum Area Between Main Area Lot Width Per Housing BuiIdinqs Unit SR 2 stor i es'1' 50 ft. 50 ft. 10 ft. ea. 20 ft. 144,000 sq.ft. none 144,000 sq.ft. CR-I 2 stories^ 30 ft. 40ft. 10 ft. ea. 20 ft. 36,000 sq.ft. 100 ft. 36,000 sq.ft. CR-2 2 stories4 30 ft. 40 ft. 10 ft. ea. 20 ft. 16,000 sq.ft. 80 ft. 16,000 sq.ft. CR-3 2 stories4 20 ft. 25 ft. 8 ft. ea. 16 ft. 8,000 sq.ft. 60 ft. 8,000 sq.ft. SH 2 stories^ 30 ft. 40 ft. 10 ft. ea. 20 ft. 36,000 sq.ft. 100 ft. 18,000 sq.ft. CR-4 2 stories4 25 ft. 35 ft. 8 ft. ea. 16 ft. 7,000 sq.ft. 60 ft. 3,500 sq.ft. CR-5 2 stories^ 25 ft. 35 ft. 7 ft. ea. 14 ft. 7,000 sq.ft. 60 ft. 2,000 sq.ft. TH 2 stories4 30 ft. 40 ft. 10 ft. ea. 20 ft. 8,000 sq.ft. 60 ft. 8,000 sq.ft. TR 2 stories^ 20 ft. 25 ft. 7 ft. ea. 14 ft. 10,000 sq.ft.^ 60 ft. 1,000 sq.ft. GR 2 stories^ 30 ft. 40 ft. 10 ft. ea. 20 ft. 8,000 sq.ft. 60 ft. 8,000 sq.ft. Chart shows only basic regulations, not specific exceptions. 1. Further density control is Imposed in CR-3 in that lot coverage may not exceed 40 percent. 2. Two thousand square feet per unit in trailer court. 3. None for non-residentiaI uses. 4. Heights in all zones two stories or 30 feet. Source: Pima County Zoning Ordinance IV-5 — — 8,000 8,000 8,000 4 A c . 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 10 10 Ac. (2503e) — 8,000 —— X TR GR 1,000 4 4 Ac. 1,000 1,000 2,000 10,000 10 10 Ac. 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 144,000 144,000 (2503e) — — — 1,000 — 1,000 X — TH 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 4 Ac. 8,000 2,000 10 10 Ac. 144,000 (2503e) Accessory — X 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 4 4 Ac. 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 8,000 CR-5 10 10 Ac. 144,000 (2503e) — —— — — 8,000 — X 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 4 Ac. 3,200 CR-4 10 10 Ac. 144,000 (2503e) SH 4 4 Ac. 18,000 18,000 18,000 10 10 Ac. 10 10 Ac. 18,000 18,000 18,000 36,000 18,000 18,000 3,200 144,000 (2503e) — — — — — — — — — — — — — x 1 X — 18,000 3,200 (24)3 8,000 8,000 36,000 8,000 8,000 4 4 Ac. 7,000 8,000 10 10 Ac. 144,000 (2503e) Figure 26 Figure — ——— — X1 (24)3 4 4 Ac. CR-2 CR-3 16,000 16,000 10 10 Ac. 16,000 16,000 10 10 Ac. 16,000 12,000 16,000 8,000 144,000 (2503e) —— — — — _ •» — •» — —— —— x' — — — — — — — (24)3 4 4 Ac. CR-I 10 10 Ac. 10 10 Ac. 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 24,000 36,000 144,000 (2503e) — ■ — — — — — — — — — — 7,000 — — — X SR 4 4 Ac. 10 10 Ac. 10 10 Ac. 144,000 144,000 144,000 144,000 144,000 144,000 144,000 144,000 144,000 (2503e) 144,000 144,000 Uses Permitted Under County Ordinance Zone (In Order of R estrictiveness) (A rticle) Park, Public or Parochical School, Service, Playground, Library, P Museum, rivate School Playfield, College, Gov't., Guest Ranch Private Club or Lodge Rear Owe 1 1 ing 1 1 Rear Owe Home Occugatjon__Home TraI 1er Trailer Court Church T ourist Court, Hotel, Motel Boarding or Rooming House 3 - 4 Family Units T ra ile r (90 da.) Hospital or Medical Grouped Units Reduced Lot Size^ Multiple Residential Duplex Single Family Residence ^ c c e s s o r ^ _ IV-6 — — — GR 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 2 2 Ac. 8,000 10 10 Ac. 50 50 Ac. 20 Ac. 40 40 Ac. — — - — — — — — — — — — — TR 2 2 Ac. 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 — — —- — — — — — — — — — — — TH 8,000 10,000 2 Ac. 8,000 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 7,000 7,000 8,000 7,000 8,000 2 2 Ac. 7,000 8,000 7,000 8,000 10,000 CR-5 — — — — — — — 10,000 — — — — — 2 2 Ac. CR-4 —— —— — SH 2 2 Ac. 36,000 36,000 7,000 36,000 36,000 7,000 36,000 7,000 36,000 — 36,000 30 30 Ac. 36,000 7,000 40 Ac. — 20 Ac. — 36,000 — — — — — 5 Ac. — — — — — — — —— — - — -- — 8,000 8,000 2 2 Ac. 8,000 8,000 36,000 7,000 8,000 No Minimum - No Minimum Observe Setbacks CR-3 — — — — — — — — 2 2 Ac. CR-2 16,000 16,000 10,000 30 30 Ac. 36,000 — — — — —— — —— — 2 Ac. 36,000 30 30 Ac. 36,000 16,000 —— — — — —•— — — — —-- ——— — SR CR-I 5 5 Ac. 2 2 Ac. 30 Ac. 144,000 144,000 36,000 144,000 144,000 36,000 144,000 144,000 36,000 144,000 144,000 144,000 (200 sq. f t. maximum Local Business Stable Hog Hog Ranch Livestock Sales or Auction Yard (Not to exceed 9 months) Non-Comm11. A gricultureNon-Comm11. Fruit or Vegetable Sales Stand Fruit or Vegetable Processing Veterinary Hospital or Kennels Go 1f 1f Course Go Animal Animal Keeping (limited)4 Comm11. Animal Comm11. Raising or Packaging Amusement ResortAmusement Comm11. Agricu1tureComm11. Comm11. StableComm11. or Riding School 20 Ac. — Accessory Comm11. (Not to exceed 50,000 sq. ft.) Temp. Temp. Real E state Office Offices or Studios Comm. StorageComm. Garage Parking Lot Public Utility I I Motion Picture Studio IV-7 — GR 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000-* 10 10 Ac. 160 160 Ac. — — — 8,000 — — — — TR 2 Ac. 2 Ac. 10,000 8,000 10,000 — — — —— —— —— — TH 8,000 8,0006 — — — — — — — 7,000 8,000 10,000 8,000 2 2 Ac. 2 Ac. 7,000 7,0006 CR-5 — — — — — — — — — — — — 7,000 7,000 7,0006 CR-4 — —— — -- SH 2 2 AC. 2 AC. 8,0005 — 36,000 36,000 160 160 Ac. Ac. Human i i — — — — Ac. 1 Anima — — — 8,0006 36,0006 2 Ac. CR-3 — — — — —— — 2 Ac. CR-2 16,000 8,000 16,000 8,000 36,000 — —— —— — — — — — 2 2 Ac. CR-I 36,000 36,000 — ——— —-- — — SR 2 Ac. 144,000 144,000 160 160 Ac. 144,000 OR-I OR-I 24,000 square feet CR-2 CR-2 12,000 square CR-3 feet 7,000 Square feet. Indicates not permitted under the ordinance in that zone. site are provided. X X Indicates provided for in the ordinance. 1. 1. Grouping is possible due to lot size reduction provision. 3. Section 24 provides for reductions where the excess land is contributed to open common space as follows: 5. area Minimum 6. is a Where 7. property circle abutts Provided or as TTH^ that commercial tower written must or be industrial located consents at of use. least 75 percent as of far the from owners site of lots boundary as of record it by is numbers high. and area within 1,000 feet of the 2. Section 2503e provides for reduction due to topography or terrain. 4. A permit must be obtained subject to Section 1801e. E q u ip 't. or Supply Yard Cemetery or Crematory — Sewage Sewage Dispose 1 (P riv a te )7 A irport Operative B uilders Yard Racetrack or Sports Stadium Grazing, or Genera 1 Agriculture Gas, Pits, Quarries, Drilling Railroad, Mining, Metallurgical, Clay, Sand, Gravel, Rock, P etro l. Minimum Minimum lot areo per housing unit or other use in square feet unless otherwise indicated. Fair, Carnival, Circus (15 days) — Transit Iona1 Source: Pima County Zoning Ordinance. Drive-In Theater Radio Tower TV or Studio FOOTNOTES: IV-8 thinking, allows for some of the characteristics of planned-unit develop ment. Specifically, grouping of units is provided for in nine of ten zones studied. Reduced lot size is available in each of the three zones most common Iy used for single-family development to allow for contribution to common open space. Mixed uses by type of residential unit are permitted in six zones, and commercial uses are allowed in five of the zones either as a free-standing use or as an accessory use. Various industrial uses ranging from commercial agriculture and animal raising to mining, quarry ing, and drilling are allowed in at least three zones under conditions set up as legislative exemptions. As pointed out in Section I under "Mixed Land Uses", the decision must be made as to what degree of mixture is desirable. The important point of this analysis is that certain mixtures can occur under the existing ordi nance and, if this permissiveness is combined with an application based on well designed neighborhood units, as in the case of the Anos de Oro rezon ing, perhaps improved neighborhoods will result (Figure 6, Section I). LOT-SIZE REDUCTION PROVISION Several articles in the existing ordinance are concerned with minimum lot sizes. In effect they regulate the amount of land necessary (site size) per dwelling unit in the various classifications and specifically prohibit the reduction of this area, with the exception of Article 24 which provides for lot size reductions in CR-I, CR-2, and CR-3 from 36,000 to 24,000 square feet, from 16,000 to 12,000 square feet, and from 8,000 to 7,000 square feet in the respective zones.^ Under certain conditions, including guar antees that the land contributed by this reduction will be permanently re IV-9 served for common use and that the space reserved will be at least 4-acres in size. These reductions in minimum lot size, which amount to one-third in CR-I, one-fourth in CR-2, and one-eighth in CR-3, are in accord with planned-unit development in that they provide for lot-size reduction and provision of open space in residential developments. This provision has been successful in achieving its purpose and should be maintained to pro vide for such developments as Rolling Hills. Section 2503e also provides for lot-size reductions in all zones due 27 to terrain or topography. The section is consistent with current think ing on rough terrain, a situation where planned-unit development could be particularly useful and applicable in the foothill areas of Tucson. This provision, however, does not require open space and has been interpreted in different ways by the Boards of Adjustment. BUILDABLE AREAS OF RESIDENTIAL LOTS The following tabular data summarizes certain relationships which can be used to evaluate the regulations of the county ordinance as reflected in the buildable lot areas thus produced. The first table (Figure 27) out lines the lot-size mini mums, maximum buildable areas of minimum-sized lots, and the possible density in housing units per acre and in housing units per square-mile neighborhood for the zones studied. Figure 28 breaks this down further by illustrating the relationship between lot sizes and the number of dwelling units possible in a 640-acre or one-square-mi ie neigh borhood at various densities. The following tables (Figures 29 and 30) in dicate buildable areas of lots in CR-3 of various dimensions under Article 24. It thus can be seen that there are extremes possible under the ordi nance which border on being unusable in terms of orderly development and marketabiIity. IV-10 o e MinimumZone Lot Area CR-I SR CR-I w/24 CR-2 SH CR-3 CR-2 w/24 CR-3 w/24 CR-5 GR CR-4 NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS TR ON A 640 ACRE TRACT 5000 4000 3000 2000 lOOO (Sauare Feet) EAIN EWE LT IE NME OF NUMBER & SIZE LOT BETWEEN RELATION 144,000 24,000 36,000 36,000 16,000 2 0 04,800 12,000 10,000 ,0 3,200 8,000 ,0 2,800 7,000 8,000 ,0 1,488 7,000 7,000 WLIG NT A VROS DENSITIES VARIOUS AT UNITS DWELLING lOOO Max. BuiIdable Area Zone Characteristics 2000 (On Min. Lot) 4 ,0 160 142,000 VRG LT IE N Q FT. SQ. IN SIZE LOT AVERAGE 23,000 13,600 ,0 1,280 8,300 7,800 2,540 5,606 1,602 iue 27 Figure Figure 28 IV-I i Comparison Possible Density (H. U./Sa. Mi.) 5000 23,040 11,520 2,260 2,280 2,880 6,592 1,850 1,850 640 640 ### M*#eM*O#MOO0 ###### Possible Density NT POT#MTIAl UNIT (H. U./Acre) 27.00 13.50 3.38 3.38 3.30 1.50 8.03 1.69 1.69 .75 .18 .75 Figure 29 Bu i I dable Areas 8,000 Square Foot, CR-3 Rectangular Sites Frontage Depth Site Area Required Bui1 dable Setbacks Area (Feet) (Feet) (Square Feet) (Square Feet) (Square Feet) 60 134 8,040 4,124 3,916 61 132 8,052 4, 137 3,915 62 130 8,060 4, 150 3,850 63 127 8,001 4, 147 3,853 64 125 8,000 4, 160 3,840 65 124 8,060 4, 189 3,871 66 122 8,052 4,202 3,850 67 120 8,040 4,215 3,825 68 1 18 8,024 4,228 3,796 69 1 16 8,004 4,241 3,763 70 1 15 8,050 4,270 3,780 71 1 13 8,023 4,283 3,740 72 112 8,064 4,312 3,752 73 110 8,030 4,325 3,705 74 109 8,066 4,354 3,712 75 107 8,025 4,367 3,658 76 106 8,055 4,396 3,660 77 104 8,008 4,409 3,599 78 103 8,034 4,438 3,596 79 102 8,058 4,467 3,591 80 100 8,000 4,480 3,520 81 99 8,019 4,509 3,510 82 98 8,036 4,538 3,498 83 97 8,051 4,567 3,484 84 96 8,064 4,596 3,468 85 95 8,075 4,625 3,460 86 94 8,084 4,654 3,430 87 92 8,004 4,667 3,337 88 91 8,008 4,696 3,312 89 90 8,010 4,725 3,285 90 89 8,010 4,754 3,356 91 88 8.008 4,783 3,225 92 87 8,004 4,812 3, 192 93 87 8,091 4,877 3,214 94 86 8,084 4,886 3, 198 95 85 8,075 4,915 3, 160 96 84 8,064 4,944 3, 120 97 83 8,051 4,973 3,078 98 82 8,036 5,002 3,034 99 81 8,019 5,031 2,988 100 80 8,000 5,060 2,940 IV-12 Figure 30 Bui I dable Areas 7,000 Square Foot Lots, CR-3 with Section 24 Rectangular Sites Frontage Depth Site Area Required BuiIdable Setbacks Area (Feet) (Feet) (Square Feet) (Square Feet) (Square Feet) 60 117 7,020 3,852 3, 148 61 116 7,076 3,881 3, 195 62 1 14 7,068 3,894 3, 194 63 1 12 7,056 3,907 3, 149 64 1 10 7,040 3,907 3, 120 65 108 7,020 3,920 3,076 66 107 7,062 3,933 3, 100 67 105 7,035 3,962 3,060 68 103 7,004 3,975 3,016 69 102 7,038 3,988 3,021 70 100 7,000 4,017 2,970 71 99 7,029 4,030 2,970 72 98 7,056 4,059 2,968 73 96 7,008 4,088 2,910 74 95 7,030 4,098 2,832 75 94 7,050 4,098 2,891 76 93 7,068 4, 159 2,880 77 91 7,007 4, 188 2,806 78 90 7,020 4,201 2,790 79 89 7,031 4,230 2,804 80 88 7,040 4,2.88 2,752 81 87 7,047 4,317 2,730 82 86 7,052 4,346 2,706 83 85 7,055 4,375 2,680 84 84 7,056 4,404 2,652 85 83 7,055 4,493 2,562 86 82 7,052 4,462 2,590 87 81 7,047 4,491 2,556 88 80 7,040 4,570 2,520 89 79 7,031 4,549 2,482 90 78 7,020 4,578 2,442 91 77 7,007 4,607 2,400 92 77 7,084 4,652 2,432 93 76 7,068 4,633 2,435 94 75 7,050 4,7!0 2,340 95 74 7,030 4,739 2,291 96 73 7,008 4,768 2,240 97 73 7,081 4,813 2,195 98 72 7,056 4,842 2,214 99 71 7,029 4,871 2, 158 100 70 7,000 4,900 2,100 IV-13 References 24. Alfred A. Ring and Nelson L. North, The Valuation of Real Estate. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1963, p. 147. 25. Pima County Zoning Plan. Pima County Board of Supervisors,.Tucson# as amended 1953, p. 13. Section V REALIZATION OF THE ADVANTAGES OF PLANNED-UNIT DEVELOPMENT The role of traditional zoning has been to improve and maintain the urban environment. Admittedly, it has often presented an attitude of strict rigidity unmodified by passing time and changing conditions. Where progres sive thinking has reasonably modified the resirictions and still maintained high standards, designers have been enabled to plan attractive subdivisions under the existing legislation. This has been the case under the Pima County ordinance and the neighborhood-unit concept of the Master Plan. With the advent of planned-unit development, the planning agencies are faced with the problem of further relaxations of controls, since its advocates believe that conventional zoning imposes undue restraints on technical progress. This de mand for greater flexibility deserves consideration that the useful aspects of this type of development may be realized under adequate controls. This section discusses the problem and proposes various means of achieving the flexibilities apparently required for the practical realization of planned- unit development. The proposed flexibilities are in the areas of the three fundamental and interrelated concepts of cluster housing, common open spaces, and mixed land uses. The principles on which these concepts rest imply additional re ductions of lots sizes, adjustment of setback requirements, control devices and guarantees of open space, more flexibility in design standards, and pro cedural details for establishing planned-unit subdivisions. Specific stan dards must be devised in each instance so that such developments will not undermine the protection afforded by the existing ordinance to existing development. V-l To allow for the desired flexibility, regulation should permit modifi cation of design standards in developments considered large enough to con stitute a planned-unit development. The Planning Department believes this should constitute a tract of at least 160 acres. With regard to the Pima County ordinance, modification could take place along one of these lines. (1) The introduction of a planned-unit development zone which would provide specific regulations and design criteria. (2) The introduction of planned-unit development in the general pro visions of the ordinance which would establish criteria for planned-units for all zones. However, the Commission has determined that this method will not be used. (3) The modification and improvement of those articles or sections of the ordinance which are already directed toward planned-unit development. In any case, it is essential that the integrity of the ordinance be maintained. It is also essential that any provision for planned-unit devel opment provide for the dedication of common open spaces, no increase in den sity, and a mandatory homes association to ensure the maintenance of common property. Improvements must conform to those standards established for cir culation, recreation, education, light, air, and service needs of the neigh borhood . ZONING AND PLANNED-UNIT DEVELOPMENT Regulations for planned-unit development usually take one of two di rections. The first is to grant wide discretionary power to the reviewing authorities, which includes the Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals in conjunction with the other departments, within the limits imposed by the V-2 local legislative body. With this grant the conditions for approval of the development can be stipulated. The intent of the zoning ordinance, especially the provisions applicable to the zone for which the development is proposed, is used as a basis for modifying the existing regulations. In essence, this grant and the established procedural safeguards, such as public hearings and written administrative determinations for conditional changes based on the discretion the legislature grants, should be suffi cient for final decision. The alternative approach is to minimize the role of the reviewing authority in favor of specifically outlining the conditions under which planned-unit developments will be permitted and the standards the develop er must meet. In the extreme either approach has its dangers. When specific guide lines are not available, complete success depends upon the good judgment of persons in administrative positions. A lay board must have an adequate technical staff to review in detail each application and to evaluate its consistency with the Master Plan. Ordinances also have been held illegal because administrative boards have been granted discretionary powers with out clearly apparent standards. On the other hand, detailed standards may freeze planned-unit develop ment in the form accepted when the reguaItions were drafted; this may have the effect of stifling improvements. The desirable solution seems to be the combination of a set of appropriate standards supplemented by some man ner of review to take into account unforeseeable innovations. With a provision for review the authority may approve, reject, or pre scribe conditions to the approval of a planned-unit development. The ques V-3 tion is what factors should be specified in the regulations as standards, especially if the intent of the zoning ordinance is not clear. Provisions in the following areas are usually established for planned-unit develop ments: (1) Density - no greater than conventional zoning (2) Minimum project size (3) Character of development (4) Location, ownership (mandatory homes associations), and main tenance of open space (5) Peripheral development (6) Recreation and open space standards (7) Parking (8) Single ownership of development area in total (9) Subsequent fragmentation of site and conversion of open space (10) Street design standards (11) Recordation and guarantees (covenants) Criticism of the provisions for planned-unit development is with regard to the fundamental aspects of the enabling legislation as to procedures and standards for development. The requirement of a hearing and subsequent ratification is often a deterrent, in that the developer may regard the procedures as an additional liability, and because of this may prefer the conventional type of development. The other criticism is that the provi sions would not provide the regualtions necessary to ensure proper devel opment. The standards and controls for such projects must be precise and detailed in order to prevent poor imitations of planned-unit developments. It is a fact that too many developments have been built without design V-4 competence and without an understanding of planned-unit principles. Thus it is obvious that in drafting the regulations and reviewing applications, the authorities must use good design knowledge and exemplary aesthetic stan dards to create quality through ordinance and regualtion. The introduction of a planned-unit zone is possible under existing en abling legislation if the criteria of the zoning ordinance outline the nec essary conditions for the preservation of health, safety, and general wel fare. This zone would permit clustering, open spaces, and mixture of land uses if specific criteria were established to control design. These crite ria would be in the form of standards for development such as the follow- ,.28 (1) Maximum density of development ( 2) Open space requirements (3) Open space guarantee (4) Open space control and maintenance (5) Permitted uses and criteria for their location ( 6 ) Maximum building height ( 7 ) Minimum area per dwelling unit by type ( 8) Yard minimums (9) Minimum distance between structures CIO) Provision for accessory uses In addition a statement of intent should be included to avoid any misunder standing as to the use and function of the zone. This method would not change any existing zone, but would create a new one embodying the principles of planned-unit development. Detailed proce dural and review provisions should be included to ensure that the design of V-5 these developments will comply with the intent and provisions of the zone. Further specific criteria should be established for assignment of the zone upon application to avoid arbitrary and premature zoning of areas. Introducing planned-unit development through its own zone would be difficult, because a single intensity of development could only be covered by one zone, and it is desirable to make it available at more than one den sity. The solution would be a superimposed zone that would automatically assume the density of that zone over which it would be imposed. Alternatively, planned-unit development can be accommodated in the general provisions. This was considered in February, 1965 when a committee presented a tentative article at a meeting of the Commission. This included a statement of purpose, statement of permitted uses, a minimum density, planning considerations, minimum requirements, requirements for development plan, platting, homes association, and procedure for approval. This approach met with considerable opposition from the homeowners' associations and, as a result, this study was authorized. As indicated in the minutes of the March 30, 1965 meeting, the principal objection was to the form of the article. This method has the same effect as a separate zone, but has a broader application by being placed in the general provisions and covering the existing zones. Thus a planned-unit development could occur in a CR-I zone beside a conventional CR-i development. Another possibility is to develop those sections of the ordinance which would make planned-unit development admissible. This could be done by mod ifying the applicable sections of the ordinance. Cluster could be promoted by increasing lot-size reductions in the applicable zones under Article 24. V-6 Setbacks could be adjusted under certain provisions in the individual zones. Guarantees and maintenance of open space could be required by an addition to Article 24. Grouped residential provisions in the applicable zones could be expanded. Additional uses could be permitted under specific conditions. This method does not affect the existing regulations in form or char acter and would make planned-unit development possible in as many zones as found desirable. The method would not require that the whole "package** be enacted at one time, but could provide for additional elements as required. In this method each change in permissiveness must be accompanied with a specific control to avoid the possibility of misuse and the undermining of the basic controls of the ordinance. It is important that in any situation where common open space is pro vided by the contribution of individual properties that provisions be made for its development, control, and maintenance. Cluster can be promoted by increases in lot-size reduction, and flexibility in siting by adjustment of yard requirements. The mixture of land use could be made possible by design and application of zoning districts. The land use could be mixed if it conforms to established criteria. This method should be accompanied by a statement of intent and inter pretation of applicable regulations. Combined with good design and the application of zoning, this method could make planned-unit development pos sible in Pima County. CLUSTER Introducing the cluster concept under the Pima County Zoning Ordinance involves the present minimum lot-size requirements, possibly additional lot- size reductions, and methods for effecting these reductions. Adjustment of V-7 yard requirements also might make cluster more possible with more variable building sites. It is important to note that regardless of the method chosen, decisions must be made with regard to the acceptable standards. Minimum Lot Size Sections 302d, 302e, 1103, 1105, 1303, 1305, and 2408 of the Pima County zoning ordinance and others are concerned with minimum lot sizes. These sections regulate the amount of land required (site size) per dwelling unit in the various classifications and specifically prohibit reductions, with the exception of Sections 2424, 2425, and 2426 which provide for reductions of one-third to one-eighth in zones CR-I through CR-3 by contributions of land for open space, and Section 2503e which provides for reduction due to terrain and topography. Under planned-unit development the concept of clustered units with adjoining open space provides for this kind of land contribution. The minimum areas currently required, even under this pos sible reduction, are larger than those mentioned in the current technical literature. The general consensus of opinion seems to recommend a sliding scale of contribution, similar to the local schedule (CR-I - 33%, CR-2 - 25%, and CR-3 - 12%), but which has contribution factor of 25 percent to common space in the smallest lot-size zone for single-family development (CR-3). Therefore, the reduction in lot size would have to be increased under the existing ordinance to comply with current thinking on planned-unit development. If planned-unit development is to be created under the general provisions, the minimum lot areas would have to be modified. If it were established as a separate zone, lot size could be resolved therein, leaving the minimum areas of other classifications alone. An alternative would be to revise Article 24 to provide for further lot-size reductions under strin V-8 gent reguIat ion.. More generous lot-size reductions could be provided under Article 24 for the benefit of planners and developers who wish to create more advanced cluster designs. It must be remembered, however, that under the existing permissiveness of Article 24, few developers have chosen to reduce lot size as much as the allowable 7,000 square-foot minimum. Perhaps the developers have felt that there are market disadvantages in employing the undersized lot. For the purpose of this report, however, it should be pointed out that further reductions with increased contribution to common space could, in the hands of competent designers, meet the objectives of planned-unit devel opment in terms of efficient land use and increased range of choice. If provision were made for planned-unit development by means of which different residential uses could be mixed, the same square-mile neighbor hood unit would combine single and multiple residential areas into 525 gross acres of planned residential use. A 20 percent reduction in required streets is possible in a planned unit; in fact, some planned-unit developments show reductions up to 50 percent. Assuming, then, that 85 acres would be devoted to streets, it leaves a net residential area of 420 acres. The following table (Figure 31) shows the number of housing units, lot requirements, and school capacities implied by various densities of residential land: Figure 31 Density Number of Lot-Size HU/Acre Housing Units Requirements @ . n/ u_____w* .->7 H/U^ 5 2,100 8,700 Sq. Ft. 656 1,197 6 2,520 7.200 Sq. Ft. 907 1,436 7 2,940 6.200 Sq. Ft. 1,058 1,676 8 3,360 5,400 Sq. Ft. 1,210 1,915 9 3,780 4,800 Sq. Ft. 1,360 2,155 10 4.300 4.300 Sq. Ft. 1.512______2.994 1. Based on School District #1 average. 2. Based on average of 5 neighborhoods studied V-9 Sliding Scale Lot-Size Reduction The use of open space obtained by reduction of lot sizes is a principle of planned-unit development. The practice is usually based on a scale of contribution, as the present ordinance provides under Article 24, but these contributions are larger than the Pima County ordinance provides. The range is from 50 percent in one-acre lots to 25 percent in the smallest or 8,000 square-foot zones. These open spaces are generally held in common by a homes association, which is established before plat recordation to handle maintenance through modest assessments. Under this larger lot-size reduc tion usable spaces can be provided to serve all lots in the subdivision, rather than having only some served, while still providing a lot large enough for a single-family house under existing zoned requirements. Further reductions can be effected by using the so-called sliding scale of contribution which provides a greater degree of flexibility and to obtain wider lots on a voluntary basis.^ By this means the depth of the lot may be reduced three times more than the required increase in lot width on a voluntary basis. The following scale (Figure 32) could be applied as a con tinuance of Article 24 for CR-3 to reduce lot size to about 6,000 square feet: Figure 32 Sliding Scale Lot Sizes Lot Width Lot Depth Area (Feet) (Feet) (Square Feet) 60 117 7,020 61 112 6,832 62 109 6,778 63 106 6,678 64 103 6,592 65 100 6,500 66 97 6,402 67 94 6,298 68 91 6, 188 69 90 6,210 70 87 6,090 V-10 It may be worth while to consider an increased reduction in lot size under a sliding scale that would allow lots to be reduced in planned-unit developments to a minimum of 6,000 square feet, which is a 25 percent re duction from the CR-3 8,000-square-foot minimum, while encouraging the use of wider lots which are more usable than the conventional deep lot (Figure 33). Reductions also should be considered in CR-I and CR-2, but these are not discussed here because the buiI dable areas of lots in low-density areas is not a factor. The consideration of increased lot-size reductions, in addition to a determination of what method to use, would require an evaluation of the following: (1) The control and maintenance of open space; (2) The possible abuse of the permitted reductions, especially in terms of variance appeals based on hardship; (3) The degree to which the existing provision has been used and the degree of success; (4) The buiI dab Ie areas of lots if reduced, especially in CR-3 would eliminate owner expansion where the builder had provided a maximum package; and (5) The possibility of increased intensity of development and the means of controlling it. Yard Requirements Sections 302e, 302f, I 104, 1106, I 107, 1108, 1109, I I 10, 11 I I, 1304, 1306, 1307, 1308, 1309, 1310, 2410, 2412, 2413, 2414, 2415, and 2418 of Pima County zoning ordinance, and other sections outline requirements for front, rear, and side yards and placement of buildings on the site. Under planned- V-l I Figure 33 Buildable Areas, 6,000 Square-Foot Lots 6,000 Square Foot lots, observing existing CR-3 Setback Regulations Rectangular Sites Frontage Depth Site Area Required Bui1 dable Setbacks Area (Feet) (Feet) (Square Feet) (Square Feet) (Square Feet) 60 100 6,000 3,580 2,420 61 99 6,039 3,609 2,391 62 97 6,014 3,622 2,378 63 96 6,048 3,651 2,349 64 94 6,016 3,664 2,336 65 93 6,045 3,693 2,307 66 91 6,006 3,706 2,294 67 90 6,030 3,735 2,265 68 89 6,052 3,764 2,288 69 87 6,003 3,777 2,226 70 86 6,020 3,806 2,216 71 85 6,035 3,835 2,200 72 84 6,048 3,864 2, 184 73 83 6,059 3,893 2, 166 74 82 6,068 3,922 2, 146 75 80 6,000 3,935 2,065 76 79 6,004 3,964 2,040 77 78 6,006 3,993 2,013 78 77 6,006 4,022 1,984 79 76 6,004 4,051 1,953 80 75 6,000 4,080 1,920 81 75 6,075 4, 125 1,950 82 74 6,068 4, 154 1,914 83 73 6,059 4, 183 1,876 84 72 6,048 4,212 1,836 85 71 6,035 4,24! 1,794 86 70 6,020 4,270 1,750 87 69 6,003 4,299 1,704 88 69 6,072 4,344 1,728 89 68 6,003 4,373 1,630 90 67 6,030 4,402 1,628 91 66 6,006 4,431 1,575 92 66 6,072 4,476 1,596 93 65 6,045 4,505 1,540 94 64 6,016 4,534 1,482 95 64 6,080 4,579 1,501 96 63 6,048 4,608 1,440 97 62 6,014 4,637 1,377 98 62 6,076 4,682 1,394 99 61 6,039 4,711 1,328 100 60 6,000 4,740 1,260 V-12 unit development it is proposed in certain circumstances to site buildings anywhere on the lot rather than on the buiI dab Ie area of the site as created by setback requirements. Cluster could be promoted by reduction of the front and rear setbacks to offer more flexibility. It must be remembered, however, that these set backs were established for good reasons; these should be examined before any reduction is permitted. The minimal side yards now required should be maintained for health, safety, and welfare. It is necessary, for example, to provide fire lanes and a minimal separation to preserve the amenity of the single-family detached house. There may be instances in which existing setback regulations are un desirable and some other control favored: for example, in the case of the location of a residential building outside of the setback lines which would put it in the traffic Iine-of-sight. In this instance, a Iine-of-sight re quirement might be more desirable. Large front yards often constitute a degree of usuable area, and many homeowners would prefer to have that space in a backyard patio rather than maintaining a large front yard of little utility. The reduction of front yards makes the reduced lot size more de sirable in that the space thus saved could be used for a patio or outdoor living purposes. The elimination of the yard requirements should not be construed to mean that the basic reasons for these enactments are no longer necessary, but merely that the advantages of setbacks can be obtained by means of a different control which will allow more attractive siting varia tions than currently possible. In considering the relaxation of setback requirements, several factors must be weighed against the advantage of variety in siting: V-13 (1) Space must be provided for emergency equipment between structures. (2) Spacing must be adequate to preserve privacy. (3) Space must be provided to park at least one car on each resi dential lot. (4) Space must be provided to service the sides of houses without trespassing on a neighbor’s lot. Figure 34 shows buildable area of 6,OOO-square-foot lots with assumed 12- foot front setbacks, and 12-foot rear setbacks, and 8-foot side yards. OPEN SPACE There are several choices for the control of open space in planned-unit developments. Several types of organizations are proposed for this purpose:^ (1) Automatic membership homes associations (2) Non-automatic homes associations (3) Other private organizations (4) Public organizations The automatic membership homes associations are further classified by the Federal Housing Association as "clearly automatic" and "largely auto matic" homes associations."5* The principal characteristic of all automatic homes associations is that they are provided for in the covenants, deeds, or other recorded documents that affect the title of the land within the development. Types of Homes Associations The distinguishing feature of the clearly automatic homes association is that the principal source of maintenance funds is an annual assessment levied against each parcel of land within the development under recorded V-14 Figure 34 BuiI dable Areas 6,000 Square Foot Lots, assuming 12' front setbacks, 12' rear setbacks, and 8' side yards. Rectangular Sites Frontage Depth . Site Area Required Bui1 dable Setbacks Area (Feet) (Feet) (Square Feet) (Square Feet) (Square Feet) 60 100 6,000 2,656 3,334 61 99 6,039 2,664 3,375 62 97 6,014 2,656 3,358 63 96 6,048 2,664 3,384 64 94 6,016 2,656 3,360 65 93 6,045 2,664 3,381 66 91 6,006 2,656 3,350 67 90 6,030 2,664 3,366 68 89 6,052 2,672 3,380 69 87 6,003 2,664 3,339 70 86 6,020 2,672 3,348 71 85 6,035 2,680 3,355 72 84 6,048 2,688 3,352 73 83 6,059 2,696 3,363 74 82 6,068 2,704 3,364 75 80 6,000 2,696 3,304 76 79 6,004 2,704 3,300 77 78 6,006 2,712 3,294 78 77 6,006 2,720 3,236 79 76 6,004 2,728 3,276 80 75 6,000 2,752 3,248 81 75 6,075 2,760 3,315 82 74 6,068 2,768 3,300 83 73 6,059 2,776 3,283 84 72 6,048 2,784 3,264 85 71 6,035 2,792 3,243 86 70 6,020 2,800 3,200 87 69 6,003 2,808 3, 195 88 69 6,072 2,832 3,240 89 68 6,003 2,840 3, 163 90 67 6,030 2,848 3, 182 91 66 6,006 2,856 3, 150 92 66 6,072 2,880 3, 192 93 65 6,045 2,888 3, 157 94 64 6,016 2,896 3, 120 95 64 6,080 2,920 3, 160 96 63 6,048 2,928 3, 120 97 62 6,014 2,936 3,078 98 62 6,078 2,960 3,1 18 99 61 6,039 2,952 3,087 100 60 6,000 2,976 3,024 V-15 covenants that are incorporated in each deed and run with the land to bind each owner.32 These covenants are enforceable as a lien against the land. The Urban Land Institute points out that this method has proved to be an important factor in the establishment and continuation of attractive com munities with stable property values. The largely automatic homes association makes use of the same covenants, but these do not expressly describe membership rights or the method that will be used to keep the association in funds for the performance of its duties.33 Non-automatic homes associations are those which are provided for in recorded covenants, but with specific provision for optional membership. The non-automatic fall into five classes: optional, discretionary, clubs, continuity associations, and citizens' associations.^" The optional homes association grants the right of membership to every home owner, but there is no assessment that would run with the land and bind the owner. Funds are derived from annual dues or assessments collected from the members. No owner is held to a continuing obligation to member ship; therefore the financial base of this association is very weak. The discretionary membership association has similar characteristics as the optional, except that admission to membership is not a right of ownership. The home owner must apply for membership in the group. This again does not create a binding obligation. Clubs have similar functions as the home associations, but they are distinguished by the fact that they are not provided for in the covenants or other documents of title and that membership is optional with the owner and discretionary with the club management. Funds for this type of organi- V-16 ration are derived from membership dues and fees. These clubs are further classified by the geographical scope of membership into home owners clubs and community clubs. Continuity associations are created In the effort to secure some obli gations of membership while retaining the characteristics of option and dis cretion. This usually consists of an agreement to remain a paying member and to secure such an agreement from a subsequent purchaser. This second part is probably unenforceable. Citizen associations are usually broad organizations with the dominant purpose of expressing the views of the members ip and to engage in projects of mutual interest. Membership is generally open to others outside the developments, and funds are derived through membership fees. These are the weakest organizations as they seldom incorporate and the liability attends membership. They rarely own or maintain property or incur legal obligations, and hence are of little value in maintaining open land. Under any non-automatic membership homes association, guarantees must be required to ensure development and maintenance of the open spaces and that the use will not change. Dedication to the public will afford the pro tection, but will open the use of the area to the public also. A limited type of public arrangement similar to the improvement district is possible in some states in which the home owners contribute an assessment to the public agency in return for their development and maintenance of the open space. In Arizona this would require state legislation supplementing the provision for improvement districts. Another possibility is the establish ment of a private use such as a country club which maintains a golf course within the open space and creates an income for maintenance. Again, some V-17 sort of deed restriction is nesessary to ensure the continuance of this use. Automatic Membership Homes Associations Four legal steps are necessary to establish and sustain a residential development with common properties maintained by automatic membership homes associations: 35 (1) Prepare and record a final subdivision plat. (2) Prepare and record a declaration of covenants and restrictions applicable to the land within the subdivision. (3) Prepare the articles and bylaws of a homes association and its incorporation. (4) Sell and convey individual properties by deed that confirms the rights and duties provided in the foregoing steps. A suitable procedure is to complete the first three steps before the final plat is recorded. These steps are more complicated when common open space is involved. For example, it is necessary for practical reasons that the developer retain title to the common property until the improvement is completed and until the association is capable of maintaining it. This implies some definite assurance that the common property will be conveyed at the proper time. Covenants have been widely used to protect residential developments against incompatibilities. The homes association, which is to maintain the common properties, must be supported by additional covenants that will (I) secure to the association the right to collect reasonable maintenance charges or assessments and will (2) govern the fundamental rights and duties of the home owners in their common interest.56 The problem with such cove nants is that they often involve unfrequented areas of the law. Otherwise V-18 they are fairly common undertakings. The homes association can be stipulated by the zoning ordinance where lot-size reduction and common ownership are involved. It would be desirable to require the first three steps before the final plat is recorded and fur ther require by guarantee, step four, at the same time. The County zoning ordinance under Article 24 provides that open space established in the case of lot-size reduction will meet established mini- mums and provide maximum areas of park available to the lots affected. Sec tion 2427 requires that approved plats be recorded in compliance with the Commission's findings and certification. Since the law itself does not specifically stipulate a method for maintenance of this space, (it is de sirable that regulations be provided). The law does not preclude this type of restiction and organization cannot be made, and this seems to be a usable concept for the benefit of the developer and the home owner. The alternative, which may be more desirable, is to incorporate in the ordinance a provision that a homes association be required when privately owned common space is involved. This would include a thorough study of the various types of homes associations and their applicability to the local situation. The degree of success of this kind of regulation depends upon its application. In fact, the employment of either of the suggested merhods depends more upon the way the ordinance is used and not entirely on its narrow interpretation. Nothing in the ordinance precludes the use of common space. The ordinance does make lot-size reduction and the attendant con tribution to common open space possible, and it provides for the recording of the approved plats with conformance to the Commission's requirements, which could also include the stipulation that appropriate deed restrictions Y-19 and covenants be filed and that an automatic membership homes association be estabIished. MIXTURE OF LAND USES It has been pointed out that the concept of mixed land use is one of degree. The mixture of residential types can and has been made through the application of zoning. There are also examples of mixed residential and commercial uses by application. Since the principle has precedents in Pima County, it is possible to test the success of the concept. The technique of mixing residential types and/or commercial by the application of zoning is effected by the developers by submitting a total development plan from which a rezoning application is made. This procedure should be legally specified and not be made just a matter of practice. In time, this may even be used to establish neighborhood industries. There are several ways of doing this: (1) Establish neighborhood commercial and/or neighborhood industrial zones; (2) Provide for these uses in a planned-unit development zone; (3) Provide for their use in general provisions; (4) Continue the practice of mixture by the application of zoning under certain regulations. In using these methods, standards, and procedures for the adoption of the land uses must be established. The uses have features that may be in consistent with the Master Plan in regard to interior neighborhood traffic, light, air, and nuisance. To implement the character of development pre scribed in the Master Plan requires that these inconsistencies be resolved through design and ordinance, thus review procedures must be established. V-2U Zones for neighborhood and/or commercial should include permitted uses, yard requirements, height requirements, parking, accessory building pro visions, and performance standards and criteria for their application. If this were established, questions of inconsistency with the neighborhood- unit concept of the Master Plan could be resolved. It would then be clear what criteria must be met to have the zone applied to the tract. Protection of residential uses could be effected by means of performance standards that would solve problems created by traffic and parking, landscaping, nuisances, and the like. Provision for these uses in planned-unit zone would have to establish criteria for location, but would make them possible without further applica tion. This is less restrictive than separate zones. It could accept stan dards from comparable industrial and/or commercial zones or establish its own. The latter is probably more desirable as the existing industrial and commercial zones do not consider the mixture with residential. This method could include as specific design standards performance stipulations, per mitted uses, lot size, yard requirements, location criteria, and procedures, but would make the uses permissable in all planned-unit zones. incorporating neighborhood commercial and/or industrial in the general provisions would broaden the scope. In effect, it would establish criteria by which these uses could be included in specified zones. For example, it might be permitted in CR-3. This met opposition from several homewoners1 associations when an attempt was made to incIude a planned-unit section in the general provisions. The same objections would apply to the inclusion of these commercial and/or industrial uses even more. Generally the broad coverage of general provisions is too great for unique situations such as V-21 the mixture of these uses with residential, even if detailed specific regu lations mentioned exist. Inclusion in the general provisions does not afford the degree of protection to the zone that currently exists and therefore violates the thesis presented earlier. Finally, continuing the existing practice of the application of zoning could be considered. The technique simply applies existing zones in the places so designated. It is faulty in that it does not differentiate be tween the uses permitted and the other requirements for conventional and neighborhood businesses, and therefore makes the design create the desired degree of protection. It may be considered in the future arbitrary and, in fact, spot zoning. It seems more desirable if this technique is to be adopted to establish design criteria, performance standards, and procedural details for these zones. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS There are other provisions of the zoning ordinance that might inhibit planned-unit developments. Sections 2415, 3331, and 3332 are concerned with alleys and easements for utilities. With today’s more advanced household equipment, the alley access for deliveries and collections is less necessary; in fact, most services now come to the front of the house. Garbage collec tions can be made from the street, as is the case in many parts of Tucson at the present time. The elimination of alleys and easements would reduce maintenance costs as well as reduce an urban eyesore. The removal of this requirement would also make the orientation of houses on a common green more practicable. Houses can back on streets and remain attractive through good design, but will not as long as the home owner has to look across an alley. With the increased use of underground utilities, the need for rear V-22 overhead utility easements will diminish. The proposal of eliminating alley and easement requirements is an old idea, but it is not out of place in this study. A comprehensive set of standards has been established by the Utilities Coordinating Committee which gives examples of the street right-of-way in stallations with underground wiring which would be most desirable in planned- unit developments?^ It might be a valuable addition to any planned-unit provision to consider the requirement of this type of installation. V-23 References 28. Richard F. Babcock and Jan Krasnowicki, Legal Aspects of Planned Unit Development, Urban Land Institute Technical Bulletin 52, Washington, 1965, p. 70. 29. Eldridge Lovelace and William Weismantel, Density Zoning. Urban Land Institute Technical Bulletin 42, Washington, 1961, p. 16. 30. Byron R. Hanke et a I.. The Homes Association Handbook. Urban Land Institute Technical Bulletin 50, Washington, 1961, p. 5. 31. Planned Unit Development with a Homes Association. Federal Housing Administration Land Planning Bulletin 6, Washington, 1964, p. 53. 32. Hanke, op. cit., p. 5. 33. Ibid., p. 7. 34. Ibid., pp. 8-9. in rt Ibid., pp. 197-213. 36. Ibid., pp. 210-212. 37. Standard Utilities Location. Citv-Countv Planning Deoartment 1964, Sheet 7. V-24 Section VI CONCLUSIONS The Pima County Planning Department has always shown consideration for the proposals of subdivision designers and developers which, in theory or practice, seem advantageous to home buyers and to the community. The recent advocacy of planned-unit development is an innovation that deserves careful investigation since it has received considerable support in the technical literature and has, in fact, been adopted in varying degrees by many communities in the United States and abroad. In view of this interest and appreciation of its possibilities, the Pima County Planning and Zoning Commission directed the Department to make a thorough study of this type of development to determine its worth as well as its implication in the regulatory field. It is evident that any discussion of planned-unit development can gen erate more heat than light. This was foreshadowed in the public meetings held early in 1965 when local homebuilders, designers, and neighborhood association representatives expressed their opinions. Although it was not possible to weigh the degree of approval or disapproval of planned-unit development, it was clear that the draft of a tentative ordinance presented by the study committee would not receive reasonable support. One area which could not be probed, and probably cannot be until there is more wide spread knowledge of this type of development, is the public preference for planned-unit development. In the long run, the experience of developers locally will be the true indication of its popularity. Staff discussions with many homebuilders indicate that there is considerable skepticism on their part regarding planned-unit development; especially with regards to VI -I mixed land uses, which include non-residential uses within the neighborhood. The study embodied in this report involves, for the purpose of com parison, a review of the material progress of planning and zoning in the Tucson area, particularly with regard to the County, and in evaluating the present status of development. This leads to the following conclusions regarding planned-unit development and its possible alternatives. These findings are the results of the study of the application of planned-unit development under the Pima County Zoning Ordinance. The sub ject is broad, the conclusions are limited to the overall situation and not to specific details, although they are brought out in many instances to illustrate the concepts involved: I. The study has defined planned-unit development, in the light of what its proponents regard as its fundamental concepts and principles, as presented in theory or illustrated in practice. The result has been to arrive at a useful definition of this type of development for local consid eration, although it is true that the literature shows much uncertainty and little agreement as to what constitutes full-fledged planned-unit de velopment. It Is sufficiently clear that cluster housing along with the assignment of open space is fundamental to such development, but the total mixing of land-use categories receives only minor support as to the extent that this concept is desirable in residential developments. The Urban Land Institute, the Federal Housing Administration, and other private and official agencies have done much to interpret and clarify its position in the building, as well as to indicate the legislative modifications neces sary for its practice. The special legislation of other communities is also helpful in determining current thinking and permissiveness regarding this type of development. As a result, the County Planning Department is VI-2 now In a better position to judge public attitudes, to consider the pro posals of interested practitioners, and to present, in an informed manner, such legislative actions that could be undertaken for the benefit of the community in regard to planned-unit development. The study points out that: A. There are many advantages and disadvantages to each of the principles of planned-unit development. B. Cluster-type development has been practiced nationally and locally and offers an alternative to conventional development tech niques. C. There is a need for usable open space in local neighborhoods. Planned-unit development could provide this space in future subdiv- sions without requiring that the County acquire, develop, and main tain it through the use of contribution from lot-size reduction and the automatic membership homes associations. D. Mixture of land use is a matter of the degree found desirable by the community. Proponents of planned-unit development demand much freedom in this area. The mixture of land use in the Tucson area is achieved by zoning regulation and the application of zoning. There are also factors other than zoning, especially economic, as related by mortgage bankers and real estate appraisers, that re strict further mixing of residential, commercial and industrial uses. 2. A most useful part of this study has been the review of the pro gress of residential development in the County. It reveals that the neigh borhood unit, an integral part of the Master Plan, has enjoyed remarkable VI-3 success in guiding development both in the City and County. The study also shows that there are possible improvements in the concept, as there have been in the past since the neighborhood unit was adopted locally on the basis of the original recommendations of Clarence Perry in 1929. The significance of the survey of the neighborhood unit lies in the fact that practically and legislatively it provides a useful comparison with planned-unit development. Actually, the regulatory measures for the neighborhood unit allow a remarkable degree of latitude for the practice of planned-unit concepts while not designing them as such. Established or progressing developments such as Green Valley Fairways I and 2, Rolling Hills, New Tucson 9 and 10, Anos de Oro, and others demonstrate that these principles are applicable under present controls and regulations. It can be concluded from the study that: A. The neighborhood-unit concept has contributed to the improve ment of residential areas. Local neighborhoods are developing con sistently toward the distribution of land-use projected in the General Lan Use Plan, but potential density of development exists that could pose serious problems if fully realized. B. Planned-unit development can be applied within the framework of the neighborhood-unit concept as expressed in the Master Plan. It can be used to further existing neighborhood development prin ciples. C. The Tucson area is well represented with neighborhood and area plans, either adopted or in progress. An increasing number of neighborhoods are being developed under the neighborhood-unit con cept. VI-4 3. The report also details the liberality of the existing ordinance while maintaining adequate controls which allows progressive developers to apply design innovations which are beneficial to the home buyer, the com munity, and to themselves. Also indicated are those areas of regulation where the controls could be advantageously relaxed or modified to promote planned-unit development or like proposals. The more questionable problems of greater than normal densities, modification of setback regulations, and total land-use mixtures are such that they can be dealt with as specific instances for individual consideration. It is significant that many of the advantages of the principles of planned-unit development can be real ized under the Pima County Planning Ordinance. 4. The report outlines means for the realization of the obvious advan tages of planned-unit development as they relate to Pima County and the measures of the Planning Department and other authorities to effect the necessary legislative action while maintaining the integrity of the zoning ordinance. The areas that require special attention are the following: densities, maximum size of project, character of development, location, maintenance and ownership of open space, peripheral development, recrea tion and open-space standards, parking, ownership of total area, possible subsequent fragmentation and conversion of open space, street design stan dards, and guarantees. 5. As a result of this study of planned-unit development the follow ing guidelines should be considered in the recommendation of any ordinance changes to further planned-unit development in Pima County. A. Planned-unit development contains three basic elements: clus tering of houses, common open space, and the mixtures of land uses. B. The neighborhood-unit concept of the General Land Use Plan has VI-5 substantially improved residential areas in the Tucson Urban Area. Neighborhood and Area Plans have been adopted for a considerable part of this. Planned-unit development can be used to further and improve this concept. C. The neighborhood-unit concept, if fully realized on a 640 acre tract, has a potential of density which will seriously overload public facilities, especially schools. Planned-unit development under a specific density maximum could help to control this. D. The existing zoning ordinance does not preclude the use of planned-unit development. Provisions are specifically made for the reduction of lot sizes and the grouping of residence to pro duce open space. The question is one of what standards should be changed to what degree.and what regulations should be added to further the improvement of residential areas. E. The areas of height and setback regulations, minimum lot size and mixture of land use within the neighborhood-unit should be con sidered for changes. In addition, specific standards for automatic membership homes associations, mixing of land uses, minimum project size, guarantees, and procedural details should be established to further planned-unit development. F. Any change in the zoning ordinance should be accompanied by regulations and conditions for application which provide, at least, the degree of protection of the existing regulations. If this is observed, then the buiI dable area of lots laid out under lot-size reduction provisions will not be unusable under the present trend for larger ranch-style housing. It is not desirable, for example. VI-6 to produce lots with maximum building coverage that prohibit per sonal property improvement. G. This study has considered three alternative approaches to pro vide for planned-unit development in the zoning ordinance. 1. The Introduction of a superimposed Planned Unit Development Zone which would provide specific regulations and design cri- teria. 2. The introduction of planned-unit development in general provisions of the ordinance which would establish criteria for planned-unit development for all residential zones. The Commission has decided against this method as considered earlier in 1965. 3. The modification and improvement of those sections and ar ticles of the ordiance which are directed toward the elements of planned-unit development. To achieve the degree of control desirable through the establishment of standards for development of this type along with provisions for review of each project, the introduction of a superimposed Planned Unit Develop ment Zone seems to be the most desirable alternative. VI-7 BIBLIOGRAPHY This bibliography lists the sources used in the preparation of this study and materials of use for further investigation of planned-unit devel opment and its implications. The sources include useful information for analysis, comparison, legislation, design, standards, and other aspects too detailed to be treated in a single report. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, The Problem of Special Districts in American Government. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1965. Angor, William H., Georgia Law of Open Space. Atlanta Regional Planning Commission, Atlanta, Georgia, 1963. Arnold, John P., Planned-Unit Development: A Preliminary Survey. Pima County Planning Department, Tucson, Arizona, 1965. Babcock, Richard F., and Krasnowiecki, Jan, Legal Aspects of Planned Unit Development, Urban Land Institute Technical Bulletin 52, Washington, D. C., 1965. Bestor, George C., Buried Cables: A Survey of Buried Electric Distri bution for Residential Land Development, Urban Land Institute Bulletin 48, Washington, D. C., 1964. Bracey, Howard E., Neighbors: Subdivision Life in England and the United States, Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1964. Brunswich-Glenn County Joint Planning Commission, Neighborhood Analysis of Brunswick, Georgia. Brunswick, Georgia, 1964. Bryce, Murray, D., Industrial Development. McGraw-Hill, New York, I960. Chicago Department of City Planning, Rules. Regulations and Procedure in Relation to Planned Developments and the Chicago Zoning Ordinance. Chicago, Illinois, 1963. Cumberland County CouciI, Sydney's Green Belt. Sydney, New South Wales Australia, 1963. * Dair, James, The Neighborhood Unit Plan. Russe11 Sage Foundation. New York, 1947. Design Collaborative, Neighborhood Analysis: Moressen, Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1965. VI l-l Donnelly, Thomas G., Chapin, F. Stewart, and Weiss, Shirley F., .A Probabilistic Model for Residential Growth. Urban Studies Research Mono graph, Institute for Research in Social Sciences, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1964. Fairfax County Master Plan Office, The Vanishing Land; Proposals for Open Space Preservation, Fairfax County, Virginia, 1962. Gatheim, Frederick, Housing as Environment. Columbia University Press, New York, 1953. Gibberd, Fredrick, Town Design. Architectural Press, London, 1959. Green, Montgomery County, Open Space Study Committee, A Legacy for the Furture; A Plan for Open Space, Dayton, Ohio, 1964. Hanke, Byron R. et a I., The Homes Association Handbook. Urban Land Institute Technical Bulletin 50, Washington, D. C., 1964. Kent, L. A., Village Greens of New England. Hollister Kent Planner's Cooperative, Syracuse, New York, 1948. Lovelace, Eldridge, and Weismantel, William L., Density Zoning. Urban Land Institute Technical Bulletin 42, Washington, D. C., 1961. Macks, Harold, Subdividing for Traffic Safety. Eno Foundation Traffic Quarterly, Southgate, Connecticut, 1957. McLean, Mary (Editor), Local Planning Administration. International City Managers Association, New York, 1959. Miller, J. B., Open Land in Metropolitan Chicago. Midwest Open Land Association, Chicago, 1962. Nelson and Associates, Open Space; A Program for its Preservation and Optimum UtiIization, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1964. O'Donnell, Harman, and Henninger Associates, New Approaches to Resi dential Land Development; A Study of Concepts and Innovations. Urban Land Institute Technical Bulletin 40, Washington, D. C., 1961. O'Donnell, Harman, and Henninger Associates, Innovations vs. Traditions in Community Development, Urban Land Institute Technical Bulletin 47, Washington, D. C., 1963. Olgyay, Victor, Design with Climate: Bioclimatic Approach to Architec tural Regionalism. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1964. Passaic Valley Citizens Planning Association. Garden Apartment Study. Lincoln Park Planning Board, Trenton, New Jersey, 1964. Philadelphia, City of, Eastwick New House Study. Philadelphia Redevel opment Authority, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1957. VI1-2 Pima County, Arizona, Pima County Zoning Plan. Pima County Board of Supervisors, Tucson, Arizona, as amended 1953. Pima County Planning Commission and City of Tucson Planning Commission, General Land Use Plan, City-County Planning Department, Tucson, Arizona, I960. Pima County Planning Commission and City of Tucson Planning Commission, Guide to Census Tracts: Tucson Standard Metropolitan Area. City-County Plan ning Department, Tucson, Arizona, I960. Pima County Planning Commission and City of Tucson Planning Commission, 1957-1960 School Building Plan. City-County Planning Department, Tucson, Arizona, 1957. Pima County Planning Commission and City of Tucson Planning Commission, Population Study, 1964, City-County Planning Department, Tucson, Arizona, 1964. Pima County Planning Commission and City of Tucson Planning Commission, Tucson School District #1 1964-1968 School Plan. City-County Planning De partment, Tucson, Arizona, 1964. Pima County Planning Department, Neighborhood Plans. City-County Plan ning Department, Tucson, Arizona, 1964. Planning Advisory Service Information Reports, American Society of Planning Officials, Chicago, Illinois: #164 Row Housing, (962. #135 Cluster, I960. #I20 Planned Districts, 1959. #119 Building lines, 1959. # 46 Pub Iic Open Space, 1953. # 37 Minimum Lot and Building Size, !952. Pratt institute, Stuvvesant Heights: A Good Neighborhood in Need of Help, Pratt institute Planning Department, Brooklyn, New York, 1965. Reiner, Thomas A., The Place of the Ideal Community in Urban Planning. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1963. Richland and Lexington County Joint Planning Commission, Housing: An Analysis of the i960 Census, Columbus, South Carolina, 1964. Rickertt, John E. and PI chard, Jerome P., Open Space Planning and Taxa tion: A Selected Bibliography, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1965. Ring, Alfred A., and North, Nelson L., Real Estate Principles and Practices, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, i960. San Mateo Planning Department, Apartment Survey 1964, San Mateo, Cali fornia, 1964. VI !-3 Santa Clara County Planning Commission, A Plan for Parks, Recreation and Coen Space; An Element of the Master Plan. San Jose, California, 1962. Southwestern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, Land Development Guide, Waukesha, Wisconsin, 1963. Southern California Chapter, American Institute of Architects, Urban Design Committee, Land Development Controls In Hillside and Mountain Areas. Los Angeles, California, 1964. State Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Community Planning, Raleigh, North Carolina, 1964-1965: Neighborhood Analysis, Madison. North Carolina Neighborhood Analysis. City of New Bern, North Carolina Neighborhood Analysis. Farboro. North Carolina Neighborhood Analysis, Zebu Ion, North Carolina Neighborhood Analysis, Shelby, North Carolina Neighborhood Analysis. Reidsville. North Carolina Stern!ieb, George, The Garden Apartment Development: A Municipal Cost Revenue Analysis, Bureau of Economic Research, Rutgers - The University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1964. U. S. Housing and Home Finance Agency, Planned Unit Development with a Homes Association, Federal Housing Administration, Washington, D. C., 1964. U. S. Housing and Home Finance Agency, Preserving Urban Open Space. Urban Renewal Administration, Washington, D. C., 1964. United States Savings and Loan League, Human Needs in Housing. The Wenninger Foundation, Chicago, Illinois, 1964. Utilities Coordinating Committee, Standard Utilities Location. City- County Planning Department, Tucson, Arizona, 1965. Whyte, William H., Cluster Development, American Conservation Associa tion, New York, 1964. Wilner, Daniel M., et a I. The Housing Environment and Family Life: A longitudinal Study of the Effects of Housing on Morbidity and Mental Health. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland, 1962. Yonkers, New York, City Planning Board, Neighborhood Analysis; Master Plan Report, Yonkers, New York, 1964. Vi 1-4 binding by Arizona T r a in in g C e n t e r f o r t h e H a n d ic a p p e d TUCSON, a r iz .