Design Studies PortfolioA Series of Conservation Subdivision Sketch Plans Illustrating

the Growing Greener: Conservation By Design Principles

Prepared with the generous assistance of The William Penn Foundation, April 2002

This collection of design studies demon-strates the potential for conserving signifi-cant features of the natural and culturallandscape accomplished as part of residentialdevelopment at full-density (i.e. maximum yield).These sketches also demonstrate the potential ofthe conservation design approach for reducingcosts and enhancing marketability.

How These Sketch Plans EvolvedThese conservation subdivision studies illustratethe design principles behind Pennsylvania’sstatewide planning program Growing Greener:Conservation By Design. This program, created tohelp improve local development patterns, is apartnership between the Pennsylvania Depart-ment of Conservation and Natural Resources; theGovernor’s Center for Local Government Ser-vices; Natural Lands Trust, a regional land conser-vancy located in Media, Pennsylvania; and anadvisory committee comprised of officials fromstate and local agencies including the Pennsylva-nia Environmental Council; The PennsylvaniaState University Cooperative Extension, andother non-profits and the private sector. Since it’sinception in 1996, Natural Lands Trust staff andprogram partners have worked with communitiesto show them how to incorporate parks andconservation lands into the design of residentialdevelopments through a new generation ofmunicipal open space plans, zoning standards andsubdivision requirements.

Most of these designs were requested by munici-pal officials hopeful of persuading applicants tomodify their original conventional, “cookie-cutter” plans to reduce site disturbance andthereby preserve more of their properties’ charac-ter. The principal goal of those community

officials was to encourage developers to selectmore flexible, conservation-minded options intheir ordinances. It should be noted that thoseregulations were nearly always of the outdated,self-defeating kind which also allowed applicantsto achieve the same full density through standardlayouts with no open space at all(!).

Conversely, other designs were prepared at therequest of developers whose goals were to con-vince local officials to broaden the options avail-able under existing, inflexible codes so they couldcreate something more memorable, livable,

marketable, and profitable than a bland assem-blage of houselots and streets.

In the main, these design demonstrations werenot immediately successful, but they often served amore important longer-term goal of promoting theconservation design concept in the community in

which they were offered. Happily, a few of thetendered designs were actually embraced by therecipient parties and represent real success stories,but these were (almost predictably) the exceptionrather than the rule.

Part of the usefulness of this portfolio, lies inthe lessons it teaches us about the relative futilityof trying to convince developers to propose morecreative subdivisions when existing ordinancesunintentionally undercut those efforts by enablingthem to achieve full density by ignoring suchhopeful requests, and by turning a blind eye

Foreword

toward those beckoning opportunities. Until localland-use regulations are consciously structured todiscourage (or even to prohibit) chunking up theground into large lots, the “meat-cleaver ap-proach” to subdivision design will continue to bethe predominant form. Sad but true, educationand polite requests go only so far.

The Growing Greener: Conservation By Designprogram strives to convince officials administeringoutdated ordinances—those which do not yetpermit such enlightened approaches to subdivision

design—that the benefits produced by greaterflexibility (coupled with detailed standardsgoverning the quantity, quality, and configurationof the resulting open space) flow not only to theapplicant, but also to the subdivision residents andto the wider community as well.

Difficulties Encountered by OfficialsAttempting to Persuade Developers to

Modify Their PlansLocal officials generally fail to convince develop-ers to modify their original “cookie-cutter” plans.This lack of success is typically due to developersnot wishing to throw away tens of thousands of

dollars worth of engineering fees they have alreadypaid to prepare costly, highly-detailed (and so-called) “Preliminary Plans.” This obstacle can, toa considerable degree, be overcome when localofficials and developers both agree to meet early inthe design process, before the developer’s engi-neering consultants have spent large sums layingout conventional lots, streets, and utilities. Thuscan be seen the critical importance of the “SketchPlan” (or “Concept Plan”) stage of the reviewprocess—a stage regrettably missing from many

ordinances, and a stage typically not well-struc-tured in the few ordinances that do contain somesuch procedure.1

However, even before those expensive docu-ments have been prepared, a developer usually hasa specific idea of the lot size, floor plan, and housewidth he envisions. Sometimes, particularly whenthe property is zoned for densities of two or moredwellings per acre, the critical factor is the mini-mum achievable lot width, which is frequentlypre-determined by the developer’s choice of housebuilding plans. This obstacle can usually beovercome only on a longer-term basis, by showingdevelopers examples of land-conserving house

plans which enable neighborhood greens to becreated and parkland to be protected by utilizingarchitectural designs with narrower facades.Because developers typically spend years perfect-ing their house plans (as do most manufacturerswith their respective products), it understandablycan take just that long to convince local buildersit is not risky but wise to trim their house widths abit to fit comfortably on somewhat slimmer lots inorder to create greener neighborhoods with greaterlivability and therefore increased sales appeal.2

Difficulties Encountered by DevelopersAttempting to Persuade Officials to

Modify their CodesA smaller number of the designs presented hereinwere originally prepared at the request of progres-sive developers who wished to create somethingmore satisfying (and more saleable) than thestandard layout consisting of nothing more thanhouselots, streets, and drains. For extremely validreasons, the notion of proposing a layout not inaccordance with the current set of rules rarelyenters the mind of the vast majority of developers,largely because they have been thoroughly condi-tioned by rigid land-use regulations not to think“outside the box.” However, should such athought occur to a developer, he/she would weighcarefully the dollar cost of preparing an alternativeplan for which there is not a current path ofapproval, and the time-cost of waiting a year ormore while the community deliberates the issues,drafts potential new ordinance language, andbrings it to a vote, the outcome of which is veryfar from certain at the beginning of this laboriousprocess. To cover those additional costs, thedeveloper will often try to make the case for anincreased number of lots or houses, which is initself a risky gambit, for most communities will not

seriously consider adding to the number of chil-dren to be schooled or vehicle trips taken on arearoads and highways. In communities where designflexibility exists, but is tied to a Conditional Useprocess, developers typically reject that option andfollow the “by-right” route with conventionallayouts instead, for some of the same reasons(longer time, higher legal costs, and very uncer-tain outcomes).

Such proposals must generally overcome typicalpublic-sector skepticism that anything a developerwishes to do beyond the scope of the presentregulations—or requiring greater flexibility—willbenefit only the applicant and not the communityas well.

The Value of This PortfolioFor all the reasons given above, this portfolio doesnot contain a recipe collection for “quick fixes,”which occur only occasionally. Although yourcommunity might be lucky enough to turn arounda current development proposal through a re-design, the value of this document is more likelyto be longer-term.

One of the goals of this portfolio is to illustratethe opportunities that will continue to be lost,time and again, in your community as long as itsordinances continue to allow developers toachieve full-density results for conventional,“cookie-cutter” subdivisions consisting of nothingmore than houselots and streets. As readersponder those lost opportunities, many of them willhopefully be energized to bring this situation tothe attention of other residents and officials sothat the disadvantages of retaining outdatedregulations—and the advantages of improving

those dysfunctional ordinance provisions—will beopenly and fully discussed.

Officials and residents examining this collectionof conservation designs, with the accompanyingtext—describing in many cases why the suggestedre-designs were not implemented—may realizethat their community’s regulations must specifythe natural and cultural features around whichdevelopers are required to design, if applicants andsite designers are going to shift their mental gearsand begin following this greener approach.

It is hoped that after reviewing this portfolio,local decision-makers will conclude that theyshould waste no further time pursuing a “hit-or-miss” course in which they essentially beg devel-opers to select a conservation design optionwithout the underlying ordinance standards tosupport conservation design.

A basic premise of this publication is that, inorder to achieve consistent, high-quality designresults protecting an interconnected network ofopen space stretching across any community,officials must update their land-use ordinances sothat conservation design becomes the only meansthrough which subdivision applicants would beable to achieve full-density results. Such coderevisions would end years of past disappointmentsduring which those officials and their constituentshave watched helplessly as developer after devel-oper has declined to vary from his pre-conceived,conventional approach and to experiment withmore creative responses to the site’s specialfeatures and unique characteristics.

This portfolio can also help the enlighteneddeveloper who wishes to produce a neighborhoodbuilt around a central open space system—which

he realizes can improve his “bottom line” returnon investment by reducing his costs while alsoadding economic value (expressed in lot premiumsand faster sales). Because such layouts typically failto conform with the “cookie-cutter” regulationspreviously adopted by the community, developersfrequently face uphill struggles in convincing localofficials and residents that the proposed designrepresents a “win-win” situation for everyone andnot merely a one-sided benefit accruing to thedeveloper himself. This booklet’s usefulness todevelopers therefore lies in its ability to showthose “doubting Thomases” at the municipal levelthat the greater design flexibility desired by theapplicant would also produce significant, tangiblebenefits to the community as a whole.

— Randall Arendt, Senior Conservation AdvisorNatural Lands TrustApril 2002

All plans were drawn by Diane C. Rosencrance,Cartographer, Natural Lands Trust

1 For model ordinance language to correct such deficienciesin your existing codes, see Arendt, Randall. GrowingGreener: Putting Conservation into Local Plans and Ordi-nances, Washington DC: Island Press, 1999.

2 For examples of house plans that fit well onto narrower lots,see Arendt, Randall. Conservation Design for Subdivisions: APractical Guide for Creating Open Space Networks, Washing-ton DC: Island Press, 1996.

Worcester Township, Montgomery County

After seeing an early version of the GrowingGreener slide presentation at Temple Uni-versity, several supervisors from WorcesterTownship asked Natural Lands Trust staff to visit aproperty proposed for complete coverage by three-acre lots and recommend an alternative layout thatwould conserve significant open space. Their con-cern had been heightened by the fact that thisproperty adjoined not only a parcel of township land

Evansburg AreaConservation Design Illustrates the Potential toCreate Interconnected Open Space Networks

intended for future park development, but alsoabutted the Evansburg State Forest. Moreover, alimestone stream noted for its trout fishery flowedthrough the property and essentially connected thetownship land with the state forest. After visiting theproperty and evaluating the importance of thewoodland habitat (which was closely associated withthe stream valley tributaries), the design solutionpractically suggested itself. All of the forested areaswere “designed around”, in addition to reserving a“foreground meadow” in a highly visible farm field —which was an important element in conserving thecommunity’s rural character. Thepossibility of a trail linking the twopublic landholdings remains a distinctpossibility. No further action on theproperty has yet been taken by theowner who is considering severalconservation options.

0 400

200 800Feet

Conventional Plan

Conservation Design

Tract size: 90 acresNo. of lots: 21 lotsOpen space: 50%+

Edgmont Township, Delaware County

This redesign was requested by the townshipmanager, who was deeply interested inintroducing the Growing Greener principles toher community. Although the landowner consentedto this demonstration exercise, he expressed noparticular preference for a layout that would protectthe essential features of his property, stating at onepoint that he did not care what happened to theplace after he sold it. The design took advantage ofthe several hedgerows on the property, using them toseparate distinctive neighborhoods, and to separateyards from adjacent open space. However, by far themost salient aspect of the design involved its reten-tion of the original stone farmhouse and barn (bothin good structural condition), surrounded by mead-ows, pastures, and locust groves. The intention wasto create a very high-value “conservancy lot” to bepurchased by a gentleman farmer who might enclosehis property with a white board fence and bringhorses back onto the land. The principal (southern)view from the farmhouse, past the barn, was also tohave been protected, as noted on the accompanyingplan. Except for a dozen homes centered around aneighborhood green, all of the lots were situated toface onto very attractive major open space (and nineof them were also to enjoy backyard open spaceviews as well). Unfortunately, the developer simplywanted to divide the land into large suburban lots,and was not interested in discussing alternativelayouts. In the absence of any strong municipalregulations actively discouraging such land-consump-tive practices (as through the Growing Greenerdensity disincentives applied toconventional plans), communitiesremain impotent in issues involvingthe pattern of future developmentand its impact upon their diminish-ing open space and rural character.0 200

100 400Feet

Blosinski PropertyA Community Discovers That ItsLand Use Regulations Discouragethe Preferred Development Plan

Tract size: 58 acresNo. of lots: 30 lotsOpen space: 50%+

WeatherstoneSMVillage Design Respects a Township’s Conservation Lands Map

Primary Constraints

Moderate Slopes

West Vincent Township, Chester County

This large 300-acre parcel is located atLudwig’s Corner, a major intersection oftwo state highways (Routes 100 and 401)in West Vincent Township, Chester County.

This development by the Hankin Group ofExton, Pennsylvania, is important for severalreasons. First, the extensive conservation lands(totaling 195 acres, or more than 65% of the totaltract area) were laid out with reference to theTownship’s Map of Potential Conservation Lands.This map, which is a key element of the GrowingGreener conservation planning process, identifiesboth Primary Conservation Areas (unbuildablewetlands, floodplains, and steep slopes) plusconservation opportunities on significant portionsof the remaining developable acreage.

The Township map was originally created byNatural Lands Trust and Castle Valley Associates,Doylestown, PA to demonstrate the four-stepconservation design process. Weatherstone assiststhe municipality in achieving its comprehensive,long-range conservation goal of securing protec-tion of a township-wide network of open space.This open space is being used for a variety ofapproved purposes, including agricultural produc-tion, grazing, forest habitat, and both active andpassive recreation (including acreage dedicated tothe municipality). Equally important, all ofWeatherstone’s development areas are located inthose parts of the property that were indicated onthe community’s maps as appropriate for such uses.

Woodlands

Tract size: 300 acresNo. of lots: 273 lotsOpen space: 65%+

Another notable aspect of this landmarkdevelopment is its recharge of groundwatersupplies through the use of spray irrigation (fully-treated wastewater applied to conservation lands)and stormwater management techniques featuringinfiltration measures rather than employing themore conventional “catch-and-release” approachthat does little or nothing to replenish the under-lying aquifer. The project’s advanced stormwatermanagement design also filters discharges to thesensitive headwaters streams emanating on theproperty.

The plan reflects the Hankin Group’s assem-blage of a team of talented designers to carry outthe initial village concept. From a developmentperspective, Weatherstone is noteworthy forblending different but compatible land uses,including a mixture of 273 single-family andattached residential units, 240,000 sq. ft. of retailand office space, and a new branch of the countylibrary system.

This property carried a long history of contro-versy and several development scenarios were putforth over the years. Credit goes to the TownshipSupervisors who, faced with inevitable develop-ment, approved a plan that upholds high standardsfor conservation and development in their com-munity.

0 800

400 1600Feet

London Britain Township, Chester County

This design was tendered to a speculative land-owner who complained to Natural Lands Trustabout the difficulties he was experiencing witha Planning Commission he said was not impressedwith his submission, which he described as containingsubstantial open space. The drawing he subsequentlysent to the Trust for its informal review, however,missed significant opportunities to site homes withlesser impact upon the landscape and natural re-sources. In fact, its extensive street system, long drive-ways, and needless stream crossing deeply fragmentedthe resource areas and scattered the house sites acrossalmost the entire property. The alternative layout wasprepared by the Trust to show the landowner how thesame number of homes could be more sensitivelyarranged to both enjoy highly marketable views ofprotected open space and to better protect theproperty’s special features. However, by this point inhis interactions with local officials, he was unwillingto consider changes to his initial plan. Townshipofficials were pleased with the alternative layout butwere unable to influence the applicant to submit aconservation design with less sprawling lots, becausetheir existing ordinances did allow large-lot layouts,albeit with certain dimensional requirements not meton the landowner’s plan. Precisely because the origi-nal proposal did not fully comply with those existingordinances, that plan was not approved. The land-owner neither challenged the Township’s position norsubmitted a revised plan. This unsettling and unsuc-cessful experience convinced officials they needed torestructure their codes so they would be able in thefuture to actively discourage proposalswith inadequate or highly fragmentedopen space, and more effectivelypersuade applicants to follow theconservation design approach. Theyaccomplished this restructuring overthe subsequent fifteen months.

Schultz Property

0 200

100 400Feet

Landowner’sPlan

ConservationAlternative

Tract size: 55 acresNo. of lots: 22 lotsOpen space: 50%±

A Redesign Emphasizes theImportance of OrdinanceStandards for Open Space

Honey Brook Township, Chester County

The veterinarian who lived on thisproperty requested design assistancefrom Natural Lands Trust while itsstaff was helping Township officials draftimproved language for their new zoningordinance. This landowner welcomed theopportunity to create a dozen houselots onhis land in a way that would minimizevisual and environmental impacts, as wellas keeping development costs down. Thelayout was accomplished in an elegant“single-loaded” fashion (with homes onone side of the street only) to preserveopen space views both front and back frommost of the houses. Additional variety wasprovided by two crescents where roadwidths could be minimized by designatingthem as private common driveways. Thislandowner and others like him voiced theirsupport for the proposed zoning andsubdivision ordinance changes, which arecurrently undergoing adoption.

Frankel PropertyA Conservation Design Helps Build LocalSupport for Flexible Land Use Regulations

0 200

100 400Feet

Tract size: 57 acresNo. of lots: 13 lotsOpen space: 80%

Lang Property

London Britain Township, Chester County

This design was commissioned by thelandowner, who grew up on the property,just at the time Natural Lands Trust washelping the Township officials update their zoningand subdivision ordinances to include the GrowingGreener model language. Both parties viewed theproject as an opportunity to demonstrate how theconservation design approach could help theapplicant achieve his financial objectives whilealso helping the community to accomplish itsrural character and resource preservation goals.Focussing the vast majority of the houselots on theopen portions of the site has enabled most of thewoodland habitat to remain undisturbed. Al-though homes will be visible from the existingtownship roads, they are carefully oriented topresent their most attractive faces toward the

public viewshed, across “foreground meadows”,rather than displaying their less attractive

backsides (with decks and sliding glassdoors). Two other noteworthy design

features are the preservation of theneighborhood sledding hill andthe substitution of a “loop lane”with a central landscaped greeninstead of a standard cul-de-sac.

0 200

100 400Feet

A Community’s New Growing Greener Ordinances Permit aLandowner to Preserve the Woods and Neighborhood Sledding Hill

Tract size: 84 acresNo. of lots: 38 lotsOpen space: 69%

SleddingHill

Woodland Preserve

WoodlandPreserve

Meadow

Conewago Township, Adams County

This design was commissioned by a realtor/developer who recognized he neededassistance in devising a plan that wouldachieve his goal of creating a distinctive neighbor-hood which would corner the local market forhomes built in a neighborhood with a specialsense of community. With water and sewer avail-ability, lot sizes could easily be reduced to thevillage scale, enabling the development “foot-print” to be about one-quarter of what it wouldotherwise have been. In addition to conservingvalue-adding open space that will increase market-ability and boost sales, this approach cuts streetconstruction and site grading costs by more than

with officials recognizing that fire access is easilyachieved by pulling hoses across the modest openspace from the street, or through rear access drives(which most developments fail to provide at all).

For further information about this designapproach, see Arendt, Randall. Crossroads,Hamlet, Village, Town: Design Characteris-tics of Traditional Neighborhoods, Old andNew. Chicago: American PlanningAssociation, Planning Advisory ServiceReport No. 487/488, 1999.

0 200

100 400Feet

half. (In another similarly-sized development ofvillage lots, the author and site designer slashedgrading costs by more than 80% simply by design-ing with the terrain and scraping only half of theland area.) The major loop road serving thisdevelopment is largely “single-loaded” (homes onone side only) to maintain the open feel of theproperty, which is critical during the sales phase.The original brick farmhouse is sited to form“terminal vistas” from three different directions,and the strategic use of back lanes (alleys) enables16 homes to front directly onto neighborhoodgreens with no street frontage per se. Very progres-sive ordinances permit such design innovations,

Sheaffer PropertyA Village Design with Value-AddingOpen Space

Tract size: 93 acresNo. of lots: 78 lotsOpen space: 65%

Oxfo

rd R

oad

Future Bikeway

Meadow

GreenwayCorridor

Park

Getz Property Conservation Design within an Urban Growth Boundary

Tract size: 90 acresNo. of lots: 274 lotsOpen space: 42%

Old

Harrisb

urg

Pike

Cultural Center

Stream Valley Park

Community Center

VillageSquare

East Hempfield Township, Lancaster County

The non-profit Community BuildingPartnership designed this age-restrictedcommunity to demonstrate conservationprinciples within an Urban Growth Boundary.Much credit goes out to the local officials who setthe tone by adopting creative ordinances thatwelcomed higher building densities on landdesignated for more intensive use in a communitywhere more than half of the township has beenzoned exclusively for agriculture. Within thisfully-serviced urban context, it is appropriate forthe open space percentages (about 25% net, and40% gross) to be somewhat less than could beeasily achieved in lower density, rural situations.In addition to the floodplain woodlands lining the

stream valley which bisects this property, thislayout retains nearly all of the existing trees,including a significant hedgerow alongside theentrance road, and two large specimen treesaround which neighborhood greens were drawn.Altogether, seven neighborhood commons serveas focal points for the surrounding homes, andinternal greenway paths link homes to the 18-acrestream valley park, which itself will ultimatelyconnect with the Township’s proposed greenspacenetwork. An innovative stormwater infiltration

system designed by the Center for WatershedProtection, Ellicott City, MD, recharges water intothe aquifer in a series of “green alleys” and in abioretention area adjacent to the floodplain.Although final engineering resulted in a fewvariations to this plan, the concept remains intactand construction will commence in 2002.

Bioretention Area

0 200

100 400Feet

Natural Lands Trust is a nonprofit conservancy pro-tecting land in communities throughout the greaterPhiladelphia region. Since our founding we have helpedprotect more than 105,000 acres of open space. Today, wecontinue to build on that legacy by permanently protect-ing many more acres every year. We currently own andmanage 45 nature preserves — over 13,000 acres of specialplaces that are set aside for all time.

If you appreciate the value of open and natural landsand are concerned about the future of your community,please consider joining Natural Lands Trust as a member.We depend on support from people just like you tocontinue our important conservation mission. For moreinformation about Natural Lands Trust or to make acontribution, visit our web site at www.natlands.org, callBrenda Engstrand at 610-353-5587, or send her an email atmembers@natlands.org. Thank you.

Hildacy Farm1031 Palmers Mill Road

Media, PA 19063

tel: 610-353-5587 ~ fax: 610-353-0517info@natlands.org ~ www.natlands.org

© Natural Lands Trust, Inc. 2002