4.0. PCSR 02-08-2005
.
.
.
ITEM # 4.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission
Scott Horllcker, Senior Plann~'
February 8, 2005
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Form Based Zoning
Overview
Staff has been researching form based zoning. Attached is some background information
concerning this topic. If you would like to view examples of form based codes, the
Columbia Pike Form Based Code can be viewed at \v"ww.columbiapikepartnership.com and
the Central Hercules Plan can be viewed at \vww.hercules-plan.org. Please review and save
this information. We will be discussing form based zoning, and the possibility of
implementing it in the Old Town area north of the railroad tracks, at a future workshop.
.
.
.
r~;rm-Based Zoning
Overview
Sessions
Workshops
Special Events
Hot Topics
People
_Saturday i Sunday I
I VVednesday
Tuesday,
27, 2004
Meqan Lewis, AlCP
AP4 Senior Research
Nany of the places thought of as are areas that developed prior to the
adoption of Euclidean zoning regulations. These places -" representative examples
are Chicago's Loop District and San Francisco --. are the products of development
that occurred based on on physical form rather than on controlling
uses.
VVhile the term "form-based codes" is around 11/2 years old, the concept of basing
regulation on form has been around for a while, under a variety of names -
pelformance zoning and district-based zoning being among the "ancestors" of form-
based zoning.
In contrast to conventional zoning codes, form-based codes are highly illustrated
and involve a significant level of A panel of practitioners
discussed how form-based zoning codes seek to recapture a development pattern
that focuses on "form" before "function,"
Because they separate uses into distinct districts, conventional zoning regulations
often make it difficult to create mixed-use communities, a goal many planners
pursue, This separation has also resulted in many instances in disconnecting
planning and urban design, By presenting the principles and concepts in an
illustrated form, form..based codes work to reconnect tllese two areas and define a
desirable form for an area,
In addition to having a direct impact on shaping form, form-based codes involve a
much more extensive process than the development of a
conventional code does, The charrette process is the mechanism for
community and input. The is to have citizens be fully and
involved in the process, so that the have ownership over it. It also re-
emphasizes the focus on form of a place over the specific uses,
VVhiie examples of Sonoma! Hercules, and Petaiuma, California, were presented as
places that have adopted form-based codes, rural areas have also embraced these
codes. A prime exampie Is Woodford Country, Kentucky, where a proposed Wa!-Nart
spurred the community to undertake a charrette process and adopt a form-based
code. In addition, "rust-belt" cities like Syracuse, New York; Saratoga Springs, Nevv
and Providence, Rhode Island, have also form-based codes,
Paul Crawford, FAlC?, of Cravvford Mu!tarl &. Clark presented the following principles
for form-based codes:
'* Work from a defining pattern! such as the Transect or a system of
districts, and corridors
'* De-emphasize land use in favor of building form and typology
'* E:mphasize mixed uses and mixed use housing
'* Focus on the streetscape and the realm
* Conduct a public participation process
To create a form-based code, Crawford suggested a five-step approach:
http://www.planning.org/conferencecoverage/2004/tuesday/formbased.htm
Page 1 of2
1/3/2005
.
.
.
r~.:mn-Based Zoning
Page 2 of2
$ Inventory the existing conditions of the place: It is important to have a deep
understanding of the existing conditions of the place, such as the street
types, and block and building types, to understand appropriate form and
massing of buildings.
$ Identify a set of organizing principles for the spatial structure: This can be
based on concepts such as:
'iI The neighborhood, district, and corridor; .
3 The. Transect, which defines intensity of activity based on the transect zone
that applies
3 Street-system-based regulatory plan
<<I Special purpose zones
<10 Define urban design standards: for example, establishing commercial street
design guidelines, with the goal of "sbaping the publiC space of the street."
& Define architectural standards; for example, building types and frontage
types
<10 Illustrate the standards, to make it easier for those who will be implementing
the code.
Bill Dennis of IViouie & Polyzoides discussed how New Urbanism is essentially the way
we used to develop towns, but conventional zoning has precluded that. He made the
point that all development pians should check to see how it works for a child,
because "a neighborhood is a child's world."
Geoffrey Ferrell of Geoffrey Ferrell Associates illustrated how the zoning and iand-
use maps do not translate Into what form appears on the ground. In addition, design
guidelines do not always capture the vitality of tile community that they are trying
to achieve. His observation is that the there are three elements to defining a place:
form, use/density,. and management. In many communities, use/denSity is the
primary emphasis when defining a place, followed by management, with farm
treated very lightly. The form-based code approach looks to .focus the most
emphasis on form, followed by management, with use/denSity having the lightest
emphasis. This does not mean that use and density are not important; rather, they
are not the driving factors in defining a place.
His primary advice was to keep the code simple - the downfall of many zoning
ordinances has been their attempt to be overtly inclusive of all possible uses.
However, form-based codes do address use types that are appropriate toa district;
tables describing the uses associated with an area are often included in the code.
@Copyrigl1t 2004 APA All Rights Reserved
http://www.planning.org/conferencecoverage/2004/tuesday/formbased.htm
1/3/2005
.
.
.
New Urbanist Codes
Overview
Sessions
Workshops
Special Events
Hot Topics
People
2/3/2005
Page 1 of2
Plalming
_Saturday I Sunday I Monday I Tuesday I Wednesday
New
Sunday, Aprii 25, 2004
By Lynn Ross
APA Research Associate
New Urbanist Codes, the second session of Sunday's Bettman Symposium, offered a
variety of perspectives on this type of regulation to a large and engaged audience.
Moderator Dwight Merriam began with a brief session overview and discussion of the
different ways to regulate. Merriam noted that land use regulation generally falls
into three categories:
@ Codes the regulate the physical form
\II! Codes that regulate land use and density
\II! Codes that regulate operation and daily use
New urbanist codes operate under a very simpie general principie: Regulate the
physical form and everything else (land use, density, operation, and use) will
fall in line. As more communities adopt new urbanist or form-based regulations,
questions are raised regarding the legality and practicality of these codes. What
does it mean to have a form-based code? What are the legal issues with this type of
regulation? How does the form-based code measure up to traditional zoning? These
three important questions were addressed with the expertise of three leaders in the
field: Victor Dover of Dover, Kohl & Partners Town Planning; Bob Sitkowski of
Robinson & Cole; and Chris Duerkson of Clarion Associates.
Victor Dover, AICP, addressed the first key question, Dover pointed out that new
urbanist or form-based codes are not a new concept - some of the earliest plans
ever created feature the same principles promoted by these regulations. Form-based
regulations code by building type, street type, or neighborhood sub-area/transect
zone. These codes are generally composed of four key elements:
1. A Regulating Pian
2. Urban Standards
3. Architectural Standards (optional)
4. Street Standards
Form-based codes can be applied for a variety of purposes, from fixing setbacks and
creating mixed use to overlay plans to citywide implementation. Regardless of
application, all form-based codes begin with a physical vision of what the community
considers ideal. This vision is then heavily illustrated in the code itself.
Attorney, architect and planner Robert Sitkowski followed Dover with a discussion of
the legal aspects of new urbanist codes, Sitkowski outlined what he terms "the
transect" of form-based coding: authority, prescription, and delegation.
Authority_ The ability to regulate form dates back to the 1926
Standard State Zoning Enabling Act. Despite the focus on form,
Sltkowski noted that form-based codes cannot abandon the regulation
of uses. Doing so would pit these codes directly against current
federal laws induding RLUIPA and Fair Housing, which speCifically
.
.
.
New Urbanist Codes
Page 2 of2
address uses.
Prescription. New urbanist codes are intended to be prescriptive.
However, prescription can be a double-edged sword. Too much
prescription may lead to an infringement on property rights. Too little
prescription creates the "vagueness trap," according to Sitkowski. The
vagueness trap occurs when regulations are not specific enough and
lead to arbitrary decision making.
Delegation. How is the form-based code going to be implemented
accurately and fairly? In order to avoid the vagueness trap, Sitkowski
suggests hiring a town architect. The town architect is an urban
designer familiar with new urbanism and is responsible for ensuring
the correct implementation of the form-based code.
Final speaker Christopher Duerkson compared the form-based code to traditional
Euclidean zoning and the re-emerging unified development code. Traditional
Euclidean zoning is proscriptive in that it regulates what you cannot do in a certain
area. Uses are separated, rigid dimensional standards are in place and there are
limited development standards. Traditional zoning, although not always user-
friendly, is easy to understand because the regulations are predictable.
The form-based code, including the Duany-developed Smart Code model, is
prescriptive. These codes feature reduced dimensional standards, use the transect
instead of zoning districts, and rely heavily on tables and illustrations. Duerkson
feels this type of code is not comprehensive, too staff intensive, not user-friendly
and has a weak process.
The modern unified development code, on the other hand, consolidates procedures,
is based on the comprehensive plan, simplifies zoning districts and is well illustrated.
This type of code is time-consuming to develop and is considered by some to be
reactive in nature. However, the modem UDC is user friendly and offers
predictability with some flexibility. The bottom-line for Duerkson is to be wary of
model codes such as the Smart Code. Instead, focus on creating a hybrid of the
form-based code and the unified development code.
Due to the large session attendance and limited timeframe, the speakers were able
to entertain only a few questions from the audience. Audience members were asked
to submit questions to the moderator, who will compile answers and post the
responses on the APA website soon.
@Copyright 2004 APA All Rights Reserved
2/3/2005
.
Form-Based Development Codes
By David Rouse, A/CP, and Nancy Zobl, AICP
New development codes are emerging that focus on regulating physical form as an
alternative to conventional Euclidean zoning.
.
The conventional zoning model in use through-
out the United States is based on the separa-
tion of residential, commercial, and industrial
uses, density controls, and proscriptive stan-
dards for key development attributes (e.g.,
building setbacks and heights). The historical
antecedents of this model include the 1926
Supreme Court decision in the case of Village of
Euclid vs. Ambler Realty Co., which legitimized
the separation of uses to protect the public
health, safety, and welfare, and the 1916 New
York City zoning code, which established
dimensional requirements to permit light and
air and prevent overcrowding. Published in the
1920S, the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act
was ultimately adopted by all so states. It is still
the basic model used by jurisdictions to regu-
late development, although many features have
been added to local codes over the years to
address emerging issues (e.g., overlay districts
and environmental performance standards).
In recent decades, dissatisfaction with
the perceived effects of conventional zoning
on urban and suburban landscapes has
grown among citizens and practitioners.
While a variety of factors have worked
together to promote development trends,
such as the loss of traditional urban form
and proliferation of commercial strip devel-
opment and "cookie cutter" subdivisions,
zoning has been identified as a primary cul-
prit. On the one hand, the separation of
uses and limits on density have contributed
to excessive consumption of land (suburban
sprawl). On the other, zoning's lack of a
positive prescription for physical form has
facilitated the intrus.ion of incompatible
development types into traditional urban
neighborhoods and districts.
.
In reaction to these trends, new, form-
based approaches to development regulation
are being proposed as alternatives to conven-
tional zoning. These approaches can be chanic-
terized as prescriptive or contextual in nature.
Prescriptive approaches seek to codify the phys-
ical parameters of development based upon a
normative position on ideal urban form (typi-
cally derived from the pre-World War II model of
traditional development). Contextual
approaches, on the other hand, look to the
characteristics of the surrounding environment
for guidance in regulating the physical form of
new development. Collectively, these
approaches are referred to as form-based devel-
opment codes. A basic premise of form-based
development codes is that the regulation of
physical form (not use) is the key to producing a
better built environment.
The following text describes the basic
features of three different types of form-based
development codes: Form-Based Coding,
Form District Zoning, and the SmartCode. For
each type, a series of questions is posed
regarding its application in regulations
adopted by local jurisdictions, based upon a
selected case study. These questions are:
. How comprehensive is its application?
Does it address the entire community or
discrete areas within the community? Does
it replace or supplement conventional zon-
ing systems?
. How does it deal with the regulation of use,
the focus of conventional zoning?
. How is it working in practice?
Form-based development codes are an
emerging concept implemented by a small
but increasing number of jurisdictions to
date. Because those codes are relatively
new, practical experience in administering
them is limited. As interest in alternatives
to conventional zoning continues to grow,
more communities will implement form-
based regulatory approaches. This article
describes the initial experiences of some of
these communities, with !he proviso that
the advantages and disadvantages of dif-
ferent approaches will become clearer as
they are further tested in practice~
FORM-BASED CODING
Form-based coding emerged out of the New
Urbanist movement of the late 1980S and
early 1990s. New Urbanism is based on the
concept of walk able neighborhoods and small
towns, with the compact, mixed-use develop-
ment patterns of the pre-World War II era as
models. Form-based coding is a regulatory
approach designed to shape the physical
form of development while setting only broad
parameters for use. According to Peter Katz,
former director of the Congress for the New
Urbanism and a proponent of this approach,
form-based codes focus on what is desirable
rather than what is forbidden, the underlying
principles having their foundation in a vision
or plan developed through community work-
shops and charrettes. Regulatory standards
prescribe physical elements, such as building
height, setbacks, lot size, parking location,
etc., to achieve quality design in context with
surrounding areas. They also seek to integrate
private development with the public realm,
typically addressing the character of civic
buildings, public streets, and civic spaces.
In theory, form-based coding is a com-
prehensive, communitywide approach
designed to achieve better physical devel-
ZONINGPRACTICE 05.04
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 2
.
AS K TH E AUTH 0 R JOIN US ONLINE!
During June 21-July 2, go online to participate in our "Ask the Author" forum, an interactive
feature of Zoning Practice. David Rouse, A/CP, and Nancy lobi, A/CP, will be available to answer
questions about this article. Go to the APA website at www.planning.org and follow the links
to the Ask the Author section. From there, just submit your questions about the article using
an e-mail link. The authors will reply, posting the answers cumulatively on the website for the
benefit of all subscribers. This feature will be available for selected issues of Zoning Practice
at announced times. After each online discussion is closed, the answers will be saved in an
online archive available through the APA Zoning Practice web pages.
.
opment patterns throughout a city or
region. In practice, current applications are
limited to specified geographic areas due
to the newness of the concept, the inten-
sive effort needed to develop a form-based
code, and political environments that are
slow to accept change. California communi-
ties have been among the first to adopt the
concept, primarily as an implementation
mechanism for the specific plan, a provi-
sion in the state code authorizing legisla-
tively adopted development plans for geo-
graphic subareas of a community. Two
notable examples include the Pleasant Hill
BART ~tation Form Based Code in Contra
Costa"County, California, and the Regulating
Plan for the Central Hercules Plan in
Hercules, California.
Elsewhere in the country, a number of
communities are developing or adopting
form-based codes (e.g., Iowa City, Iowa,
Woodford County, Kentucky, and Chicago).
One recent example is Arlington County,
Virginia, which has implemented a form-
based code to revitalize Columbia Pike, an
older commercial corridor.
Special conditions:
within 100 feet of Main Street
required building line; Wakefield
to Four-Mile Run, maximum
~ four stories
-g Maximum
~ six stories-"'"
<(
.
~ Minimum""""
>- three stories
i
'"
~
8
~
~
The Columbia Pike Initiative is a long-
range economic development vision to create
a vibrant commercial corridor and urban center
along a 3.5-mile section of Columbia Pike. The
Pike had experienced little development activ-
ity in the past 40 years, despite its location in
the high-growth Capital Area. The Columbia
Pike Master Plan was adopted in 2002 after
numerous public charrettes. The subsequent
Columbia Pike Special Revitalization District
Form-Based Code was prepared by Geoffrey
Ferrell Associates (as subconsultants to Dover,
Kohl & Partners) and adopted in February
2003. This code was designed to implement
the vision of the Columbia Pike "Initiative,
including creation of a pedestrian-oriented,
mixed-use district with a variety of retail, resi-
dential, and office uses.
The new code contains three main com-
ponents: the regulating plan, building enve-
lope standards, and architectural and
streetscape standards. Analogous to a zoning
map but much more detailed in its prescrip-
tion of physical form, the regulating plan iden-
tifies the building envelope standards to be
applied to specific properties, which are
coded by their street frontage (Main Street,
Avenue, Local, and Neighborhood). The build-
ing envelope standards establish basic param-
About the Authors
David Rouse, AICP, is a Senior Associate with
Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC (WRT). Nancy
Zobl, AICP, is a planner with WRT.
eters for building form, including height, set-
backs, and fenestration. They also set broad
parameters for mixed uses allowed on the first
and upper floors, except that the neighbor-
hood frontage sites are primarily restricted to
residential uses with some allowances for
home offices.
The form-based code is applied as an
overlay option to the existing zoning districts.
" Developers are provided a variety of incen-
tives to select this option, including an expe-
dited permitting process for developments of
40,000 square feet or less (larger develop-
ments are subject to special exception
review), financial incentives such as modified
tax increment financing and rehabilitation tax
credits, and relaxed parking requirements.
According.to Richard Tucker, county plan-
ner for the Columbia Pike Initiative, the develop-
ment community has expressed considerable
interest in the form-based code since its adop-
tion. Developers, architects, and members of
the Home Builders Association have praised the
clarity of the code and the streamlined review
process. Several pending mixed-use develop-
ment proposals are the direct result ofthe form-
based code. Citizens also support the new
code, having been directly involved in shaping it
through several design charrettes.
Despite the appar-
ent initial successes,
Tucker notes some chal-
lenges related to the
newness of the code.
Issues tend to arise as
proposals are submit-
ted by developers who
have problems with the
standards of the code,
Street walls required on
alley and common lot lines;
seven feet maximum height
The Columbia Pike Revitalization Initiative: Illustrates the vision for change along the 3.s-mile corridor under the
Columbia Pike Revitalization District Form-Based Code.
ZONINGPRACTICE 05.04
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 3
.
&7
~
'"
j
c
~
~
.
including build-to lines, parking standards,
and standard prototypes that vary from the
prescribed physical form. The county intends
to reevaluate the code to address some of
these issues before applying the form-based
approach to other areas.
FORM DISTRICT ZONING
.
Form districts emerged as a concept in the
Cornerstone 2020 Comprehensive Plan for
Louisville and Jefferson County, Kentucky (devel-
oped in the mid-1990S and adopted in 2000).
The Cornerstone 2020 planning process
revealed a general dissatisfaction with conven-
tional regulations and practices that result in
the separation of uses, sprawling development
patterns, and the imposition of suburban forms
in traditional neighborhoods. A Community
Form Committee was charged with seeking new
ways of addressing future development pat-
terns, recognizing the need for increased diver-
sity, certainty, and flexibility in the regulatory
process. The resulting form district concept
established 11 districts that prescribe desired
development patterns in context with the sur-
rounding environment, from the downtown
urban core to traditional neighborhood and sub-
urban marketplace (commercial) districts.
To implement this concept in a politically
acceptable manner, a new Land Development
Code was developed as a "two-tiered"
approach. This approach combines the use
regulations of the preexisting 39 zoning dis-
tricts with form districts that regulate density
and intensity and prescribe contextual design
standards, such as build-to lines based upon
the established development pattern. All
dimensional regulations and standards were
moved from the zoning districts to the form
districts. Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC and
Clarion Associates were consultants to
Louisville and Jefferson County in the develop-
ment of the form districts.
Adopted by Louisville Metro and the
cities of Hurstbourne and Lyndon, the new
Land Development Code took effect in March
2003. Several other jurisdictions in Jefferson
County are in the process of adopting the new
code. The application of the form districts on
a regional basis is a departure from the nor-
niai application of form-based coding to spe-
cific geographic areas within a community.
However, existing use
and density regula-
tions were maintained
to minimize the politi-
cal issues inherent in
rezoning the entire
region.
According to
Louisville Metro plan-
ning and design staff,
the initial reaction of
developers to the
adopted form district
regulations has varied.
One developer of a
small shopping center
in the neighborhood
form district, who was
initially skeptical of the
new code, has since
incorporated the recom-
mendations of the
urban design staff,
including buildings
arrayed around a
pedestrian-scale central
parking area that func-
tions as a "town
square." Other devel-
opers have embraced the form district concept
as a progressive option that allows flexibility for
innovative design. Overall, the development
community and residents seem to prefer the
form district concept because it establishes a
sense of predictability in design that is not
overly restrictive, but promotes compatibility
with adjacent development.
While asserting that form district zoning
is a change in a positive direction, the
Louisville Metro staff acknowledges the learn-
ing curve required for its implementation. As a
new process for all involved, the impacts are
not yet fully measurable and a number of
issues have been raised regarding the appli-
cation of the form district design standards to
site-specific conditions. To address these
issues, revisions to the regulations will be
made over the next year. At this time,
Louisville Metro is about two years away from
considering a transition froll) the two-tiered
approach to a more complete integration of
conventional zoning with the form districts.
Nevertheless, according to the planning and
'"
~
.;;
,
~
~.
~
;;-
)>
9-
~
ZONINGPRACTICE 05.04
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 4
.
design director, Charles Cash, Louisville Metro
is looking towards larger future development
goals that conventional zoning may not sup-
port.
.
THE SMARTCODE
The SmartCode has its foundation in the con-
cept of transect planning, an approach to the
implementation of New Urbanist and Smart
Growth principles advocated by Andres Duany
and Emily Talen. Drawing on ecological analo-
gies, transect planning establishes a series of
environments - called "ecozones" - on a con-
tinuum from rural to urban. These ecozones
are distinguished by varying density and char-
acter of the built environment. The transect
incorporates the New Urbanist principles of
mixed land uses, the importance of public
space, and pedestrian accessibility through-
out the continuum. These principles are
expressed at different scales and in different
forms depending upon location on the tran-
sect (e.g., hamlet, village, and downtown).
As opposed to the normal process of writ-
ing a comprehensive plan and then modifying
zoning and development regulations to fit it,
transect planning views the plan and the code
as inseparable. The transect zone system has
been cosJed by Duany Plater-Zyberk and
Company and copyrighted as the "SmartCode."
The SmartCode is made available to com-
munities to purchase as a license, establishing
a regulatory template to build upon and tailor
to their individual circumstances. The tem-
plate includes general parameters for transect
zones, ranging from T-1 (the "Natural Zone") to
T-6 (the "Urban Core Zone"). Sample design
standards, including building height, frontage,
intensity of uses, and street design, are pro-
vided for each transect zone.
The theory behind the SmartCode is to
encompass the spectrum of landscapes within
an entire community or region. In practice,
however, similar to the form-based codes that
have been adopted, the initial application of
the SmartCode has been to distinct areas
within a community. Nashville and Davidson
County, Tennessee, has incorporated the tran-
sect planning concept on a regional basis into
its comprehensive plan and is beginning to
translate the concept to the zoning regulations
on a neighborhood or subarea basis.
The city of Saratoga Springs, New York,
was one of the first communities to adopt the
SmartCode to implement comprehensive plan
principles, including enhanced urban infill in the
downtown core as an alternative to the sprawl-
ing development patterns facilitat~d by conven-
tional zoning. The transect model was applied
as a new approach to concentrate development
in the Downtown District,
which was one of the
seven special develop-
ment areas identified in
the comprehensive plan.
The Downtown District was
divided into three urban
transect categories that
replaced the existing zon-
ing districts: the Urban
Neighborhood ([-4),
Neighborhood Center
([-5), and Urban Core ([-6).
Design standards
were established for set-
backs, height, parking
location, street design,
fa{:ade treatments, and
creation of a public
realm. The transect zones
regulate use in a limited
capacity to encourage
mixed-use development.
.
Any use is allowed in the T-6 zone and each
new use proposed in the T-4 and T-5 zones
requires a special use permit with a flexible
review process.
According to city planner Geoffrey
Bornemann, several new mixed-use develop-
ments have been proposed in the city since
adoption of the code. Whether this develop-
ment interest can be attributed to the code is
not certain since there is already a strong real
estate market in Saratoga Springs. However,
the flexibility of the new code is attracting
developers who are responsive to more inno-
vative design practices. More traditional ,
developers, who were at first skeptical, are
also starting to embrace the new code.
Saratoga/Springs is already seeing posi-
tive results from the SmartCode but is still
about two to three years away from replacing
all existing zoning districts with the transect
zones. The city is planning to extend the con-
cept to residential neighborhoods next to
incorporate more mixed use.
CONCLUSION
The general intent of form-based develop-
ment codes is to replace the conventional
Euclidean zoning model with regulations that
shape the form of development across the
different landscapes within a community or
region. At this time, communities that have
adopted form-based coding and the
SmartCode have taken an incremental regula-
tory approach by addressing specific geo-
graphic areas, typically beginning with the
urban core. Further experience is required to
determine the potential for expansion to
other parts of the community, although the
SmartCode provides a more complete system
that addresses suburban and rural as well as
urban contexts. Louisville Metro appears to
be the first jurisdiction to adopt the concept
on a regional scale through the form districts.
Based on the experience to date, the issues
inherent in applying generalized design stan-
dards to site-specific conditions and expecta-
tions is one key challenge for the regional
application of form-based development
codes.
The status of conventional zoning as the
accepted paradigm for regulating development
presents another challenge for form-based
development codes. Saratoga Springs is the
ZONING PRACTICE 05.04
AMERICAN PLANNING AssoclArloN I page 5
.
.
only one of the three communities discussed
above that has effectively replaced existing zon-
ing (at least within a specified area) through the
SmartCode. Arlington County applies the form-
based code as an overlay option to the existing
code while Louisville Metro has retained the
existing zoning districts to regulate use and
density, shifting design standards to the form
districts. In general, form-based codes regulate
use but are less proscriptive than conventional
zoning, typically encouraging mixed uses and
housing types. Again, the experience to date
suggests that replacement of conventional zon-
ing with form-based systems will be an incre-
mental process as the concepts are further
tested in practice and political acceptance
grows. "Hybrid" codes that integrate aspects of
form-based and conventional approaches are
likely to be com mOil responses.
Overall, representatives of each of the
case study communities describe positive
outcomes from their limited experience with
the form-based development codes, including
increased urban infill development and some
higher-quality site and building design pro-
posals. However, as with any new concept,
they also acknowledge some issues, primarily
the need for adjustments to address unfore-
seen, site-specific circumstances.
The application of form-based develop-
ment codes is new, and the few communities
that have adopted various forms of these codes
have done so in the last year or two. Therefore,
it is not yet possible to provide a definitive
account of the comparative benefits and detri-
ments of different approaches, or overall suc-
cess of these approaches as an alternative to
conventional zoning. A follow-up evaluation of
the experience of these and other communities
in several years is needed to provide a more
conclusive assessment of the success of form-
based development codes in practice.
The authors would like to thank the following indi-
viduals for sharing their experiences with form-
based development codes: R. Wayne Bennett,
Context Town Planning (formerly Director of the
Louisville/Jefferson County Division of Planning and
Development Services); Geoffrey Bornemann, City
Planner, City of Saratoga Springs; Deborah Bilitski,
Esquire, Jefferson County Attorney's Office; Charles
Cash, Director, Louisville Metro Planning and Design
Services; David Hulefeld, Assistant Director,
Louisville Metro Planning and Design Services;
.
REFERENCES
- Duany, Andres, and Emily Talen, "Transect Planning," Journal of the American Planning
Association, Vol. 68, NO.3, Summer 2002.
- Freund, Adrian P., "FORM, Character and Context in Jefferson County, Kentucky," APA San
Diego Conference Proceedings, 1997.
- Katz, Peter, "New Approaches to Development Regulation: Draft Introduction," The
Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy and the AmeriCan Planning
Association, January 2003.
- Parfrey, Eric, "Duany, New Urbanists, and 'Form-Based' Zoning Dominate State APA
Conference," Planners Tabloid, Sacramento Valley Section, California Chapter, American
Planning Association, January 2004.
- Peirce, Neil, "Zoning: Ready to Be Reformed?" The Washington Post Writers Group, February
2, 2003.
- Talen, Emily, "Help for Urban Planning: The Transect Strategy," Journal of Urban Design,
Vol. 7, NO.3, October 2002.
Geoffrey Ferrell, Geoffrey Ferrell Associates LLC; Ann
Hammond, Assistant Executive Director,
Nashville/Davidson County Planning Commission;
and Richard Tucker, Planner, Arlington County
Planning Commission. _
II NEWS BRIEFS
ILLINOIS COMMUNITIES LIMIT BANK
BRANCHES AND NON RETAIL USES IN RETAIL
DISTRICTS
By Rebecca Retzlaff, AICP
Responding to concems over the potential loss
of sales taxes and pedestrian activity in com-
mercial districts, several suburban Chicago com-
munities recently issued temporary moratoriums
on development of nonretail uses and financial
institutions in central business districts.
The cities of Highland Park, Long Grove,
Batavia, Libertyville, Lake Forest, Hinsdale, and
Buffalo Grove, Illinois, have each passed or are
considering passing moratoriums that restrict
development of nonretail uses in their down-
town districts, in order to gain time to figure out
how to deal with their negative impacts.
Highland Park passed a 130-day morato-
rium on new permits for street-level business
and personal services, office, professional,
communications, recreational, educational, and
financial uses in its central business district, in
orderto consider limiting non retail uses in the
district. The moratorium was passed because of
concerns that development of nonretail uses in
the central business district would jeopardize
funding for pubic works, infrastructure, parking,
and streetscape improvements to the area. All
these improvements have b~~n substantially
funded by sales tax revenuegenerated by retail
uses. Pedestrian activity and the quality of the
downtown business mix are also concems.
Highland Park analyzed land use in the
business district and found that uses not gener-
ating sales taxes account for 30 percent of the
total first-floor uses in the business district, and
financial institutions represent 12 percent of
those uses. However, when looking at the
actual square footage of the first-floor space
occupied by those uses, nonretail uses occu-
pied 34 percent of the district's square footage,
and financial institutions used 67 percent of
that portion. The analysis also found that the
median linear building frontage for uses gener-
ating sales tax in the district is 40 feet, whereas
it is 37 feet for those not generating sales tax,
and 200 feet for financial institutions, which
often locate in prime comer storefronts.
Highland Park is now considering the
creation of an overlay district on the major
pedestrian-oriented streets in the business
district. According to planning technician Ben
Carlisle, the purpose of the overlay zone is "to
limit the impact of non-sales-tax-generating
uses on our core pedestrian streets." Carlisle
says that the main issues that concerned the
city were the impact of nonretail uses on sales
taxes, pedestrian traffic, and the city's goals
for maintaining its retail core.
Long Grove adopted a 90-day morato-
rium in February 2004 for new nonretail uses
in its business districts, following the comple-
ZONING PRACTICE 05.04
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 6
The economic health and harmonious evolution of neighborhoods, districts, and corridors can
be improved through graphic urban design codes that serve as predictable guides for change.
Urban codes that regulate the design of buildings
. and streetsihave been in existence since the archi-
,'tectVitruvius transcribed them in ancient Rome. Later,
.' these practices were adopted by Renaissance Italy
, when architects such as Palladio published their hand-
books of building form and design. The first recorded
use of public design guidelines was
in Siena, Italy, in the 13th century,
when elected official& sat in judg-
ment upon buildings that were to
line that city's streets and great pub-
lic piazza.
In North America, our development
. regulations date to the Law of the
Indes set forth by King Felipe II of
. Spain on July 13, 1573. Their plir-
pose was set forth as follows: "That
. in- qrder that the discoveries and new
. settlements and pacification of the land
and provinceS;. that are to be discovered,
settled, and pacified in the Indies be
done with greater facility and in accor-
dance with the service to God Our
Lord, and for the welfare of the
natives, among other things, we have
prepared the following ordinances. "
- Charter for the New Urbanism
Fortunately, within the past two decades, progress is
slowly emerging in this field. Beginning with
"Performance Zoning" in the early 1980's, Zoning
Ordinances are becoming more sophisticated in the
requirements for new construction.
t> ~.
//~ ,~
.....~../~~~ Or. I..'~
.f<(/ '-[~" ,.7
{',...- . ,,~/ iu
~W _Dft. . '-~~ Isa
1'...kiJlj( LuIS ."Ilea. uf Btllk1iDg
Most recently, a new model has
emerged known as "Design'-Based
Codes" or "Form-Based Codes."
This evolution in the precision of
community regulations have been
largely attributed to the:rise of New
Urbanism, a movement that has
sought to improve the quality of
the human habitat through design.
Modem design-based codes seek to
prescribe the physical design of
buildings and infrastructure while
permitting a greater flexibility in
the use and activity. These codes
recognize that many of our most
cherished neighborhoods and
downtownsw~econstructeddu~
ing a period before zoning. As such,
these areas have been much more
adaptable to changes in demo-
graphies, retail trends, and technol-
ogy (Le. telecommuting) than new
suburban subdivisions with rigid
Design-based codes are richly illustrated to
convey key design standards found in the text setbacks, narrow use requirements,
and overbearing restrictive
covenants that typically promote
monotony and predictability.
r
Buildings OprJling.1I !\Ired
The regulations for new settlements
and towns included specific criteria
for the placement and design of the
central plaza or square, the location
ofdvic buildings, the size of urban,
the dedication of public open space, and the segrega-
tion' of noxious uses.
, '. Tdday, our principal tools of regulating the growth of
'\.':' Out communities are Zoning and Subdivision
: : Ordinances. These tools, with their unyielding reliance
, . on the strict segregation of uses, are highly inf~ior to
our ancient codes in the creation of beautiful commu-
nities.
The key to the successful implementation of design-
based codes is based on the following key elements:
1. Clear and concise standards
2. Style neutral
3. Easy to read format
4. Streamlined permitting
.
1'0 ensul"e succ.ess, all four elements must be incorpo-
rated into any effort, otherwise a co~munity will run
the risk oflosing support and derailihg the process.
1. Clear and Concise Standards
,,':;'The most difficult task in design-based code prepa-
,Y 'ration is crafting a standard that achieves a desired
,iffect or outcome without over-manipulating the
';Hesign process. Design standards should be tied to
'measurable purposes and outcomes. An example of
, an outcome is increasing pedestrian activity across
a building frontage (to reduce or prevent conges-
tion in the public streets) or ensuring infill building
compatibility (to facilitate the creation of a conven-
ient, attractive and harmonious community). This
draws the "essential nexus" or required connection
between the regulation and a valid public purpose. .
.
An example of this is the desire
to move residential buildings
doser to the str~et to encourage
'pedestrian activity while main-
'iaining a commensurate level of
'., 'privacy for occupant. To accom-
, ' ,,:p!ish this, residential buildings
, . '.historically have been elevated
, from the grade of the sidewalk,
usually approximately 11/2 to 2
feet. This will allow the lower sill
height of the fronting windows
to be abov~ eye-level for most
passers,-by, ensuring that the
occuPants can monitor the activ-
ities of the street without sharing
their evening meal selections
with all of their neighbors.
Cl.I <I'
"Cl......
;:j 0
'U Cl.I
Cl.I fI)
,.1-< 2
'0..
C,,/<. Cl.I
to adhere to a rigid, contrived condition. In fa: 0/, ~
the opposite is usually the case. Most design-b
codes, except for those written specifically for a his_ ",
toric area, are usually much more permissive in
style and detail.
:E "
c:: '~
;:j ~
S ~
S .~
o ·
ul
To that end, design-based codes outside of a his-
toric district should refrain from specifically men-
tioning a particular architectural style. Most archi-
tectural styles found in the United States can fit
well within the context of an urban block. As a rule,
good urbanism can trump bad architecture.
Of course, there are some basic rules of pedestrian-
scaled design techniques such as the requirement
that all buildings have a definable base, middle,
and top in fa~de treatment as well as a requir.e-
ment for fenestration {doors and windows) at the
street level.
Facade detailing should prevail over all other
site elements including parking standards
Codes should also avoid loose,
highly subjective language such
as "the project should be inter-
esting" or "harmony in texture,
lines, and masses [is] encouraged." Particularly in
areas where the judiciary has not accepted aesthetic
zoning, communities would do well to avoid such
vagaries and consistently tie design standards to the
purpose statements found in their enabling legisla-
tion.
.
2. Style Neutral
Pundits of design-based codes often categorize
over-prescription as the encouragement of "Mickey
Mouse architecture" in that buildings are expected
A number of specific architectural
styles do not meet this definition in
the strict sense, particularly mod-
ernist styles such as th~jnternation- '
al style and deconstructionist style.
This does not preclude these styles
from the urban environment, but
special attention would need to be
paid to ensure that such iconic
architecture does not visually.
impact the pedestrian realm.
3. Easy to Read Fonnat
The format of the document that
presents the design requirements is
nearly as important as the standards
themselves.
Standards should be clear in their
narrative as the legal standard will
be tested by the interpretation of
the text. Graphics, photos, and illustration should
be generously included, but should be used only to
supplement the text, not supplant it.
Other basic publishing rules should apply as well
including a readable typeface, consistent margins,
balanced white space, and a thorough index.
Communities must also consider the prevalenc.e of
codifying ordinances through the Municipal Code
Corporation (MCC) and similar web-based Code
clearinghouses. The format must not be so rigid as
no.....
s~. a:
90..0
._(1) ::s
-< (I> .
. O'~.
'"1 I
. Pol ~..lll
P"
....
CIJ
I
publishing by the MCC through the
of sophisticated formatting.
Communities should strongly consider the use of .
basic word processing software packages such as
Microsoft Word and Corel WordPerfect in lieu of .
~ore sophisticated desktop publishing packages
such as Quark Express and Adobe PageMaker. Both
. Word and WordPerfect have a good set of tools for
publishing design-based codes which make easy
publishing and updating. Adobe Acrobat is also
very useful for creating compressed files that are
easily posted on the web for broad dissemination.
4. Streamlined Permitting
Perhaps the most important tool in successful
implementation of a design-based code is the facili-
tation of permits. Requiring developers to submit
to design requirements, particularly in an area
where they are relatively new, and then sending
their development application through a rigorous
public process is the equivalent of hitting them
. . With two sticks.
eIn general, developers are much more 'Villing to
abide by design guidelines if they know that com-
pliance will assure a permit. Well written design
guidelines ensure a sense of predictability for both
developers and the public.
When combined with an expedited permit process,
design-based, codes will also incentivize developers
to spend nio~e money on important elements such
as the building facade rather than on a prolonged
public process and loan interest.
Ultimately, the implementation of design-basedPcodes
will vary from community to community. Some will
completely integrate the design process with the zon-
ing ordinance, while other will opt for a floating dis-
trict/parallel code or a "triggered" mechanism.
Triggered processes include rezonings, a minimum
development size or number of lots, or in areas where
small area or neighborhood plans have been adopted.
~~r i
'ttiU1:'op I
m"uicl: !
!
'~:)wM~~.(:t;\t....\""tU)(.-.:<)
~,n I
HJU Tap ! -uou COMM.FM:;.'JAL1WtJ~"G
nl~ !.t.~~~
I
i""'~ ".r..............
. l ""~l!'f'O"'..~,;.-~~
=~:..~~:
"""'",..-.~"'....
~klf
.~iD:'rdp
Dl"lrirt
~,---.,.-"","",",-~~"
~_.-""j"~~---~'-~--
~-~.~"'-~~._~..-
,,..,,..~
;)
i
I t
I 1
..
-.-
.r"~~~$
! ~ ~"..:-;-~~~
I ..-..:..~~f~""'-""~
i :.--.:...;~.,..:..AOl;.,_
! .~~...~.=
~~~11!.
~-~~-~.~~
ESi
:z:::",~;:L~~i-
"'.....,~~~_M
",.,....)<""'-~
~~,....,..~"'"
-~-~-......~-...
~--...lI(.;.$1O:':
~~<>~
.....",............
.<;. ..
;w. ., <~
!M..~Ai"""l"
~#.~~'>'l"
....~~
~,.otf~<Wll;
""-....-.-..,..,.w..
.'t~'1;:~:i;=:::;:~
'-~+"'~~~
::--::.:.=~
-..,.,.,;.'..........-
....................-...........
=....~i<d'''"':t
-tt..>y;~~
~ ~-=:::: -
.~46~..
;;"/;. '-,// ~;i"
I':...~:;:...:...~..~.:..""". .. "
, _.._..-~
~ ..._.................""_J
....~'lo>',....
.r.~~~...
~z:: ;;~~~
"'~II'I~"""_<1i'~.
~I...;",=~~
=_.~~....*""'""
i
,
i~~~
~~~~
.>m-_""",,,,_
The format of the Code should be clear and easy to read with photos, illustrations, and text
.
.
Developers and property owners are subject to the
design-standards only when they initiate a change to
the development expectations. In other words, they
have certain development rights on a by-right basis
exclusive of design criteria, but when they seek a
change, such as increased density, the design standards
wOllld be applied.
Parallel districts/floating overlays work in much the
'same fashion in that they may have certain perform-
ance criteria established in order to qualify. However,
unlike triggered mechanisms, they are written in a
manner that encourages their use. If the threshold cri-
teria are met (minimum development size, location in
conformance with adopted plan, etc.), developers may
have the parallel codes applied by-right and need not
go through any public approval processes. Many
Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) ordi-
nances are written in this manner.
In conclusion, design-based codes are appropriat~
all types of communities from no-growth to high-
growth. Care must be taken to craft codes that are
appropriate for that community as well combine them
with a development approval process that encourages
their use.
Use of design-based codes can promote a more consis-
tent, sustainable development for nearly any commu-
nity.
Design-based codes are part of a great story of demo-
cratic design that traces its roots back to the time of
ancient Rome, helping communities improve their
quality of life and character for the next millennium.
- by Craig S. Lewis, AlCP, CNU March, 2003
Americln Planning Associarion 17
INFORMATION
By Pl'ier Katz
The New Urbanb/ alternative to conn'ntional zoning.
.
}'hv:ed housing t)'Pes are a
lnLz}or e!crnent (~f/oTln-
based codes (,.z!JOZI().
Stilcked flats. with retail
below. line a h1lJ]1
thomughfm^c. Single-
_p-llni{y hottJt!s and
rowhouses ilre on the side
W'et'ts. In !owa Cit)'J"
Penii''lSuLllvel~shborh()(){.i,
. the code require., sidewalks
dn(l7nz.ninz1!ln-ulidthji~ont
purches ill dll effort to
c,,'e:lll' il pt'tlCSTrit.ln-.,6'iend~v
cornJnUnlt'l'.
1 (1 l'ldlllling NovC'mber- 2()()'1
$'~
!
9i
:rJf
~'" ,
.f!!/il~,""
1l>
f!,
hat's what New Urban-
ist architect-planner
Andres Duanv exhorts
audiences [0 do in his
lectures about the decline
of America's suburbs.
When I first heard
Duany express this view
in the early 1 L)90s, I was taken aback. as, rl11
sure, most planners were. It seemed o Lltrageous
ro suggest that zoning, the body of law that
comrols development in 99 percent oLi\merica's
co mnlLl ni ties, could be so e:lsdv dismissed.
Since then, 11owever, I've come to believe
that Duanv's prescription may not be so radi-
cal after all. His main point is that conven-
tional zoning based on the segregation orland
uses was never intended to deal with physical
form, and that the "band-aid" measures (in-
cluding design guidelines) that planners cobble
ontO existing ordinances to address thIS defi-
ciency just make matters worse. Something
else is needed, and dut something ebe IS wlut
New Urbanists call form-based coding.
Wh..l;" al:
As its name suggests, form-based coding seeks
to regulate the of the built environment.
In contrast, conventional zoning primarily
seeks to control land Llse and density. but is
largely silent on nutters of form bevond the
most basic height, Hoohuea, and setback Iimi ts
for individual buildings.
The new approach builds on the idea that
physical form is a cOl11mLll1lty's most in trinsic
emd enduring charactenstic. Ie seeks ro codiA'
that form in a straightforward wav so that
planners, citizens, developers, and other sLlke-
l10lders can move easily rI-OIl1 a shared physi-
cal vision ofa place to its built reality.
To understand the concept, th i nk of the
wav neigi,bodlllods chemge over time. In moUJ\'
1 S Planning November 2004
FBCs: The Advallta~es
c,
Because they are prescriptive (they state what you
want), rather than proscriptive (what you don't
want), FBCs can achieve a more predictable pl1ysical
result. The elements controlled by FBCs are
those that are most important to shaping a high-
quality built environment.
FBCs encourage public participation because
they allow citizens to see what will happen where
-leading to a higher comfort level about greater
density, for instance.
Because they can regulate development at the
scale of an individual building or lot, FBCs en-
courage independent development by mulriple
property owners. This eliminates the need for
large land assemblies and the megaprojects that
are frequently proposed for such parcels.
The built resulrs of FBCs often reflect a diver-
sity of ,lrchitecture, materials, uses, and owner-
ship that can only come from the acrions of many
independent players operating within a commu-
nally agreed-upon vision and legal framework.
FBCs work well in established communities
because they etTectively define and codify a
neighborhood's existing "DNA." Vernacular build-
ing types can be easily replicated, promoting infill
rhat is compatible with surrounding structures.
Nonprofessionals find FBCs easier co use than
conventional zoning ordinances because they are
much shorter, more concise, and organized for
visual access and readability. This feature makes
it easier for nonplanners to determine whether
the codes have been complied with.
FBCs obviate the need for design guiddines,
which are diHicult to apply consistently, offer roo
much room for subjective interpretation, and can
be difficult to enforce. They also require less
oversight by discretionary review bodies, leading
to a less politicized planning process that can
deliver huge savings in time and money and
reduce the risk of takings challenges.
The stated purpose of FBCs is the shaping of
a high-quality public realm (a presumed public
good) that, in turn, promotes healthy civic inter-
action. For that reason, the codes can be enforced
not on the basis of aesthetics but because non-
compliance would diminish the good that is
sought.
While enforceability of development regula-
tions has not been a major problem in new
growth areas where aesrhetic concerns are usually
addressed in private covenants, such matters have
created problems for local governments in al-
ready-urbanized areas. Because they have the
potential to level rhe regulawry playing field
between city and suburb, form-based codes could
playa major role in rhe recovery of vast areas of
America's urban landscape,
~
1.
'"
c:
A series Ifbuilding types (~d)()ve), from DUiIll)' PLater-ZJlberk';' downtown nuzster-pLan for
W'est P,:dm Beac/;, FLorida, which specifies a range ofp'lrametenftr each type. One
parameter, height, can be measured either by number ofjloors 01" height to em'e, as in the
diagram beLow, which indicates nUlc,imurn and minimum height. The row of,'torefi-onts
with Lofts dbove, seen in the computtT simuliuion at right, shows the resuLt offollowing an
FBCs build-to line in a ChiCiJgo neighborhood.
~
i
~
:3
cines, warehouse and indusuial areas have
morphed into uendy artS districts with galler-
ies and rescaurants at sueet level and loft
_lousing above. The form of the buildings has
. emained hidy constant, while internal uses
and activiry patterns have been uansformed.
Under the current, use-based zoning system,
such a chanae would be considered drastic. The
~
land-Lise category has gone from industrial, at one
end of the spectrum, to residential, at the other,
although to the average onlooker, the place looks
pretty much the same. In this example, a form-
based code would regulate the part that had
remained the same-the form of the building
and the configuration of the street and sidewalk.
Use would be regulated, too, but at a secondary,
rather than primary level of the code.
natural features, and existing and planned
public spaces.
The fi-rst step in coding is to translate the
illustrative plan into a more diagrammatic regu-
lating plan, which indicates what goes where.
This document, while similar in some ways to a
zoning map, is far more detailed. It also omits
any direct labeling of uses, a job that is handled
in the building standards described below.
In one kind of form-based code, the regu-
lating plan assigns a building type or rypes to
each available parcel of land. Other kinds of
regulating plans indicate a range of building
or frontage rypes that may be consuucted in a
certain area.
Clearly, when it comes to detailing the
urban environment, one size does not fit all,
In some cities, planners have found ways to
bend land-use zoning to enable this kind of
reuse to promote the revitalization of older
neighborhoods, particularly those with good
architectural "bones." But such modifications
are typically made on a case-by-case basis or
within narrowly defined special districts.
Meanwhile, in new growth areas and in
most existing neighborhoods, use-based zon-
ing remains the law of the land. One result is
the sub urbanization of ciry neighborhoods by
provisions such as setback rules that force houses
t~lf back on their lots and away from each other.
CeUin;..: down io work
Generally, the creation of a form-based code
is interwoven with a commLlnity visioning
process. The process typically includes a
public design workshop, or charette, lasting
sever:J.1 days. The community's "consensus
.ision" is ~onveyed.through a ;ange of visuals ,
lJ1c1uding perspectlve dr:J.wmgs, sIte analYSIS
diagr:J.ms, :J.nd an illustrative plan. Th:J.t plan,
which resembles an aerial photo, includes
proposed buildings (shown as rooftops), key
and the new approach to coding recognizes
that. Coding by building rype provides the
freedom to create one set of rules for one
building type and another set for a different
type. For example, a townhouse may function
best with its main floor lifted a half-level
above grade for interior privacy, with a front
stoop for access. Yet a shopfront in the same
neighborhood may be more accessible to cus-
tomers if it is set at grade.
Although public buildings are very important
to New Urbanist designers, they are typically
not coded. Such buildings are usually indicated
in the regulating plan by a conceptual footprim
that serves as a placeholder until an actu:J.l design
is formulated (often years in the future).
Nub aBld bolb
The physical characteristics of each building
type are summarized in the building stan-
dards-a set of annotated building cross-sec-
tions and plan diagrams assembled on a single,
letter-size sheet. In some cases, all the build-
ing types are combined into a matrix and
formatted as a poster.
American Planning A.ssuciarlu;1 1 ":J
t
Regardless of layout, building scandards
rypically establish these parameters:
Building height is a key standard. A maxi-
mum number ofHoors (or dimension-to-dle-
eave) is set to ensure that a building does not
overwhelm its neighbors. Unlike use-based
zoning, form-based codes also specify a mini-
mum height in order to maintain a proper
sueet wall.
Siting standards control the placement of
structures in relation to fronting streets and
adjacent building lots. Dimensions to front,
side, and rear building lines, as well as the
location and configuration of entrances, park-
ing, yards, and courtyards are specified. Key
building elemems-i.e., windows, doors, and
porches-are also controlled by the standards.
Uses are also part of the building envelope
standards, but the appro:lch here is quite dir..
ferem from conventional zoning. Permissible
uses, stated in general terms (e.g., retail, resi-
dential), are idemified for each building rype
and labeled on the cross-section diagr:J.m.
This approach makes it easy to assign dif-
ferent uses to each floor of a mixed-use devel-
opmem, and avoids the problem of trying to
communicate the same inrormation on a flat
map. (The plethora of colors, stripes, and cross-
hatch patterns on most zoning maps shows
how confusing this can be.)
Thoroughfare standards for a range of recom-
mended street types may also be part of the code
in places where streets are nor individually de-
signed. Such standards are indicated by section
diagrams with dimensions for travel and park-
ing lanes, sidewalks, medians, and planting strips.
Tree alignment and p ropeny lines are also shown.
Finally, many codes include a set of land-
scape standards listing appropriate tree and
groundcover species. Most codes also provide
a glossary that defines terms that are used in a
specific way in the document.
These components constitute the basics of
a form-based code. They conuol the urban
design elements that New Urbanists are most
concerned with. However, some communi-
ties-master-pLll1ned developments, special
retail districts, histOric districts, among others-
may want to exercise a higher level of control
over the appearance of individual buildings.
For this reason, some form-based codes In-
clude architectural st:ll1dards.
This optional "dress code" controls exte-
rior colors, materials, and consuucrion tech-
niques. Particular emphasis is given to clad-
ding, doors, windows. stairs, and roofs. Sryle
may also be included as part of the architec-
tural standards, but not in every case. IvIany
New Urbanisrs choose to avoid direct refer-
2(j Pl~lflrnfl~ Novemher 2004
.
A new lnixed-usc
devc!oJntlent at
Gdifomia 5
Pleasant Hill
BAR Tsttztioll.
fU)l.U -under lOa).!. ]
will re1JL1ce a 20- ~
aO'e parl:ing lot "-
with office, retail, ;
residmtia!, and __~
recreational uses. -
ences ro building style, fearing that roo much
specificity will lead to an overly homoge-
neous, "themed" look.
Al iUl(' his/or)'
While rhe term form-based coding has only
. recently emerged, the technique has been used
for over 20 years. Andres Duany's Miami
firm, Duany Plarer-Zyberk & Company, first
applied the approach in its 1982 code for
Seaside, the highly publicized coastal resort
town on Florida's panhandle.
The firm's principals, Duany and his wife,
Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, initially set our ro
design all the town's buildings themselves.
But once the true scale of the project became
evident, they realized that such a high level of
design control would not be possible, or even
desirable. Instead, they handed off the design
responsibility to the lot purchasers, or their
architects. That decision led to a new challenge
-flnding a way to impart a distinctive charac-
ter to specific areas within the development.
On study trips to historic Southern com-
munities, the design ream saw that certain
building types tended to dominate in cer-
tain parts of a town: shopfronts on the main
square, rowhouses on side streets, and man-
sions flanking Main Street just beyond the
edges of rhe downtown. The team also noted
rhat, while building rypes were fairly consis-
.tent in a given area, there was always enough
variery within the design of each building ro
avoid a cookie-currer look.
The first Seaside code esrablished a hierar-
chy of seven (later expanded ro eight) "classes"
of buildings for use in the new community.
Each class was based on a tradirional Sourhern
vernacular building type. The code specified
the rudimentary physical characteristics of
each class, controlling siting on the lot, build-
ing heighr, locarion of porches and outbuild-
ings, and how parking should be handled.
The code progressed through a number of
iterations, achieving its near-final form dur-
ing an on-site design charette in 1981. Shortly
after that event, several architecture profes-
sors at Washington, D.C.'s Catholic Univer-
siry conducted a test of the code. They asked
140 students ro design and build models of
every building included in the 80-acre master
plan according to the rules set forth in the
code. The students then combined their indi-
vidual creations into a 16-foot-long compos-
ite model of the community.
Looking at the finished product, one could
easily envision the town's streets and public
spaces. The model also assumed an important
diagnostic role. Recognizing the tendency of
architecture students to push the design of
each building to its limits, the code's crearors
were able ro identif)' and fix a number of
potential regulatory problems before the code
was formally adopted.
After the firm's experience at Seaside, Duany
Plater-Zyberk adapred form-based codes to
work within the legal framework of a planned-
unit development. The Kenrlands in
Gaithersburg, Maryland, is one early example
of that application. Since 1989, when its plan
and code were created in a highly publicized
charette, DPZ has crafted similar documents
to regulate rhe buildout of over 200 new and
eXISting cOmmunltles.
Br(lildellin~ lhe ('in~I('
O(her urban designers have since used form-
based codes in a wide varierv of projens dnd
locarions. In 1999, Dover, Kohl & Partners
of Sourh Miami, working in collaboration
with DPZ, prepared a master plan and form-
based development ordinance for a new down-
town for Kendall, an edge city just south of
Miami. The 240-acre project site is adjacent
to rwo commuter rail starions and a state
highway.
Since the adoption of the ordinance, an
estimated $250 million in new construction
permits have been issued. Some 3,400 new
dwelling units, most in high-rise buildings
(up to 25 stories), are now under construction
in an area that previously had no residential
population at all. 'iX'hile rhe recent wave of
construction in Kendall was foreseen well
before the code was adopted, many credit rhe
regulations with helping the community to
achieve a true downtown development pat-
rern rather than rhe patchwork typical of
booming suburban areas.
On the East Coast, Dover Kohl and FerrelJ
Madden Associates of Washingtoll , D.C., con-
ducted an eight-day charette rhat resulted in
the adoprion 111 February 2003 of a plan and
form-based code for the Columbia Pike Cor-
ridor in Arlington, Virginia. Thar work fo-
cused on the detailed design of four mixed-
use centers along a 3.5-mile seerion of rhe
historic corridor, which is minutes away from
rhe Pentagon and downtown Washington.
A year later, Arlington County planners
approved Columbia Station, a mixed-use de-
velopment consisting of 257 housing unirs
above 42,000 square feer of street-froming
retail. Future plans call for the integrarion of
bus rapid transir or light rail along the corridor.
Geoffrev Ferrell ofFen'e11 Madden was also
responsible for the form-based coding of a
Townhouses in the
Pleasant Hill
dcz,Idopment define
the wall.I' (fa 'j> ublic
roOln "ficusI'd on
Mount Diablo.
Citizens supported the
redevelopment pLm in
pfl7"t because of the
generom pmvisiorJ of
open 'pace.
preconfigured (bur customizable) zones based
on the "transect"-a framework for organiz-
ing a metropolitan area into a series of zones,
ranging from most natural to most urban.
One of the first communities to take this
new approach is Petaluma, California, which
adopted a variation of the SmartCode in] uly
2003. Laura Hall of Fisher & Hall Urban
Design in Santa Rosa and Paul Crawford,
FAlep, of Crawford Multari & Clark in San
Luis Obispo tailored the document to the
ciry's needs; it focuses on a 400-acre ponion
of the downtown.
According to Hall, Petaluma adopted the
code in just nine months, after a seven-year
effort to complete and adopt a more conven-
tional, use-based downtown plan and zoning
ordinance. Over $100 million in develop-
ment has been approved since the code's adbP-
tion, she says.
$200 million, mixed-use development in Con-
tra Costa County, California. For two de-
cades, neighborhood opposition had stalled
the proposed public-private venture on a 20-
acre site adjacent to the Pleasant Hill station
on the Bay Area Rapid Transit line. The plan
.thiS project was developed by Lennertz
Ie & Associates of Portland, Oregon.
The code, and the elaborate public involve-
ment that led up to it, created a level of trust
that led to approval of the project in Decem-
ber 2001. The project is now moving forward
under the direction of architect Dan Parolek,
ofOpricos Design in Berkeley, California.
Stephen Lawton, the community develop-
ment director of Hercules, another Contra
Costa County community, credits the stream-
lined nature of form-based coding with help-
ing the ciry to deal with a backlog of develop-
ment proposals. Dover Kohl & Partners' Central
Hercules plan is shaping several new mixed-
use neighborhoods on a patchwork of
browntleld sites.
Says Lawton: "The clarity of the form-
based code made it easy for citizens to under-
stand die development proposals and to ac-
cept the intensity of growth needed to achieve
financial stability. This was something we'd
never have been able to achieve with conven-
tional zoning."
To date, most form-based codes have been
.d individually in response to the needs
pecitlc community or sire. Now comes a
new generation of srandardized form-based
codes, which are derived from rhe SmartCode,
a template developed by DPZ and licensed by
the Municipal Code Corporarion in Talla-
hassee, Florida.
The SmanCode remplare defines a series of
Califor-nia Olll f"Olll
As more communities begin to incorporate
New Urbanist and smart growth principles
into their planning strategies, rhe practice of
form-based codii1g is likely to spread.
How much that will happen depends on
several factors: rhe availabiJiry of qualified
consulrants (jusr a handful of firms pracrice
rrue form-based coding); rhe disseminarion
of knowledge about the technique (lirtle has
been written on the subject, and there are
few places to learn about it); and a continu-
ing legal concern about overly prescriptive
design guidelines that are often mistaken for
form-based codes.
The good news is that the state of Califor-
nia recentlv included ap endorsement oHorm-
based coding in its general plan guidelines.
,\merican Planning Association 21
The document refers to the code as a "useful
implementation measure for achieving cer-
tain general plan goals, such as walkable neigh-
borhoods and mixed-use and transit-oriented
development." And this summer, Gov. Arnold
. Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 1268,
making California the first state to specificaJIy
enable the practice of form-based develop-
ment regulation.
The biJI's language is brief and to the point:
"The text and diagrams in the land use ele-
ment [of the general plan] that address the
location and extent of land uses, and the
zoning ordinances that implement these pro-
visions, may also express community inten-
tions regarding urban form and design. These
expressions may differentiate neighborhoods,
districts, and corridors, provide for a mixture
of land uses and housing types within each,
and provide specific measures for regulating
relationships berween buildings and outdoor
public areas, including streets."
As states such as Florida and Arizona follow
California's lead in mandating local planning
through the use of a general plan, zoning
consistent with the plan, and the use of spe-
cific plans, one can hope that the practice of
form-based coding and the enabling laws that
support it will not be far behind.
Peter Kat2 is a consultanr on New Urbanist imple-
menration and developmenr, who is based in Alexan-
dria, Virginia. Hereaches planning at Virginia Tech's
Alexandria campus and is the author of The New
Urbanism: TOUJI1I.d an Architecture of Community,
published by McGraw-Hill in 1993.
For a lisr of resources concerninu form-based cod-
"
ing, go [0 APA's website: www.planning.org.
.'
..
.
.
PAS QuickNotes
Form-Based Zoning
A list of riferenceJ at the end of this QuickNote will provideyou with additional readings about Form-Based Zoning.
Please contact your PAS Representative for available reference materials.
THE PRINCIPAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FORM-BASED AND TRADITIONAL
ZONING
Prescriptive, contextual standards. Traditional zorungproscribes minimum setbacks, permitting
building placement anywhere within the allowable zone. Form-based zorungprescribes build-to lines,
specifically definIDg desired development patterns. Based on ideal urban forms or contextual cues,
form-based zorung ensures that new development will be appropriate to community vision or
existing character.
Encouraging Mixed-Use. By rigidly focusing on land use, traditional zorung makes mixed-use
development difficult, if not impossible. Form-based zorung de-emphasizes land-use regulation,
allowing the market to determine the use. For example, form-based regulation would prescribe large
windows and entrances oriented toward the street to promote ground-floor retail. Form-based
zorung encourages a healthy mix of retail and residential uses, and aims to curb sprawl ard reduce
car dependence by removing elements of the zorung code that encourage exclusionary housing
practices and density restrictions.
Adapting to the Market. By prescribing use, traditional zorung attempts to predict demand. Uses
that are no longer threats to public health are still segregated (e.g., office and light industrial from
residential uses). Residential zorung regulations adopted when household size was on che rise cannot
adapt to modern needs of empty nesters and young, childless professionals without extensive
revision. Form-based zoning restores use determination to the market, allowing the use to
automatically adapt to demographic and market shifts. Some designers of form-based codes find
that, in the early stages of adoption, prescribing a mix of uses may be necessary to wean developers
from the ingrained practice of segregating uses. Freeing the real estate market to respond to changes
in demand has been shown to increase property values. Regionally, improving the quality of life
through form-based zorung may lead to a competitive advantage in attracting a talented labor force.
COMPONENTS OF THE FORM-BASED APPROACH
The Regulating Plan. The regulating plan illustrates where form-based codes apply and guides
developers to implement them properly. It classifies sites according to street, block, and district
characteristics and includes easy-to-follow illustrations of build-to lines, projected building
footprints, location of public spaces, and allowable building types specific for each site. Developers
and planners view the site as part of a larger, unified design. Unlike traditional zoning maps, which
provide litde information about vacant land, regulating plans provide a vision of future
development.
Building Envelope Standards. Building envelope standards ensure that development fits the
desired character of the zone, regulating building height, placement, and orientation. The standards
prescribe the ideal. For example, height parameters define the minimum height needed to define the
I
.
.
.
Form District Zoning. This technique
defInes districts according to
distinguishable development patterns or
desired formal characteristics, such as
building form and orientation, street
grid and streetscape. This approach can
apply to an entire region or specific
districts within a city or region with
common characteristics (e.g.,
architectural style or proximity to transit
stations). Current applications of form
district zoning use a two-tiered
approach to incorporate existing zoning
regulation. The form districts regulate
physical form and design while existing
zoning districts regulate use.
Form district zoning respects and
adheres to the diversity of existing
patterns while providing developers a
more flexible and predictable
development process. Developers ...
praise its ability to promote context'-sensitive design while not being overly restrictive. The two-
tiered approach is a politically feasible way to rezone an entire region. As form district zoning
becomes more established, it may merge with elements of use-based zoning, creating a hybrid
option.
Examples of Form District Zoning
Atlanta, Georgia: Quality of Life Zoning Districts.
Available at
apps.atlantaga.gov I ci~'dir/DPCD IBureau of Planning I
BOP 1Zoninr IWeb Pgs I z()nin~rdistricts.htm.
Louisville Metro Government, Kentucky: Old
Louisville/Limerick Traditional Neighborhood Zoning
District Land Development Code Including Form
Districts. Available at
www.loukymetro.org/Department/PlanDesifn/ldc.asp.
McKinney, Texas: McKinney Regional Employment
Center, Urban Design Standards. Available at
www.mckinneytexas.org/develop/plan.htm.
Seattle, Washington: Station Area Overlay District
Ordinances. Available at
www.ciryofseattle.net/planning I transportation ISAP I Cou
ncilActions.htm.
LIST OF REFERENCES
THE PRINCIPAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FORM-BASED AND TRADITIONAL ZONING
1. Published by the American Planning Association
!Kayden,Jerold S. 2004. "Reconsidering Zoning: Expanding an American Land-Use Frontier." Zoning Prmti,'c,
January.
Rouse, David C, Nancy L. Zobl, and Graciela P. Cavicchia. 2001. "Beyond Euclid: Integrating Zoning and
Physical Design, Part Two: Emerging Tools for an Integrated Development Approach." Zoning NCZVJ,
November.
_____. 2001. "Beyond Euclid: Integrating Zoning and Physical Design, Part One: The Evolution of Physical
Design in Zoning." Zoning NC1VJ, October.
2. Other resources
Chael,Maurice. 2003. "The Smartcode: A Weapon to Fight the Sprawl War." [Accessed June 18,2004].
Available at W\v'w.tndtownpaper.com/V olumeS / smartcode.htm.
3
.
.
.
.
.
Burdette, Jason T. 2004. "Form-Based Codes: A Cure for the Cancer Called Euclidean Zoning?"
Unpublished manuscript. Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University. [Accessed June 18, 2004]. Available at scholar.lib.vt.edu/ theses / available/ etd-05122004-
113700/ unrestricted/BurdetteFIN1\Lmajorpaper.pdf.
Dover, Victor. 2001. CharrettesJor New Urbanism. [Accessed June 18, 2004]. Available at
www.doverkohl.com/writings images/charrettes for NU in FLhtm.
-----.2003. "1\ Townmaker's Vision of a Livable Community." Proc'eedings of the Sec'ondAnnual new Partnmfor
Smart Growth: Building Safe, Healtl?}, and Livable Communities. [Accessed June 18,2004]. Available at
www.growingsensibly.org/ archive/ archiveDetail.asp?objectID-125 7.
Katz, Peter, and Geoffrey Ferrell. 2002. "Introduction to Form-Based Codes." The Town Paper, Counril fuport
IV On Codes, 48-49, 61.
Palo Alto, City of. Department of Planning and Community Environment. 2001. 1)pes of Zoning Codes and
Formats. July.
Santa Barbara, County of. 2003. The Isla Vista Form-Based fugulating Code: Chapter 6 of the Draft Isla Vista Master
Plan: Building Type Codes. June 5.
APPLICATION OF FORM-BASED ZONING
1. Published by the American Planning Association
Greenberg, Ellen. 2004 "From Building to Region: New Urbanist Regulation in Place." In CodifYing New
Urbanism: How to fuJorm Munitipal Land Development Regulations. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 526.
Chicago: American Planning Association, pp. 39-80.
Rouse, David c., and Nancy L. ZobL 2004. "Form-Based Development Codes." Zoning Pra,.ti,'e, May.
Russell, Joel. 2004. "Putting New Urbanism to Work in Your Community." In CodifYing New Urbanism: How to
Reform Munidpal Land Development Regulations. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 526. Chicago: American
Planning Association, pp. 25-38.
2. Other Resources
Alminana, Robert, Paul Crawford, Andres Duany, Laura Hall, Steve Lawton, and David Sargent. 2003. TVhite
Paper on Smart Growth Poliry in Caltfornia. Governor's Office of Planning and Research. California. [Accessed
June 18,2004]. Available at fisherandhall.com/OI'R/\X'hiteI'aper.pdf.
Chael, Maurice. 2003. "The Smartcode: A Weapon to Fight the Sprawl War." [Accessed June 18,2004].
Available at "v\vw. tndtownpaper.com/\,T olumeS I smartcocle.htm.
Dover, Victor. 2003. "A Townmaker's Vision of a Livable Community." Pro(lJedings qfthe SemndAnnual new
Partnmfor Sma11 Growth: Building Safe, Healtl!)!, and Liz/able Commtmities. [Accessed June 18, 2004]. Available at
"'V\vw.growingsensibly.org / archive / archiveDetail.asp?objectID= 1257.
French, Christopher, Deborah Bilitski, and Charles Cash. 2004. "AI' A Powerpoint Presentation on Form-
based Coding." Presentation at 2004 AI' A national conference. [Accessed June 18, 2004]. Available at
\V"v\v.louk~7metro. org/Dcpartrnen t/PlanDesign I pelf! AI' A Powerpoin t. pdf.
5
16 Codifying New Urbanism
.
.
Complementary uses set within an
interconnected street network bring
together essential aspects of c011l11lunity
life and minimize reliance on the car.
A compact, lnixed-use pattern (belor.o)-
fundalnental to New Llrbanislrl-
contrasts with the Euclidian separation
(above) that characterizes conventional
suburban development.
.
While only some ordinances will incorporate everyone of the provisions
suggested here, most should be incorporated into all ordinances intended to
implement New Urbanist principles.
Many community leaders want to know what they can do immediately
to make their land-use regulations implement New Urbanism. By translat-
ing key principles into specific regulatory changes, a community can start
to change its development pattern without having to completely overhaul
its code. Chapter 2 describes how a local approach can start with strategic
changes and then proceed to comprehensive regulatory reform. If the com-
munity is committed, some fundamental changes are easy to do, and some
can be done in isolation from large-scale changes requiring more time.
The signature characteristic of Euclidean zoning-widely used throughout
the country - is the separation of uses and their dispersion through minimum
lot-size requirements. New Urbanists reverse this approach to bring many
activities into proximity, in the interest of convenience, walkability, and liveli-
ness. Emphasizing mixed use does not mean eliminating blocks that consist of
housing only. Mixed-use neighborhoods traditionally include residential
blocks with a variety of densities and housing types within a neighborhood
distinguished by many activities within comfortable walking distance of most
homes (Figure 1).
FIGURE 1. EUCLIDEAN SEPARATION VS. MIXED-USE INTEGRATION
EUCLIDEAN SEPARATION
MIXED.USE INTEGRATION
9.
,./"',\ Q
< >-", Q
PEDESTRIAN-FRIENDLY: "'''''>[_'.~.
STREET '''..' ~
\',~" ->J.
\ ',-<,
,
,
\
\
ROUND-flOOR
RETAil
.
FOSTERING A VARIETY OF USES
Create mixed-use districts. Create mixed-use zoning districts that allow
by-right, a fine-grained combination of uses, especially within downtown
core areas, suburban activity centers, and neighborhood centers of varying
scales. The Southeast Orlando Sector Plan described in Chapter 3 lays out
the different uses that would best fit in centers of various scales.
Create mixed-use neighborhoods. Create neighborhood districts that allow
comer stores, civic uses, and a mix of housing types in predominantly resi-
dential areas within walking distance of mixed-use centers or Main Streets.
Increase and regulate density. Create high-density districts that will gen-
erate a critical mass of activity and help support a mix of uses at the core.
Some conventional ways of measuring residential density by dwelling
units per acre are problematic because there are no incentives to build
smaller units and because mixed-use buildings aren't properly addressed.
A better approach, used in some conventional ordinances as well as New
Urbanist ones, is regulating density by a combination of limits on total
buildout expressed through maximum lot coverage, height, and other
dimensional requirements. As long as those basic parameters and building
type and other design requirements are met, the use mix and housing unit
type can vary (unless ground-floor uses are specified as discussed below).
Make it possible to walk to parks, s.hops, and schools. Require that a spec-
ified percentage of new housing units be within walking distance of public
schools and parks and neighborhood retail. For infill projects, allow this
proximity requirement to be satisfied by providing such destination uses
either within a new project or in an established neighborhood nearby.
Require ground-floor retail. Stimulate active ground-floor uses that gen-
erate pedestrian traffic, such as retail, restaurants, and personal service
businesses. Where market conditions and local support are strong, ground-
floor retail can be required. Where conditions are not ripe for mandated
retail, require buildings that can house successful ground-floor retail by
regulating fenestration, entries, and other features, while allowing offices
and other nonretail uses in the short term. Over time, track market changes
and adjust regulations accordingly.
Permit a mix of uses on upper floors. Permit upper floors of mixed-use
buildings to contain a mix of dwelling units, offices, and miscellaneous com-
patible nonresidential uses (e.g., artist and artisan studios, dance studios,
gyms) that generate activity during most hours of the day in the neighborhood.
Allow a variety of permitted uses. In all districts, introduce a diversity of
compatible uses by right.
.
For more than 50 years, residential development in the United States has
been characterized by uniformity-of type, deSign, and density. Now, New
Urbanist projects are recapturing a traditional form that mixes density and
housing type within each block and neighborhood to allow households
with different needs to live close together in the same neighborhood.
.
MIXING RESIDENTIAL DENSITY AND HOUSING TYPES
Mix housing types. Allow as of right or require a mix of housing types
and lot sizes within neighborhoods, emphasizing in zoning regulations
harmonious design and building type. Some communities specify mini-
mum densities in certain areas to allow a range of building types and
ensure that a critical mass will be created (Figures 2 and 3).
Chapter 1. New Urbanist Essentials 17.
FIGURE 2. SHOP HOUSES
AT-HOME BUSINESS
OR STUDIO
"Shop houses" or "live-work"
townhouses combine upper-story living
space with a flexible ground-floor
space that can be used as a shop, art
studio, or office. The combination
offers an important housing alternative
while adding vitality to the street
and providing flexibility to accommodate
different economic uses overtime.
18 Codifying New Urbanism
.
Variation in lot size and housing types
helps to maintain a healthy range
of household types and avoids the loole
of "cooleie cutter" subdivisions.
.
Accessory dwellings diversiftJ housing
opportunities and provide flexibility for
household needs that evolve over time.
Accessory dwellings rarely need to exceed
the footprint of a three-car garage
(about 600 square feet). Entrances for
accessory dwellings should be
visible from a street or alley.
.
FIGURE 3. MIXED DENSITY AND LOT SIZE
4~
,,~ ~
~ ~~
./ '~
~.~.
~~.
~., r
,v/, ~:
-/~t\. ,~/ :
j 'r~ !
I "'--'-," I
I I
I ~ I
: .~~:
~<6~~
~~"'H"S1NGT'<PES
~ AND LOT SIZES
Allow accessory dwellings. Allow accessory dwellings as of right in all
residential and mixed-use districts within residences as well as within
detached garages and other accessory structures. For purposes of calculat-
ing density, accessory units can be exempted entirely or counted as at most
one-half of a unit, reflecting their smaller impact on services than the pri-
mary dwelling. Exempting accessory units from density calculations pro-
vides maximum incentive for their construction (Figure 4).
FIGURE 4. ACCESSORY DWELLINGS
SIDE DRIVE ACCESS
ALLEY.FED ACCESS
FIGURE 5. INFILL
.
BEFORE
STABLE USES TO REMAIN
REDEVELOPABLE
"SUPERBLOCK"
REDEVELOPABLE AND
~UNDERTILlZED LOTS
AFTER
.
NEW INFILL WITH TRADITIONAL
BLOCK-AND-LOT PATTERN
Development of vacant and underused sites and repair and renovation
of older~ structures strengthens existing urban areas. This is accomplished
through innovative approaches to building codes as well as zoning regulations.
.
STlMULAT/NG INFILL AND REHAB/UTAT/DN ACTIVITY
Adjust minimum lot-size and setback requirements to reflect the small-
est practical lots in the neighborhood. Increase allowable densities in infill
locations to promote economically viable projects that will add vitality to
the neighborhood. This may require relief from parking requirements in
order to avoid the need for variances.
Expedite development review. Streamline review and permitting proce-
dures for infill projects below a specified size threshold for projects in com-
pliance with New Urbanist design standards. Delegate review to staff where
legally permissible.
Change parking requirements. Reduce or eliminate on-site parking
requirements for small-lot infill projects, allowing parking demand to be
fully or partially satisfied by on-street, shared, or remote parking (Figure 6).
Revise building codes. Revise building codes to remove provisions that
require rehabilitation of older buildings to current standards except when
Chapter 1. New Urbanist Essentials 19
Established neighborhoods benefit zuhen
vacant and undenlsed parcels are
replaced by develop71'lellt that brings
positive activity and U eyes on the
street." Subdivision of large lots can
allow a traditional block and lot
pattern to be established, with new
buildings fronting directly on
the street and a renewed focus on
the public realm.
FIGURE 6. ON-SITE PARKING
GARAGE-FREE FRONT YIELDS
ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING
AND PEDESTRIAN COMFORT
On-site parking requirements add
significant construction costs, which pose
a problem for the developers of small
il~fill projects. \lIfhen placed in Font, on-
site parking also makes streets less livable.
Curb cuts displace on-street parking, and
driveways mnove landscaping and
windows Fom the pedestrian environment.
20 Codifijing New Urbanism
.
;;
;1
.Q
:S
."
il
~
11
~
.
."
1
~
oll
.
"3
~
The Seven Fountains in West Hollywood,
California, is one of a number of Southern
California projects designed by Pasadena-
based architects and urbanists Moule c'.,-
Polyzoides, and inspired by the 1920's
courtyard housing of the region.
FIGURE 7. HEIGHT TO WIDTH RATIO
.
APPROPRIATE FOR URBAN CONTEXT
INAPPROPRIATE FOR URBAN CONTEXT
In the urban context, streets are
enhanced (ohen buildings establish
a strong sense of spatial enclosure,
both vertically and horizontally.
.
those provisions are essential for health and safety. In many states this
action must be taken at the state level. (See the description of New Jersey
Rehabilitation Code in Chapter 3.)
Because private buildings shape public streets and civic spaces that together
create the public realm, their design and placement are important elements
of development regulations. While architectural style need not be prescribed,
the Charter principles assert" architecture and landscape design should grow
from local climate, topography, history, and building practice," thus avoiding
the monotony of conventional suburban development and creating places of
character and distinction. Regulations should be responsive to context at two
levels: site-specific and regional.
FOSTERING CONTEXTUAL DESIGN
Adopt illustrated design standards. Adopt illustrated standards for build-
ing design and site design to ensure design sensitive to the regional context
as well as to the site's features and immediate surroundings. Address build-
ing type and basic architectural elements rather than mandating specific
styles or detail. Regulation of entries and fenestration is essential for safe
and inviting streets. The streetscape can be further enhanced by addressing
proportions, roof types and pitches, and materials.
Rev"iew setback and height regulations. Review and amend setback and
height requirements to maintain or create ratios between the height of build-
ings and the distance between their facades. An appropriate relationship
between the width of the streetscape and the height of buildings creates a
comfortable sense of enclosure, making the public street feel like an "outdoor
room." Spatial enclosure created by height-to-width ratio in urban spaces
with a strong sense of place generally ranges from 1:1 to 3:1 (Figure 7).
A critical mass of population as well as a mix of housing types and land
uses is essential to achieving the intensity of development needed to sup-
port walkable centers and to enable public transit to operate successfully.
Promote. transit-supportive densities. Permit densities and concentra-
tions of development that will support provision of transit service consis-
tent with local and regional plans. Require minimum residential densities
and lot coverage standards along existing or planned transit corridors. To
support transit-oriented development, prohibit or limit auto-related uses .
and surface parking within transit station areas, and codify standards for
pedestrian facilities that provide multiple connections to transit.
Improve parking regulations downtown. Institute parking regulations
that support compact, walkable downtowns with the following provisions:
. Reduce or eliminate minimum on-site parking requirements in locations
planned for highest pedestrian activity.
. Allow parking requirements to be satisfied by the use of on-street,
municipal, common, or shared parking.
. Establish parking caps that limit the maximum number or total square
footage of on-site surface parking spaces.
.
· Encourage the creation of municipal parking lots and garages by allowing
payment of a fee in lieu of providing on-site parking and by encouraging
landowners to dedicate rear portions of their lots for public parking.
· Prohibit off-street parking in front of buildings.
· Provide access to parking areas through alleys and side streets when-
ever possible.
· Make parking areas as pedestrian-friendly as possible through the use
of pedestrian pathways, trees, walkways, and attractive lighting on
pedestrian-scale fixtures.
· Where economically feasible; encourage the construction of multilevel
parking garages that have ground-floor retails uses, are hidden in the
middle of a block, or are underground.
.
Streamline development review in transit-oriented areas. Establish a by-
right process facilitating construction and rehabilitation of buildings that
contribute to the density, mix of uses, and urban quality essential in a tran-
sit-supportive area.
Set maximum block lengths. Establish maximum block lengths reflective
of traditional patterns (generally no greater than 300 to 500 feet) to encourage
pedestrian activity, to create connectivity of streets, and to provide variety in
the pedestrian experience. Smaller block lengths are particularly critical in
mixed-use areas.
Require street connectivity. Require streets to connect except where topog-
raphy or other physical barriers make this impossible. Where streets cannot
connect, require pedestrian walkways and stairways for pedestrian connec-
tivity. A connectivity ratio can quantify this requirement while allowing for
limited exceptions. The index is calculated by dividing the number of street
sections between intersections, including cul-de-sacs, by the number of street
nodes. For a detailed discussion of various approaches to addressing. con-
nectivity through development regulations see PAS Report No. 515, Street
Connectivity, by Susan Handy et al. .
Review street and sidewalk standards. Include standards that create an
attractive environment for pedestrians. Narrower streets, with parallel on-
street parking tend to reduce the speed of vehicles and enhance the sense of
security of pedestrians, while shortening the crossing distance between the
two sidewalks. Wider sidewalks, designed with care (e.g., sidewalks that are
shaded in warm climates, offer some protection from rain, are lit well, and are
furnished with benches and other conveniences) encourage pedestrian activity.
In contrast to conventional zoning, New Urbanist regulations include
detailed provisions for streets and civic spaces, recognizing their impor-
tance in community life and place making. .
.
ENHANCING STREETSCAPES AND CIVIC LiFE
Make streets public spaces. Establish dimensional regulations for build-
ings and streets to effectively shape the streets as a public space.
Reduce. or eliminate minimum setbacks. Rather than employing setbacks,
use "build-to lines" or "build-to zones" (consisting of minimum and maxi-
mum setbacks). Exceptions can be allowed for civic buildings, pedestrian
plazas, or outdoor eating areas in front of restaurants, cafes, or other buildings
(Figure 8).
Chapter 1. Ne....v Urbanist Essentials 21
Wide sidewalks and ground-j1oor shops
and restaurants combine to create a lively
street scene and a walkable urban
district at The Corner at Eastern Market
in Washington, D.C. A variance was
required to allow the corner building to
be built at a floor area ratio of 3.0.
.
J
22 Codifying New Urbanism
Review and amend setback and height requirements. Setback and height
requirements should create desired relationships between the height of
buildings and the distance between their fa~ades as they face each other
across a street (this relationship is the "enclosure ratio" described above).
Illustrate relationships between street and building elements. Street cross-
sections can be used to clearly show desired building frontages, build-to
lines, sidewalks, planting strips, and travelway elements.
Establish minimum lot frontage buildout requirements. Specify a mini-
mum percentage of lot frontage to be built out with a fa~ade at the build-to
line or in the build-to zone. This type of dimensional standard helps to
maintain the continuity of the street wall, an essential element (in addition
to width-height ratios) of creating the feeling of an "outdoor room." Even in
lower-density neighborhoods, this requirement can foster a sense of enclo-
sure of the street.
~1
II... THE MISSING LINK? REGIONAL PLANNING AND
II. LOCAL DEVElOPMENT REGULATION
By Gianni. Longo
Inan ideal world, a regional plan would be the link between state planning goals
(orintheir absence, statewide initiatives that support Smart Growth) and the gen-
eral plans that guide local governments' land-use policies. The alignment of state
intentions and local government decisions through a regional plan should create a
fertile environment for the harmonious growth of regions and of municipalities
within them..
In the real world,. however, planning and land-use decisions in a region are
made by a complex web of jurisdictions and empowered bodies (counties, munic-
ipalities, townships, boards, metropolitan planning organizations, councils of gov-
efIU11ents)and are hardly ever coordinated. Among the consequences of such a
fraglneI1ted decision-making environment are: sprawl; inconsistent development
regulations; land-use decisions disconnected from transportation decisions; anom-
alo~? concentration of poverty in older neighborhoods and suburbs; and a discon-
nect between where jobs are located and where the workforce lives. These patterns
of development add to congestion, environmental problems and, in general, to a
deteriorating quality of life. Regional plans can bring coherence to metropolitan
regions (large and small), and create a more coordinated policy framework for reg-
ulation and decision making at the local level.
In the absence of a regional form of government, local governments have the
lion's share of the implementation responsibility for a regional-plan. Ensuring that
the recommendations of a regional plan are adopted at the local level and that they
find their way first into comprehensive plans and eventually into land development
codes requires strong support from elected and appointed officials. 'Such buy-in
requires early involvement of those officials in the plan development, the identifica-
tion of clear regional choices and trade offs, and the strong (and' defensible) support
of residents and stakeholders.
Most regional plans rely on extensive public involvement and consensus-build-
ing techniques to gain residents' and stakeholders' support. Through charrettes
and vision processes, residents have an opportunity to make vital and informed
decisions about the future of a region. Those decisions, if strongly supported, are
difficult to ignore and can dramatically affect decision making at the local level.
They can help translate a regional policy framework into locally adopted plans
and land development regulations.
.
.
.
Put public buildings in central locations. Encourage the location of civic
buildings, such as a town hall, post office, library, school, or house of wor-
ship, in visually prominent central locations. Provide design flexibility for
civic buildings to allow them to make unique contributions to their sur-
roundings.
Build neighborhood parks. Encourage small parks or squares (as small as
0.25 acre) in neighborhoods.
The Charter of the New Urbanism places particular emphasis on the rela-
tionship between the metropolis and its agrarian surroundings and natural
landscape. Local development regulations must address the potential con-
flict between urbanism and environmental preservation while supporting
productive agriculture, rural communities, and a clear urbani rural edge.
This is particularly challenging because the enactment of provisions address-
ing the relationship between urban and rural areas requires significant coop-
eration and consistent actions by neighboring localities.
SHAPING METROPOLITAN REGIONS
Define and zone the expanding metropolitan edge. The metropolitan
edge-whether that of a city or a small town-needs to be defined as a dis-
tinct transitional zone, in which new development, if desired, will be care-
fully phased in tandem with municipal utilities, such as central sewer and
water service. Use urban growth boundaries and/or annexation agree-
ments to manage this process among neighboring urban and rural jurisdic-
tions. Use design standards to ensure that the urban expansion area
respects and echoes the character of the existing town or neighborhood.
Define and protect the most productive farmland through exclusive agri-
cultural zoning. Where legally permissible, exclusive agricultural zoning or
programs for purchase or transfer of development rights (PDRs or TDRs)
will help protect productive farmland. Such zoning should allow farmers to
engage in a variety of compatible small-scale businesses on their farms to
enable them to supplement their farm income, especially in the off-season.
Use conservation subdivision techniques to separate and integrate open.
space and residential development. In areas where residential uses and active
farming can co-exist, use conservation subdivision techniques to establish
defined neighborhoods surrounded by protected open space or farmland.
Because residential development in close proximity to intensive agriculture
often produces conflict over noise, dust, and odors, such developments must
be carefully designed to buffer farms from their residential neighbors.
Chapter 1. New Urbanist Essentials 23
FIGURE 8. THE BUILD-TO LINE
COMPATIBLE STREET FRONTAGE
/
"'
INCOMPATIBLE STREET FRONTAGE
~"'Q
.......//
..~....'. 4; 9>/ .
" ," '.' --
"~.'~,> ,', .... .'_ . ,/.-/' ,/ . ,n .
~;//
Bringing buildings, entrances, and
windows to the street adds to
street activity, surveillance, and a sense
of spatial enclosure. Codes should
include "build-to," "build-near-to,"
or n1aximum setback requirenzents
to attain this goal.