The URL can be used to link to this page

2. HRSR 09-13-2005ITEM ~ 2. . ~~~~ aver MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission Housing and Redevelopment Authority Heritage Preservation Commission FROM: Heidi Steinmetz, Assistant Director of Economic Development ~~ DATE: September 13, 2005 SUBJECT: Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Vision and Presentation of Market Information Attachments HRA Redevelopment Concept Memo dated July 5, 2005 from Lance Lindberg, Heritage Preservation Commission Chair Background Beginning in June of 2004, the HRA completed the following activities to develop a redevelopment plan for downtown north of Hwy 10: • Defined a study area boundary • Expressed along-term vision for the study area • Reviewed past & updated research of building condition, historic significance, and the market analysis for the area • Reviewed three redevelopment concept options and discussed barriers to implementing the concepts • Selected and refined one of the concepts (concept attached) • Directed staff to utilize the concept as a guiding document fox redevelopment proposals and inquiries from the private sector • Drafted & refined narrative description for the concept • Held a special meeting for a work session with the City Council for input on the redevelopment concept and narrative In addition, the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) provided input at their September 9, 2004 HPC meeting to assist in updating past research of the area, which included the Historical Significance Analysis, completed in Summer 2001. HR.A Vision and Presentation of Market Information September 13, 2005 Planning Commission Workshop Page 2 of 2 Lssue The Planning Commission and HPC recently expressed interest in meeting with the HRA to discuss downtown north of Hwy 10. Lance Lindberg, the HPC Chair submitted the attached memo regarding the HPC's specific interest in discussing how the "Old Town" land use designation relates to the HR.A's redevelopment plan for downtown north of Hwy 10. Additional Information On June 6, 2005, the HRA requested more information on the marketability of downtown north of Hwy 10 along Jackson Avenue. Dave Callister of Ehlers & Associates will provide a presentation of market information at the Planning Commission meeting. -~.~~~; d ~~~; d Q g ~ ~ ~ ~ij o ~N U ~iZ ism w w ~-- J O 7 S I~IA~O.L I- s1 ~' _ = Oy .~ _-- N ~ ~, ; z t ~~i _~~-_ ~. 3n ~~ _ Q z a- O j •^~l W U a~ 0 a~ _ ~ a~ ~ ',~ ~ A ~ g ~, ~ ~ w i I IJ ~ ~~ ~r ~ w .ti c n ~ ~ a/ w J J w0 FREERS & ASSOCIATES INC ~~~~~~ ~~ To: City of Elk River i Housing and Redevelopment Authority ~,-,1,,.;~ ~~~~, Planning Commission W Heritage Preservation Commission ~~~`~~~ From: Dave Callister, Ehlers & Associates Subject: Market Feasibility Feedback -Downtown North of Highway 10 Date: September 13, 2005 Process Ehlers and Associates was asked to obtain feedback from the development community as it relates to market feasibility for the Refined Redevelopment Concept as recently determined by the HRA. Ehlers sent out materials including the refined redevelopment concept map, aerial photos, draft of the purpose, goals and objectives for this area, traffic counts as well as information regarding the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. The developers reviewed this information and visited the redevelopment area prior to a meeting to discuss their thoughts regarding the concept plan and the market feasibility of several different housing, mixed use and commercial products. Developer Feedback In summary, a number of issues were listed by the developers as common themes, including: ^ Redevelopment must complement and not compete with the downtown area ^ Biggest redevelopment challenge is land assembly. The large number of parcels and property owners may limit the size and scope of redevelopment. Any redevelopment must be multi-phased and would need plan for public/private land acquisition. ^ Cost of land acquisition would make redevelopment difficult without city assistance and/or increasing housing densities. ^ Developers agree that Phase I is most likely building center site ^ Locating housing near railroad may create some issues. This could be offset by providing a natural buffer between railroad tracks and development. This could be utilized as green space or walkways bikeways Dave Callister, Financial Advisor 651-697-8553 Fax: (651) 697-8555 3060 Centre Pointe Drive dcallister@ehlers-inc.com Roseville, MN 55113-1105 http://www.ehlers-inc.com ^ Commuter rail station would be beneficial to area redevelopment opportunities. ^ Too much mixed use on east side of Jackson north of 5th Street. Developers feel area should stay residential and a number of residential products could be used ^ Consider maintaining single family homes but increasing the densities by using narrower lots (45') and/or detached single family, row homes or twin homes. ^ Commercial activity should be destination based including service related, small offices and perhaps small corporate types of commercial uses ^ All developers indicated that redevelopment in this area should increase housing density to support the downtown area ^ Lions Park is an asset, orient redevelopment to take advantage of this existing amenity ^ Service related businesses along Main Street appear to make sense and will expand without direct city intervention as the community continues to grow ^ Single Family rehabilitation areas appear reasonable and do not need a developer but avehicle/program to proceed. Stable single family neighborhoods enhance the overall marketability of the area. Next Steps - Ways to attract developers It appears from developer comments that redevelopment is feasible in this area and the City is doing the right thing by planning for different development components in a larger redevelopment area. Developers will generally ask questions about the feasibility of development and the level of interest and participation from the City. The City should consider reviewing several policy issues before proceeding. These policy decisions are not made in a vacuum but instead are made in the context of a redevelopment plan. Some of those policy questions include: 1) When and where should redevelopment begin? 2) Is the City willing to assist with land acquisition? 3) Should the City begin acquiring property ahead of development? And if so is there a funding source for implementation? 4) Is development likely to be market driven or is there a need for city assistance? 5) If projects are not fmancially feasible, is the City willing to use development incentives such as tax increment fmancing, grants or other sources? 6) What are the costs of redeveloping certain portions of the redevelopment area? 7) Do the costs outweigh the returns for a potential developer? 8) Is a financial feasibility study necessary to determine this? I have provided staff with a copy of a more detailed and specific summary of developer's comments to assist in reviewing the market feasibility of this redevelopment area. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Dave Callister, Financial Advisor 65 ]-697-8553 Fax: (651) 697-8555 3060 Centre Pointe Drive dcallister@ehlers-inc.com Roseville, MN 55 1 13-1 105 http://www.ehlers-inc.com MEMORANDUM TO: Housing and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Lance Lindberg, Heritage Preservation Commission Chair DATE: July 5, 2005 SUBJECT: Plan for Area in Old Town Land Use Designation The Elk River Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) is considering a few issues in that part of the city that is situated in the Old Town Land Use designation. The HPC is interested in the HRA's vision is fox this area and any specific plans that may be under consideration. The HPC looks forward to commenting on concept plans or specific proposals in the spirit of supporting the existing character of this area as outlined in the "Old Town" section of the city's Comprehensive Plan. Item # 2 ver MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, HRA and HPC FROM: Scott Harlicker, Senior Planne DATE: September 13, 2005 SUBJECT: Old Town Land Use and Zoning Overview Land Use Attached is the Old Town land use section of the Comprehensive Plan. The Old town land use designation allows for a mix of uses including residential (single and multi-family), commercial, office, service and public/civic. It includes single family residential and multi- family neighborhoods, the central commercial district, parks and river frontage and schools in and around the Central Business District. The need for preservation, revitalization, renovation and redevelopment is stressed. Zoning Old Town includes the following zoning districts: • DD (DownTown District) • C1 (Central Business District) • C2 (Office District) • C3 (Highway Commercial) • R1c (Single Family Residential) • RZ (Two Family Residential) • R3 (Townhouse District) • R4 (Multi-Family) • PUD (Planned Unit Development) As can be seen above, Old town currently includes almost every residential and commercial zoning district. In response to this fact, staff has collected information on a zoning concept called "form based zoning" (attached). Form based zoning replaces conventional Euclidian or use based zoning with regulations that shape the form of development. Form based zoning includes three main components: the regulating plan, building envelope standards and architectural and streetscape standards. The regulating plan identifies the building envelope,standards to be applied to specific properties. The building envelope standards establish basic guidelines for building form, including height, setbacks and fenestrations. The architectural and streetscape standards regulate exterior design, landscaping, lighting and pedestrian features. The attached zoning map and form based zoning information is intended as background information and to stimulate discussion about what the Old Town district is and what it could be. r:.~rm-Based Zoning t~~ic~t i~~;~t~ 9'~I,~a~it;;' :~~~;f-t:i<i~.i{a~~ ;.. rxr4s~:~rg~ ~~~~, _Saturday ; Sunday I I~9onday .Tuesday L1'ednesday Overview Fa~~-_~~~~ ~~~~~~ Page 1 of 2 Sessions + uesday, /~prll 27, 2C)ga By f~ega~o Le~~is, AFCP Workshops RPA Senior Rese~rrci~ .;ssv:;iate Special Events Many of the places thought of as "great" are areas that developed prior to the Hot Topics adoption of Euclidean zoning regulations. These places -representative examples are Chicago 's Loop District and San Francisco -are the products of development People that occurred based on an emphasis an physical form rather than on controlling US2S. V~lhile the term "form-based codes" is around ;'<< years old, the concept of basing regulation on form has been around ter a white, under a variety of names - performance 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 public participation. A panel of practitioners discussed hove form-based zoning codes seek to recapture a development pattern that focuses on "form" before "function." Because they separate uses into distinLt districi:s, 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 corm, farm-based codes work to reconnect these ttaro areas and define a desirable farm for an area. In addition to having a direct impact on shaping form, form-based codes involve a much more ea~tensive public participation process than the development of a conventional code does. The charrette process is the primary mechanism far community participaticn and input. The goal is to have citizens be fully engaged and involved in the development process, so that the lave a4FVner°ship over it. it aisa re- emphasizes the focus on physical farm .of a place aver the specific uses. 1h'hile examples of Sonoma, Hercules, and Petafurna, Callfarnia, ~a~ere presented as places that have adopted form-based codes, rural areas have also embraced these ':odes. Fi prime example is Vlaodford ~~ountry, F;entudcy, where a proposed Wai-Mart spurred the can~munity to undertake a c!•rarrette process and adopt aform-based code. In addition, "rust-bE:lt" cities like Syracuse, New 1'as-k; Saratoga Springs, flew Park; and Providence, Rhode island, have aisa adapted form-based codes, Paul Cravvford, r=AiCP, of Crawford l~!u!tari ~. Clari: presented the fallowing principles for form-based codes: ~ ltVOr k from a defi3lirlg 5}~ri%lai pattern, SUCH a5 the Tral'tSeCt ar a system of neighborhoods, districts, and corridors ~ De-emphasize land use in favor of E>uiiding form an:a t}rpaloay Emphasize mixed uses and mi>:ed use dousing ~ Focus cn ttio streetscape and the public realm Conduct adesign-focused public participation process "('a creat;~ a farm-based cede, Cre?~~~fcrrd suggested alive-step approach: http://www.planning.org/conferencecoverage/2004/tuesday/formbased.htm 1 /3 /2005 r~~rln-Based Zoning Yage "~ of ~ ~ I.:~~entorv the existing conditions of the place: It is important tc 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 o€ buildings. ~ Identif}, a set of organizing principles for the spatial structure: This can be based an concepts such as: o The neighborhood, district, and carridor; m The Transect, whicn defines ini:ensity of activity based on the transect zone that applies «~ Street-system-t;ased regulatory plan s Special purpose anes ~ i}efine urban design standards: for erampie, establishing commercial street design guidelines, with tt-:e goal of "shaping the public space of the street." ~ Define architectural standards: for example, building types and frontage types o illustrate the standards, to make it easier for those who will be implementing the code. Gil! Dennis of Maule & Poiyzoides discussed how New Urbanism is essentially the way ,.tire used to develop towns, but conventional zoning has precluded that. He made the point that all development plans should -check to see how it works for a child, because "a neighbarhoad is a child's world." Geoffrey Ferrell of Geoffrey Ferrell associates illustrated how the zoning and land- use maps do not translate into what form appears on the grcund. In addition, design guidelines do nat al+vays capture *_he vltafity of the community that they are trying to achieve, His observation is that the there are three elements to defining a place: farm, use,~density, and management. In many communities, use/density is the primary emphasis when defining a place, followed by management, with form treated very tightly. The form-based Cade approach looks to focus the most emphasis an farm, follawed by management, with use/density having the lightest emphasis. This does not mean that use and density are r.ot 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 passible uses. t-iawever, form-based codes do address use types that are appropriate to a distric*.; tables describing the uses associated with an area are often included in the code. 4:Cop~-right 20G4 APA All Rights Reser~~ed http://www.planning.org/conferencecoverage/2004/tuesday/formbased.htm 1/3/2005 New Urbanist Codes Overview Sessions Workshops Special Events Hot Topics People ~9Tl~t`it*~t1 P[~rit~it~~ ~~t~Cia1 it~i3 Saturday I Sunday ~ Monday ~ Tuesday ~ Wednesday New Urbanist Codes Sunday, April 25, 2004 By Lynn Ross ' APR Research Associate Netiv 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 • Codes that regulate land use and density • Codes that regulate operation and daily use Page 1 of 2 New urbanist codes operate under a very simple general principle: Regulate the physical farm and everything else (land use, density, operation, and daily 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 aform-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 Plan 2. Urban Standards 3. Architectural Standards (optional) 4. Street Standards Form-based codes can be applied far 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 legal 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, Sitkowski noted that form-based codes cannot abandon the regulation of uses. Doing so would pit these codes directly against current federal laws including RLUIPA and Fair Housing, which specifically 2/3/2005 New Urbanist Codes 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 an property rights. Too little prescription creates the "vagueness trap," according to Sitko4ti~ski. 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 da 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 Cade 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 it{ustrated. This type of rode is time-consuming to develop and is considered by some to be reactive in nature. However, the modern 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. i~:,Copyright 2004 APA All Rights Reserved Page 2 of 2 2/3/2005 Form-Based Development Codes By David Rouse, AICP, 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 igz6 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 i9i6 New York City zoning code, which established dimensional requirements to permit light and air and prevent overcrowding. Published in the igzos, the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act was ultimately adopted by all 5o 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 In reaction to these trends, new, form- based approaches to development regulation are being proposed as alternatives to conven- tionalzoning. These approaches can be charac- terized as prescriptive or contextual in nature. Prescriptive approaches seek to codify the phys- icalparameters of development based upon a normative position on ideal urban form (typi- callyderived from the pre-World War II model of traditional development). Contextual approaches, on the other hand, look to the characteristics ofthe 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- 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 the proviso that the advantages and disadvantages of dif- ferentapproaches 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 198os and early i99os. New Urbanism is based on the concept of walkable 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 ofthis 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- ing systems? uses and limits on density have contributed ^ How does it deal with the regulation of use, to excessive consumption of land (suburban sprawl). On the other, zoning's lack of a positive prescription for physical form has facilitated the intrusion of incompatible development types into traditional urban ' neighborhoods and districts. 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 ZONINGPRACTICE 05.04 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 2 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 aform-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 Station 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, Vrginia, which has implemented aform- based code to revitalize Columbia Pike, an older commercial corridor. Special conditions: within 100 feet of Main Street required building line; Wakefield to Four-Mlle Run, maximum v four stories c Maximum siz stories1s ~ Minimums" three stories >r MII N, ~ ~ r WIMin 40 feet of local street lot or existing single-family use; maximum 32 feet eaves or parapet height e` The Columbia Pike Initiative is a long- range economic development vision to create a vibrant commercial corridor and urban center eters for building form, including height, set- backs, and fenestration. They also set broad parameters for mixed uses allowed on the first along a 3.5-mile section of Columbia Pike. The and upper floors, except that the neighbor- Pike had experienced little development adiv- hood frontage sites are primarily restricted to ity in the past qo years, despite its location in the high-growth Capital Area. The Columbia Pike Master Plan was adopted in zooz 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 zoo3. This code was designed to implement the vision of the Columbia Pike Initiative, including creation of apedestrian-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 enJe- 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- Street walls required on alley and CDmmon dot lines; RESIDENTIAL HOME seven feet mazimum height occuPaTIDNs / ~/ RESIDENTULL -~ HOME OCCUPAmONe 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. Accordingto Richard Tucker, county plan- nerforthe Columbia Puce 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 ofthe code and the streamlined review process. Several pending mixed-use develop- mentproposals 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- entinitial successes, Tucker notes some chal- lenges related to the PARKING newness of the code. ACCESSORY ""m Issues tend to arise as proposals are submit- - ted by developers who have problems with the standards of the code, ZONINGPRACTICE 05.04 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 3 a a i 5 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 dther areas. FORM DISTRICT ZONING Form districts emerged as a concept in the Cornerstone zozo Comprehensive Plan for Louisville and Jefferson County, Kentucky (devel- oped in the mid-i99os and adopted in zooo). The Cornerstone zozo 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 ofsuburban 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 ii districts that prescribe desired development patterns in context with the sur- roundingenvironment, 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 farm 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 Hurstboume and Lyndon, the new Land Development Code took effect in March zoo3. 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- malapplication of form-based coding to spe- cificgeographic 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- ningand design staff, the initial reaction of developers to the adopted form district regulations has varied. One developer of e small shopping center in the neighborhood form district, who was initially skeptical ofthe 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- ingcurve 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 wilt be made over the next year. At this time, Louisville Metro is about two years away from considering a transition from the two-tiered approach to a more complete integration of conventional zoning with the form districts. Nevertheless, according to the planning and m 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 ofthe 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 acomprehensive 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 coded by Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company and copyrighted as the "SmartCode." S 0 s .~ s 0 which was one ofthe seven special develop- mentareas identified in the comprehensive plan. The Downtown District was divided into three urban transect categories that replaced the existing zon- ingdistricts: the Urban Neighborhood (7 q), Neighborhood Center (T-5), and Urban Core (7-6). Design standards were established for set- backs, height, parking location, street design, facade 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- mentinterest 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- vativedesign practices. More traditional . developers, who were at first skeptical, are also starting to embrace the new code. Saratoga'~prings 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 ofform-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 os.o4 AMERICAN PL4NNING ASSOCIATION I page 5 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-i (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- ingdevelopment patterns facilitated by conven- tionalzoning. The transect model was applied as a new approach to concentrate development in the Downtown District, 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- ingwith form-based systems will be an incre- mentalprocess 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 commorlresponses. 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- mentcodes 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 ofthe comparative benefits and detri- ments of different approaches, or overall suc- cess of these approaches as an alternative to conventional zoning. Afollow-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 forsharing their experiences with form- based development codes: R. Wayne Bennett, Context Town Planning (formerly Director of the Louisville//efferson County Division of Planning and Development Services); Geoffrey Bornemann, Ciry Planner, City of Saratoga Springs; Deborah Bilitski, Esquire, /efferson County Attorney's Office; Charles Cash, Director, Louisville Metro Planning and Design Services; David Hulefeld, Assistant Director, Louisville Metro Planning and Design Services; ^ Duany, Andres, and Emily Talen, "Transact Planning,"/ournal of theAmerican Planning Association, Vol. 68, No. 3, Summer zooz. ^ 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 zoo3. ^ Parfrey, Eric, "Duany, New Urbanists, and 'Form-Based' Zoning Dominate State APA Conference," Planners Tabloid, Sacramento Valley Section, California Chapter, American Planning Association, January zooq. ^ Peirce, Neil, "Zoning: Ready to Be Reformed?"The Washington Post Writers Group, February z, zoo3. ^ Talen, Emily, "Help for Urban Planning: The Transact Strategy," /ournal of Urban Design, Vol. 7, No. 3, October zooz. Geoffrey fenell, Geoffrey ferret! Associates LLC; Ann Hammond, Assistant Executive Director, Nashville/Davidson County Planning Commission; and Richard Tucker, Planner, Arlington County Planning Commission. ^ NEWS BRIEFS ILLINOIS COMMUNITIES LIMIT BANK BRANCHES AND NONRETAIL USES IN RETAIL DISTRICTS By Rebecca Retzla/j; nrcp Respondingto concems overthe potential foss of sales taxes and pedestrian activity in com- mercialdistricts, 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 orderto 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 nonretail 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 been substantially funded by sales tax revenue generated 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- atingsales taxes account for 3o percent of the total first-floor uses in the business district, and financial institutions represent lz 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- atingsales tax in the district is yo feet, whereas it is 37 feet for those not generating sales tax, and zoo 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 ofnon-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 9o-day morato- rium in February zooq for new nonretail uses in its business districts, following the comple- ZONINGPRACTICE 05.04 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 6 T T rban codes that regulate the design of buildings U and streets~have been in existence since the archi- ::~.. ~°':. ~eCE Vitruvius transcribed them in ancient Rome. Later, :..~_:., ~''-" •~`~'` these practices were adopted by Renaissance Italy {~~£€~r-,::.: ~ 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 officlal~ 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 pur- pos~ was set forth as follows: "That in• order that the discoveries and new ~. 3~t'tiements and pacification of the Land ~~~ ~: ~~'~ ~ an°d~ 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. " ~,~,..~ •OR The regulations for new settlements • T and towns included specific criteria for the placement and design of the central plaza or square, the location of civic buildings, the size of urban, the- dedication of public open space, and the segrega- tion of noxious uses. Today, our principal tools of regulating the growth of our communities are Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. These tools, with their unyielding reliance on the strict segregation of uses, are highly inferior to our ancient codes in the creation of beautiful commu- nities. - -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. 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. Modern 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 downtowns were constructed dur- ing aperiod before zoning. As such, these areas have been much more adaptable to changes in demo- graphics, retail trends, and technol- '"~ °"°"• ogy (i.e. telecommuting) than new suburban subdivisions with rigid setbacks, narrow use requirements, and overbearing restrictive covenants that typically promote monotony and predictability. 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 Design-based codes are richly illustrated to convey hey design standards found in the text 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. Fttl'in~ L"n to lint "f @aiWick To ensure success, all four elements must be incorpo- rated into any effort, otherwise a community will run the risk of losing support and derailing the process. 1. Clear and Concise Standards ' . - `'T'he most difficult task in design-based code prepa- ": ` "ration is crafting a standard that achieves a desired ~effed or outcome without over-manipulating the `' ~"d'esign 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 Qeation 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 closer to the street to encourage '` ~ pedestrian activity while main- , ~ . ~' twining a commensurate level of privacy for occupant. To accom- :. push this, residential buildings ' ~ ~ ~ liistorically have been elevated .from the grade of the sidewalk, usually approximately 11/z to 2 feet. This will allow the lower sill height of the fronting windows to be above 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. 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 ~ vw ~o ~, v~ w to adhere to a rigid, contrived Condition. Tn faooo~~ 0 the opposite is usually the case. Most design-bad codes, except for those written specifically for a his toric area, are usually much more permissive in style and detail. To that end, design-based codes outside of a his- toric district .should refrain from spedfically men- tioning aparticular 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 fa4.ade treatment as well as a require- ment for fenestration .(doors and windows) at the street level. A number of specific architectural styles do not meet this definition in the strict sense, particularly mod- ernist styles such as thE: internation- 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 Format 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 prevalence of codifying ordinances through the Municipal Code Corporation (MCC) and similar web-based Code clearinghouses. The format must not be so rigid as :~ 0 U Facade detailing should prevail over all other site elements including parking standards p o ~ ,/~ ;,*i n p ~ ~ .C ~ .., ~ ~ w w ~ ='prelude publishing by the MCC through the ]" ~ -.`overuse of sophisticated formatting. Communities should strongly consider the use of basic word processing software packages such as 1vliQOSOft Word and Corel WordPerfect in lieu of more 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. in general, developers are much more willing 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 more money on important elements such as the building facade rather than on a prolonged MikR I `w.tCma~+YYkCW.h11WHNC tasn'nr --~,,,-„- ,rr„..y:.w..u e ~.~ ,....uw~ -...r 'w.ia.~.e • dn..r ~~ ,.~, i i 3 - ,; ~;' ilti _~ M,: ~o _ Ultimately, the implementation of design-based codes 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. iyi:R lull Top awu ct»awx7aa.av./R~'~ Diavia "atl1°°°"1°p1aB1G1" ~t.__.__,__._. cry.-~- - .::. s w':~~:w~.. a=........~ `... - ........ ~ ~ ~ 4 r~.ak°.~....r...a.~.. :~~ .~~ . j .... i _~~ ~__. .. ~, _, -,~ ~+~ ~... „~ ~. •Md: R tttll'!'..p iwo.~...wr..,. q.~,.rpMii..., bi:arid ~ rk,;r+i.~~u~pa .p.rsyg~ i ~ . ~ ~ i ~ir ei~ r ' ~ r ..- »~.a. •-+.. :,.. ."" ,...... ..,e d The format of the Code should be clear and eary [o read wtth photos, tllustrattons, an 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 would 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, desi~-based codes are appropriate, all types of communities from no-growth to high- growth. Care must be taken to waft Lodes 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- Qatic 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, AICP, CNt7 March, ?003 . x~.iu~w ~.a~i~v i~avvu ++a~ al~u icslvlla,, tildtlillll~' Y11 UI lS " ~ ' for pubhc and prnate chenls:, _ ? f • . In addition, tvlr Le;~is'ts nafionallq recognized forizis ~ ..• expertise to ihe.inlplementation'of design-based codes hav ~ ~ ~ - ~„ , ing'authored numerous newurbanist codesand design ,~, z ~ '~ `~°1 '' , - guidelines throughout Lhe southeast as well as in the mid ,. . 1-lis Code experience includes: °' - , tive tThe form=based codes that he has produced hate. - ': - - ~ - .;served as natianal• models for other communities seeking to .: ~, 'Town of Cornelius, IBC Land Develnpmeric Code . E w; :ado}>t-neu design-based techniques to guide groiti-th.. - ' : Touv1 of Davidson, NC Planning Ordinance ~ ,~`~ ' _ _ ~ Alouru Mourne Nei~hborkood C6de, tvlooresi~Re--, Is'G ~- A1r seta°is is a~skiiled public facilifator and an advocate and ~ ' ~ L)nu~nrown A1nc7esinlie Code, A~ne~rPS1rille, f1C , ,practitioner of the pubhc charretteplanning and design ~ Cite of Belmont, NC Land Dei~elcpment Code _ - r _ ' process; ~ln addition, he is a strong public speaker and is _ C1t}~ of kale~,~h, NC Urbun Design Guidelines i•. -- - tit e11 sought after as an instructor and presenter ~ Haynie-Simne ~tieighborhood Code, Greemnlle, SC ' ' . Cth~ of O Fallon, til-O Down[ou.n Design Guidelines - - ~ Torn. e~f Surnmcr{ield, NC Cc~mmei-cniI Development Guidelines He holds a B.A. in Political Science and a Alasters in Public Ce.~terrj t7e Rcgit~n Bess Dtn~elopmert Pr.:cria , Triari~Ie.4rea, NC Administration from the Universit~f of North Carolina at N`11tot? -Glen Alaur}• Parh C'cu.e, Pu~aia VL~ra, V_~ Charlotte- He Currently serves as t}3e Chairman of the Design Southside U~ ~ la~~ DiStTiel, Hcnder_sor1n11z l~rC_ Peview Board for the Tou-n of Davidson and is a regular stu- .. Cin- of Roanore; ~4 Zonarg Orau~ance (InProgres) dio critic for the Uniti'ersity of North Carolina at Charlotte T~u~n ofR9oo~~n~ilie, NC Lr_ i j Development Cede (In I'r ;dress) School of Architecture. ~r .'- AmencanPl:uinin~.Sssneiauon li u~ ~~ ~~ - ~~` ' ~ - ~ .rte ~ ~ ~--"'~';~~°'~'~ ,,.s~~•"°~. a.+ =~~'~•a ~* S e ~ c ~ ~.. ~ .... a3' . a .s ~ 6y Peter Kxlz :~~. r l'Ite'V cw lrl~;tnil ~rller•nuli~e lrr run~e•rziir~ nzil zunin~. ~- •~ .~ y ~~. ~' • ~.~' .~. ,''" 'mv~~ T~..-, ,jam "~ x ~~ ~tfr'as~i`~-_-te ~~ ~~ YL r~ t - _ 3a~ ~1 ~-f '~ ni4'3' yr - ~ ~ ~ . _ c~ v _ _ ~ - ._ - ~ , " _ ~ R"r _. _ - _ F ]W-v ~yy. _ _.. -~ ltilixe~l7ausirt` rues are a Yrz:zjorrlenxenr.r~f jnrrtt- firuecL' ~~nraes (,.z ioz~el. Srrzckcci~FUtts, LLri.;fi reta>i i7ciuzu, i:;s~•u btasy tiL/1tIiV i7ntl:'r:c :.ii2Ci rourhnuses cn~c ors :lrr si~:lr Streets. ,r72 _nL[~l,~ C:iz}~~~ - Peru;t.rcu r _Ncv~G,r',url~ond, tlrecnci~ recfuiressidr-zunlfzs aYUi':~i~t szsr;n-toza;%~;~-nrtt j~urL??e.~ 'Yt .trt c~ori ro ~~rc~atc ., Pcctcsn-run ~~•Ir°rltwit~ - ,., b. W .. , ~"~`'k' .. -- Ib I'Lum u,~ N~wcnihci _'llllq _ ~~-,r'' ~~ g -- -^~ qs~~' '~ +~ s se ~s .~- -~ ~ ~ '~' ~ ~"~ #~y° '~%" ~~~,-~~ ~ syy~" ~ ~`A ,~,~?k a ~ ~~~-~ Abe ..b`~.u e~ `~;..i~r~~7 ~ ~~~. ~...~~ °5' T,...r'~ ~-~ .~~sd.4 ' ~,~? ~ .~'r; ~ ~.~ ~.~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~. ~a. ~ .Ya'~-.. ~ I'~ '~.~_ ~.3f ~w ~ ~ ~ . s~ _ '~_ ~' t-- ' t _ hat's what New Urban- a isr architect-planner 'Andres Duanv exl7urrs audiences to da in his lectures about the decline 01 AlI1C17 Ca S SLlb LLfbti. U/hen 1 first heard _ ,- Duane express this vie\v in file early 19~>Us, I ~•vas taken abad:, :u, I'm sure, most pl.uulers were. Ir seemed outrageous ro su`~`~cs7r filar zoning', d]r body of law char lO11CfU1ti dCVCUpn7CRC In ~~~~ pCfl.CllC Ol .`~.11]C1lCa,S COn1111L1[llC1C5, COLLId be SO Ca$Ily d1smlS5cd. SInLC CI1CI1, hU\d'C1'Cr, I ~~C lU nle CU bCI1C~'C that Du:ul~~'s prescription may nut be so radi- cal after all. His main point is filar cunven- tion;ll zoning based un d7e sc~'rc~atiun ofland uses was never intended ro deal with physical lOrll7, :11'14 ChaC Cl]e band-lld n1e:1Sll1'CS (In- cluding design ~Lnd21111CS) Cll.!L pl;inners cobble onto cslsun`' ordinances ro address this deti- C1enCV )LItiC 111a1Ce I11.1CLC1'1 WOrSC. 5U n7eCh111 `' else is nocL.{ed, and th:lr ,umcrhing else is what New Urbanists clll Form-based cudin~. As its name su~~csts, funs-based cudin~' seeks Cl1 rC'~L!la Cl' Che j07"Il Ol Che bLLII[ C7n \'ii'Onl1]CnC. In contrast, conventional wnin~ primarily seeks ru control land use ;old density. bur is lamely silent on I111CCCrS Ol fOf'f11 bev~nd the most basic height, flour-:area, and setback limits for individual buildings. The ne~n~ approach bLillds un the idea char physicLl form is a cummunin'~s must inu-insic .ltld C11dL11'111~ Chat'aC[21'ISrIC. IC Scel:S CO codlh' that form in a suai~htf~~rvvard way so that pl;Lnncrs, citizens, dcveli,pers, ;und i]Ch CI' SCa1:C- hulders col muvC casil~- lron7 a sh.ucd physi- c.!1 vision ofa place ro its built realm'. Tu understand the concept, thinl: uC nc~ ~~a\ nci~Li~urhoi,clschan`'ruverrime.Innlal7y 18 Planning Nwembu _'D04 t~ t3c~: ~~ n~:.~a~ ~~~~c<<~~~ ~. Because they are prescriptive (they state what you w;uit), rather chap. proscriptive (what you don't want), FBCs can achievea more predictable physical result. The elements controlled by FBCs are those chat are most important to shapin~~ a high- dualin'built environment. FBCs encourage public participation because they- allo~~ citizens co see what will happen where -leading to a higher comfort level about greater densirv, For instance. Because d~ev can regulate development at the scale of an individual building or lot, FBCs en- courage independent development by multiple property o«mers. This eliminates the need Eor large land assemblies and the megaprojects drat are fi•equently proposed for such parcels. The built results of FBCs oFten reflect a diver- sity of architecture, materials, uses, and owner- ship that can only come from the actions of many independent players operating within a commu- na11y agreed-upon vision and legal framework. FBCs work well in established communities because Chey effectivel}' define and codifi~ a neighbor}iood's existing "DNA." Vernacular build- ing types can be easily replicated, promoting infill that is compatible with surrounding structures. Nonprofessionals find FBCs easier to 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 whedter the codes have been complied with. FBCs obviate the need for design guidelines, which are difficult to apply consistently, offer too much room forsubjective interpretation, and can be difficult co enforce. They also require less oversight by discretionary review bodies, leading to a less politicized planning process that can delivu• huge savings in time and money and reduce the risk of takings challenges. The stated purpose of FBCs is the shaping of ahigh-quality public realm (a presumed public good) that, in ttu n, 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 tliat is sought. ~7,'/hilc enforceability of development regula- tions has not been a major problem in new gro~~~th areas where aesthetic concerns are usually addressed in private covenants, such matters have creared problems For local governments in al- ready-urbanized areas. Because they have the potential to level the re~tilaton~ playing field between city and suburb, form-based codes could plan a major role in d1e recovery of vast areas of America's urban landscape. A series of G1LZiLlt7Yg I~1prs f:ZbOLFI, f~•nrn Datarty nL:trer-Zphrrk's dnu~t:tnu~n master plan for 6l~'est f'rz/.m 13earh, Fh~rid~z, tahich. spec f rs ~~ range u fprlr~tmrtrrs fur rash t}-pr. Onr ~ctr:zrueter•, /-~ei~f~t, cart Ge r~zrcutrred either 6y nttrnbrr of floors nr /.~c•i~Tht tv e~tv~, as in the dZQgl-~7;I1 17NG011', which iudicsrrs nz;tvitnu;n and mirtfrr~zu~rt Height. T,be rozt~ oJ`~tnre%;-ortzs with lofts ~.rbovc, se~rt in the c•otrtprut~r ;zrnullttron .at right, shnzes the result o_f foliowing art FbCJ Ylzttld-tu lute tYAd (U7LCtTgO 12 e:ghODrl~ood. ~;~.' - j ~L~~~~1.~ n 1 t ~~ - ~ - ~ ~~ - ,~-, 44 - '~ ' ~~~hs~ s . G `~~~, mss , r _ - • ~w - "~ - - a ~~. {,~ ~ - ?• Y - Y ,ekY~ ~ ~ - - :~~ American Pl:uvting .4tiwtia[iun 17 cities, warehouse and industrial areas have morphed inro trendy arts districts with galler- ies and restaurants at street level and loft housing above. The form of the buildings has remained fairly constant, while internal uses and activirv patterns have been transformed. Under the current, use-based zoning system, such a clr;tnge would be considered drastic. The land-use crtegory• has gone from industrial, at one end of the spectrum, ro residential, at the ocher, although to dle average onlooker, the place looks pretty much the same. In this example, aform- based code would regulate the part chat 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 dle code. In some cities, planners hayr found ways to bend land-use zoning ro enable this kind of reuse to promote the revitalization of older neighborhoods, particularly those with good architectural "bones." But such modifications are typically glade ocl a case-by-case basis or within natrrowly 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 suburbanization ofciry neighborhoods by provisio ns such as setback rules that force houses far back on their lots and away from each other. l;~~iiin~ ~f~~~\ n iu ~~ ~~rk Generally, the creation of a form-based code is interwoven with a community visioning process. The process typically includes a public design worlshop, or charette, lasting several days. The community~s "consensus ~ision° is conveyed dlrough a range ofvisuals, includin« perspective drawings, site analysis diagrams, and an illusuative plan. That plan, which resembles all 3erl'aI photo, includes proposed buildings (shown as rooftops), key natural features, and exlSLlllg and planned public spaces. The First step in coding is co translate tiie illustrative plan inro 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 types to each available parcel of land. Ocher kinds of regulating plans indicate a range of building or frontage types that may br constructed in a certain area. Clearly-, when it comes to detailing the urban environment, one size does not fit all, and the new approach to coding recognizes that. Coding by building type 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 ahalf-level above grade for interior privacy, with a Front stoop for access. Y'et a shopfront in the same neighborhood may be more accessible to cus- tomers if it is set at grade. Althoughpublic buildings areverv important to New Urbanist designers, they are n'picauy not coded. Such buildings are usually indicated in die regulating plan by a conceptual Footprint that serves as a placellolder until an actual design is formulated (often years in the future). I\'ui~ tdti(I lba~lt~ The physical characteristics of each building rvpe are summarized in the building sLail- 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 inro a matrix and fonnacted as a poster. Regardless of layout, building standards typically establish these parameters: Building height is a key standard. A maai- mumnumber of floors (or dimension-to-the- cave) is set to ensure that a building does nut overwhelm its neighbors. Unlike use-based zoning, Form-based codes also spccif~~ a mini- mum height in order to maintain a proper street wall. Siting standards conu•ol the placement of structures in relation co fronting streets and adjacent building lots. Dimensions to front, side, and rear building lines, ;u well as the location and configuration ofenu-ances, park- ing, yards, and courtyards are specified. Key building elements-i.e., windows, doors, and porches-are :also controlled by the standards. Uses are also part of the building envelope standards, but the approach here is quite dif- ferentFrom conventional zoning. Permissible uses, stated in general terms (e.g., retail, resi- dential), are identified For each building type and labeled on the cross-section diagram. This approach makes it easy to assion dif- ferent uses to eaich fluor of amixed-use~devel- opment, and avoids the problem of trying to communicate the same information on a flat map. (The plethora of colors, stripes, and cross- hatch patterns on most zoning reaps shows how confusing this can be.) Thoroughfare standards for a range of recom- mended street types mar• also be pan of the code in places where streets are not individually de- signed. Sue;h standards are indicated by section diagrams with dimensions For travel and park- inglanes, sidewalks, medians, and planting strips. Tree alignment and property 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 control the urban design elements that New Urbanists are most concerned with. However, some communi- ties-master-planned developments, special retail districts, historic districts, anion; 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 standards. This optional "dress code" controls exte- rior colors, materials, and construction tech- niques. Particular emphasis is given to clad- ding, doors, windows, stairs, and roofs. SR~Ie may also be included as part of the architec- tural standards, but not in every case. Ivi:ulv New Urbanists choose to :rwoid direct refer-- ?0 I'lannu,, Nm~unhrrl(lUti .`~ 1'1 eLL~ 7r?Z.a:ed-Z(Se derrelopnLertt ~t ~'tI~1fU /72ZrZ J ~leaS.21Zt HZ~~ Bt1~Tstatinrz, run.L~ ztnder zuay, uri~~ rr~lwzcr' a '0- ' acrepnrliaglot Lr'ith u~ce, retail., _ residrruiLZl, and R recreatiarz,xl uses. ences to building sr}~le, fearing that coo much specificity v,~ill lead to an overly homoge- neous, "themed" look. A lil(le hi~lfn•}~ While die term form-based coding has only recently emet-ged, the technique has been used for over 20 years. Andres Duany's Miami firm, Duany Plater-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, Duan}~ and his wife, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, initially set out to 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 at-chitecrs. That decision led to a nev,~ challenge -finding a v`ray to impart a distinctive charac- ter wspecific areas ~a~ithin the development. On study trips to historic Southern com- munities, the design ream saw that terrain 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 ed?es of the downtown. The team also noted that, while building types were fairly consis- tent in a given area, there was always enough variety ~nridiin the design oFeach building ro avoid acookie-curter look. The f%rst Seaside code established a hierar- chy of seven (later expanded ro eight) "classes" of buildings For use in the new community. Each class v,~as based on a traditional Southern vernacular buildin~~ n'pe. The code specified the rudimentary physical characteristics of each class, controlling siting on the lot, build- ing height, location of porches and outbuild- ings, and hovs~ 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 to 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 1 C-foot-long compos- ite model of the community. Looking ar 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 creators were able ro identiE}~ and fix a number of potential regulatory problems before the code was formally adopted. ,Sfter the firm's experience at Seaside, Duan}' Plater-Zyberk adapted form-based codes to work within the legal framework of aplanned- unit development. The Kentlands in Gaithersburg, Ivlarvland, is one earlr~ example of that application. Since 1959, when its plan and code were created in a Highly publicized charette, DPZ has crafted similar documents to regulate the buildout of Duet 200 new and existing communities. iil'llrlf lf'll{I2~ lhl' ('IF-('lf` Other urban dcsi`~ners have since used Ea-m- based codes in a wide ~'arien of pruicCLS and locations. In 1999, Dover, Kohl cS_ Parzners of South 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 ro two commuter rail stations and a state highwa}~. Since the adoption of the ordinance, an estimated $270 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. ~;Thile the recent wave of construction in Kendall was foreseen well before the code was adopted, man}~ credit the regulations with helping the community to achieve a true downto~srn development pat- tern rather than the patchwork typical of booming suburban areas. On the East Coast, Dover Kohl and Ferrell MaddenAssociates of Washington, D.C., con- ducted an eight-day charette that resulted in the adoption in February 200, of a plan and furor-based code for the Columbia Pike Cor- ridor in Arlington, Virginia. That work fo- cused on the detailed design of fow- mixed- use centers along a 3.5-mile section of the historic corridor, which is minutes away from the Pentagon and dotit~ntown Washington. A year later, Arlington CounR~ planners approved Columbia Station, amixed-use de- velopment consisting of 25 housing units above 42,000 square feet of street-fronting retail. Future plans call for the integration of bus rapid transit at-light rail along the corridor. Geoffret- Ferrell ofFerrell Madden ~~-as also resncui.~ihlr r,„ rF,~ I;~~m_h~~.-~; ,,,,-I~~~~, ~,f imerf can Planning Assncia cion 11 $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 Fapid Transit line. The plan this project was developed by Lennertz yle Sc 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, of Opticos Design in Berkeley, California. Stephen Lawton, the community develop- ment director of Hercules, another Contra Costa County cominuniry, credits the stream- lined nature ofform-based coding with help- ing the city to deal with a backlog of develop- mentproposals. Dover Kohl Fx Partners' Central Hercules plan is shaping several new mixed- use neighborhoods on a patcharork of Brownfield sites. Says Lawton: "The clarity of the form- based code made it easy for citizens to under- stand the development proposals and ro ac- cept die intensity ofgrowth needed to achieve financial stability. This was something we'd never have been able to achieve with comren- tional zoning." To date, most form-based codes ]lave been d individually in response to the needs _]ecific community or site. Now comes a new genet-ation of standardized form-based codes, which are derived from the SmartCode, a template developed by DPZ and licensed by the Municipal Code Corporation in Talla- hassee, Florida. The SmartCode template defines a series of TOZC71Z~702lSP.f rTt t/7P Plcaratzt Hill dlfveloptnerzt define r•/7f ZC7[1llC nfa ' f7uGlic rnonz "fr~czrscd nr. ll~lnuru Dictfiln. Cirizetz.; supporzP~d rbe ref~PVelupnrrtztpLzn ztz pzzn hec4zasP o f the oc•ncrozrs provision n f npert space. preconfigured (bur customizable) zones based on the "transect"-a framework for organiz- ing ametropolitan 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, ~crhich adopted a variation of the SmartCode in July 2003. Laura Hall of Fisher 8C Hall Urban Design in Santa Fosa and Paul Crawford, FAICP, of Crawford Multari cSC Clark in San Luis Obispo tailored the document to the city's needs; it focuses on a 400-acre portion of the downtown. According to Hall, Petaluma adopted the code in just nine months, after aseven-year effort to complete and adopt a more conven- tional, use-based downto~rn plan and zoning ordinance. Over $100 million in develop- menrhas been approved since the code's adop- tion, she says. (allifur•rtirr cirri frrlni As more communities begin to incorporate New LJrbanist and smart growth principles into their planning strategies, the practice of form-based coding is likely to spread. How much that aril] happen depends on several factors: the availability of qualified consultants (just a handful of firms practice true form-based coding); the dissemination of knowledge about the technique (little has been written on the subject, and there are few places to learn about ir); 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 recently included an endorsement offnrm- based CC,dln4 Ir1 iic oFnar,~ n~~n mnr~a~~nrc The document refers to the code as a "useful implementation measure for achieving cer- taingeneral plan goals, such as walkable neigh- borhoods and mixed-use and t]•ansit-oriented development."And dlis summer, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 1268, making California the first state to specifically enable the practice of form-based develop- ment regulation. The bill's language is brief and to the point: "The teat 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 1eighborhoods, districts, and corridors, provide for a mixture of land uses and housing types within each, and provide specific measures for regulating relationships between buildings and outdoor public areas, including streets." As states such as Florida andArizona follow California's lead in mandating local planning through the use of a general plan, zonil~g consistent with the plan, and the use of spe- cific plans, one can hope that the practice of form-based coding and the enabling lavers that support it v,)i11 not be far behind. Peter Matz is a consultant nn New Urbanist imple- mentationand development, who is based in Alexan- dria, \/ir,inia. He reaches planning at Virginia Tech's Alexandria campus and is die author of T/~P Neu Clrhan:rrn: Tn7uard an ,97•c•lrztcctaire of Co)n)nuniry, puhlished by McGraw-Hill in 1993. For a list of resources concerning form-based cod- ing, go to APA's website: v,~wv,~.planning.org. -PAS QuickNotes Form-Based Zoning A list Of references at the end of this OtsickNote will pmvideyou with additional readings aboxt Form-Ba.ced Zoning. Please contactyourPAS Representative for available reference material: THE PRINCIPAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FORM-BASED AND TRADITIONAL ZONING Prescriptive, contextual standards. Traditional zoning prn.rcribes minimum setbacks, permitting building placement anywhere within the allowable zone. Form-based zoning prescribes build-to lines, specifically defining desired development patterns. Based on ideal urban forms or contextual cues, form-based zoning ensures that new development will be appropriate to community vision or existing character. Encouraging Mixed-Use. By rigidly focusing on land use, traditional zoning makes mixed-use development difficult, if not impossible. Form-based zoning 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 zoning encourages a healthy mix of retail and residential uses, and aims to curb sprawl ar.:i reduce car dependence by removing elements of the zoning code that encourage exclusionary housing practices and density restrictions. Adapting to the Market, By prescribing use, traditional zoning 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 zoning regulations adopted when household size was on the 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 zoning 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 little 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 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 atwo-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 Examples of Form District Zoning Atlanta, Georgia: Qualit3~ of Life Zoning Districts. Available at apes atlantaa t ov/citvdir/DPCD/Bureau of Plann; e BOP/Zoning/Web Pgs/zoningdistricts htm. Louisville Metro Government, Kentucky: Old Louisville/Limerick Traditional Neighborhood Zoning District Land Development Code Including Form Districts. Available at ~mxls.loukvmetro ~/Department/Pla_n~esi€>n/Idc asp. Mclinney, Texas: McKinney Regional Employment Center, Urban Design Standards. Available at u~z~v.mckinne; texas.org/develo,~/plan.htm. Seattle, Washington: Station Area Overlay District Ordinances. Available at ~x~.-~i.cit,~ofseattle.net/planning transportationlSAP/Cou nciLactions.htm. 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. LIST OF REFERENCES THE PRINCIPAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FORM-BASED AND TRADITIONAL ZONING I. Published by the Americana Planni~zg Association ~Kayden, Jerold S. 2004. "Reconsidering Zoning: E~-panding an American Land-Use Frontier." Zoning Practice, 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 Ne~v~•, November. --. 2001. `Beyond Euclid: Integrating Zoning and Physical Design, Part One: The Evolution of Physical Design in Zoning." ZonzregNezvr, October. 2. Other resources Chael, h~Iaurice. 2003. "The Smartcode: A Weapon to Fight the Sprawl War." [Accessed)une 18, 2004]. Available at «~~~v.tndto~vn~+aper.com/\'ohime5 /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- 113 700/unrestricted/Burdette.FINAI.majorpaper.pdf. Dover, Victor. 2001. Charrettes for New Urbanism. [Accessed June 18, 2004]. Available'at . ~vw~v.doverkohl.com/writings images/charrettes for NU in FL.htm. -----. 2003. "A Townmaker's Vision of a Livable Community." Proceedings of the Second Annual new Partners for Smart Growth: Building Safe, Healthy, and Livable Communities. [Accessed June 18, 2004]. Available at www growingsensiblv.org/archive/archiveDetail.asp?objectID=1257. Katz, Peter, and Geoffrey Ferrell. 2002. "Introduction to Form-Based Codes." The Town Paper, Council Report IV.• On Codes, 48-49, 61. Palo Alto, Ciry of. Department of Planning and Community Environment. 2001. Types of Zoning Codes and Formats. July. Santa Barbara, County of. 2003. The Isla Vista Form-Based Regulating Code: Chapter 6 of the Draft Isla Vista Master Plan: Building Type Cades. 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 Reform Municipal Land Development Regulations. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 526. Chicago: American Planning Association, pp. 39-80. Rouse, David C., and Nanry L. Zobl. 2004. "Form-Based Development Codes." Zoning Practice, May. Russell, Joel. 2004. "Putting New Urbanism to Work in Your Community." In Codifying New Urbanism: How to Reform Municipal 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. TT%hite Paper on Smart Growth Policy irr California. Governor's Office of Planning and Research. California. [Accessed June 18, 2004]. Available at fisherandhall.com/OPR/\\-'hiteI'aper.l~df. Chael, Maurice. 2003. "The Smartcode: A Weapon to Fight the Sprawl War." [Accessed June 18, 2004]. Available at ~~.~t~v.tt~dto~~-miner.com/Volume5,•'smartcode.htm. Dover, Victor. 2003. "A Townmaker's Vision of a Livable Community." Proceedings of the Second: 1nn~ral new Partners for Sma~•t Growth: Bstildin~ Safe, Healthy, and Livable Communities. [Accessed June 18, 2004]. Available at ~w,~v.grow-ingsensibl~~.org/archive /archiveDetail.asp?objectID=1257. French, Christopher, Deborah Bilitski, and Charles Cash. 2004. "APA Powerpoint Presentation on Form- based Coding." Presentation at 2004 APA national conference. [Accessed June 18, 2004]. Available at ~xz~><v.loul~-~~metro.org/Department/PlanDesigll/pdf/~P_3 Pourerpoint.pdf. 5 16 Codifijing New Urbanism Conrplc:nzentary uses set zvithirz an irztercnnnected street netwvrl< brir•rg togetlzer essential aspects of corrznzuuity life a.rul rninirnize relinrzce orz the car. A compact, nzixeci-use pattern (belozv)- ficrrclanzental to New Urbarrisrn- contrasts with tYu~ Euclidian separation (aboz7e) that clcaracteriLes converrtiorual suburban dez~elopnzent. While only some ordinances will incorporate every one 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 chazacteristic 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-USEINTEGRATIDN CO ~:~_ h¢Ck~R` l HOUSING ~o ~ '~ ; PEDESTRIAN-FRIENDLY ~l~ `-~ ~ ~ '~ ROUND-FLOOR STREET ~~' ~,\~~ ~ ~~ RETAIL ~ i ~ i .s NG Chapter 1. New Urbanist Essentials 17 FOSTERING A VARIETY OF G1SES Create mixed-use districts. Create mixed-use zoning districts that allow by-right, afine-grained combination of uses, espenally within downtown core azeas, 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 corner 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 acritical 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 azeri 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 aze specified as discussed below). Make it possible to walk to parks, shops, and schools. Require that a spec- ified percentage of new housing units be within walking distance of public schools and pazks 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 HDUSING 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). FIGURE 2. SHOP HOUSES UPPER-STORY TOWNHOUSE AT-HOME BUSINESS OR STUDIO "Shop horeses" m• "live-work" towrzFcuuses combine upper-story livin~ti~ space with a flexible ground floor space that can be used as a shop, m•t studio, or office. The combination. offers ml. important ]un~sin~ alter~zative while acldi~~g i~itnlihj to tFce street and prnr~iding flexibility to accommodate ciiffererct ccmzomic uses over time. 18 Codifying New Urbanism Uariatior2 in lot sire and housing h/pes helps to r,2aintairt a healthy range of lzouse/zold types and avoids the look o{ "cvvkie cutter" subdivisiorzs. FIGURE 3. MIXED DENSITY AND LOT SIZE ,~ ,-, ~~ ~. ~~ d0 ~. ~~ .~ ~/ ///~ V~ VARIED HOUSING TYPES \/ AND LOT SIZES Accessory dwellirz~>s dinersifi~ hoccsin~ opportunities and provide flexibility fvr household creeds tlurt evolve over time. Accesson~ ciwellin~rs rm•ely creed to exceed the footprint of a three-car gara~~-*e (about 600 square feet). Entrances for accessory dzvellin~s should be visible from n street or alley. 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 (FibQure 4). FIGURE 4. ACCESSORY DWELLINGS SIDE DRIVE ACCESS Chalrter 1. Nero Urbanist Essentials 19 FIGURE 5. INFILL BEFORE STABLE USES TD REMAIN ~. Diu ~ u u I ~ u u ~, i l~L AFTER Diu i u ii nut tl (I '~u~uiuwu..nl lL---L r~ ~ -~ II D d LJ ' _ J _ ~ I ,.,~ REDEVELOPABLE "SUPERBLDCK" REDEVELDPABLE AND -UNDERTILIZED LDTS NEW INFILL WITH TRADITIONAL BLOCK-AND-LOT PATTERN Estnblislted neighborhoods benefit u:hen vaalt and intderused parcels are replaced by develaprnent that ln•ings positive activitt/ arut "eyes ort the street." Subdivisivu of lame lots can allow a traditional block and lot pattern to be estnblislted, with new bicildirigs fronting directlt/ on the street grad a reriezued focus on the pttblic reaLrr. FIGURE 6. ON-SITE PARKING GARAGE-FREE FRONT YIELDS ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING AND PEDESTRIAN COMFORT 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. STIMULATING INFILL AND RfHAB1L1rArlON ACi7V17Y Adjust minimum lot-size and setback requirements to reflect the small- estpractical 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 requireaazents. 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 On-site pm-king reejcriremerits acid SiglalflCalat CDristr6lCtI01t CDStS, which pose a problem for the developers ofslrtall irt(zll projects. l~hen placed in front, on- site parking also rnakes sheets less livable. Curb cuts displace on-street parl`7rrg, grad drivei.vnr/s remove Icutdscaping czrad windows from tFze peclesh•inra environment. \ CURB CUT DISPLACES REDUIRED GARAGE ADDS DN-STREET PARKING CONSTRUCTION COSTS 20 Codrfijing Nezv 1Irbanism e L 9 0 a Puly~oides, and inspired by the 1920's cor.crhjard hnrtsirrg of dire region. FIGURE 7. HEIGHT TO WIDTH RATIO APPROPRIATE FOR URBAN CONTEXT _ }~ '~ INAPPROPRIATE FOR URBAN CONTEXT ---~----,; --- - - -r-- ', ~~~ In the arrban rnnte~:t, streets are enhanced when buildings establish a strong sense of spatial enclosrn•e, both vertirnlly and horizontally. 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 azchitectural 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. Review 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 pazking requirements in locations planned for highest pedestrian activity. • Allow pazking requirements to be satisfied by the use of on-street, municipal, common, or shared parking. • Establish parking caps that limit the maximum ntunber or total square footage of on-site surface parking spaces. The Seven Fountains in West Hollywood, California, is rnze of a number of Southern California projects designed by Pasadena- based ardtitects and urbanists 1~1or.cle 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.) • 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 pazking 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 le Goths 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 wallcways and stairways for pedestrian connec- tivity. Aconnectivity 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. Nazrower 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., sidewaks that aze shaded in warm climates, offer some protection from rain, aze 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 STAFFTSCAPFS AND CIVIC L/Ff 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 m;n;mum 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 I. New Ur6attist Esseritinis 21 district at The Cnnrer at Eastet7r Market in Washington, D.C. A variarzce zags required to allow the corner building to be built nt a floor area ratio of 3.0. Wide sidewalks and ground floor shops and restaurants combine to create a lively street scene and a walkable urban 22 Codifying New 1lrbanism Review and amend setback and keig)Tt requirements. Setback and height requirements should create desired relationships between the height of buildings and the distance between their facades 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 facade 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. °~ THE MISSING LINK? REGIONAL PLANNING AND LOCAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATION By Gianni Longo In an ideal world, a regional plan would be the link between state planning goals (or in their absence, statewide initiatives that support Smazt Growth) and the gen- eral plans that guide local governments' land-use polines. 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 aze made by a complex web of jurisdictions and empowered bodies (counties, munic- ipalities, townships, boazds, metropolitan plazuung organizations, councils of gov- ernments) and are hazdly ever coordinated. Among the consequences of such a fragmented decision-making environment are: sprawl; inconsistent development regulations; land-use decisions disconnected from transportation decisions; anom- alous 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 Eorm of government, local govemments 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 eazly involvement of those offidals 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. Chapter 1. New Urbanist Essentials 23 Put public bticiIdings 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 pazks or squazes (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 cleaz urban/rural edge. This is particularly challenging because the enactrnent of provisions address- ing the relationship between urban and rural azeas requires significant coop- eration and consistent actions by neighboring localities. SNAPlNG METRGPOL/TAN 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 caze- 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 standazds to ensure that the urban expansion azea 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. Llse 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. FIGURE 8. THE BUILD-TO LINE COMPATIBLE STREET FRONTAGE INCOMPATIBLE STREET FRONTAGE Bringing buildings, entrances, and windows. to tltc street adds to street activiti/, survc illatu:e, and a sense of spatial enclosure. Codes should include "build-to," "builc~-near-to," or marinzxnz setback regt.tirente~zts to attain this goal, ~ : ~ ~i '~ ; ~~~. ~- ~ ~~