The URL can be used to link to this page

2.0 HPSR 09-13-2005MEETING NOTICE CALLING A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION FOR SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 Monday, September 13, 2005 - 6:30 p.m. Elk River City Hall (13065 Orono Parkway, Elk River, Minnesota). THE PURPOSE OF THIS SPECIAL MEETING IS AS FOLLOWS... • To meet jointly with the Economic DevelopmentAuthority (EDA) and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to discuss the Downtown Area north of Highway 10 and the Old Town Land Use and New Zoning Regulations HRA Vision and Presentation of Market Information September 13, 2005 Planning Commission Workshop Page2of2 Issue The Planning Commission and HPC recently expressed interest in meeting with the HR.A 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 U Q $ N d ~ to O aN ~ ~Z ,,. ORS ~ ~~~ is~u cos w w J s U cn ~ ~Q z~ 0 1~ 3n U O O __ a~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~~ ~ ~ ~o r ~ ~ ~, /~ I ~ f~ Q W v ~1 ~ ~w Q J ~ ~ SON N a. -- ~ w --- J J -- W 0 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 for 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. i ~HLERS ~ Assacin~rl;s ~l~c O To: City of Elk River Housing and Redevelopment Authority 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 /~C~G6~~ ^ 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. ^ C~ost~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 Canister, 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 5~' 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 mazket driven or is there a need for city assistance? 5) If projects are not financially feasible, is the City willing to use development incentives such as tax inclement fmancing, grants or other sources? /-~ ~L'~-~ 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 slurunary 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 651-697-8553 Fax: (651) 697-8555 3060 Centre Pointe Drive dcallister@ehlers-inc.com Roseville, MN 55113-11D5 http://www.ehIers-inc.com Item # 2 fiver 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 fox preservation, revitalization, renovation and redevelopment is stressed. Zoning Old Town includes the following zoning districts: • DD (DownTo~vn District) • C1 (Central Business District) • C2 (Office Dsitrict) • C3 (Highway Commercial) • R1 c (Single Family Residential) • R2 (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 ,~Ilit'1'!t'~~I~ ~'~r~flTlltlti' ~~~.~~['!<tI.-1~l1 _Saturday { 5unday~ P~onday ~ i uesday , ~'~'ednesday Overview ~~~~~~ ~'~`~~ Page 1 of 2 Tuesday, April 2?, 2C?!`i4 Sessions gy P~egan Leth~is, ~£CP Workshops pP,q Senior Rcsear~h ,^;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 iistrict and San Francisco -are the products of development People that occurred based on an emphasis on physical form rather than on controlling uses. While the term "fornrbased codes" is around i'!a years old, the concept of basing regulation an form has been around r'or a while, 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-t;ased codes are highly illustrated and involve a signincant level of public participation. A panel of practitioners discussed ho~~~l farm-based zGninq codes seek to recapture a development pattern that focuses on "form" before "function." Because they separate uses into distinct districts, conventional zoning regulations often make it difficult to create mixed-use communities, a goal many planners pursue. This separation has also resulted in many instances in disconnecting planning and urban design. By presenting the principles and concepts in an il[ustrated r-orm; form-tsased CGdeS 1%dOrk to reconnect these tta~o areas and define a desirable fiorm for an area. ?n addition to having a direct ii'npact on shaping form, farm-based codes involve a much more extensive public partlCipatiGn prGCe55 thanche developirrent Gf a conventional code does. Tl~e chai•rL~tt'e process is the primary mechanism for community participation and input. Tf'ie gaol is to have citi°zens be fully engaged and involved in tine development process, sG that tyre have ownership Gver it. ?t also re- emphasizes the focus Gn physical farm of a place Gver tl~e specific uses. While examples of SGnoma, Hercules, and Petaluma, California, were presented as places that have adopted form-based codes, rural areas have also embraced these ;:odes, A prime example is 4~'GGdford Country, Kentuck}f, where a proposed 1Rral-Mara spurred the community tG undertai<c~ a vI'ii:1i'ri=i:te process and adopt aform-based Code. in additlDn, 'r.lst-belt" Citie'.5 lime Syracuse, IVeW ~fGi'!<; Sai'atGa cipringS, P+121~' fork; and Providence, i~hode island, have alsG adapted form-based codes. Paul Crawford, FAiC', of Crawford Mu!tari Pa. Clarl; presented the fallowing principles for form-based cedes: ,'dtOr {: ('roril a deilillnQ Sp:~%lal plttei'rR, ;,i.Ch aS %h° I ra(75eCt Ora .>}{SiP.n1 Ot neighborhoods; districts, and c,~;-ridcrs +s+ Cie-emphasize land use in fa~!or of bu'siding farm and t~~palogy 'emphasize mixed uses and mi>:ed use housing ~ t-GCI:~ Gr{ tI"ie St'reetSCape arld tt1C? pi3iJlIC realn't Conduct adesign-focused public participatiGn process CG create alarm-`;asea Ciide, Cr~3V;lfc:?rd SuaCresl.iro a flVe-Step approach: http://www.planning. org/conferencecoverage/2004/tuesday/formbased.htm 1 /3 /2005 T~nm-Based Zoning Yage "~ of ~~ ~ inventory the e :fisting conditions of the pla:.e: It is impo+tan*. to have a deep understanding of the existing conditions of the place, such as the street types, and block and building types, to understand appropriate form and massing of buildings. ® Identify a set of or gani~ing principles for t:he spatial stru;-ture: This car, b2 based Cn COnCepL SUCK aS: w i 7e neighborhood, district, and corridor; $ The Transect, which den`nes intensity of activity based on the transect zone t!lirt 'cDD!Ie5 e Street-system-based reg~fatary plan ~ Special purpose zones ~ Define urban design standards: r'or example, establishing commercial street design guidelines, ~n+ith the goal of "shaping the public space of the street." ~ Define architectural standards: for example, building types and frontage types m Illustrate the s*.andards, to make it easier for ti-~ose who will be implementing the code. bill Dennis of Motile i~ Poiyzoides discussed how Ne:v Urbanism is essentially the 'Nay t~~e used to develop towns, but conventional zoning has precluded that. He made the point that a!! development plans should 'check to see how it tivarks for a child, because "a neighborhood is a child's world." Geoffrey Ferrell of Geoffrey Ferree Associates illustrated how the zoning and land- use maps do not translate into v~rhat form appears on the grcund. In addition, design guidelines do not always capt!sre *_he vitality of the community *-hat they are trying to achieve. His ebservatian is that the there are three elements to defining a place: form, use%density, and management. In many communities,, use/density is the _ primary emphasis when defining a place, followed by management, with form treated very lightly. The farm-based cede approach looks to.focus the most emphasis on form, fcl!owed by management, with use/density having the lightest emphasis. This does not mean that use and density are not important; rather, they are not the driving factors in d~`rning a place. His primary advice !teas to keep the code simple -the downfall of many zoning ordinances has been their attempt to be overtly inclusive of all possible uses. However, form-based codes do address use types that are appropriate to s distric*.; tables describing the uses associated ;~rith an area are often included in the code. ;c~ropyright ?iJ;.~4 APA All Rights Reserved http://www.planning. org/conferencecoverage/? 004/tuesday/fonnbased.lhtm 1 /3 /? 005 New Urbanist Codes Overview Sessions Workshops Special Events Hot Topics People a11Tit'I'1('~l~ J~G~~7c~iCr~ :tsS~rCi~ri~~i _Saturday I Sunday ~ Monday ~ Tuesday ~ Wednesday New Urbanist Codes Sunday, April 25, 2004 By Lynn Rass APA Research AssociaCe Page 1 of 2 New Urbanist Codes, the second session of Sunday's Bettman Symposium, offered a variety of perspectives on this type of regulation to a large and engaged audience. Moderator Dwight Merriam began with a brief session overview and discussion of the different ways to regulate. Merriam noted that land use regulation generally falls into three categories: • Codes the regulate the physical form • Codes that regulate land use and density • Codes that regulate operation and daily use New urbanist codes operate under a very simple general principle: Regulate the physical form and everything else (land use, density, operation, and daily use) ~Nill 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, Kahl & Partners Town Planning; Bob Sitkowski of Robinson & Cole; and Chris Duerksan 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 farm-based coding: authority, prescription, and delegation. Authority. The ability to regulate form dates back to the 192b 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 Sitko~vski. 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. Page 2 of 2 Final speaker Christopher Duerksan compared the farm-based code to traditional Euclidean zoning and the re-emerging unified development code. Traditional Euclidean zoning is proscriptive in that it regulates what you cannot do in a certain area. Uses are separated, rigid dimensional standards are in place and there are limited development standards. Traditional zoning, although not always user- friendiy, 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. Duerksan feels this type of code is not comprehensive, too staff intensive, not user-friendly and has a weak process. The modern unified development code, on the other hand, consolidates procedures, is based on the comprehensive plan, simplifies zoning districts and is well illustrated. This type of code is time-consuming to develop and is considered by some to be reactive in nature. However, the modern UDC is user firiendly 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 an the APA ~a~ebsite soon. C~Copyright 2004 APA All Rights Reserved 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- outthe United States is based on the separa- tion of residential, commercial, and industrial uses, density controls, and proscriptive stan- dardsfor key development attributes (e.g., building setbacks and heights). The historical antecedents of this model include the i9z6 Supreme Court decision in the case of wttage of Euclid vs. AmblerReatryCo., 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 foss of traditional urban form and proliferation of commercial strip devel- opmentand "cookie cutter" subdivisions, zoning has been identified as a primary cul- prit. On the one hand, the separation of uses and limits on density have contributed to excessive consumption of land (suburban sprawl). On the other, zoning's lack of a positive prescription for physical form has facilitated the intrusion of incompatible development types into traditional urban ' neighborhoods and districts. In reaction to these trends, new, form- based approaches to development regulation are being proposed as altematives 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 of the surcounding 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 focal 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- ingsystems? ^ How does it deal with the regulation of use, the focus of conventional zoning? ^ How is it working in practice? Form-based development codes are an emerging concept implemented by a small but increasing number of jurisdictions to date. Because those codes are relatively new, practical experience in administering them is limited. As interest in alternatives to conventional zoning continues to grow, more communities will implement form- based regulatory approaches. This article describes the initial experiences of some of these communities, with the proviso that the advantages and disadvantages of dif- ferent approaches will become clearer as they are further tested in practice: FORM-BASED CODING Form-based coding emerged out of the New Urbanist movement of the late i98os 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 of this approach, form-based codes focus on what is desirable rather than what is forbidden, the underlying principles having their foundation in a vision or plan developed through community work- shops and charrettes. Regulatory standards prescribe physical elements, such as building height, setbacks, lot size, parking location, etc., to achieve quality design in context with surrounding areas. They also seek to integrate private development with the public realm, typically addressing the character of civic buildings, public streets, and civic spaces. In theory, form-based coding is a com- prehensive, communitywide approach designed to achieve better physical devel- ZONINGPRACTICE 05.04 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION ~ page Z 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 ah 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, Virginia, which has implemented aform- based code to revitalize Columbia Pike, an older commercial corridor. Spacial conditions: within 100 feet of Main Street required building Ilne; Wakefield to Four-Mlle Run, maximum v lour stories e Maximum ~ six stories~s- d Minimum'' three stories Within 40 feet of local street lot ar existing single-family uae; maximum 32 feet eaves or parapet height Z +a i d ,. aro+ aalaMU The Columbia Pike Initiative is a long- range economic development vision to create a vibrant commercial corridor and urban center along a 3.5-mile section of Columbia Pike. The Pike had experienced little development activ- ity in the past qo years, despite its location in the high-growth Capital Area. The Columbia Pike Master Plan was adopted in zooz after numerous public chamettes. 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- ingenvelope standards establish basic param- Street walls required on RESioExnu allay and common lot Ilnes; NOME seven feet maximum height occuPAnoNs aESloEtmu NOME OCWPQIONS eters for building form, including height, set- backs, and fenestration. They also set broad parameters for mixed uses allowed on the first and upperftoors, except that the neighbor- hood frontage sites are primarily restricted to residential uses with some allowances for home offices. The form-based code is applied as an overlay option to the existing zoning districts. Developers are provided a variety of incen- tives to select this option, including an expe- dited permitting process for developments of go,ooo 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- mentcommunity 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 acid the streamlined review process. Several pending mixed-use develop- ment proposatsare the direct result of the form- based code. Citizens also supportthe new code, having been directly involved in shaping it through several design chamettes. Despite the appar- entinitial successes, Tucker notes some chal- ZONINGPRACTICE 05.04 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 3 lenges related to the PAPMNG newness of the code. ACCESSORY " UNm Issues tend to arise as proposals are submit- ted by developers who a s- have problems with the standards of the code, i 8 ,b including build-to tines, 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 Comerstone zozo Comprehensive Plan for Louisville and Jefferson County, Kentucky (devel- oped in the mid-iggos and adopted in zooo). The Cornerstone zozo planning process revealed a general dissatisfaction with conven- tionalregulations and practices that result in the separation of uses, sprawling development patterns, and the imposition of suburban forms in traditional neighborhoods. A Community Form Committee was charged with seeking new ways of addressing future development pat- terns, recognizing the need for increased diver- sity, certainty, and flexibility in the regulatory process. The resulting form district concept established 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 form districts that regulate density and intensity and prescribe contextual design standards, such as build-to lines based upon the established development pattern. All dimensional regulations and standards were moved from the zoning districts to the form districts. Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC and Clarion Associates were consultants to Louisville and Jefferson County in the develop- ment of the form districts. Adopted by Louisville Metro and the cities of Hurstbourne and Lyndon, the new Land Development Code took effect in March 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- cific geographic areas within a community. However, existing use and density regula- tionswere 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 of the new code, has since incorporated the recom- mendations ofthe urban design stafF, including buildings arrayed around a pedestrian-scale central parking area that func- tions as a "town square." Otherdevel- opens have embraced the form district concept as a progressive option that allows flexibility for innovative design. Overall, the development community and residents seem to preferthe 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 team- ing curve required for its implementation. As a new process for all involved, the impacts are not yet fully measurable and a number of issues have been raised regarding the appli- cation of the form district design standards to site-specific conditions. To address these issues, revisions to the regulations will be made over the next year. At this time, Louisville Metro is about two years away from considering a transition from the two-tiered approach to a more complete integration of conventional zoning with the form districts. Nevertheless, according to the planning and ZONINGPRACTICE 05.04 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION ~ page 4 design director, Charles Cash, Louisville Metro is looking towards larger future development goals that conventional zoning may not sup- port. THESMARTCODE The SmartCode has its foundation in the con- cept oftransect planning, an approach to the implementation of New Urbanist and Smart Growth principles advocated by Andres Duany and Emily Talen. Drawing on ecological analo- gies, transect planning establishes a series of environments -called "ecozones" - on a con- tinuum from rural to urban. These ecozones are distinguished by varying density and char- acter of the built environment. The transect incorporates the New Urbanist principles of mixed land uses, the importance of public space, and pedestrian accessibility through- outthe 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, thansect 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." 0 0 ~, r 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 (T-q), Neighborhood Center (T-5), and Urban Core (T-6). Design standards were established for set- backs, height, parking location, street design, fa4ade 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- votive design practices. More traditional , developers, who were at first skeptical, are also starting to embrace the new code. Saratoga'~5prings 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- ceptto residential neighborhoods next to incorporate more mixed use. CONCLUSION The general intent of form-based develop- ment codes is to replace the conventional Euclidean zoning model with regulations that shape the form of development across the different landscapes within a community or region. At this time, communities that have adopted form-based coding and the SmartCode have taken an incremental regula- tory approach 6y 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.oa AMERICAN PLANNING 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-1 (the "Natural Zone") to T-6 (the "Urban Core Zone"). Sample design standards, including building height, frontage, intensity of uses, and street design, are pro- vided for each transect zone. The theory behind the SmartCode is to encompass the spectrum of landscapes within an entire community or region. In practice, however, similar to the form-based codes that have been adopted, the initial application of the SmartCode has been to distinct areas within a community. Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, has incorporated the tran- sect planning concept on a regional basis into its comprehensive plan and is beginning to translate the concept to the zoning regulations on a neighborhood or subarea basis. The city of Saratoga Springs, New York, was one of the first communities to adopt the SmartCode to implement comprehensive plan principles, including enhanced urban infill in the downtown core as an alternative to the sprawl- ingdevelopment patterns facilitated by conven- tionalzoning. The transect model was applied as a new approach to concentrate development in the Downtown District, onlyone ofthe 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 bean 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 common responses. Overall, representatives of each of the case study communities describe positive outcomes from their limited experience with the form-based development codes, including increased urban infill development and some higher-quality site and building design pro- posals. However, as with any new concept, they also acknowledge some issues, primarily the need for adjustments to address unfore- seen, site-specific circumstances. The application of form-based develop- 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 of the 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 outhors would like to thank the following indi- viduals farsharing their experiences with form- based development codes: R. Wayne Bennet(; Context Town Planning (formerly Director of the Louisville//efferson County Division of Planning and Development5ervices); Geo/freyl3ornemann, City Planner, Ciry of Saratoga Springs; Deborah Bilitski, Esquire, /efferson CountyAttorney's Once; Charles Cash, Director, Louisville Metro Planning and Design Services David Hulefeld, Assistant Directo Louisville Metro Planning and Design Services; ^ Duany, Andres, and Emily Talen, "Transect Planning," Journal 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 zoo4. ^ Peirce, Neil, "Zoning: Ready to Be Reformed?" The Washington Post Writers Group, February z, zoo3. ^ Talen, Emily, "Help for Urban Planning: The Transect Strategy," Journal of Urban Design, Vol. 7, No. 3, October zooz. Geoffrey Ferrell, Geoffrey Ferrell 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 Refzlaff, aicr Responding to concerns over the potential loss 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 order to gain time to figure out how to deaf with their negative impacts. Highland Park passed a i3o-day morato- rium onnew permits forstreet-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 concerns. 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 iz 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 4o 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 ofthe overlayzone 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 zoo4 for new nonretail uses in its business districts, following the comple- ZONINGPRACTICE 05.04 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION (page 6 T T rban codes that regulate the design of buildings l~l and streets~have been in existence since the archi- ~~:':+.''~`. ~ecti 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 officialg sat in judg- . ,•.. ~ ment upon buildings that were to u; ~ /~~:' 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- pose was set forth as follows: "That in• order that the discoveries and new =..settlements and pacification of the land ~s:;:' ~~: ~ art'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. " rr .eb OR The regulations for new settlements `~-~~- and towns included specific mteria 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- lion 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. Modem design-based codes seek to prescribe the physical design of buildings and infrastructure while permitting a greater flexibility in the use and activity. These codes recognize that many of our most cherished neighborhoods and 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. P.rli"K Lars ro Re.r "f Ba1Wey; ~'o. 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 Qafting a standard that achieves a desired 'effect or outcome without over-manipulating the ~''`i'esign process. Design standards should be tied to measurable purposes and outcomes. An example of an outcome is inQeasing pedestrian activity across a building frontage (to reduce or prevent conges- tion in the public streets) or ensuring infill building compatibility (to fadlitate the creation of a conven- ient, attractive and harmonious community). This draws the "essential nexus" or required connection between the regulation and a valid public purpose. An example of this. is the desire to move residential buildings closer to the street to encourage ~' pedestrian activity while main- ` twining a commensurate level of privacy for occupant. To accom- plish 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. ~. Style Neutral Pundits of design-based codes often categorize over-prescription as the encouragement of "Mickey Mouse architecture" in that buildings are expelled \ ~ ~, bw ~° ~~ ~ n1 a off, to adhere to a rigid, contrived Condition. Tn fa o 0 the opposite is usually the case. Most design-b codes, except for those written specifically for a his toric area, are usually much more permissive in style and detail. To that end, design-based codes outside of a his- toric district should refrain from specifically 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 fa4ade 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,.intemation- al style and deconstructionist style. This does not prelude 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 inluded, but should be used only to supplement the tent, not supplant it. Other basic publishing rules should apply as well inluding a readable typeface, consistent martins, 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 =~: o~ U, Facade detailing should prevail over all other site elemenu including parking standards ~. h r+ C n p ~ p O ~ ~ _ w w w -~~ redude publishing by the MCC through the ~~' y f~ <'o~eruse of sophisticated formatting. Communities should strongly consider the use of basic word processing software packages such as lvliQOSOft 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. Iii general, developers aze 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 :w.k n uw cwyrt:-au.~ua.w~ 3,3in.Y.ge _ _~„_.~,,_ ....s.+tie.....na s, ( „ , ' _ E .' ..... we *~, ~ ~ .xww14M k ~-'-~ ..a. y~ir ~ ~~~~r ~ I~`~ h.t.C I r.•. •~ w -:!.'wi.a.: \~,~,.~~ IIIj f public process and loan interest. 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/pazallel 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. ,rw4:.J t»u CCMMPyy,,p{,Lnt~'C «7.~ DR~uia s"n`m"""`a"vim' ..•.a...,:.... .....~ 'r w. W- a:~r a Y+..+~e i.# r ..+wvn..w, _ ` raw 4~-w r ' ~ i.~w ~r M ne.sw j -'mow-Fre-+--v~Tn G ~.~~,- R ~ _~.y 1 .,gin IlN 7'ap n.~..o~..r~.. w.r...w•e..w nt.a~ "`.,,...,,,,4r. " .;i..~,M,~. i ' wue+~~l.~-T.+ .) wee ..... .{MME. iNa., -iy i, .,. - ~ - M ..e..e!e...ro....~.~re~r. ..tom. ^l- ~waRaw ~.. .J+:t.i. `` ~qre ~..w..w.M F d t The format of the Code should be clear and easy to read with photos, illustrations, an tex 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 Qiteria 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. 1 ~ _i r ;y In conclusion, design-based codes aze 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, CNt.T March, ?003 ,f y~ Craig Le~ais~ 91C~' rCNU is_ a 1'nricrpal in tT1e Caroltnas~o~ce ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ • of The~iaivicnce'Group, a national.toi~•n-planning and ,~ _ 1 : • . ,' „ard-iitedure based'iii St Louis, MCA. In this posi uii he'leads ~ -~ the national totvnplanning practice for the company il~at , • • ~ ~ "~ ~ includes neighborhood, town a_nd regional planntng efforts ~ ~ ~ ~ __'_ ~ for. public,artd private clients ~ ~ 1 - ~ ~ ~ '• • • • • • In add~tion,'Ivlr Le~1~is is nationally recognized-for his .: ~ • • • • • _ ~~ e~:peruse inthe implementation"nf design-based codes hav- - .. , ~ ~~ ing autlioreii numerous new urbanist codas and design~~- _ - ,~ -_ ~`~ "~': guidelines throughout the southeast as ~:~ell as in the mi d- .. His Code experience indvdes - _ _ titi~est: The form-based .codes that he has produced hare.= - _ _ ,~,.;,- , sen-ed as national models for other communities seeking to . Tcu+n of Cornelius, IJt; Larui D~~ zicrprrienc C,~de ad~~t new~design-based techniques to guide gtoivtl-i.. ~ lmin of L?auidson ,~v'C Pluiuiing Ordinar e - ,~louru ~11cume I~e7gnborhood Code, A4cor~si ~11~.~IvC Alr. LEth-is is a skilled public facilitator and an advocate and Uou~rirqu~-~ :ti.1oc-r~s~~-ille Cede, hloer~siiile, ^~C ~ ~ - p'raRitioner of thepub~ic charrette planning and desid ~'~ Cis n Eelmont, f~'C Lan4 Develo merit Cone t ~ ~ ~. process In addition, he is a strong public speaker and is C~ y, oj Ralt~igh,NC Urba,. D~_g Guuiziir:es ' well sought after as-an instructor and presenter -;. Ilayrzie. Sirr•;ne , neighborhood Code, Grer~r,i:Ile,: SC ~ `' , ~ - - _ ,_ , - (.,iiti of D Fulton, ,ti10 Dou n[ou7a Design Guidelines . ~' - . ~ Tau i al S unmcr7ivld ~~tiC Cemmerei,ll Dr ~e'~pm~rr C,wd~l» ~~ He holds a L~'.~A- in Political Science and a~tiiasters in Public C~,~rsr~f the FZ~~un Best ~i~2~ela~ment I'r.et~us,_T-z~ n~i~ A,~~z, NC .administration from the Universitti~ ofNorth;Car~liaa ai _ _ I~illtvr_- G?en ~faary Pcrh Cede, Buenri Vuc;z, ti'9 Charlotte He currend~ sers~es asthe Chairman of the Design Scutl~iar C~i~~ LryDuiri«,Her:de-_~,,~.aa, itiC _ P,esiesti~ Eoard for The To~.~; n of I~a~ idsori a,id is a reUular stu_ C i':. ;fh~, r.~~e, t 1 T~~r ;, O~~lir ;;r t: (Ir IL ,rc«) dio critic fu; tl~e University of North Carolina at Charlour 1 „~,~ ar ~+,~or<<i '~C 1 ind L~~ .:c,~nu ; ~_~,:c (,~: 1'rogre_-s) Scho~1 ~f architecture. .;: ~: ;~: ~~ a..~J'o . _<,~ ~ ~• F Z~. Amerman Pl;uinino ,9ssociauon 1 i 1~9~~~~ tl ~~' .~-; ~ m - ~. ~~ ~~ ~, ~ ~- G~~ Pe(e:r K~~tz ~I'hc New Urlixni~( ullernuii~c i~~ r~u n~enii~~ na~ zunin~. ~2~ •~`•. ~: ~ s k.. ~=~i ~l _.. ._. ..__._ ._..._.-. Iti~ire~huus.~;t~ tt~Pes 3rr a YruzjaY'c•ic•aJxeret. of jornl- /~ ~ / t GttJ CLl c'na NS (i.Zt7n L'C I. Sz~?ck•cc~~j%ats, wit{i ret~lil rhorn+l~/.,{t-c. Sin~le- f6L/11?l1/ i?ntl:'CS .:Li7Ll razuf,nLSSes arc ntz zJr siLlc spc tf .Jrt ntcq (,iy~~ s , Pc z tuL~„: N~. Jl,r'~airi,nnc2~ the cncfL' re(~urms srdr°Lncrlhs :3YtCl ;71111;11?71771-tl~LL7i%~ 11-~'nl'ld pu;'c?ies iYl.tit ~ ~ urt to cre ~ e; ue' tes'r•;errt-r-•zrndly COYYl JJZ I! 1'Ll t:'. sr-"'`y ..'fig -. ~` . ~ ~., ~.''^ _ _- ~ ''Y, = _ "~~~~ _ __ ~- I t, I'Luvun` N~wcn,hri 'uua T ° `~~ a: 6--' Yil ~ ~ ~ If p 4 Y w ~ •L.r~ ~S '.a ~ r~ i( a _ ~- '`- '`. °~ ''-,'~ hat's what Ncw Urban- . ist architect-planner ~~ t~.IldreS DuaRY C.~1]UrLs audiences co do i n his lectures about the decline - oFAmcrica's suburbs. - WI7Cn 1 1-lrsi 11C:t1"d _~~_..._._.-,~ Duatnp empress this view in the early 199Us, I was taken abad:, ;u, I'm sure, must pl uulers ~vcre. 1r seemed uurra~cous CU sLL~'~~CSr ChaC ZOlllllg, [I1C body Ol" law ChaC ~UII LLOIs dCVCIUpi]]CIlC IL1 l)~~ pCrl:ellC OI-.'iilI1C1-11::t's comnrLlniCics. could be so rasih~ dismissed. Since then, hU\NC\'C!', I've tome w believe Lh:u Duanv's prescription ma~~ nor be so radi- G1I :ti`reC ;111. Hls main point is Char COnvell- Cional zoning based un the sc~rc~;uion of I:uld uses was nevel• intended to deal \widl physical Form, aulxi that d7e "band-aid" ntcasures (in- duding design guidelines) d1:!r planners cobble onto c~.isrinR ordinances to address d]is deti- C1enUY )LIti11L 171a1CC 111:1CCC1-ti WOrSC. SC, n]CChlJlg CISe IS nCCCled, ;old that something CISC I5 N~har New Urbanists c:t11 Form-based coding. 'y`~li:oE i> ad:' As its n;unc suti'~csrs, form-bnscd cudin`' x:cl:s nJ re~~ul;1 Cl' CI1C X07;/! Of Chc bLllJt Cll ~'II'U 11 n7Ctl C. In contrast, conventional caning primarily secls ro cunrnJl Land LLSC ;llld dC11SIr1', bL1C 1S 1ar~ely silent on matters of Form beyond the most basic height, fluor-area, al7d 52CbaCli 11I111Ls for individual buildings. The ne\n' approach builds on the ideal Char pln'siail form is a conununirl•~s most intrinsic and CI1dU1'lll~ characrer,suc. IC sCel:S ro aJdih' that Dorm in ,t su~.u~htfur\•v;trd 4vay so t pl,lnncrs, citizens, developers, and ocher stal:c- holders can nlovc easily Fronl a sh.trcd pllysi- cal vision uFa place to its built realm'. Ti, understand the concept, dl;nl. uI nc~ 4\ a\• nci~Lhurh~,i,ds ch,ul~e 11VCf ^111C. I I7 111;1171' IS Planning Nuvembcr'UU4 Ft3C~: The Advant~t~e~ ~. Because they are prescriptive (they state what you wvlt), rather than proscriptive (what you don't want), FBCs can achieve a more predictable p hysical result. The elements controlled by FBCs are those chat are most important to shaping a I1lgI1- gLL111C1' bull[ eI1VIrOnnlenC. FBGs encourage public participation because the}' a110W citizens to see what will happen where -leading to a higher comfort level about greater densirv, for instance. Because tllev can regulate development at the scale of :u1 individual building or lot, FBCs en- courage independent development by multiple property owners. This eliminates the need Eor large land assemblies and the megaprojects dzat are frequently proposed for such parcels. The built results of FBCs often reflect a diver- sity of architecture, materials, uszs, and owner- ship Char can onlycomefrom the actions of many independent players operating within a commu- na11y agreed-upon vision and legal framework. FBCs work well in established communities because dley effectivel}' define and codifi> a tleigllborliood's existing "DNA." Vernacular build- ingtypes can be easily replicated, promoting infill that is compatible with surrounding structures. Nonprofessionals find FBCs easier to use than conventional zoning orditlances because they are much shover, more concise, and organized for visual access and readability. This feature makes it easier Eor nonplanners to determine whether 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 ro enfot-ce. They also require less oversight by discretionary review bodies, leading to a less politicized planning process that can deliver huge savings in time and money and reduce the risk of takings challenges. The stared purpose of FBCs is the shaping of a high-quality public realm (a presumed public good) that, in turn, promotes healdly 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 dlat is sought. Vfhilc enforceability of development regula- tions has not been a major problem in new growth areas where aesdletic concerns ate 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 regulatory playing tield between ciryandsuburb, Eorm-based codes could play a major role in d1e recovery oEvast areas of At1lerlca'S urban landscape. rl srrze-r ofGiLiLrlirrg typrs j:zGave), f.~'nm Du~tnyPGzter-Zpl~erk's clr~u~ntou~n rna-st~r~/.an for ~l'-'est Prr/.m bezc{i, Fh~rid r, a+hich spec f es orange u fparameter-fur each t7pr. One petrarueter, hei«ht, ~4tn /7e' rnrcrszrred either Gy r.cunGe•r offlonrs nr hei~yTht to cave, rzs in the' LlZagr'i1~11 hCC~O[1', which iu~ic,zres 1%2aS7!'I'1ifTY! ClnLl rrLil'[rTltLdr71 hC'lghl. T,~~e rozt~ of stnre~vrtts zuit{.r In fts ~.tbn:~e, seC1T Zrl 6'I1P G'OnY~6llt'7•:17)?YClation a.r. ri~~it, shnzes the result o_f fo%iou~i~z~ art FBCs bztild-zu l:rrx in a Chiaigo neighGnrhoocl. sYa ~.,,a ~' ~ . ~ y t _ - , , ~. - American Planning.Sssucixriun L•+ cities, warehouse and industrial areas have morplled into 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 activity patterns have been transformed. Under die current, use-based zoning rystem, such a change would be considered drastic. The land-use category has gone from industrial, atone end of the spectrum, to residential, at the other, although ro the average onlooker, the place looks pretty much the same. In this example, aform- based code would regulate the part Ch;iL had remained the same-the form of the building and the configuration of the street and sidewalk. Use would be regulated, too, but at a secondary, rather than primary level of the code. In some cities, planners have found ways to bend land-use zoning ro enable this kind of reuse to pron7ote the revitalization of older neighborhoods, particularly those with good architectural "bones." B cat such modifications are typically made on a case-by-case basis or within narrowly defined special districts. Meanwhile, in new growth areas and in most existing neighborhoods, use-based zon- ing remains rile law of the land. One result is the suburbanization of city neighborhoods by provisio ns such as setback rules that force houses far back on their lots and away from each other. l:~•I(iol~ if~»~ n iu 7+uri: Generally, the creation of a form-based code is interwoven with a community visioning process. The process typically includes a public design worlshop, or charerte, lasting several days. The community's "consensus vision" is CUI7Veyed C11rUUgl7 3 range of VISLIalS, nlcllldlll`r perspective draWIl7gS, site anllySls diagrams, and an illustrative plan. That plan, which resembles an aerial photo, includes proposed buildings (shown as rooftops), Ivey natural features, and e-eisring and planned public spaces. The first step in coding is to translate the illustrative plan into a more diagrammatic regu- lating plan, which indicates what goes where. This document, while similar in some ways to a zoning map, is Far more detailed. It also omits any direct labeling of uses, a job that is handled in the building standards described below. In one kind of form-based code, the regu- latingplan assigns a building type or types to each available parcel of Land. Other kinds of regulating plans indicate a range of building or Frontage types that may be constructed in a certain area. Clean}', when it comes to detailing the urban environment, one size does not fit a11, 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. Yet a shopfront in the same neighborhood may be more accessible to cus- tomers if it is set at grade. Although public buildings areverv important to New Urbanist designers, they are typically not coded. Such buildings are usually indicated in d1e regulating plan by a conceptual footprint chat serves as a placellolder until all actual design is formulated (often years in the future). i~'lld~ i9B1C1 1D9111ti The physical characteristics of each building type are summarized in the building stan- dards-axes of :uu7orated building cross-sec- tionsand plan diagrams assembled on a single, letter-size sheet. In some cases, all the build- ing ~~pes are combined into a matrix and formatted as a poster. Regardless of layout, building standards , typically establish these parameters: ' Building height is a key stuld:rrd. A maxi- mum number of floors (or dimension-ro-die- eave) is set to ensure that a building does no overwhelm its neighbors. Unlike use-based zoning, form-based codes also specify a mini- mum height in order to maintain a proper street wall. Siting standards control the placement of structures in relation to fronting streets and adjacent building lots. Dimensions to Front, side, and rear building lines, as well as the location and configuration of entl•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 pal-t of the building envelope standards, but the approach here is quite dif- ferent from conventional zoning. Permissible uses, stated in general terms (e.g., retail, resi- dential), are identified for each building type and labeled on tlZe cross-section diagram. This approach makes lC eaSV t0 as51gR dif- ferent uses to each floor of amixed-use devel- opment, and avoids the problem of trying to communicare the same information on a flat map. (The plethora of colors, stripes, and cross- hatch patterns on most zoning maps shows how confusing this can be.) Thoroughfare stal7dal-ds for a range of recom- mendedstreet rypesmay also be part of the code in places where streets are not individually de- signed. Such standards are indicated by section diagrams with dimensions For travel and park- ing lanes, sidewalks, medians, al7d pI•anring 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 tel•ms Char 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. Howevel•, some communi- ties-master-planned developments, special retail districts, historic districts, among others- may want to exercise a higher level of control over d1e appearance of individu:ll 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. Style may also be included as p;lrt of Che afChlLeC- tural standards, but not in every case. M;u7v New Urbanists CI1UUSe to avoid direct refer- 2fi I'lannin_ November 200ti A rteu~ zrYia:Pd-usN dez,elaprnrrzt nt Cczlifn z-rYi,z 's Plerzs~rzr Hill Bfl~ T Sr•CZtZOTY, i'ZG Z.U llrtdel' YL'CL)', will rLPLzce a '0- acre purling lot zr.'ith. office-, retail., residential, ,z;:d recreational uses. ences to building style, fearing that too much specificit}~ v,~ill lead to an overly homoge- neous, "themed" look. A lii(Ir hi~lor~' While the term form-based coding has only recently emerged, the technique has been used for over 20 years. Andres Duany's Miami firm, Duany Plater-Zyberk S? Company, first applied the approach in its 1982 code for Seaside, the highly publicized coastal resort town on Florida's panhandle. The firm's principals, Duany and his wife, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, initially set 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 Banded off the design responsibility to the lot purchasers, or their architects. That decision led to a new challenge -finding a way to impart a distinctive charac- ter to specific areas ~arithin the development. Can study trips to historic Southern com- munities, the design team saw drat certain building types tended to dominate in cer- tain parts of a town: shopfronts on the main square, rowhouses on side streets, and man- sions flanking Main Street just beyond the edges of die downtown. The team also noted that, while building types were fairly consis- tent in a given area, there was always enough variety within the design of each building ro avoid acookie-cutter look. T11e First Seaside code established a Hierar- chy ofseven (later expanded to eight) "classes" of buildings for use in the new community. Each lass.vas based on a uaditional Si~uthern vernacular buildin, Cl'F~e. The a,dc speciftcd the rudimentary physical characteristics of each class, controlling siting on the lot, build- in° height, location of porches and outbuild- ings, and how parking should be handled. The code progressed through a number of iterations, achieving its near-final form dur- ing an on-site design charerte in 1981. Shortly after- char event, several architecture profes- sors at Washington, D.C.'s Catholic Univer- siryconducted crest 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 see forth in the code. The students then combined their indi- vidual creations into a I C-Foot-long compos- ite model of the community. Looking at the finished product, one could easily envision the town's streets and public spaces. The model also assumed an important diagnostic role. Recognizing the tendency of architecture students to push the design of each building to its limits, the code's creators were able to identif}r and fix a number of potential regulatory problems before the code was formally adopted. ,~.fter the firm's experience at Seaside, Duany Plater-Zyberk adapted form-based codes to work v<~ithin the legal framework of aplanned- unit development. The Kentlands in Gaithersburg, Maryland, is one early example of that application. Since 1989, when its plan and code were created in a highly' publicized charerte, DPZ has crafted similar documents to regulate the buildout of over 300 new and existing communities. iir•iPeiclceiilt the- (•it•~•I(• (_yther urban designers have since used tunn- based codes in a wide ~ ariet~' of pruiccts and locations. In 1999, Dover, Kohl ~ Partners of South Miami, working in collaboration with DPZ, prepared a master plan and form- baseddevelopment ordinance for a nevs~ down- town for- Kendall, an edge city just south of j\2iaini. The 240-acre project site is adjacent to two commuter rail stations and a state highv~ca}~. 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 35 stories), are now under construction in an area that previously had no residential population at all. ~;~hile the recent wave of construction in Kendall was foreseen well before the code was adopted, many credit the regulations with helping the community to achieve a true downto~sm development pat- tern rather than the patchwa-l: typical of booming suburban areas. On the Ease Coast, Dover Kohl and Ferrell MaddenAssociates of Washington, D.C., con- duced an eight-day charerte that resulted in the adoption in February 3003 of a plan and form-based code for die Columbia Pike Cor- ridor in Arlington, Virginia. That work fo- cused on the detailed design of four mixed- use centers along a 3.5-mile section of the historic corridor, which is minutes awa}r from the Pentagon and downtown Washington. A year later, Arlington County planners approved Columbia Station, amixed-use de- velopment consisting of 357 housing units above 42,000 square feet of street-fronting retail. Future plans call for the integration of bus rapid transit or light rail alalg the corridor. Geoffrey Ferrell ofFerrell 1\'Iadden ~s~as also resnnn~ihlr Ynr r{~r le,rm-hncr,~ ,-n,~iuc, of -, .imerican Pfannin~ Association ?1 Tn7.C~7Z/102f~tPS tr1 t•IJP Pleas~rrzt Hill drz.~elot~nzerzt dcfirzP the walls pf'a "public rnnnz' f1CZfSCd nR I~~In:..nt Dr.'abin. Citl~,Pfi2.i supported the redrvelnpzarerztpL•trz izz part hecazcse o f the oen.erozrs prnvisivn n f $200 million, mixed-use development in Con- tra Costa County, California. For two de- cades, neighborhood opposition had stalled the proposed public-private venture on a 20- acre site adjacent to the Pleasant Hill station on the Bay Area Rapid Transit line. The plan this project was developed by Lennertz yle 8: Associates of Portland, Oregon. The code, and the elaborate public involve- ment that led up to it, created a level of crust that led ro approval of the project in Decem- iier 2001. The project is now moving Forward under the direction of architect Dan Parolek, ~f Opticos Design in Eerkeley, California. Stephen Lawton, the communiry develop- ment director of Hercules, another Contra costa Counnr communiry, credits the stream- ined nature of form-based coding with help- ng the city to deal with a backlog of develop- nentproposals. Dover Kohl A Partners' Central -Iercules plan is shaping several new mixed- ise neighborhoods on a patchwork of rrownfield sites. Says Lawton: "The clarity of the form- ~ased code made it easy for citizens to under- tand the development proposals and to ac- eptthe intensiq~ ofgrowth needed to achieve :nancial stability. This was something we'd ever have been able to achieve with conven- onal zoning." To date, most form-based codes have been 4ed individually 1I1 response to the needs ,pecific community or site. Now comes a ew generation of standardized Form-based ides, vrhich are derived from the SmartCode, template developed by DPZ and licensed by Ie Municipal Code Corporation in Talla- assee, Florida. ThF C.,, ,err',,,-io .~•.,..i.,.~ ,a~n.,..~., ,e...e...r npe~z spvice. preconfigured (bur customizable) zones based on the "transect"-a framework for organiz- ing a metropolitan area into a series of zones, ranging Erom most natural to most urban. One of the first communities to take this new approach is Petaluma, California, ~s~hich adopted a variation of the SmartCode in July 2003. Laura Hall of Fisher & Hall Urban Design in Santa Rosa and Paul Crawford, FAICP, of Crawford Multari c~ 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 downtown plan and zoning ordinance. Over $100 million in develop- menthas been approved since the code's adop- tion, she says. (a.Ilifr~t•ttiil ntri frnui As more communities begin to incorporate New Urbanist and smart growth principles into their planning strategies, the practice of form-based coding i likely to spread. How much that will happen depends on several Factors: the availabilirv of qualified consultants (just a handful of firms practice true form-based coding); the dissemination of knowledge about die technique (little has been written on the subject, and there are few places to learn about it); and a continu- ing legal concern about overly prescriptive design guidelines that are often mistaken for form-based codes. The good nevus is that the state of Califor- niarecently included an endorsement ofform- 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 transit-oriented development."And this surnmer,.Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 1265, malung 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 laud 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 cominunit3r inten- tions regarding urban form and design. These expressions may differentiate neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, provide for a mixture of land uses and housing types within each, and provide specific measures far 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, zoning consistent with the plan, and the ttse of spe- cific plans, one can hope that d7e practice of form-based coding and the enabling laws that support it will not be far behind. Peter Katz is a consultant nn New Urbanist imple- mentation and development, who is based in Alexan- dria, \/ir~inia. He teaches planning az Virginia Tech's Alexandria campus and is d1e author of The Neu Clrbarzirrn: Toiuard OM ,^l )'Cl7FfCC1.YITP o_f Comrnuniry, puhlished by McGraw-Hill in 1993. For a list oFresources concerning form-based cod- ing, go ro APA's website: wti~~,plannino.org. PAS QuickNotes Form-Based Zoning A list of references at the end of this OuickNote will provide you unth additional readings a6oxt Form-Based Zoning. Please contactyour PAS Kepresentative for available reference materials. THE PRINCIPAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FORM-BASED AND TRADITIONAL ZONING Prescriptive, contextual standards. Traditional zoning proscribes 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 Examples of Form District Zoning Atlanta, Georgia: Qualit3~ of Life Zoning Districts. Available at ~Ps.atlanta~~a{Yov/citt=dir/DPCD/Bureau of Plannin; BOP/Zoning/~7Jeb Pes/zonin~districts.htm. Louisville Metro Government, Kentucky: Old Louisville/Limerick Traditional Neighborhood Zoning District Land Development Code Including Form Distracts. Available at tr~x-~~.loukvmeuo. org/Department/P1anDesi~;n/ldc.asg. Mclinney, Texas: McKinney Regional Employment Center, Urban Design Standards. Available at ~xnx~x..mckinnevtexas.org~/develop/ola~ n.htm. development process. Developers ~ praise its ability to promote context_sensitive design while not being overly restrictive. The two- tiered approach is a politically feasible way to rezone an entire region. As form district zoning becomes more established, it may merge with elements of use-based zoning, creating a hybrid option. LIST OF REFERENCES THE PRINCIPAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FORM-BASED AND TRADITIONAL ZONING I. Published by the Americana Planni~ag Association ~Kayden, Jerold S. 2004. "Reconsidering Zoning: Expanding an American Land-Use Frontier." Zoning Prac7ice, Jan'~Y• 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." Zortin~ Nemr, November. -----. 2001. `Beyond Euclid: Integrating Zoning and Physical Design, Part One: The Evolution of Physical Design in Zoning." Zoning NeJV.r, October. Z. Other resources Seattle, Washington: Station Area Overlay Distact Ordinances. Available at u~w-~L.citvofseattl.e.net/Manning transportation/SAP/Cou nciL~lctions.htm. Chael, Maurice. 2003. "The Smartcode: A Weapon to Fight the Sprawl Jar." [Accessed June 18, 2004]. Available at «•~~~v.tndto~vnnaz~er.com%\TOlumeS/smartcode.htm. Burdette, Jason T. 2004. "Form-Based Codes: A Cure for the Cancer Called Euclidean Zoning?" Unpublished manuscript. Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. [Accessed June 18, 2004]. Available at scholar lib vt edu/theses/available/etd-05122004- 113700 /unrestricted /BurdetteFINAI.ma~orpaper.pdf. Dover, Victor. 2001. Charrettes for New Urbanism. [Accessed June 18, 2004]. Available at ar~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 wwu~ growin4l?ly org/archive/archiv eDetail.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, City of. Department of Planning and Community Environment. 2001. Types of Zoning Codes artd Fnrmars. July. Santa Barbara, County o£ 2003. The Isla Vista Form-Based Regulating Code: Chapter 6 of the Draft Isla Vista Master Plan: Building Type Caries. June 5. APPLICATION OF FORM-BASED ZONING 1. Published by theAmerican Planning Association Greenberg, Ellen. 2004 "From Building to Region: New Urbanist Regulation in Place." In Codifying New Urbanism: Haw to Reform Municipal L~~sd Development Regarlation.r. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 526. Chicago: American Planning Association, pp. 39-80. Rouse, David C., and Nancy L. Zobl. 2004. "Form-Based Development Codes." Zoning Practice, May. Russell, Joel. 2004. "Putting New Urbanism to Work in Your Community." In Coding New Urbanism: How to Reform Msrnicipal 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. iL"hite Paper on Smart Growth Policy in Califor~sia. Governor's Office of Planning and Research. California. [Accessed June 18, 2004]. Available at fisherandhall com/OI'R/\\,'hiteI'aper.l~df. Chael, Maurice. 2003. "The Smartcode: A Weapon to Fight the Sprawl War." [Accessed June 18, 2004]. Available at ~t~ti~a~ tndro«>nplner com/`'olume5 i sniartcode.htm. Dover, Victor. 2003. "A Townmaker's Vision of a Livable Community." Proceedings of the Second. 1n~ztral new Partners for Smart Growth: Building Safe, Healthy, and Linable Communities. [Accessed June 18, 2004]. Available at ~vutiv t*row-int*sensibl~- org/archive/lrchiveDetlil ~sp~obiectID=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 ~xti«ti louk~•metro orQ/Department/P11nDesiz z/pcif/ ~1P_%~ Po~x~erpoint.pdf. 16 Codifying Nezo Urbanism Conzpleraentar[~ uses set within an. irztercorzneeted street network bring together essential aspects of cu~rttrr[[r[ity life and mini~r[i~e reliance on tl[e car. A compact, nzi_Yed-use pattern (beluw)- fi[ndanzentrzl to New LIrbanisn[- cont7•asts with the Euclidian separation (above) tluzf. cluzracf~~rizes cora~c~r[tiarzal sub[.u'Han dcr~~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 characteristic of Euclidean zoning-widely used throughout the country-is the separation of uses and their dispersion through m;n;mum lot-size requirements. New Urbanists reverse this approach to bring many activities into proximity, in the interest of convenience, walkability, and liveli- ness. Emphasizing mixed use does not mean eliminating blocks that consist of housing only. Mixed-use neighborhoods traditionally include residential blocks with a variety of densities and housing types within a neighborhood distinguished by many activities within comfortable walking distance of most homes (Figure 1). FIGURE 1. EUCLIDEAN SEPARATION VS. MIXED-USE INTEGRATION EUCLIDEAN SEPARATION MIXED-USE INTEGRATION RI~C~'. 2~A~" HOUSING ~o ~~@';. PEDESTRIAN-FRIENG Y'*~`,~TO ~~~ ~RDUND-FLDGfl STREET ~~' ~ ~. r ~ RETAIL •T ! ~~ ~ CGMME HGU'. ES Chapter 1. New Urbanist Essentials 17 FOSTERING A VARIETY OF USES Create mixed-use districts. Create mixed-use zoning districts that allow by-right, afine-grained combination of uses, especially within downtown core areas, suburban activity centers, and neighborhood centers of varying scales. The Southeast Orlando Sector Plan described in Chapter 3 lays out the different uses that would best fit in centers of various scales. Create mixed-use neighborhoods. Create neighborhood districts that allow 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 aze problematic because there are no incentives to build smaller units and because mixed-use buildings aren't properly addressed. A better approach, used in some conventional ordinances as well as New Urbanist ones, is regulating density by a combination of limits on total buildout expressed through maximum lot coverage, height, and other dimensional requirements. As long as those basic parameters and building type and other design requirements are met, the use mix and housing unit type can vary (unless ground-floor uses are specified as discussed below). Make it possible to walk to parks, 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 yeazs, 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. IVI/XING f~E51DENTlAL DENSITY AND f?OUSING TYPES Mix housing ttjpes. 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 sruolo "Shop llol~ses" or "line-work" to~vrihuuses combine upper-story living space with a flexible grrorcnd floor space that can be used as a shop, art studio, or office:. The combinettion offers atI important hrnrsing alternative while adding vitalittiJ to tlce street and providing flexibility to accnnunudate different econurilic uses over time. 18 Codifying New Urbanism Variation in ]ot sire arxd Housing h/pes helys to rzaintain a healthy range of household h/yes arld avoids the look o{ "covk~ie critter" subdiaisiorzs. FIGURE 3. MIXED DENSITY AND LDT SIZE ... O d~~d ~,/~ ~~ ~ ~ ~/ VARIED HOUSING TYPES V AND LOT SIZES Accessory dwellings ~iversifi~ housing vppartunities and provide flexibility for household needs tlurt evolve over- tinge. Accesson~ dwellings rm•ely need to emceed tlu~ favtyrirrt of cr. three-car garage (about ti00 square feet). Entrances for accessory dwellings should be visible from rr 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 gazages and other accessory structures. For purposes of calculat- ing density, accessory units can be exempted entirely or counted as at most one-half of a unit, reflecting their smaller impact on services than the pri- mary dwelling. Exempting accessory units from density calculations pro- vides maximum incentive for their construction (Figure 4). FIGURE 4. ACCESSORY DWELLINGS SIDE DRIVE ACCESS Chetpter 1. New Urbmtist Essentials 19 FIGURE 5. INFILL BEFORE STABLE USES TO REMAIN I~Llfit~'I~lI (.~~111''IpTtP7El~l AFTER ~IU i v ii nui ~) ~1 `nwwUiuwn 11_ I u ....~ . ` ~ ' I-I ~i t nor-I~~ Ir~mrmr~ REDEVELDPABLE "SUPERBLOCK" REDEVELDPABLE AND •UNDERTILIZED LDTS NEW INFILL WITH TRADITIONAL BLOCK-AND-LOT PATTERN Established neigliborhoods benef t u?)ten vacant nizd iercderiesed parcels are replaced by developn'lent that brings positive nctiviti! grid "eyes oiz the street." Subdivision of kuge lots cm~ allow a fi•aditional block and lot pattern tv be estai?fished, with new buildings fronting directIi! on the street and a renezoed focus uiz the public reabrl. 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 ANO REHABILITATION ACTIVITY 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. Clxange. parking requirements. Reduce or eliminate on-site parking requirements for small-lot infill projects, allowing parking demand to be fully or partially satisfied by on-street, shared, or remote parking (Figure 6). Revise building codes. Revise building codes to remove provisions that require rehabilitation of older buildings to current standards except when On-site parlcirig require»lents add si~~;nificant colzstnution costs, which pose a problem for the developers ~{srizall in(ill projects. 1Mleiz placed in front, vir site parking also makes streets less livable. Curb cuts displace oll-street parkZrig, and drivezvalls relriove lcindsazping iznd ZL?Z71dUUJS fr0111 tIIL' pC'dL'Stl'1ar1 LZZi111'017 Z71e11.t. \ CURB CUT DISPLACES REQUIRED GARAGE ADDS ON-STREET PARKING CONSTRUCTION COSTS 20 Codifijing Neza Urbanism 9 .o a Pulyroides, acid inspired by the 1920's cnurhjard 11.ni.csin~ of the region. FIGURE 7. HEIGHT TO WIDTH RATIO INAPPROPRIATE FOR URBAN CONTEXT --~: - -,:--,-- r ~•~- A --~. ~'• , g•. 1 In the ztrban context, streets are enhanced when buildings establish a strong sense of spatial encloszrre, both vertically arzd hart<untall y. Because private buildings shape public streets and avic spaces that together create the public realm, their design and placement are important elements of development regulations. While azchitectural style need not be prescribed, the Charter prinaples assert "architecture and landscape design should grow from local climate, topography, history, and building practice," thus avoiding the monotony of conventional suburban development and creating places of character and distinction. Regulations should be responsive to context at two levels: site-specific and regional. FOSTERING CONTEXTUAL DESIGN Adopt illustrated design standards. Adopt illustrated standards for build- ing design and site design to ensure design sensitive to the regional context as well as to the site's features and immediate surroundings. Address build- ing type and basic architectural-elements rather than mandating specific styles or detail. Regulation of entries and fenestration is essential for safe and inviting streets. The streetscape can be further enhanced by addressing proportions, roof types and pitches, and materials. 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 pazking within transit station areas, and codify standards for pedestrian facilities that provide multiple connections to transit. Improve parking regulations downtown. Institute parking regulations that support compact, walkable downtowns with the following provisions: • Reduce or eliminate minimum on-site parking requirements in locations planned for highest pedestrian activity. • Allow parking requirements to be satisfied by the use of on-street, municipal, common, or shared parking. • Establish parking caps that limit the maximum nLUnber or total square footage of on-site surface parking spaces. The Seven Fountains in TNesf Hollywood, California, is one of a rnznaber of Southern California projects designed L*y Pasadena- based czrclziteets and urbanists 141ou1e 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 reaz portions of their lots for public parking. • Prohibit off-street parking in front of buildings. • Provide access to parking areas through alleys and side streets when- ever possible. • Make parking areas as pedestrian-friendly as possible through the use of pedestrian pathways, trees, walkways, and attractive lighting on pedestrian-scale fixtures. • Where economically feasible, encourage the construction of multilevel .parking garages that have ground-floor retails uses, are hidden in the middle of a block, or are underground. Streamline development review fn 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 vaziety in the pedestrian experience. Smaller block lendPths are particulazly critical in mixed-use areas. Require street connectivity. Require streets to connect except where topog- raphy or other physical barriers make this impossible. Where streets cannot connect, require pedestrian walkways and stairways for pedestrian connec- tivity. 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. Narrower streets, with parallel on- street parking tend to reduce the speed of vehicles and enhance the sense of security of pedestrians, while shortening the crossing distance between the two sidewallcs. Wider sidewalks, designed with care (e.g., sidewallcs that aze shaded in warm climates, offer some protection from rain, are lit well, and are furnished with benches and other conveniences) encourage pedestrian activity. In contrast to conventional zoning, New Urbanist regulations include detailed provisions for streets and civic spaces, recognizing their impor- tance in community life and place making. ENHANCING STREETSCAPFS AND CIVIC LIfF Make streets public spaces. Establish dimensional regulations for build- ings and streets to effectively shape the streets as a public space. Reduce or eliminate minimum setbacks. Rather than employing setbacks, use "build-to lines" or "build-to zones" (consisting of minimum and maxi- mum setbacks). Exceptions can be allowed for civic buildings, pedestrian plazas, or outdoor eating azeas in front of restaurants, cafes, or other buildings (Figure 8). Chapfer 1. New Urbattist Esse~ztials 21 streeE scefte atul a walkable ttrbatz district at The Corner at Eastern Market in Washington, I).C. A varicuue wns rc~~ltcired to allow the ront~rr hi.tilding to be built at a floor area ratio of 3.0. f a S Wide sidewalks anti ground floors/tops atni restatcrants combine to create a lively 22 Codifying New LtrbRnism Review and a~rcend setback and height 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. r 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 Smart Growth) and the gen- eral plans that guide local governments' land-use policies. The alignment of state intentions and local government decisions through a regional plan should create a fertile environment for the harmonious growth of regions and of munidpalities 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 planning organizations, councils of gov- ernments) and are hazdly ever coordinated. Among the consequences of such a fragmented decision-making environment aze: sprawl; inconsistent development regulations; land-use decisions disconnected from transportation decisions; anom- alous concentration of poverty in older neighborhoods and suburbs; and a discon- nectbetween where jobs aze 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 (lazge and small), and create a more coordinated policy framework for reg- ulation and decision making at the local level. )n the absence of a regional form of government, local governments have the lion s shaze of the implementation responsibility for a regional~plan. Ensuring that the recommendations of a regional plan are adopted at the local level and that they find their way first into comprehensive plans and eventually into land development codes requires strong support from elected and appointed officials. Such buy-in requires early involvement of those officials in the plan development, the identifica- tion of cleaz red onal 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. ~ ° .j Chapter 1. New Urbanist Essentials 23 Put public buildings in central locations. Encourage the location of civic buildings, such as a town hall, post office, library, school, or house of wor- ship, in visually prominent central locations. Provide design flexibility for civic buildings to allow them to make unique contributions to their sur- roundings. Build neighborhood parks. Encourage small parks or squares (as small as 0.25 acre) in neighborhoods. The Charter of the New Urbanism places particular emphasis on the rela- tionship between the metropolis artd its agrarian surroundings and natural landscape. Local development regulations must address the potential con- flict between urbanism and environmental preservation while supporting productive agriculture, rural communities, and a clear urban/rural edge. This is particularly challenging because the enactment of provisions address- ing the relationship between urban and rural azeas requires significant coop- eration and consistent actions by neighboring localities. SHAPING IbIETRDPGL/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 standards to ensure that the urban expansion area respects and echoes the character of the existing town or neighborhood. Define and protect the most productive farmland through exclusive agri- cultural zoning. Where legally permissible, exclusive agricultural zoning or programs for purchase or transfer of development rights (PDRs or TDRs) will help protect productive farmland. Such zoning should allow farmers to engage in a variety of compatible small-scale businesses on their farms to enable them to supplement their farm income, especially in the off-season. Use conservation subdivision techniques to separate and integrate open. space and residential development. In areas where residential uses and active farming can co-exist, use conservation subdivision techniques to establish defined neighborhoods surrounded by protected open space or farmland. Because residential development in close proximity to intensive agriculture often produces conflict over noise, dust, and odors, such developments must be carefully designed to buffer farms from their residential neighbors. FIGURE 8. THE BUILD-TO LINE COMPATIBLE STREET FRONTAGE INCOMPATIBLE STREET FRONTAGE ~ringirt~ buildings, entrances, and windows to t}te street adds to street activity, sap'vc tllarue, and a sense of syatinl enclosure. Codes should include "build-to," "build-near-to," or n2axin1un2 setback regt.rirements tv attain t}ais ~gnal. rte, OW~~ `~ ,,..w k° 1~ ~R LN~'e!- ~q ~r --~-~' ~'N'~ 4~ -4 ~ n a r ~ 5~ _ ,~,1~ _y ._ ~ ~~L~'T ~~ o i J ~~ w i. _ r ~~;, A '~ ,t+ r~ 7, cr ~3 ~ - ~_~ ~. c _ ~zv~. > ~ ~ ~_ n~ -'~ `° ~, ~ ~LtC~I ~ ~~ ~~ _1`~ L y . ~~ Q za 0 u] O N ~ O S\ U ~Z ..at'i~..~ ~ s` ~ ~ r "- 2~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ - - m ~ n n ~,` ;~'_` ,\ ~' NOS *~ ~ ~'~ 1d lS ~ - ~ ` ~~3A ~ ~ ;~ 'zui .. ~ ' , r .r. NCO. ~ S y~~- aao «a '°i `~ ~', .x j aol, - :" I ~~ ,; NNI( _ _ . -,, Hsn Q-~I ;~ ,~ ~. ano ~ w ~.? ~ ~ _ _ NOl~ (~ ~- ~ ONV ~ ~j ~l /L { ~ ~ ~ J NON ~ ~ .. 1 _ F-~ NOS O Q _ ~ ` ;~ N o 'dIN_ - ~ ~ Nao. k~ _ r I i !I oae ;. _ ~ " ,lNb' L _. 7 ' No~~ a ~ a; , ~w aao - r ~' ~' ' ° .. .