Zoning Best Practices June 2008
Zoning Best Practices
acknowledgments The District of Columbia Office of Planning Harriet Tregoning Director Jennifer Steingasser Deputy Director, Development Review and Historic Preservation Travis Parker Zoning Review Manager HNTB Corporation Jane Dembner Shannon Yadsko Joseph Clemens Anna Bentley Jodi Wolfe
Principal-in-Charge Urban Planner Urban Planner Urban Planner Graphic Designer
White & Smith, LLC Mark White Principal, White & Smith, LLC
i
Zoning Best Practices
Table of contents Acknowledgments................................................................................................................................................................ i Introduction...........................................................................................................................................................................1 Process and Findings.........................................................................................................................................................3 Preliminary Survey..................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Detailed Review........................................................................................................................................................................... 4
City Profiles..........................................................................................................................................................................11 Boston..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Boulder................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Chicago.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Fort Collins............................................................................................................................................................................................ 25 Milwaukee............................................................................................................................................................................................. 29 Portland.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 33 San Antonio.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 37 St. Petersburg...................................................................................................................................................................................... 41
Conclusions..........................................................................................................................................................................43 Modified Conventional Zoning............................................................................................................................................45 Composite Zoning.....................................................................................................................................................................48 Form-Based Zoning . ...............................................................................................................................................................49 Performance or Impact Zoning...........................................................................................................................................53 Use Patterns in Hybrid Codes..............................................................................................................................................54 Lessons Learned........................................................................................................................................................................55
Appendices...........................................................................................................................................................................57
Appendix A: Preliminary Survey of 60 Cities..................................................................................................................... A-1 Appendix B: Bibliography............................................................................................................................................................ B-1 Appendix C: City Contacts.............................................................................................................................................................C-1
ii
Zoning Best Practices
introduction The District has initiated an update of the City’s zoning regulations – there is a need to review and revise the existing zoning regulations after almost 50 years of text and map amendments. The Office of Planning has increased staffing, as much of the update will be completed in-house, and has convened an appointed Zoning Review Taskforce to help guide and inform the zoning update. At the request of the Office of Planning, HNTB has conducted best practice research and analysis in support of the update process. This final report summarizes the research findings on zoning innovations and procedural approaches of select cities that have updated their zoning regulations. This report presents findings and recommendations so that the best practices from the selected cities might inform how the District approaches its own zoning regulations and addresses its growth and development issues.
1
Zoning Best Practices
Process and Findings Preliminary Survey The Office of Planning asked that a broad preliminary survey first be conducted on the zoning ordinances and processes of cities comparable to the District. After a scan of 60 cities, detailed research focused on a smaller group of eight cities for interviews and investigation of the components and innovations of their recent zoning updates or amendments. To generate the list of 60 cities comparable to the District for the preliminary survey, we applied the following criteria: • Cities of similar geographic size, population, or housing density; • Cities experiencing similar growth and redevelopment pressures; • Cities addressing similar zoning and planning challenges such as infill, new development or redevelopment, or transit-oriented development; • Cities with large areas of institutional land; and
3
• Cities known for their innovation or creative approaches no matter what their demographic characteristics. These criteria were used to produce a matrix of 60 cities (see Appendix A). Each city listed includes demographic data, including population growth, housing density, and land area, for comparisons to the District. Additionally, there are columns to indicate which of the above selection criteria each city meets, the level of development activity, the date of the ordinance, the type of ordinance (conventional zoning, form-based zoning, performance zoning, hybrid), and any additional notes about that city’s particular ordinance. As part of this best practices analysis, HNTB Team member White & Smith, LLC conducted a broad search of professional and academic journals for the latest research and theories on zoning and land use techniques. Summaries of the advantages and disadvantages of various zoning approaches are included in the conclusion portion of this report. A bibliography of collected research is included in Appendix B.
Process and Findings
Detailed Review Eight cities were selected for further detailed review after a series of meetings and discussions with Office of Planning Development Review staff. The selection was collaborative and based on a number of criteria and the desire to have a range of different kinds of ordinances from around the country. Each city represents different circumstances within which zoning practices were reexamined as part of the zoning update. As a result of these different conditions, each city has ended up with a zoning approach and product tailored to its specific needs. The eight cities included in the detailed review are: Boston, Boulder, Chicago, Fort Collins, Milwaukee, Portland, San Antonio, and St. Petersburg. HNTB contacted zoning officials in each city1 to discuss the process of updating the ordinance and to understand the effectiveness of such revisions. In addition to speaking with zoning staff, HNTB contacted others who had been involved in the zoning update process including developers and community members to get a broader perspective on the zoning revision process and the ultimate effectiveness of the zoning ordinance in regulating development. Overview of the Eight Cities and Their Approaches to Zoning Regulation Boston is comparable to the District in size and demographics, with similar redevelopment pressure in the city. 1 We spoke with representatives from all the cities, with the exception of Chicago, where zoning agency personnel did not respond to numerous requests for information.
4
The zoning code, which is still in the process of being updated, uses an innovative way to preserve neighborhood character, with each neighborhood having a specific set of zoning regulations that govern design and uses. The type of code used in Boston is generally defined as modified conventional. Conventional zoning, often referred to as “Euclidean,” divides an area into distinct districts and defines permitted uses and standards for each district. Modified conventional zoning follows the basic tenets of conventional zoning, but includes additions and modifications that may overlay or overlap the traditionally-zoned districts. Examples of common modifications include planned development districts, mixed use overlay districts, or landscape or streetscape overlay districts. Boston, Chicago, and Milwaukee use a variation of this type of zoning. Chicago’s code is a modified conventional one that includes design standards. Chicago has experience with a number of development issues facing the District including the decision to advance green building practices, transit-oriented development, and increase the walkability of the built environment. Their code, updated in 2004, links transportation and land use through pedestrian streets with specific design regulations. Milwaukee significantly updated its zoning code in 2002 to make it more applicable to existing development patterns, address recent downtown reinvestment, and require less use of variances for new development. Their new code is modified conventional with the addition of overlay zones for areas requiring special treatment or approaches.
Zoning Best Practices
Boulder’s zoning code, updated in 2004, is based on a modular zone system that provides flexibility in design and use. This is the purest form of a composite zoning ordinance that was found in the 60 cities reviewed as part of the preliminary survey of ordinances. Composite zoning creates separate and independent zoning components that are then combined to form zoning districts. Boulder refers to its particular approach as “modular.” Zoning districts in Boulder are comprised of standards from three modules: use, form, and intensity. Combining elements of the three modules creates a zoning district. Fort Collins has used two innovative zoning techniques and has long-term experience with the effectiveness of both. Their performance zoning ordinance (crafted in 1981) was nationally recognized as innovative. However, it was replaced in 1997 with a form-based code. Form-based codes focus on regulating design, addressing appearance and the relationships between buildings, lots, and blocks. Physical parameters are regulated rather than just use type. Both Fort Collins and St. Petersburg have this type of zoning. St. Petersburg provides a strong example of form-based code. The zoning ordinance, completed in 2005, includes the history and composition of each particular zone, as well as character, development potential, and allowed architectural features. Portland is an innovative city, and their performance zoning ordinance has a long enough history (enacted in 1991) to provide lessons on the effectiveness of this type of code. Performance zoning deemphasizes use restrictions and instead establishes performance standards that development
must meet. These performance standards may take the form of physical design parameters, impact limitations (such as noise and light pollution), and intensity constraints. Portland’s ordinance incorporates base zones, development regulations, and overlay zones. San Antonio’s code utilizes many different techniques. Completed in 2006, the zoning ordinance includes “use patterns” and flexible zoning, and they are currently considering a form-based zoning overlay. San Antonio’s code type is generally described as use pattern zoning. Use pattern zoning establishes a series of very specific templates for development. These templates include design and dimensional elements. Once established, these templates can then be implemented by-right or through an approval process. While San Antonio’s geography and urban form are dissimilar to the District’s, it does have similar issues such as tourism and historic preservation. The following sections of this report provide the results of the HNTB Team’s detailed review of the selected eight cities. The separate city profiles provide background on each city’s zoning ordinance, the process by which each city updated its code, and a list of features of the resulting code that are particularly relevant to the District. The overall lessons learned and findings about the various zoning code approaches are presented in a conclusions section. Appendices provide supplemental information on the preliminary survey of 60 cities, the bibliography prepared for this report, and a list of city contacts. Three matrices provide an overview of the results of the eight city study. Table 1
5
Process and Findings
summarizes characteristics of the zoning ordinance revision process, from the timeframe to a description of the process and the revision goals. Table 2 highlights which of the cities’ zoning regulations include substantive regulations that have specific applicability to the District. Lastly, Table 3 provides summaries of the five code types used by the cities, describing both advantages and limitations of each regulatory approach. Additional information on these points as well as detailed narratives and descriptions can be found in each city’s section of this report.
6
Zoning Best Practices
Table 1: Process Matrix Boston
Boulder
Chicago
Fort Collins
Milwaukee
Portland
San Antonio
St. Petersburg
Type of Ordinance
modified conventionalneighborhood overlays
modular
modified conventionaldesign standards
form-based code
modified conventionaloverlays
performance
use patterns
form-based code
Date of Ordinance
ongoing
2006
2004
1997
2002
1991
2001
2007
1964
1994
*
1981
1960's
1959
1987
1977
Revision Time Period
Previous Ordinance
20 years total, each neighborhood took about 3 years
3 years
*
1 year
1.5 years
5 years
2 years
7 years
Revision Description
Waterfront, downtown, and neighborhood districts added to allow more flexibility and reflect the built environment
8 substantive changes were made, and modular zones enacted
*
Entirely rewritten code replaced 1981 performance zoning to become more prescriptive and predictable
Major revision of previous ordinance, kept format and consolidated zones
New code written to create consistent development regulations and update traditional zones
New code creates new base zones through use patterns and regulates design through formbased Flex Zones
New code written to replace outdated ordinance, streamline development process, and encourage better design
Consultant input, but zoning written in-house
In-house
*
Consultant
Consultant
In-house
Consultant
Consultant
Streamline Development Process:
√
√
√
√
Replace Outdated Regulation:
√
√
√
√
Reflect Built Environment:
√
√
√
Create a Readable Document:
√
√
√
In-House or Consultant? Goals
√
√ √
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Allow for Flexibility: * The column entries are not filled out for Chicago as the zoning department did not respond to numerous requests for information about their zoning update process
7
Process and Findings Table 2: Content Matrix Boston
Boulder
Chicago
Fort Collins
Milwaukee
Portland
San Antonio
St. Petersburg
Type of Ordinance
modified conventionalneighborhood overlays
modular
modified conventionaldesign standards
form-based code
modified conventionaloverlays
performance
use patterns
form-based code
Date of Ordinance
ongoing
2006
2004
1997
2002
1991
2001
2007
1964
1994
1981
1960's
1959
1987
1977
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Previous Ordinance Policy Redevelopment
√
Sustainability (Green provisions)
√
√
√
√
Arts Districts
√
Height
√
√
√
√
Parking
√
√
√
√
Historic Resources and Neighborhoods
√
√
√
Design Standards
√
√
√
√
Low/Moderate Density Residential
√
√
Medium/High Density Commercial/Residential
√
√
√
Downtown
√
√
√
√ √
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Use Districts
Commercial Corridors
√
√
√
Campus/Institutional
√
√
√
√
Parks/Open Space
√
√
√
√
√
PUD
√
√
√
√
8
√
√
Zoning Best Practices
Table 3: Regulatory Approach Matrix Approach
What is it?
Who is doing it?
What are the advantages and limitations?
Modified Conventional Zoning
This divides the city into districts that establish uniform use and dimensional standards, such as setbacks, height, and density. Overlay zones, floating zones, and development standards would address the needs of specific neighborhoods or situations.
This is the District's current approach. Others include Boston, Milwaukee.
Because this is the most common approach to land development, it is familiar to zoning administrators and applicants. However, zoning is often blamed for poor development patterns because it does not comprehensively regulate design.
Composite Zoning
Rather than having zoning districts of just one component (a list of use districts), composite districts provide separate and independent zoning components such as use, site, and architectural characteristics. One of each of these components then can be combined to create a "composite" zoning district.
Leander, TX Boulder, CO Euclid, OH (original zoning ordinance)
This provides a very flexible approach to zoning, while preserving the basic standards that code users are familiar with. It has the effect of a series of overlay districts, so it is more complicated than conventional districts.
Use Patterns
This establishes a series of design templates that can be permitted either by right or through discretionary procedures.
San Antonio, TX Suffolk, VA Gainesville, FL
This combines all aspects of land development regulation that produce a particular development form. For example, dimensional standards and street design are packaged into a single set of traditional neighborhood development regulations. Once the design standards are articulated, the development can be permitted administratively without the cumbersome procedures and disincentives of PUD or other discretionary procedures. However, it can be difficult for zoning administrators to understand the concept. In addition, neighborhoods might want to retain discretionary review.
Form-Based or Transect-Based Zoning
Divides city into zones where the regulations vary by physical design characteristics, rather than by use.
Arlington County, VA St. Petersburg, FL Petaluma, CA
This directly addresses design and gives landowners flexibility about how to use their property. These codes tend to be complex and unfamiliar to existing code users. In addition, neighborhood interests and property owners might still want to control uses (e.g., intensive non-residential uses in residential neighborhoods, residential uses in industrial zones that are reserved for employment generators). These codes are also limited in scope they do not address issues such as congestion, airports, suburban corridors, stream corridors, and related issues.
Performance or Impact Based Zoning
Like form-based zoning, impact or performance based zoning deemphasizes use. Instead of focusing on physical design, a performance based code focuses on the impacts of development. This may include traffic, stormwater management, and rating systems for architectural design.
Portland, OR; Lake County, IL
Like form-based zoning, a performance based model is both more flexible and more complicated than conventional zoning. However, it does include performance measures that are more familiar to planning professionals and applicants.
9
Zoning Best Practices
City profiles The following profiles provide overviews of the zoning approaches found in each of the eight cities selected: Boston, Boulder, Chicago, Fort Collins, Milwaukee, Portland, San Antonio, and St. Petersburg.
11
Zoning Best Practices
boston Boston is comparable to the District in population and size. With 575,000 residents, it is a built-out city that faces redevelopment pressures similar to the District’s. With a thriving downtown and a wide variety of historic neighborhoods, Boston’s experience with rewriting its zoning ordinance provides a relevant example for the District. Boston’s 1964 zoning ordinance was considered out-of-date and not applicable to existing development by the mid-1980s. The limited city-wide zoning districts did not seem to apply to many parts of the city, which originally grew as separate towns. The Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) wanted to create a flexible, customizable ordinance that was applicable to all parts of the city. Neighborhoods were facing redevelopment pressures and the waterfront areas were experiencing large-scale change. The BRA also wanted to make zoning more in line with the existing characteristics of particular neighborhoods.
Zoning Ordinance In the mid-1980s, the BRA decided to create three new types of zoning:
13
waterfront (called Harborpark) districts, downtown districts, and neighborhood districts. Each district would have specific zoning regulations that applied just to that area. Harborpark districts had special conditions that required new zoning techniques, while downtown districts had more urban design standards and fewer use standards, and neighborhood districts were meant to preserve the character of neighborhoods while encouraging new development. The resulting zoning system is of the modified conventional type with neighborhood districts. This means that in addition to a citywide ordinance, each neighborhood has a specific set of zoning regulations that govern design and uses. The Boston zoning code consists of three volumes and general code maps. Volume I includes the enabling act with the general code; volume II contains Downtown, Central Artery, Special, and Harborpark districts; and volume III contains neighborhood districts. All three volumes contain close to 90 separate articles. The code in its entirety can be found online at www.cityofboston.gov/bra/zoning/ downloadZone.asp.
boston
Update Process New zoning districts were created on a rolling basis. The process for each district involved an outside consultant creating district/ neighborhood plans with recommended land uses, followed by an in-house zoning department effort to translate those plans into zoning regulations. The public involvement process included a mayor-appointed Planning Advisory Committee, a series of public meetings at key points, and outreach to neighborhood groups. The process for refining each district took between three and five years, with the total process taking over 20 years. Boston Redevelopment Authority staff believes that additional staff resources could have tightened the timeframe. In interviews, the City reported that residents have a sense of ownership of the zoning regulations because of the large part they had in determining them. Developers appreciate the clear rules and streamlined processes that have come along with revised regulations. Overall, the character of Boston’s neighborhoods has been preserved, while allowing for additional redevelopment.
Features Though not an exhaustive list, the following features in the Boston Zoning Ordinance are applicable to issues in the District of Columbia (references are to the Boston Zoning Code): • The City has initiated an “Artist Space Initiative” to retain and create spaces for artists. According to the City website, artists in live/work units are the only
14
occupational group permitted to live in industrially zoned areas of the city. The City has also developed design guidelines for developers to articulate minimum requirements to meet artists’ needs (i.e., live/work units must be at least 1,000 square feet). A certification process ensures that only artists occupy artist spaces. Artists who are interested in becoming eligible to apply for live/work housing (rental and ownership) that requires artist certification can apply to be certified by a panel of peers through a mail-in application. See www.cityofboston.gov/bra/ econdev/ArtistSpaceInitiative.asp. • The Greenbelt Protection Overlay District preserves open space and vegetation along Boston’s Greenbelt Roadways. (§ 29-1) • Boston Green Building Credits are offered toward LEED Certification for modern electrical grid usage, historic preservation, groundwater recharge, and modern mobility. (§ 37-4) • Downtown Districts regulate rooftop additions and establish transitional or stepped down height and floor area ratio (FAR) limits for protected areas (§§ 38-6, 41-6, 44-6, 45-5, 46-8). • Planned Development Area approval (Boston’s equivalent of a PUD) is permitted in a downtown district in order to “create the facilities necessary to house and showcase the resident artists and nonprofit arts groups” (§ 38-10). Economic Development Areas are established within base zoning districts to encourage artist communities.
Zoning Best Practices
• Design standards for the Downtown Districts include shadow, wind, skyline, pedestrian space, streetwall continuity, display window (glazing and transparency), façade modulation, and maximum floor plate standards. (§§ 38-16, 38-19, 39-13, 40-13, 41-16, 41-18, 43-17, 43-20, 44-7, 45-10, 45-13, 45-16, 46-8, 47A-11). Design standards in waterfront districts include view protection (including archways), stepped down height, and general contextual standards (§§ 42A-8, 42E-8, 42F-8). Designated “protection areas” are subject to discretionary design review (§§ 41-18, 43-21, 44-8, 47A-6).
employment, and usable open space (§§ 41-14, 45-12, 47A-9, 42E-18). • Some Downtown Districts limit street level uses to designated “ground level uses” with display windows or exhibits (§§ 41-17, 44-10, 45-14, 46-6, 47A-12). • At least one Downtown District increases height for a maximum horizontal distance of 35 feet to allow a distinctive entrance element (§ 41-18). Unfortunately, this section does not require a distinctive element, but instead merely accommodates it with increased height.
• The Midtown Cultural District and Fort Point Waterfront districts recognize “artists’ live/work space,” “artist studio or work space,” and “Art Uses/Artists’ Mixed Use” as permitted uses (§ 38-18). “Artist Mixed Use” is recognized as a permitted use in many of the City’s neighborhood districts.
• Downtown and Harborpark zoning districts encourage mixed-use development and revitalization of the waterfront (§ 42A-1).
• The Downtown Districts establish a “Sky Plane Setback” above a designated Street Wall Height (typically 65-125 feet), subject to a guaranteed minimum floor area of 9,000 square feet (§§ 38-19, 39-13, 41-18). A visually distinctive roof or other termination is required.
• Medium Density Areas are established in Downtown Districts with building heights of 125 feet and FAR ranging from 5.0 to 8.0, and permitting a height of 155 feet and FAR of 10.0 subject to discretionary large scale review (§§ 45-7, 47A-5). Other districts also follow the pattern of establishing a by-right height/FAR limit, along with a discretionary limit tied to large scale review (e.g., § 46-6).
• Downtown Economic Development Areas overlays direct development to underutilized sites by encouraging infill, allowing uses that provide public benefits, and expediting development review (§§39-1, 40-1). • Some districts include a schedule of public benefits for Planned Development Areas, such as affordable housing, street improvements,
• The Chinatown Downtown subdistrict includes a parking cap for office spaces of only 1 per 1,500 square feet (§ 43-17).
• Many of the Downtown Districts overlap historic districts and establish design guidelines that match the historic context. These include discouraging demolition, matching existing forms and patterns, base to height and solid to void ratios that encourage vertical orientation,
15
boston
storefront detailing, recessed entries, requiring pronounced base and cornice lines, windows, building materials, rooftop equipment, block patterns, views and vistas, and landscaping (§§ 46-8, 47A-10). • Similar standards are established for Neighborhood Design Districts in the City’s neighborhood district areas (e.g., §§ 51-52, 52-21, 53-51, 54-19). • The Board of Zoning Adjustment may allow a common parking area to share parking for uses with different peak parking periods. This requires a public hearing (§ 51-56). • Open Space and Conservation Protection districts are established in various Neighborhood District areas (e.g., § 52-17). These districts establish general site orientation and use restrictions that are designed to protect natural resources. • Large project review requires a green building study, although with vague criteria: “Green Building. An analysis to determine how well the proposed project complies with LEED and to assess the level of environmental performance that will be achieved by the Proposed Project under the most appropriate LEED building rating system.” (§ 80B-3) • Large project review must include an urban design study (§ 80B-3). • Institutions are required to create master plans, which are converted to zoning overlays. The community works with institutions to develop expansion plans (§ 80D).
16
Zoning Best Practices
boulder Boulder is a growing city of 92,000 residents located in central Colorado in the Denver region. The University of Colorado is a large institutional presence. Boulder has a history of managing growth in its urban area. The City also has a height restriction that protects views of the surrounding mountains. Boulder residents are welleducated and typically very engaged in the planning process. Boulder’s land use had been regulated by a 1994 zoning ordinance that was out of date and difficult to use. When new development was proposed, new zoning districts were often created, leading to a disorganized and lengthy ordinance. In 2003, the zoning rewrite process began. The process took three years and was done in-house, with extensive support from a professional organization, the Architects and Planners of Boulder (APOB). The goal of the new ordinance was to create a more flexible zoning code that would allow for new development and address a range of development issues without the need to constantly create new zones. For this reason, a modular zoning ordinance was chosen.
17
Zoning Ordinance The modular zoning ordinance uses three categories—use, form, and intensity—to create zoning regulations. Any given parcel in Boulder will have an associated use, form, and intensity module. The Use Module establishes the uses that are permitted, conditionally permitted or prohibited; it assures that land uses are consistent with the Boulder Comprehensive Plan. The Form Module establishes the physical parameters for development such as setbacks, yard sizes, solar access, heights, and building design. The Intensity Module governs floor area ratios and density. Together, these three modules create flexible zoning districts. Boulder’s code was adopted in 2006 and is part of the City’s Land Use Regulations. The code contains 16 sections and an appendix. Standards related to use, form and bulk, intensity, development, and nonconformance are major sections within the code. Other sections include general provisions, review processes, historic preservation, inclusionary zoning, subdivisions, and residential growth management system. Boulder’s code is the most concise of all those reviewed. The code in its entirety can be found online at www.colocode.com/boulder2/title9.htm.
boulder
Update Process The rewrite process relied on public input, both from APOB and from the community at large. Several open houses were held, with surprisingly low turnout for the educated and involved residents of Boulder. Most of the residents who provided comments were concerned about development potential. There has been a learning curve within the City of Boulder in adopting the new ordinance. Since it replaced previous zones, staff members have had to adjust to a new lexicon. However, most users find that the regulations are easier to use and less complex than the 1994 ordinance. Boulder’s Land Use Code also contains design elements in the downtown and historic districts. Green buildings are also incorporated into the city’s building code through a new Green Building and Green Points Program that requires additional sustainable elements for larger projects.
Features Though not an exhaustive list, the following features in the Boulder Land Use Code are applicable to issues in the District of Columbia (all references are to the Boulder Revised Code): • A citywide height restriction is in effect. By-right development allows very low heights, but the site review process provides an opportunity to develop to greater heights (§ 9-2-14). • The staff may reduce parking requirements up to 50 percent, while the Planning
18
Commission may award a reduction exceeding 50 percent (§ 9-2-14). Parking may be reduced under this procedure through joint use of common parking facilities, or mixed use development that captures parking on the site. • The site review process includes three options, from least intensive to most: minor modification, minor amendment, and new site review amendment. Site review aims to allow flexibility and encourage innovation in development and is optional for most projects but mandatory for projects of a certain size. The site review process has expedited the review process and provided an opportunity for design review (§ 9-2-14). • The City may reduce open space requirements if a project is close to public open space and contributes more than is required by the City’s development excise tax for open space (§ 9-2-14). • Solar access requirements apply to lot layout, building siting, and placement of open space and streets (§§ 9-2-14, 9-9-17). • While the City generally prohibits converting residentially zoned dwellings to nonresidential uses, a conversion that serves a “compelling social, human services, governmental or recreational need in the community” is allowed. An art or craft studio space is one example of a permitted conversion (§ 9-2-15). • A “Medium Density Overlay Zone” protects medium density residential areas adjacent to the downtown central business district that were originally developed with a
Zoning Best Practices
predominantly single-family character and that are now redeveloping with higher densities (§ 9-3-11). This district prohibits secondary detached dwelling units or additional units that involve exterior modifications. • The dimensional regulations (§ 9-7-1) and building design (§ 9-9-3) establish window and glazing standards. • One downtown district (DT-5) allows transfer of bonus floor area between parcels (§ 9-8-2). • The City staff may “defer” parking up to a designated percentage where the character of the use lowers the anticipated need for off-street parking; the use is immediately proximate to public transportation; there is an effective private or company car pool, van pool, bus, or similar group transportation program; or residents, employees, and customers regularly walk or use bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicular forms of transportation (§ 9-9-6). However, the City Manager may require construction of the deferred parking at any time with up to 30 days notice.
• The dimensional standards establish requirements for useable open space (§ 9-9-11). In residential districts, this may include landscaped areas, outdoor activity or recreation, gardens or landscaped courtyards, hardscaped areas with passive amenities (such as benches, sculpture or ornamental lighting), unenclosed balconies or decks, pedestrian ways or plazas. Up to 50 percent of the commercial open space may be indoors and oriented to the public entry. • Chapter 11 establishes a process for designating historic districts and landmarks. • The building code includes a Green Building and Green Points Program—the larger the project in square footage, the more sustainable elements must be included (§ 10-7-5). In addition to mandatory energy efficiency thresholds, projects are required to accrue a certain number of green points depending on project size. Green points are given for specific types of landscaping, surface water management, new construction waste recycling, HVAC systems, solar heating, and other factors.
• The code has a provision for bicycle parking standards. Ten percent of the number of required off-street parking spaces must be provided in bicycle parking (§ 9-9-6). • Parking requirements in transit-oriented, mixed-use districts are reduced up to 25 percent (§ 9-9-6). Similar reductions apply to elderly housing and for pre-existing nonresidential uses that do not meet current offstreet parking requirements.
19
Zoning Best Practices
chicago Chicago has experience with a number of similar development challenges that the District is facing including creating a walkable city, capitalizing on their investments in transit, promoting sustainable development, and addressing design in planned developments. Like the District, it has experienced recent population growth after years of decline. The following observations and recommendations are based on Chicago’s ordinance and other related research.
Zoning Ordinance Chicago’s ordinance was adopted in 2004. It is a modified conventional zoning code with design standards. The ordinance includes historic overlays and special character overlays and designated pedestrian streets have specific design regulations. It includes 18 chapters and a zoning map. Six district types are defined: Residential, Business and Commercial, Downtown, Manufacturing, Special Purpose, and Overlay. Other chapters address topics such as planned developments, landscaping and screening, and code administration. The code in its entirety can be found online at egov. cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/
21
portalEntityHomeAction.do?entityName= Zoning&entityNameEnumValue=45.
Features Several features from Chicago’s zoning ordinance are applicable to issues in the District of Columbia (all references are to the Chicago Zoning Code): • Special building height standards apply to districts with an “A” suffix, which are districts designed to promote multiunit residential buildings containing accessible units (§ 17-2-0105-C). The special building height standards also apply in designated overlay districts (see Chapter 17-7). • Rear yard open space is required in residential single family districts (§ 17-2-0307). Townhouse developments must have 36 square feet of useable on-site open space per dwelling unit (§ 17-2-0308-A) and landscaped yards ranging from 175 to 200 square feet (§ 17-2-0501-H). Required townhouse open space must have a minimum dimension of at least 5 feet on any side if private or 15 feet on any side if provided as common open space (§ 17-2-0308-A). In addition,
chicago
townhouses require 150 square feet of common open space per unit (§ 17-2-0501-I). • Artist live/work space and artist work space are permitted in the business, commercial, and downtown districts (§§ 17-3-0207, 17-4-0207). Live/work space located on the ground floor requires special use approval in some districts. Planned manufacturing districts also allow artist work space, but not live/work space (§ 17-6-0403-F). Live/work spaces allow the production, showing, and sale of art in up to 50 percent of the floor area (§ 17-17-0212). • Designated business and commercial districts require a minimum floor-to-floor height of 13 feet for commercial ground floor space, and a minimum floor area of 800 square feet or 20-25 percent of the lot area (§ 17-3-0305). • Design standards are established for development along designated “pedestrian streets” in business, commercial and downtown districts (§§ 17-3-0500, 17-4-0500). These standards include: maximum setbacks; minimum fenestration and glazing for street facing walls; and door and entrance specifications. • For designated “pedestrian streets,” parking ratios apply only to floor area exceeding 10,000 square feet (§ 17-3-0504-E) and parking areas must be located in the rear of the principal building (§ 17-3-0504-F). Pedestrian Streets are “… intended to preserve and enhance the character of pedestrian streets that are widely recognized as Chicago’s best examples of pedestrian oriented shopping districts. The regulations
22
are intended to ensure pedestrian safety and comfort, promote economic vitality and preserve the positive character of downtown’s most pedestrian-oriented streets.” (§ 17-4-0501) • Downtown is divided into four districts: the core (DC), mixed use (DX), residential and mixed commercial/residential buildings (DR), and commercial/service areas (DS) (§ 17-4-0100). Floor area ratios range from 3.0 to 16.0 (§ 17-4-0405). There is no maximum building height in these districts, but some heights require Planned Development (PD) review (§ 17-4-0407). Floor area bonuses are available for (§ 17-4-1002): –– Affordable Housing –– Public Plazas and Pocket Parks –– Chicago Riverwalk Improvements –– Winter Gardens –– Indoor Through-Block Connections –– Outdoor Through-Block Connections –– Sidewalk Widening –– Arcades –– Water Features in Public Open Spaces –– Upper-Level Setbacks –– Lower-Level Planting Terraces –– Green Roofs –– Underground Parking and Loading –– Parking Concealed by Occupiable Space –– Off-Site Park/Open Space Contributions –– Streetscape Improvements –– Transit Station Improvements –– Pedway Improvements –– Adopt-A-Landmark –– Chicago Public Schools Capital Improvements Fund • Downtown design standards have been created for pedestrian streets and mobility streets to encourage pedestrian-friendly
Zoning Best Practices
urban design (§ 17-4-0600). Mobility Streets are “…intended to preserve and enhance the function of certain streets that serve as primary pedestrian routes linking commuter rail stations with the downtown employment core. The regulations are intended to ensure pedestrian safety and comfort, support transit use and promote economic development by ensuring safe and efficient access to downtown’s commercial and employment center.” (§ 17-4-0601). • The Parks and Open Space (POS) District establishes use restrictions and general setback standards to preserve, protect and enhance lands set aside for public open space, public parks and public beaches (§ 17-6-0200).2 • “Character” standards have been codified for residential developments (§ 17-8-0400). The general standard includes only a minimum requirement for windows and entrances to avoid blank walls. It does not include massing, modulation, orientation, or roof/building form standards. Townhouses must include street facing doors and windows, with garages facing alleys where available (§ 17-2-0501-K).
assembly or schools over 2 acres, power plants, waterway development, large commercial development (gross floor area of 75,000 square feet or more, or net site area of 4 acres or more), large industrial development (5 acres or within 100 feet of residential districts), designated height thresholds (ranging from 75 to 600 feet by district), large residential development (defined by acreage and number of units), and development that uses a bonus density. • Cooperative parking standards encourage shared parking through reductions in parking minimums (§ 17-10-0080). • Parking minimums have been reduced by half at transit-served locations along CTA and Metra lines (§ 17-10-0102). Parking reductions are also available for underground parking and small dwelling units in the downtown districts (§ 17-10-0102). No parking is required for landmarks (§ 17-10-0102-A). • Chapter 17-10 establishes minimum bicycle parking in addition to automobile spaces (§ 17-10-0300).
• Urban design characteristics are codified for planned developments (§ 17-8). Planned development review is mandatory for certain uses and situations such as air rights development, airports, nonaccessory parking in downtown districts, hospitals, colleges, campuses, religious These types of districts can raise takings issues and should be discussed carefully with the Office of Attorney General if the District uses this approach.
2
23
Zoning Best Practices
Fort collins Fort Collins is a rapidly-growing city of 135,000 in northern Colorado. The city has been lauded for its innovative and forward-thinking land use policies over the past three decades. Fort Collins has also experienced dramatic growth over the past 15 years, nearly doubling its population from 1990 to 2006.
Zoning Ordinance In 1981, Fort Collins enacted the first performance zoning ordinance in the country. The ordinance, called the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS), allowed virtually any use in any area, as long as developers could meet performance and impact criteria. Plan approvals were handled administratively, with almost no discretionary review, resulting in faster processing times. While Fort Collins was praised for taking such a ground-breaking step in zoning, the new ordinance was very permissive in controlling new development. Residents felt as though the LDGS allowed for too much flexibility, resulting in a lack of predictability. In 1997 a form-based code was developed. The resulting code contains five articles: General Provisions, Administration, General
25
Development Standards, Districts, and Terms and Definitions. Article 4 (Districts) contains 28 distinct divisions, three of which are reserved and not currently in use. The code in its entirety can be found online at www.colocode.com/ftcollins/ landuse/begin.htm.
Update Process In 1997, Fort Collins worked with a consultant to draft a form-based zoning ordinance. The Land Use Code was rewritten during the Comprehensive Plan rewrite process, and because of intense pressure to complete the code before elections, the new code took less than one year to write. The new code was intended to be a more prescriptive document that would control uses but still allow flexibility. There was broad public support for a new code, as many residents desired more predictable land use patterns. The 1997 Land Use Code is an easy-toread document that encourages a high caliber of design, and greater density in development. The code includes minimum density requirements (rather than typical maximum density requirements), maximum block sizes, specific locations for
fort collins
neighborhood centers, and design standards to improve the character of the built environment. Since the adoption of the Land Use Code, there have been increases in transit-oriented development and mixed-use development proposals.
• Building and project compatibility requirements establish general standards for compatibility and design, including size, height, bulk, mass, scale, privacy, materials, windows, color, storage, and transition (§ 3.5.1).
Fort Collins has long-term experience with two innovative zoning techniques. While performance zoning was found to be too permissive, the more recent form-based code has provided the structure and standards that Fort Collins officials and residents desired. Fort Collins provides a strong example of both a pioneering ordinance that had unintended consequences and a form-based ordinance that was tailored to fit the community.
• Residential design standards address variety, street orientation, accessory units, and garages (§ 3.5.2). Design standards for mixed-use, institutional and commercial buildings address street orientation, build-to lines, massing, wall articulation, facades, entrances, awnings, base and top treatments, encroachments, drive-throughs and illumination (§ 3.5.3). Special standards apply to large retail establishments (at least 25,000 square feet) (§ 3.5.4). These include façade articulation, transparency, façade detailing, roofs, materials and colors, entrances, parking location, connectivity, pedestrian circulation, civic spaces, and deliveries. Standards for convenience retail (§ 3.5.5) include architectural style, screening and landscaping. Design standards similar to those listed above are embedded in several district regulations, including the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N) and Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (N-C-L) Districts (§ 4.5). The City’s Master Street Plan has been incorporated into the land use code and design standards for streets and alleys have been codified. The street pattern and connectivity standards are also included elements (§ 3.6).
Features Though not an exhaustive list, the following features in the Fort Collins Land Use Code are applicable to issues in the District of Columbia (all references are to the Fort Collins Land Use Code): • Site planning and lot orientation standards are established for solar access and shading (§ 3.2.3), and natural habitat protection (§ 3.4.1). • Site design standards require the preservation or adaptive reuse of historic landmarks or districts, and maintaining existing building, window and entryway patterns (§ 3.4.7). • The City’s parks and trails master plan is incorporated by reference as a development standard (§ 3.4.8).
26
• Transit-oriented development standards require a minimum building height (§ 3.10). • Height limits are set by block and completely separated from zoning, preserving access to
Zoning Best Practices
light and encouraging a varied skyline (§ 4.16). A special review process applies to buildings that exceed 40 feet in height (§ 3.5.1(G)). The applicant must address views, light and shadow, privacy, and neighborhood scale. • The Residential Low Density (R-L) district requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet or triple the building floor area (§ 4.4). The Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N) district provides for residential development with small scale commercial uses, and a minimum density of 5 dwelling units/acre and maximum densities of 8 to 12 dwelling units/acre (§ 4.5). • The L-M-N and Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (M-M-N) districts require neighborhood scaled parks that are located within a maximum of 1/4 to 1/3 mile of at least 90 percent of the dwellings in any development 10 acres or larger (§§ 4.5, 4.6). • The M-M-N district buffers low density neighborhoods and the commercial core with a minimum average density of 7 to 12 dwelling units/acre (§ 4.6).
adopted subarea plan (§ 4.10). High density housing is also allowed in the Community Commercial District (C-C) (§ 4.18). • The Public Open Lands District (P-O-L) protects large publicly owned parks and open lands that have a community-wide emphasis (§ 4.11). • The Downtown District is divided into three subdistricts, including the older center, a civic area and the downtown’s primary employment and government center, Canyon Avenue (§ 4.16; see Fort Collins City Plan, Policy DD-1.9 Land Use). The district regulations include a variety of massing and design standards. Structured parking that abuts streets must include retail and is subject to architectural design standards. • The River Downtown Redevelopment (R-D-R) and Community Commercial Poudre River (C-C-R) districts provide for redevelopment of areas between the Old Town and the City’s riverfront (§§ 4.17, 4.19). These districts have specific design standards that apply to streetscape, public realm, and landscaping (§ 4.17)
• The Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (N-C-L), Medium Density (N-C-M), and Buffer (N-C-B) Districts protect residential neighborhoods based on subarea plans (§§ 4.7, 4.8, 4.9). • The High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (H-M-N) encourages higher density multifamily housing and group quarters (dormitories, fraternities, sororities, etc.) proximate to Colorado State University. The areas are designated in accordance with an
27
Zoning Best Practices
milwaukee Milwaukee is Wisconsin’s largest city and home to over 563,000 people. Located on the southwestern shore of Lake Michigan, Milwaukee has seen moderate population loss during the past two decades. However, like the District of Columbia, Milwaukee has seen recent reinvestment in its downtown and a surge in downtown redevelopment.
With the new zoning code, many zoning districts were consolidated. The new code also brought more properties into conformity, as the outdated zoning regulations did not reflect the built environment and this had resulted in the need for a large number of variances.
Milwaukee’s previous zoning ordinance dated back to the 1960s and included 99 distinct zoning districts. To simplify the regulations and reflect the character of development in Milwaukee, the zoning ordinance was overhauled between 2000 and 2002.
The code consists of two parts: the first contains administration and procedural guidelines, the second has zoning district standards. The zoning district standards include Residential, Commercial, Downtown, Industrial, and Special districts as well as overlay zones. The code in its entirety can be found online at www.mkedcd.org/czo/index.asp.
Zoning Ordinance
Update Process
The new zoning ordinance retains the format of a modified conventional ordinance with overlays, but consolidates zoning districts and creates new overlays such as the Development Incentive Zone and Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District to encourage desired land uses. The new zoning code also includes design standards to promote higher-quality development.
The rewrite process took approximately 18 months to complete. Results have been promising—Milwaukee staff report a streamlined development process with expedited processing times, decreased call volumes, and improved staffing efficiencies. The new zoning code promotes a higher quality of development and reflects development patterns in Milwaukee.
29
milwaukee
Features
Districts
Description
Though not an exhaustive list, the following features in the Milwaukee Zoning Code are applicable to issues in the District of Columbia (all references are to the Milwaukee Zoning Code):
RS1-RS5
Single family dwellings, larger lots, suburban character.
RS6
Single family dwellings with traditional urban character. Allows traditional corner commercial establishments.
RT1-RT2
1 and 2 family dwellings with large setbacks and small lot coverage; no commercial.
RT3
Primarily 2 family dwellings with urban character; no commercial.
RT4
Primarily 2 family dwellings with urban character, permits mixture of single family and multifamily (3 or 4 units) dwellings; allows traditional corner commercial establishments.
RM1-RM2
Low to medium density multifamily, suburban character with large setbacks and small lot coverage; no commercial.
RM3
Medium density residential with urban character; allows traditional corner commercial establishments.
RM4-RM7
High density multifamily; allows neighborhood serving commercial uses.
RO1-RO2
Residential and office, with residential-office conversions.
• Required parking spaces are reduced for shared parking (0.75 per space) and availability of transit (15 percent) (§ 295-403). For buildings or additions over 2,000 square feet of floor area, one bicycle parking space is required for each 2,000 square feet of floor area, up to a maximum of 10 spaces (§ 295-403). • The residential districts protect low/ moderate density residential areas and promote mixed medium/high density commercial/residential areas as follows (§ 295-501). See table at right. • The base commercial and institutional districts include design standards such as maximum setbacks, minimum height, minimum glazing, street orientation, building placement, and entry orientation (§§ 295-605, 295-905). • The Downtown includes eight districts with the following orientation: high density residential, residential and specialty retail, neighborhood retail, civic, major retail, office and service, mixed activity, and warehousing and light manufacturing (§ 295-701). • The downtown districts allow increased floor area as site open space increases (§ 295-705). Open space may include rooftop open space, or interior atriums or malls.
30
Zoning Best Practices
• The Parks (PK) district accommodates public and quasi-public uses (§ 295-903). • The Planned Development District (PD/ DPD) allows flexibility and creativity in land development (§ 295-907). Applications include a detailed plan or, for phased development, a general plan. Development is subject to very general criteria governing uses, density, design, setbacks, screening, open space, circulation, open space, landscaping, utilities, and signs. The specific criteria is set out in the plans that accompany the application and that are approved as part of the rezoning. • The Redevelopment District (RED) provides for development that is consistent with an adopted redevelopment plan (§ 295-909). • The Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Zone encourages revitalization and conservation in historic neighborhoods through design standards, performance criteria, and restrictions in use and size (§ 295-1003). • The Development Incentive Overlay Zone provides opportunities for infill development, encourages pedestrianfriendly design, allows for flexibility and variety in layout, and utilizes a development review process (§ 295-1007). • The Site Plan Review Overlay Zone adds design and orientation standards over the existing base zoning to improve access and neighborhood compatibility (§ 295-1009). • Shoreland-Wetland Overlay Zone (WL) protects and preserves these natural areas through use and site disturbance criteria (§ 295-1013).
31
Zoning Best Practices
portland Portland is Oregon’s largest city and is home to nearly 540,000 residents. Portland is known for its forwardthinking planning and sustainability. Portland’s previous ordinance was complex and outdated and residents and developers had difficulty using it. The many inconsistencies and variations in regulations were confusing and difficult to understand. In 1987, Portland staff began revising the zoning ordinance, with the goal of making the regulations easy to read and simple to apply. The goal was a clear, well-organized document that guided development in plain English.
Zoning Ordinance The central framework of Portland’s ordinance is conventional, having base zones defined by use. But, the ordinance also contains elements of other zoning code types, and may be considered a hybrid code. The code emphasizes physical design and development standards rather than land use distinctions, a common feature of form-based codes. The code includes overlay districts and also has a section (Additional Use and Development Regulations) whose function
33
is to manage impacts of a variety of uses. Finally, the code incorporates elements of performance zoning (as in its stormwater management standards) and incentive zoning (providing density bonuses to multifamily dwelling projects that provide specific amenities). The resulting code provides flexibility in development and fewer use restrictions. The Portland zoning code (Title 33) contains an introduction followed by eight major sections. Those sections include Base Zones, Additional Use and Development Regulations, Overlay Zones, Plan Districts, Land Divisions and Planned Development, Administration and Procedures, Land Use Reviews, and General Terms. The code in its entirety can be found online at www.portlandonline. com/auditor/index.cfm?c=28197.
Update Process The revision process took five years and the new Portland zoning regulations were adopted in 1991. There was an extensive public involvement effort that resulted in strong community support for the new code. The outreach, including advisory committees and Planning Commission
portland
hearings, is credited for the relatively easy adoption of the new code.
Features Though not an exhaustive list, the following features in the Portland Zoning Code are applicable to issues in the District of Columbia (all references are to the Portland Zoning Code): • The Open Space Zone preserves and enhances public and private open, natural, and improved park and recreational areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan (§ 33.100). • The residential districts are divided into single dwelling zones and multifamily dwelling zones (§§ 33.110, 33.120). In the single-dwelling zones, height ranges from 30 to 35 feet and lot sizes range from 1,600 to 52,000 square feet (§§33.610.200, 33.611.200). The multifamily zones range from 14.5 to 125 dwelling units/acre. • The multifamily zones award density bonuses for designated amenities, including outdoor recreation and play areas (§ 33.120). • The multifamily zones award density bonuses for solar water heating (§ 33.120). • Density bonuses are available for multifamily developments in which 10 percent to 20 percent of the development’s units have at least 3 bedrooms. (§ 33.120) • The Central Residential (RX) zone for mixed multifamily and non-residential development
34
does not regulate density, but instead regulates FAR with a resulting density of 100 or more units per acre (§ 33.120.030). The Mixed Commercial/Residential (CM) zone promotes development that combines commercial and housing uses on a single site (§ 33.130.030). • The Institutional Residential (IR) zone provides for campus type development along with multifamily housing (§ 33.120.030). • Design standards within the base (multifamily, commercial and employment) districts include maximum setbacks, entryways, ground floor windows, and transparency (§§ 33.120, 33.130, 33.140). “Pedestrian” standards require an on-site pedestrian circulation system, lighting and surfacing (§§ 33.120.255, 33.130.240). • Maximum heights in the multifamily districts increase from 25-75 feet to 100 feet within 1,000 feet of a transit station (§ 33.120.215). Special building heights are regulated along designated eastwest corridors to allow for density while preserving visual access, sunlight, and a visually permeable urban form (§ 33.510). • Parking maximums apply. The maximums are increased outside of transit-accessible and intensely developed areas (§ 33.266). No maximum applies to parking structures, except for Medical Centers and Colleges. Transit-supportive plazas and bicycle parking may replace minimum required spaces at some sites to encourage transit and bicycle use. Bicycle parking spaces are required (§ 33.266.200).
Zoning Best Practices
• Public recreational trail requirements are established that require dedication or easements for trails, and establish design requirements (§ 33.272). • “Permit ready” houses are design prototypes established by the City for the development of narrow lots or infill sites that are difficult to develop. Numerous prototypes for various situations are specified in a design guide. (§ 33.278; see www.portlandonline.com/ Planning/index.cfm?c=deace for the design prototypes). • The Environmental, Greenway Overlay, and Pleasant Valley Natural Resources Overlay zones protect natural resources through standards and design flexibility (§ 33.430, 33.440, 33.465). • The Historic Resource Protection Overlay Zone establishes standards and procedures for landmark properties and historic districts (§ 33.445). • The Central City districts award bonus floor area for the use of eco-roofs and rooftop gardens (§ 33.510). • The Central City Plan District (§ 33.510) implements the City’s downtown planning policies. The district includes a number of subareas, along with floor area, design and bonus provisions. • Planned development review is available to ensure that innovative and creative development is encouraged when it is well designed and integrated into the neighborhood (§ 33.665). The type and level of review varies by type of use. The
regulations establish general design and layout criteria. • In addition to the base district design requirements, the City has design standards associated with various types of overlay zones. Examples of these overlay zones include: –– The Alternative Design Density Overlay Zone allows increased density for development that meets additional design compatibility requirements (§ 33.405). –– The Design Overlay Zone promotes highdensity development adjacent to transit facilities (§ 33.420). –– The Main Street Node Overlay Zone (§ 33.445) and Main Street Corridor Overlay Zone (§ 33.460) apply design standards in designated areas of the City. The City requires additional design review for certain proposals occurring within these overlay zones. For those proposals falling below maximum limits of use (defined within overlay guidelines), an applicant may choose between two types of design review. Community design standards offer the opportunity to comply with specific objective standards and achieve a more timely, cost-effective, and certain outcome (§ 33.218). The alternative is to go through a discretionary design review process which offers more flexibility (§ 33.825). Proposals exceeding the maximum limits of use or in certain plan districts (defined within each overlay zone) cannot use community design standards and must go through the discretionary design review process.
35
Zoning Best Practices
san antonio San Antonio is a large, fast-growing city of 1.2 million residents. The city’s population has grown over 30 percent over the past 15 years, but its 1987 unified development code had become so amendment-filled and disorganized that it was very difficult to use. The development community and various neighborhood organizations had become very frustrated with the ordinance and agreed that it was time for a new ordinance that would streamline the development process and clarify zoning regulations.
Zoning Ordinance In 1999, San Antonio hired a consultant to help rewrite its zoning ordinance. The resulting ordinance, adopted in 2001, contains use patterns. Use patterns are design templates that control development patterns and are permitted through the zoning districts. Flex Zones were added to the new code at a later date. Five flex districts, ranging from rural to urban and industrial, were established for areas less than 30 percent developed. These zones include regulations that may focus on the design and form of a building, traffic demand management requirements, and density bonuses.
37
The ordinance contains eight articles and six appendices. The eight core articles cover topics that include use patterns, development standards, historic preservation and urban design, and vested rights and nonconforming uses. The code in its entirety can be found online at www.municode.com/Resources/ gateway.asp?pid=14228&sid=43.
Update Process The process was guided by a 20-person advisory committee that met weekly for over two years. These meetings ensured high stakeholder participation and ownership over the new document. The planning manager in San Antonio called the process “enjoyable,” as it unified a variety of different communities, including residents, developers, and environmentalists. The resultant 2001 Unified Development Code (UDC) includes use tables that regulate appropriate uses, as well as use patterns that show appropriate form, and five Flex Zones that apply to areas that are less than 30 percent developed. The UDC is seen as an effective document that allows for continued development in San Antonio.
san antonio
San Antonio’s extensive public outreach program that included every possible interest group and association provided a solid understanding and defensibility for the UDC. Additionally, San Antonio has created two paths for property owners who feel that their development potential has been limited: an opportunity to register one previouslyconforming use as an allowed use on a property, or a ‘development preservation right’ that grants the right to continue and expand previous uses until the property is rezoned.
Features Though not an exhaustive list, the following features in the San Antonio Unified Development Code are applicable to issues in the District of Columbia (references are to the Unified Development Code): • The Use Patterns provide a form-based template for development with streamlined approval (Article II). Use Patterns are established to encourage better design (e.g., Traditional Neighborhood Development), resource conservation (Conservation Subdivisions), and campus design. • The residential districts include several large lot districts and medium- to highdensity single-family districts, and a number of medium- to high-density multifamily districts (Article III, Division 2). The Commercial Center Use Pattern allows neighborhood scaled commercial uses in these districts subject to urban design standards.
38
• Article VI is devoted to historic preservation and urban design, including landmark and historic district designation. This section replaced a number of general historic preservation criteria with more objective standards that were tailored to the City’s built environment. • The Commercial Retrofit Use Pattern encourages the redevelopment of “greyfield” mall sites and corridors in a more pedestrian friendly development pattern (§ 35-206). • The Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Use Pattern encourages high densities near high capacity transit nodes or corridors subject to urban design standards (§ 35-208). The Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) Use Patterns encourage the development of complete neighborhoods using classic principles of design and urbanism (§ 35-207). These options are permitted by-right in most neighborhoods. Where they are not available, the applicant may rezone to a mixed use district or a transit-oriented development district (§§ 35-341, 35-342). • No parking minimum standards apply within 500 feet of a light rail alignment, 50 percent of parking minimums apply in the remainder of a transit-oriented development zone (§ 35-208). • The Downtown District establishes a maximum front setback, and has no minimum parking requirements (§ 35-310.11). • The Neighborhood Conservation District protects residential neighborhoods by
Zoning Best Practices
establishing neighborhood specific design standards pursuant to a neighborhood plan (§ 35-335).
parking to account for different peak periods between uses and for environmental preservation (§ 35-526)
• The Infill Development Zone encourages development of vacant urban lots, and has been extensively used by developers (§ 35-343). The Urban Development (UD) District established design standards to encourage the redevelopment of the City’s southwest areas following an Urban Land Institute charrette (§ 35-310.15). • The Planned Unit Development (PUD) provides a flexible option for developing residential or non-residential sites at any scale (§ 35-344). The Master Planned Community District (MPCD) provides flexible options to develop large-scale, master planned communities (§ 35-345). • Flexible zoning allows density bonuses for enhanced open space above minimum requirements. Transfer Development Rights (TDR’s) are permitted between properties to encourage the protection of open space (§ 35-360). • Subdivisions and site plans must include parks or civic spaces (§ 35-503). The standards include a range of park and civic space typologies ranging from naturalistic, passive forms to urban plazas. • Natural resource protection standards are adopted for aquifer protection (§ 35-521) and tree preservation (§ 35-523). • The development standards establish maximum as well as minimum parking ratios, along with the ability to reduce
39
Zoning Best Practices
St. Petersburg St. Petersburg is a built-out city located on Florida’s gulf coast and is home to 260,000 residents. The city has seen steady growth over the past several decades, most of it in a typical suburban pattern. Before the 2004 revision, St. Petersburg was regulated by 30 year old development regulations. In 2000, Mayor Rick Baker spearheaded a major overhaul of the outdated 1977 conventional zoning regulations. Joining him was the Council of Neighborhood Associations, the neighborhood organizing body in St. Petersburg. The effort was an extensive public outreach undertaking—with hundreds of public meetings, bus tours, and all-weekend charrettes.
Development Regulations The 2007 land development regulations have broad-based public support, due in large part to the extensive civic engagement efforts. Since residents had an active role in crafting the land development regulations, they understand and support them. The development community has embraced the development regulations as well.
41
Approvals gained before the new regulations took effect have a fiveyear window to be built. The City Code contains the Land Development Regulations (Article 16), which consists of 15 sections. Sections include zoning maps and matrices, zoning district regulations, overlay district regulations, general development standards, and use specific development standards. Additional sections contain administrative guidelines and standards. These Land Development Regulations (LDRs) can be found online at www.stpete.org/development/ LDRproposed2.htm.
Update Process The revision process took seven years. The result is a form-based code that regulates development by design: either neighborhood- or corridor-style development, with either traditional or suburban design elements. The Land Development Regulations (LDRs) include designated centers of employment, retail, institutions, and downtown. The LDRs have already shown tangible results in St. Petersburg. As soon as the regulations were approved, there
st. petersburg
was a significant increase in development applications, coupled with a dramatic decrease in applications for variances. The new regulations received an overall positive public reaction and have resulted in a noticeably improved development review process.
Features Though not an exhaustive list, the following features in the St. Petersburg Land Development Regulations (LDRs) are applicable to issues in the District of Columbia (all references are to St. Petersburg’s LDRs): • The City’s flexible, form-based zoning districts allow a wide variety of uses subject to design standards. The LDRs divide the City into neighborhoods, corridors and centers within traditional and suburban tiers for purposes of organizing the districts. • Lower, medium and high density districts are included for both the traditional and suburban tiers. • Corridor Commercial standards protect an area’s character while permitting rehabilitation and redevelopment to encourage walkable streetscapes (§16.20.080). • Urban design guidelines include zero setbacks, building design standards, and cross-access (§16.20.080). • The Downtown Center is divided into five subdistricts that reflect the unique character of each area, ranging from the core to the
42
waterfront and stadium areas (§ 16.20.120). • Maximum heights in the downtown area are separated from zoning and applied to property based on the downtown height map (§ 16.20.120.7). • The Preservation (P) district establishes impervious surface and other standards to protect natural resources (§ 16.20.160). The LDRs also include standards for tree and mangrove protection (§ 16.40.150) and outdoor lighting (§ 16.40.070). • An Artist Enclave Overlay district permits live-work-gallery spaces and encourages a mix of arts-related uses (§ 16.30.030). • An overlay district protects historic landmarks and districts (§ 16.30.070). • A Large Tract Planned Development option allows the development of sites that cannot meet the City’s form-based design standards (§ 16.30.090). • Minimum required parking spaces vary by the suburban and traditional tiers. Required parking may be reduced for joint or shared use, off-site locations, or motorcycle/scooter spaces (§ 16.40.090). Bicycle parking is required.
Zoning Best Practices
conclusions Across the nation, zoning and land use controls range widely, from conventional zoning to form-based codes that replace use districting with design controls. A variety of tools have emerged to address new issues in urban planning, and to implement new and more effective approaches to land development regulation. Each of the eight cities in this detailed review faced city-specific circumstances while reexamining and updating zoning practices. The resulting zoning approaches are different and specifically suited to each city. Tables 1 and 2 in the Process and Finding section offer a quick view of both the process and content of each city’s zoning update. Beyond these apparent differences, however, there are commonalities, trends, and lessons than can be learned. For some policy areas central to land use in the District, certain commonalities between the eight subject cities can be noted. • Downtowns. All eight of the cities considered in this study have at minimum one distinct and dedicated downtown zoning district. Six of the
43
cities have multiple downtown districts or subdistricts. The two cities that have only one downtown district are Portland and San Antonio. • Neighborhoods. The majority of cities also have created zoning designations for neighborhoods. Boston, Fort Collins, and St. Petersburg have separate and distinct neighborhood districts. Boston has a distinct zoning district for each of its neighborhoods. Fort Collins and St. Petersburg have neighborhood district types which are then applied to the individual neighborhoods. Boulder and Milwaukee have overlay districts designed specifically to protect neighborhoods. • Design standards are addressed in all of the cities under review. All eight cities have design standards or guidelines incorporated into their regulations. Approaches range from incorporating design standards into the core or base districts to having different sets of design requirements for particular project types, such as planned developments. • Parking reductions. All cities include provisions for parking reductions for
conclusions
shared parking facilities and/or proximity to transit. In addition, Portland and Fort Collins have parking maximums. Seven of the eight (the exception is Boston) require bicycle parking in some district types; St. Petersburg also has a requirement for motorcycle and scooter parking . • Sustainability. Most of the cities studied address some aspects of sustainability. Boston, Boulder and Portland have multiple green design incentives within zoning or building codes. Chicago has a green design standard for one district type (planned development) and Fort Collins encourages solar energy for residential. Milwaukee, San Antonio, and St. Petersburg do not specifically identify green requirements or incentives in their zoning ordinances. All cities include provisions for resource protection. A total of five major approaches to zoning were identified in the cities studied. These include: • Modified Conventional Zoning, which combines basic use and dimensional regulations with overlay zones, floating zones, or similar adaptations that supplement the basic regulations. The District currently uses this approach, with its overlay zones and planned unit development (PUD) processes. • Modular or Composite Zoning. This technique creates distinct zoning districts for uses, site design, building design, or other elements. These districts are then combined to create a unique, customized district. It is similar to the use of overlay zoning, except that the ability to apply both use and design
44
standards to a parcel is an organic feature of the code, rather than an adaptation of conventional zoning. This approach was originally used in older zoning regulations, such as the Euclid, Ohio zoning regulations that led to the United States Supreme Court’s sanction of zoning in 1926.3 Over the years, cities began to combine a single set of use and dimensional standards into their zoning districts. In response, several cities—such as Boulder, Colorado and Leander, Texas— have revived the composite approach and incorporated modern design standards in order to provide flexibility and to improve the effectiveness of zoning. • A Form-Based Code focuses principally on the built form of streets, buildings and the “public realm”—the streets, parks, and sidewalks that provide the nucleus of civic life. A form-based code reacts to conventional zoning by deemphasizing land use restrictions and introducing new design standards that regulate the form and disposition of buildings, streets and civic spaces. While modified conventional zoning often uses general standards with negotiated conditions to control design, a form-based code is very prescriptive and predictable. With a strong core of advocates in the architecture, urban design and planning professions, the form-based code is the most widely publicized approach to land use regulation in recent years. As a new concept, it has not been widely used for an extensive time period. However, its use is growing, 3 The Euclid ordinance was divided into six classes of use districts, three classes of height districts, and four classes of area districts. Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926).
Zoning Best Practices
with more than 50 local governments throughout the nation using this approach.4 • Performance or Impact Zoning emphasizes development impacts over a rigid separation of uses between zoning districts. This approach does not prescribe specific outcomes for development. Instead, it establishes performance standards and allows the applicant to determine how to comply with those standards. Few codes are purely performance based. Instead, performance standards are blended with a variety of zoning districts or design standards, as in Portland. • Use Patterns in Hybrid Codes establish design templates for various development patterns as part of a zoning or modified conventional zoning framework. This combines the familiarity of zoning with the predictability of measurable design based standards, as is found in form-based codes.
4 See Smartcode Complete, Links and Resouces (www. smartcodecomplete.com/learn/links.html) and Congress for the New Urbanism, Appendix A: Summary Table of New Urbanist Land Development Regulations (www.cnu.org/sites/ files/App-A_0.pdf). At least 4 of these are either hybrid codes with use patterns or modified conventional codes. 5 See Song & Knaap (finding increases in property values in mixed use neighborhoods with neighborhood commercial, but reductions in value in some neighborhoods proximate to multi-family development). A number of studies have addressed the effect of land use, environmental and growth management regulations on new development, principally in greenfield or rural locations (Hardie & Nickerson; Holway & Burby; Hsieh, 2001; Irwin, 2003; Knaap, Talen, Olshansky, & Forrest; Lichtenberg, Traa & Hardie; Netusil; Shen, Liu, Liao, Zhang, & Dorney, 2007; Wallace), or on regional development patterns (Quigley et al., 2002). These do not apply to the District, which is built out and in a central, urban location.
This report does not provide an empirical economic analysis of the effects of various types of land use controls. While some studies have addressed the economic impacts of mixed use development,5 few have addressed the impacts of the regulatory approaches discussed in this report or of approaches that are unique to a built out environment.6 Land use patterns are the product of a variety of actors, decisions, and market forces, it is difficult to accurately trace development outcomes on the type of regulations a jurisdiction implements. Therefore, most feedback on how regulations work comes from anecdotal evidence, such as the reactions of code administrators, planners, and applicants who have worked with various types of regulations. This concluding section defines the major approaches to land development regulation described earlier, explains their advantages and disadvantages, and summarizes lessons learned from other communities based on the literature and the authors’ experience.
Modified Conventional Zoning Defining Characteristics Modified conventional zoning revises basic zoning regulations by using specialized districts such as planned development districts, mixed use districts, and similar nontraditional regulations that address specific types of situations. The District’s Zoning Regulations use a modified conventional 6 A recent study of Maryland’s Smart Growth Program concluded that it was successful, but did not tie this to any particular approach to land use regulation (Shen & Zhang).
45
conclusions
zoning approach, adding specialized overlay districts and planned unit development approvals to its original, base residential, commercial and industrial zones. Applicability Modified conventional zoning can protect residential neighborhoods and commercial or industrial corridors and districts from incompatible uses. Dimensional standards such as height and setback regulations can provide compatibility between uses. Special district regulations can regulate design and provide a forum to negotiate public amenities, or to apply customized conditions through a discretionary review process.
supply of public services (D.C. Official Code § 6-641.02). While modified conventional zoning has its critics, it remains an effective tool to achieve these goals. • Plan Consistency. This technique is closely related to the District’s goal of creating a variety of neighborhoods that range from mixed use, high density conditions to those where single family development is the predominant form (Comprehensive Plan, Policy LU-2.1.1). This requires a combination of dimensional criteria and conventional use standards. While the District can modernize the Zoning Regulations to relate to current conditions, modified conventional zoning remains a powerful tool to protect residential neighborhoods.
Sample Cities Boston, Chicago, and Milwaukee. This technique is currently used by the District. It is also the most common pattern of regulation for cities with a mixed use, built out environment and associated comprehensive planning policies. Advantages • Protection. Modified conventional zoning tools can be highly effective in preventing incompatible uses and protecting neighborhoods. This includes the purposes listed in the Zoning Act, where zoning is designed to lessen street congestion, protect public safety, promote health and general welfare, provide adequate light and air, prevent undue concentration of population and overcrowding, and to distribute population and land in a way that furthers economy and efficiency in the
46
• Project Customization. The use of generalized standards, rather than specifically defined design standards (as with form-based codes or use patterns), allows both the District and applicants to negotiate or customize standards that are more appropriate to a particular neighborhood or market situation than uniform standards. • Familiarity. Modified conventional zoning is very familiar to both applicants and lay persons with experience in land use issues. It is not a radical departure from the way zoning decisions are made in the District or in other communities. • Effectiveness. Modified conventional zoning can be more effective than conventional zoning in achieving urban design, transit, and similar land use policies. For example, Montgomery County, Maryland’s modified
Zoning Best Practices
conventional zoning regulations have generally produced higher densities on a smaller footprint, greater transit ridership, fewer vehicle miles traveled, less time spent in congestion, and less fuel consumption per capita than Fairfax County, Virginia, where authority to implement controls beyond conventional zoning is significantly limited (Cohen & Knapp, 2004). In Boston, a cooperative architectural focus group program involving the local architects and the City’s design review function has achieved success in modifying large scale development proposals, resolving conflicts between applicants and neighbors, and winning approval (Smith, 1989). Modified zoning techniques, such as density or intensity bonus regulations, have encouraged sustainable development practices such as green roof technology in cities such as Portland and Chicago (Centre for the Advancement of Green Roof Technology, 2006). • Adaptability. Conventional zoning techniques have many critics (see discussion below). However, conventional zoning regulations can be enhanced by the more advanced zoning techniques found in a modified zoning ordinance. In addition, empirical research has not verified that more state of the art, “smart growth” regulations such as form-based zoning effectively deliver more compact development or better design (id.; Knapp & Song, 2004). In addition, some economists believe that most zoning regulations simply follow the market, and do not ultimately impair market functions (Wallace; McMillan & McDonald). Thus, the District could continue to use the same tools—modified to meet current conditions and issues—and continue to produce development that appeals to a
broad cross-section of neighborhood and economic interests. Disadvantages • Social Equity and Market Effects. Economists and planners have criticized conventional zoning for its effects on the market and housing affordability (Knapp, 2002; allathiga, 2006).7 Modified conventional zoning contain some of the tools used in conventional zoning regulations. • Scope. Conventional zoning provides a narrow set of tools to address changing market conditions, urban design and sustainability issues. Typical standards include use districting, setbacks, coverage, and height limits. These controls limit the scale of development, but do not directly control design or impacts. Most conventional zoning regulations lack more advanced urban design controls that produce a clearer development outcome. • Lengthy Processes. Negotiating conditions through discretionary review processes, such as map amendments or special exceptions, creates uncertainty and delay for applicants. • Unclear Outcomes. Negotiated or discretionary conditions can create uncertainty for neighborhoods, because specific development outcomes are not spelled out clearly in the regulations. 7 There is extensive debate in the literature as to whether residential zoning produces economic segregation, with at least one study concluding that it does not (Berry).
47
conclusions
• Uneven Bargaining Power. Negotiated or discretionary conditions can allow parties with greater bargaining power (either through financial resources or regulatory leverage) to prevail in land use disputes. This can result in decisions that create winners and losers, rather than sound land use policy. Findings A modified conventional regulation can win broad public acceptance because it uses regulatory tools and language that are familiar to applicants, design and legal professionals, and neighborhood activists. If market conditions and the development community are appropriate, it can accommodate improvements in design and sustainability. However, it normally does not have a direct relationship to the form or composition of development, and can create unintended delays in the approval process.
Composite Zoning Defining Characteristics A composite zoning ordinance establishes a series of limited category districts, and combines the categories on specific properties. For example, the regulations can create use, building design and site design districts. An applicant or a neighborhood (through an areawide rezoning) can apply any combination of these categories to a specific property, as appropriate. Thus, a property is not limited to a single set of use, building and site design standards that are normally found in a base zoning district. Instead, the appropriate regulations for each category are applied to specific areas.
48
Applicability A composite zoning ordinance is appropriate for areas with a wide variety of neighborhoods and conditions. This is particularly applicable to the District, which has a rich mix of residential and commercial densities and intensities, building forms, and institutional settings. It also allows for some discretionary or negotiated conditions, but largely within the framework of standards that are set out in the composite zoning categories. Sample Cities Boulder, Colorado; Leander, Texas; and the original Euclid,Ohio zoning ordinance. Advantages • Tools. As with modified conventional zoning, a composite zoning ordinance uses tools that are familiar to the general public and applicants. • Combined Flexibility and Certainty. Composite zoning ordinance zoning districts are customized for specific properties. Property owners are not limited to the uses and dimensional standards set out in conventional, base zoning districts. Instead, they can combine the regulations from the palette of standards in each category. This allows property owners to use the appropriate standards for the site, with the particular standards set out clearly in the regulations. • Positive Experience. Planners in Boulder and Leander report that both neighborhoods and the development community have
Zoning Best Practices
responded positively to the composite codes. While there was initial concern about its unfamiliarity and complexity, they now report that the system works well. Disadvantages • Unfamiliarity. A composite zoning ordinance is an unusual system for displaying and applying zoning regulations. It will require a learning curve and new ways of thinking about how to apply zoning regulations. • Necessity. Some of the objectives of a composite zoning ordinance can be accomplished through overlay zoning. Through overlay zoning, for example, two properties in the same base commercial district could have different building height, setback, or design standards. The District is already familiar with this approach. Findings A composite zoning ordinance offers a unique blend of flexibility and certainty that is embedded in the District’s base zoning districts. It provides a way to customize regulations to a property without sacrificing certainty, or having to negotiate the standards on a case by case basis. It appears complicated, but has been well received where it has been used.
Form-Based Zoning Defining Characteristics The Comprehensive Plan expressly encourages the use of innovative or emerging types of
land use controls, such as form-based zoning (Policy LU-1.2.4). Form-based zoning divides districts with an emphasis on their physical design characteristics, rather than by use.8 A form-based code includes a high emphasis on physical design, with little or no emphasis on the nuisance or environmental impacts of development. The advocates of form-based zoning believe that many of these impacts are resolved by improving physical design and removing obstacles to the establishment or continuation of complete, compact and mixed use neighborhoods. A form-based code can either be mandatory or optional. A mandatory form-based code requires all development within a given area to comply with the code’s design based standards. This approach typically replaces the conventional zoning regulations. It can apply either citywide, or within a limited number of districts or corridors. An optional form-based code allows developers to comply with either the Zoning Regulations or the form-based code. Applicability A form-based code is appropriate for mixed use districts and areas where the District’s Note also that form-based code advocates emphasize the use of graphics and user-friendly writing styles in code language and document design. User-friendly writing styles and document design could apply to any approach, so this report does not address how the document is written. In addition, a form-based code could conceivably be written to codify any pattern of development—including those that favor privacy and automobile mobility over compact, walkable development. This section assumes that a formbased code in the District would promote a compact, walkable urbanism that is consistent with the City’s existing development patterns. 8
49
conclusions
planning policies favor a compact, walkable building form. Sample Cities St. Petersburg, Florida; Arlington County, Virginia; Ft. Collins, Colorado; Hillsborough County, Florida; Fort Myers, Florida; Davidson, Huntersville, Cornelius, and Belmont, North Carolina. Form-based codes are under consideration in various forms in Albuquerque, New Mexico; Denver, Colorado; and Miami, Florida. Albuquerque is considering a unique form-based code that reflects local planning policies and conditions. Denver is considering a hybrid code. Miami is considering adopting the “Smartcode,” a leading model form-based code, and the District is currently considering a form-based zoning approach for Hill East. Advantages • Predictable Outcomes. Proponents of formbased codes like to compare conventional zoning, which includes restrictions and prohibitions, with codes that prescribe a positive outcome. In other words, conventional zoning standards focus on what cannot be done. A form-based code shows what the community wants (rather than what it does not want) (Banas). Unlike conventional design review, a form-based code establishes standards that are clear and predictable. Both applicants and neighbors can rely on these standards. • Appearance. A form-based code is not simply about appearance—it is designed to achieve a functional, walkable scale of development. However, comparison of development built
50
under administrative appearance codes with discretionary design review is instructive. Past research has shown that development built under discretionary design review— with vague, general standards—is not considered better in appearance than development built without design review (Nasar & Grannis). Empirical evidence also suggests that prescriptive design controls, rather than unpredictable review processes, would produce a more physically pleasing outcome (id.). Because a form-based code provides a clear standard, it offers the potential for development outcomes that are more in line with the District’s physical design and mixed use planning policies. • Streamlining. A form-based code uses clear, measurable standards for physical design. This means that applicants can rely on the standards that are stated in the code, and that development can proceed without lengthy public hearings where the standards are negotiated and customized to the site. This provides an advantage over the discretionary review that occurs with planned unit development, conditional zoning, or design review tied to vague criteria. • Simplicity. Form-based codes are largely limited in scope to physical design issues, and are usually highly illustrated. Compared to conventional zoning, they are more readable and understandable. • Customization. The District can calibrate the physical design parameters of existing areas to the code standards in that area (Banas). For areas that are highly valued, this perpetuates their established characteristics.
Zoning Best Practices
• Scale. Form-based codes can regulate lots at any scale including small lot development as well as large scale proposals. They do not require land assembly by large developers or redevelopment agencies (Banas). • Public Support. Form-based codes typically follow an extensive public process. In many places, this builds a strong constituency of support (Banas). • Encouraging Redevelopment. In some cities, developers have used the combination of predictable rules and public support for a form-based code to redevelop either distressed areas, or central locations that had previously been passed over for development (Howard, 1999). There is anecdotal evidence that form-based zoning has attracted new investment in areas where it has been used (Banas). However, there is a lack of studies that tie new investment to the type of code that was in place. Disadvantages • Resistance from Neighborhoods. In most large cities that are considering formbased codes or some type of high density and mixed use zoning, some neighborhood residents express concern about the impact of these types of regulations on their property values. • Resistance from Developers. Mandatory form-based codes are usually resisted by the development community due to their perceived inflexibility and, in some cases, design mandates that are counter to market trends. In addition, applicants can ignore optional form-based codes and continue to
default to conventional zoning patterns. For example, as of June 2006, the Columbia Pike corridor in Arlington County had failed to attract significant new development under their much publicized form-based code (Gaspers, at 75).9 While a number of projects were initially planned for the corridor (Hammer), little has actually occurred. In fairness, it is unclear whether this level of activity would have occurred under any of the approaches to zoning discussed in this report. The wide range of codes makes it difficult to judge the market’s reaction to any particular type of standard. Form-based standards in communities with mandatory standards are more widely used. This is because developers have no option to default to conventional zoning standards. In additional, anecdotal evidence from communities with mandatory form-based codes—such as the northern Charlotte area cities of Davidson, Huntersville, and Cornelius—is that the adoption of mandatory form-based codes has not slowed the pace of development (Tucker). • Departmental Resistance. Because a formbased code requires new approaches to infrastructure and building design, agencies with jurisdiction over various aspects of development sometimes resist the design concepts. For example, a form-based code that allows narrow streets can result in 9 Several projects including Columbia Village (www. arlingtonvirginiausa.com/index.cfm/11916) and Penrose Square (www.arlingtonvirginiausa.com/index.cfm/11003) have been constructed or approved. However, Arlington Economic Development reports that there is currently no square footage under construction in this area (www. arlingtonvirginiausa.com/index.cfm/5096).
51
conclusions
opposition from public works, engineering or fire officials. This has hindered the use of optional form-based codes in some jurisdictions, such as Columbus, Ohio (Gaspers, at 57). In Arlington’s Columbia Pike, other departments have requested numerous amendments to the form-based code, which has slowed down the process (Gaspers, at 76). • Administration. While a form-based code is shorter and better illustrated than a conventional zoning regulation, it introduces a number of new and different design concepts that are unfamiliar to many zoning administrators. Even where the process is streamlined, unfamiliarity with the new standards can slow down review (Gaspers, at 76). • Expense. The high level of graphic and document design in a form-based code can significantly raise the expense of code development. For example, the Arlington Columbia Pike form-based code cost over $500,000 to develop for a very small area of the County. The District can, of course, reduce this expense by using internal resources and decreasing the number of meetings. However, the general public is not likely to support a code that was developed without necessary public and stakeholder input. • Narrow Scope. The standards used in a typical form-based code work well for mixed use neighborhoods, or for residential neighborhoods or commercial “lifestyle” centers that can evolve into complete neighborhoods over time. However, few standards have been developed for unique
52
uses, large floorplate or intense industrial facilities, warehousing facilities, solid waste facilities, gas stations, or similar uses or development situations that do not fit nicely into a neighborhood context. Similarly, most form-based code standards do not address airports, suburban office parks, or conventional subdivisions. Completely replacing zoning with a form-based code leaves no room for these situations. This might not be a significant concern for the District, where many neighborhoods and districts already reflect the classical urbanism that is a template for many form-based codes. However, there are “utilitarian” uses such as gas stations, automobile repair facilities, waste transfer stations, and similar uses that are needed somewhere. Conventional zoning regulations typically have standards for these types of regulations, but form-based codes tend to ignore them. • Environmental or Sustainable Development Regulations. Form-based codes are sometimes criticized for their lack of sustainability or environmental regulations. This is a feature of the narrow scope of form-based codes that can be resolved by adding appropriate standards. Findings Because form-based codes are a new type of land use regulation, there are not many examples of success or failure to date. Like conventional land use regulations, a form-based code can vary significantly by jurisdiction. For example, some formbased codes include detailed use lists and conventional dimensional standards (such as
Zoning Best Practices
density and floor area ratio) along with state of the art frontage and building envelope standards. Advocates of form-based codes tend to argue against using these types of controls (Langdon, New Urban News, April/ May 2008).
Sample Cities
Form-based codes are a very effective tool for regulating neighborhoods that reflect a high level of urbanism. However, they are an incomplete tool. The District can supplement design regulations with land use controls and environmental regulations to prevent inappropriate uses or neighborhood impacts.
• Flexibility. This type of zoning would give property owners and the District great flexibility in developing the most appropriate solution to meeting defined land use standards for a given property.
Performance or Impact Zoning
Portland, Oregon; Lake County, Illinois; Bucks County, Pennsylvania; Frederick, Maryland. Advantages
• Acceptance. In many communities, performance zoning is better received than the conventional zoning regime that it replaced (Eggers, 1990; Kingma, 1990). Disadvantages
Defining Characteristics This technique divides districts or establishes standards principally on the basis of performance characteristics or impacts. These can range from physical design to infrastructure capacity, trip generation, or traditional nuisance factors such as noise and lighting. A performance based code can range from numeric ratios for development, such as impervious or open space coverage ratios, to point systems that score development proposals on their achievement of prescribed goals.
• Delay and Discretion. Depending on how the standards are crafted, a performance based system can result in micro-management of applications by the local government or general public (Eggers, 1990). This can result in delay and unanticipated development outcomes, as was the case in Fort Collins, which replaced its performance controls with a form-based code. • Scope. Performance based zoning is a more obvious tool for industrial uses or those with clearly defined impacts on their neighbors (Schilling & Mishkovsky, 2005).
Applicability Findings This technique addresses sustainability or environmental issues, such as green building and site design. It is also used to provide a framework for the overall form of a city, rather than the micro-management of lots and blocks.
An impact or performance based code is a somewhat complicated tool that can be staff intensive. This technique provides a highly defensible justification for land use decisions. It provides very limited interventions for
53
conclusions
neighborhood design, and can allow uses that are controversial but with few demonstrable impacts.
Use Patterns in Hybrid Codes Defining Characteristics This technique establishes a design template for different types of building forms or building-site design typologies. Once the Use Patterns are defined, they are assigned to various zoning districts either by right, or through a discretionary process. Applicability Use Patterns combine the predictability of form-based zoning with the familiarity of modified conventional zoning. By using incentives rather than mandates, Use Patterns can improve compliance with the District’s Zoning Regulations and Comprehensive Plan policies (Burby & Paterson 1993, at 756). Sample Cities San Antonio, Texas; Suffolk, Virginia. Advantages • Incentive-based. Because Use Patterns are incentive-based, they are less controversial than mandatory approaches such as mandatory form-based zoning or overlay standards. • Predictability and Streamlining. Use Patterns offer the same predictability as form-based codes, because they use clear,
54
numeric standards. By clearly defining the result, the District could permit development patterns by right or subject to ministerial approvals, which can streamline the development process. • Results. The real estate market and development community in the District may be less resistant to change than other markets where this approach has been used (such as San Antonio). There are numerous examples of mixed use, transitoriented development in both the District and surrounding communities. Accordingly, if used in the District, this technique is more likely to see results than in other, more conservative markets. • Completeness. Use Patterns are a component of “hybrid” codes that combine conventional zoning with form-based approaches. The District would not have to sacrifice the advantages of use restrictions or design based coding. • Constituency. Because hybrid codes are complete regulations, they can address the priorities of multiple stakeholders and regulatory interests. In San Antonio, for example, the code was adopted unanimously by their Zoning Commission and City Council during a mayoral election, and endorsed by both development and neighborhood groups. Disadvantages • Speed. Because Use Patterns are incentivebased, applicants can simply ignore them if the economic rewards of existing approaches outweigh the amenity and design costs of alternative development patterns (Burby
Zoning Best Practices
& Paterson 1993). Applicants may also ignore Use Patterns because they change the usual way that they do business. Developers are unlikely to incur the risks associated with alternative development patterns and approval processes where they are continuing to make money using conventional, familiar approaches to development and site design. This has been the case in San Antonio, where the City used Use Patterns to encourage traditional neighborhood development (TND) as an alternative to conventional subdivisions. While the City has successfully attracted infill development, conventional subdivisions continue to be the norm in newly developing areas. On the other hand, several TND subdivisions have been approved and built, despite strong skepticism by the development community as to whether this approach is marketable. One community— Lago Vista—sold out the same weekend that lots were released for sale. The result is that the City is, in fact, seeing real changes in development patterns, but at a slower pace than would occur with a mandatory code. • Complexity. Use Patterns employ both zoning and form-based components. The result is that it is more complicated than either of those approaches taken alone. Findings The Use Patterns technique is the most complete type of regulation. It combines the elements of a form-based code with impact zoning and conventional zoning controls. It is also very lengthy and complicated, although there are technical writing tools that can help readers find the information they need in long
documents. In comparison to more streamlined controls such as a form-based code, a hybrid code with Use Patterns would offer a more complete regulatory solution to the District’s land use issues and planning policies.
Lessons Learned The following lessons learned offer additional guidance as the District continues the zoning update process. Lesson 1. The Zoning Regulations must address both procedure and substance. Procedures can have a profound impact on the outcome of development regulations. For example, Chicago’s new Zoning Ordinance is widely touted for its design regulations. However, a study by the Chicago Tribune of over 5,700 upzonings over the past 10 years documented numerous instances of outof-scale and out-of-character development in Chicago’s neighborhoods. Many of these occurred under the new Zoning Ordinance, and were attributed to the political influence of developers and the lack of neighborhood meetings before zoning cases were filed (Mihalopoulos, Becker, & Little). Lesson 2. The Zoning Regulations should be complete. It is appealing to consider the possibility of a brief, well-illustrated code that covers the entire District. However, a small form-based code could not anticipate the myriad of specialized uses, administrative issues, nonconformities, and other issues that need a regulatory solution. Therefore, a formbased code should be reserved for specific areas or design standards. It can also be adapted to different planning areas.
55
conclusions
Lesson 3. While the Zoning Regulations should be complete, it should avoid unnecessary complexity where possible. It should include only those standards that further the Comprehensive Plan or address a real public need. In addition, similar design standards should be established for neighborhoods, corridors or districts with similar design characteristics rather than developing separate overlay districts. Lesson 4. It is unrealistic to expect that the District will completely abandon districting by use, or the deployment of detailed use classifications. Fortunately, use classifications that protect neighborhoods and assign intensive uses to appropriate districts can coexist with effective design regulations. Both types of regulations are needed in order to implement the District’s planning policies and to protect neighborhoods. Lesson 5. The zoning update should follow an extensive public process that includes not only expert stakeholders, but also neighborhoods, applicants, and developers. Broad outreach is needed both for public education and to build ownership of the document. Lesson 6. The Zoning Regulations should provide multiple paths to accomplish the District’s planning policies and to process applications. Conventional zoning offers few alternatives. An applicant can accept the limited range of uses and standards offered by the current zoning district, rezone to a similarly restricted district, or use a discretionary planned unit development (PUD) approval process. Adding design standards, composite standards, or use patterns provides a clearer outcome while offering choices to applicants.
56
Zoning Best Practices
appendices Appendix A: Preliminary Survey of 60 Cities Appendix B: Bibliography Appendix C: City Contacts
57
Zoning Best Practices
Appendix A: Preliminary Survey of 60 Cities
A-1
Appendix A: Preliminary Survey of 60 Cities
A-2
Appendix A: Preliminary Survey of 60 Cities
A-3
Appendix A: Preliminary Survey of 60 Cities
A-4
Appendix A: Preliminary Survey of 60 Cities
Sources: 1990 and 2000 demographic data from US Census SF1. 2006 demographic data from ACS. Development activity from US Census building permit surveys, 2006 annual.
A-5
Zoning Best Practices
appendix b: bibliography As part of the best practices analysis, HNTB Team member White & Smith, LLC conducted a broad search of professional and academic journals for the latest research and theories on zoning and land use techniques. The resulting bibliography of research is presented below. American Planning Association. Mechanics of Code Writing. APA Training for New Professionals, April 14, 2007 (compact disc). American Planning Association. Planning and Urban Design Standards. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2006: Pgs. 183-392, 409-446, 460-500, 593-603,648-670 American Planning Association. Planning Communities for the 21st Century. Washington D.C.: American Planning Association, 1999. www.planning.org/ growingsmart/pdf/planningcommunities21st.pdf. American Planning Association. Smart Growth Codes. Online resource at www.planning. org/smartgrowthcodes. Arendt, Randall. Part 3: Model Village Design Ordinance. Planning Advisory Service, Crossroads, Hamlet, Village, Town, report Number 523/524. Pages 95-113. Aronovici, Carol. Zoning and the Home. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science: Vol. 155, no. 2, 1931. Pgs 145-153 Banas, Chuck. Ten ways Buffalo can benefit from a form-based zoning code. Buffalo: New Millennium Group of Western New York, Inc. Smartcode White Paper. Barnett, Jonathan. Redesigning Cities: Principles, Practices, and Implementation. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association, 2003.
B-1
bibliography
Ben-Joseph, Eran. The Code of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005. Pages 101-116 Ben-Zadok, Efraim. Consistency, Concurrency and Compact Development: Three faces of growth management implementation in Florida. Urban Studies: Vol. 42, no. 12. November 2005. Pgs. 2167-2190. Berry, Christopher R. Land Use Regulation and Residential Segregation: Does Zoning Matter? American Law and Economics Review, Vol. 3, No. 2, Pgs. 251-274, 2001. Black, Karen and Rosenthal, Robert. 10 Tips to City for Building. Accessed November 26, 2007. Philadelphia Inquirer: October 17, 2007. www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/pa/10596057.html. Blanchard, Matt. Zoning Can Shape the City. Accessed November 26, 2007. Philadelphia Inquirer: October 7, 2007. www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/20071007_Zoning_can_ shape_the_city.html. Bragado, Nancy; Judy Corbett; and Sharon Sprowls. Building Livable Communities: A Policymaker’s Guide to Infill Development. Local Government Commission, 1995; Revised January 2001. Bredin. Common Problems with Zoning Ordinances. Zoning News, Nov. 2002. Brewster, Chris. Implementing Smart Growth Plans: Subdivision Regulations Get Smart. Accessed November 26, 2007. American Planning Association: June 24, 2003. www.planning.org/ practicingplanner/print/03summer/smartgrowth.htm. Brough, Michael. A Unified Development Ordinance. Chicago: American Planning Association, 1985. Burby, Raymond J., Peter J. May, and Robert C. Paterson. Improving Compliance with Regulations: Choices and Outcomes for Local Government. J. Am. Planning Association 64:3, Summer 1998, at 324-334. Burby, Raymond J. and Robert G. Paterson, Autumn 1993. Improving Compliance with State Environmental Regulations. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 12(4): 753-772. Cape Cod Commission. An Introduction to the Cape Cod Commission Model Bylaws and Regulations Project. Nov. 2002. Online resource and collection of model codes at www.capecodcommission.org/bylaws. Centre for the Advancement of Green Roof Technology. Case studies of green roof regulations in North America. April 28, 2006.
B-2
Zoning Best Practices
CharetteCenter, Inc. Context Based Frontage Code. Online at www.charrettecenter.com/ charrettecenter.asp?a=spf&pfk=1&gk=313. Cohen, Dr. James & Gerrit-Jan Knaap. Planning and Development Control at the County Level in the United States: Lessons from Montgomery County, Maryland, and Fairfax County, Virginia. Submitted to The Asian Development Bank Government Finance and Trade Division East and Central Asia Department, January 28, 2004. Compact Development CD, A Toolkit to Build Support for Higher Density Housing. Local Government Commission, 2002. Congress for the New Urbanism. Codifying New Urbanism: How to Reform Municipal Land Development Regulations. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 526, May 2004. Congress for the New Urbanism. Principles for Inner City Neighborhood Design. U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, Jan. 2000. www.huduser.org/publications/pubasst/principle. html. Corbett, Judy & Paul Zykofsky. Building Livable Communities: A Policymaker’s Guide to TransitOriented Development. Local Government Commission, August 1998. Craighead, Paul, ed. The Hidden Design in Land Use Ordinances. Portland: University of Southern Maine, 1991. Cumberland Region Tomorrow. Quality Growth Toolbox. 2006. Online at www.cumberlandregiontomorrow.org/toolbox.aspx. (This addresses code issues for a wide variety of situations, as does Envision Utah.) Dover, Kohl & Partners. Alternative Methods of Land Development Regulation. Prepared for the Town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, by Victor Dover, AICP, Sept. 2, 1996) (posted at www.spikowski.com/victor_dover.htm). Duany, Andres. SmartCode: A Comprehensive Form-Based Planning Ordinance. SmartCode, Vol. 6.5, Spring 2005. Duany, Andrés; Sorlien, Sandy; and Wright, William. SmartCode Version 9. www.smartcodecentral.org/smartfiles.html. Duany, Andres, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Richard Shearer. Zoning for Traditional Neighborhoods. Land Developmen,t Fall 1992, 20-26.
B-3
bibliography
Ducker, Richard D. and Owens, David W. A Smart Growth Toolbox for Local Governments. Accessed 26 November 2007. Popular Government, Fall 2000. Pgs 29-41. www.iog.unc.edu/pubs/ electronicversions/pg/pgfal00/article4.pdf. Eggers, Williiam. Land Use Reform Through Performance Zoning. Policy Insight No. 120. Los Angeles: Reason Foundation, 1990. www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=5458. Elliott, Donald L. A Better Way to Zone: Ten Principles to Create More Liveable Cities. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2008. Emerson, Chad D. Making Main Street Legal Again: The SmartCode Solution to Sprawl. Missouri Law Review: Vol. 71. Pgs 637-386. Envision Utah. Ordinances. Online resource at www.envisionutah.org/plans.phtml?type=ordinances. Evans-Cowley, Jennifer. Meeting the Big-Box Challenge: Planning, Design, and Regulatory Strategies. Planning Advisory Service, Report Number 537. Pgs 33-51, 51-56 Ewing, Reid et al., Best Development Practices: Doing the Right Thing and Making Money at the Same Time. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Community Affairs, January 1997. Feiock, Richard C., Politics, institutions and local land-use regulation. Urban Studies: Vol. 41, No. 2, February 2004. Pgs 363-375. Form-Based Codes Institute website: www.formbasedcodes.org/. Freilich, Robert & White, Mark. A 21st Century Land Development Code. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association, 2008. Gaspers, David A. Form-Based Code as a Regulatory Tool for Mixed Use Urban Infill Development in Lincoln, Nebraska. Community and Regional Planning Program Community and Regional Planning Program: Student Projects and Theses, 2006. digitalcommons.unl.edu/arch crp theses/2. Georgia Department of Community Affairs. Toolkit of Best Practices. Online compendium of model codes at www.dca.state.ga.us/toolkit/ToolkitIndex.asp. Hammer. Columbia Pike incentives may be close to paying off. Washington Business Journal, April 2, 2004. washington.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2004/04/05/story3.html. Hardie, Ian & Nickerson, Cynthia. The Effect of a Forest Conservation Regulation on the Value of Subdivisions in Maryland. No. WP 03-01 (Revised), Department of Agricultural and Resource
B-4
Zoning Best Practices
Economics, The University of Maryland-College Park, 2004. Hershey, S. S. and C. Garmise. Streamlining local regulations: A handbook for reducing housing and development costs. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development/ Government Printing Office (HUD-1114-PA), 1983/87. Holway, James W. and Raymond J. Burby. The effects of Floodplain Development Controls on Residential Land Values. Land Economics 66(3): 259- 271, 1990. Howard, J. Lee. Past meets future in Cornelius. Charlotte Business Journal 14(19), Aug 13, 1999, at 3. Hsieh, Wen-hua, Elena G. Irwin and Lawrence Libby. The Effect of Rural Zoning on the Allocation of Land Use in Ohio. Selected paper presented at the 2001 American Agricultural Economics Association Meeting, Chicago, IL, August 3-7, 2001. Hutton. The Power of Composite: Shaking Conventions with Conventional Zoning. Practicing Planner, Spring 2006. Hutton. Zoning a la carte: how to win friends and influence people with a combination of formbased coding and use standards. Planning Jan. 2006. Ientelucci. Monitoring and Evaluating a Zoning Code. Zoning Practice July 2005. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Traditional Neighborhood Development Street Design Guidelines. October 1999. International Code Council. International Zoning Code. Falls Church, Virginia: International Code Council, 3rd Printing 2001. (This provides an alternative to form-based codes.) Irwin, Elena. The Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Values. Land Economics 78(4): 465-480, 2003. Jarvis, Frederick D. Site Planning and Community Design for Great Neighborhoods. Washington, DC: Home Builder Press, National Association of Home Builders, August 1993. Jennings, Angus; Pollack, Stephanie; Proakis, George; and Ritchie, Bob. Resource Binder: Legal and Practical Aspects of Form-Based Land Use Regulation in Massachusetts. AICP Continuing Education Worshop on Form-Based Regulation in Massachusetts, October 20, 2006.
B-5
bibliography
Jeong, Moon-Gi. Growth Management, and Development: A Contractual Approach to Local Policy and Governance. Urban Affairs Review: Vol. 41, no.6, July 2006. Pgs 749-768 Kendig. Contextual Infill. Zoning Practice June 2005. Kendig, Lane. Too Big, Boring, or Ugly: Planning and Design Tools to Combat Monotony, the Toobig House and Teardowns. American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 528. Kendig, Lane et al., Performance Zoning. Chicago: American Planning Association, 1980. Kendig, Lane. New Standards for Nonresidential Uses. American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 405, December 1987. Kingma, Hildy L. Zoning with Intensity. Planning October 1990, at 18. Knack. One Step at a Time: UDOs in Nashville. Planning Jan. 2006. Knaap, Gerrit; Meck, Stuart; Moore, Terry; and Parker, Robert. Zoning as a Barrier to Multifamily Housing Development. American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 548, July 2007. Knaap, Gerrit; Emily Talen, Robert Olshansky, and Clyde Forrest, 2000. Government Policy and Urban Sprawl . Department of Urban and Regional Planning University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign Prepared for: Illinois Department of Natural Resources Office of Realty and Environmental Planning. dnr.state.il.us/orep/c2000/balancedgrowth/pdfs/government.pdf. Knaap, Gerrit, and Yan Song, December 23, 2004. The Fruits of Growth Management in the Sunshine State: An Examination of Urban Form in Orange County, Florida. Prepared for presentation at the Critical Issues Symposium on Evaluating Growth Management in Florida, Devoe L. Moore Center, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, January 2005. www.smartgrowth.umd.edu/research/researchpapers-landuseandenvironment.htm. Knaap, Gerrit, March 2, 2002. Talking Smart in the United States. Paper prepared for the International Meeting on Multiple Intensive Land Use, Sponsored by Habiform, May 10-11, 2002, Gouda, The Netherlands. Langdon, Philip. Form-based codes reach a milestone. New Urban News 13(3): 6-8. April/May 2008. Langdon. The Not-So-Secret Code. Planning Jan. 2006.
B-6
Zoning Best Practices
Lehman & Associates. The Zoning Provisions Encyclopedia. Barrie, ON: 1999. Lehman & Associates. The Zoning Dictionary. Barrie, ON: 1999. Lehman & Associates. The Zoning Diagrams Compendium. Barrie, ON: 1999. Lehman’s Zoning Trilogy. Online resource at www.zoningtrilogy.com. Lerable, Charles. Preparing a Conventional Zoning Ordinance. American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 460, Dec. 1995. Lichtenberg, Erik; Constant Traa and Ian Hardie, September 2007. Land use regulation and the provision of open space in suburban residential subdivisions. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 54(2): 199-213. www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_ udi=B6WJ6-4NJ26FT-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_ acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=190042ef8649d03fa1d9fecb4 102fe00. Listokin, David and Carole Walker. The Subdivision and Site Plan Handbook. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, 1989. (This is oriented more to greenfield, suburban development, but does have ideas about site plans and procedures.) Local Government Commission website: www.lgc.org/index.html. Local Government Commission in cooperation with U.S. EPA. Creating Great Neighborhoods: Density in Your Community. September 2003. Loughlin, Peter J. Land Use Planning and Zoning. New York: Lexis Publishing, New Hampshire Practice Series, 3d ed. 2000. Massachusetts Citizen Planner Training Cooperative. Example Bylaws Collection. Online resource at www.umass.edu/masscptc/examplebylaws.html. Mandelker, Daniel R. Planned Unit Developments. Planning Advisory Service, Report No.545, March 2007. Maryland Department of Planning. Models & Guidelines. Online resource at www.mdp.state. md.us/order_publications.htm#mod.
B-7
bibliography
McMahon, Edward T. & Shelly Mastran. Better Models for Commercial Development: Ideas for Improving the Design and Siting of Chain Stores and Franchises. The Conservation Fund and Local Government Commission, 2004. McMillen, D.P. and J.F. McDonald. A Simultaneous Equations Model of Zoning and Land Values. Journal of Regional Science and Urban Economics, Volume 21, pp. 55-72. 1991. Meck, Stuart, Morris, Marya and Bredin, John. A Critical Analysis of Planning and Land-Use Laws in Montana. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association, 2001. Meck, Stuart, FAICP, gen. ed. Growing Smart™ Legislative Guidebook: Model Statutes for Planning and the Management of Change. Chicago: American Planning Association, 2002. Metro Council, Metro 2040 Land-Use Code Workbook: A Guide for Updating Local Land Use Codes (now called Livable Communities Workbook) Portland, OR: Metro Council, 1998. www.metro-region.org/ article.cfm?ArticleID=436. Miami 21, A blueprint for the City of Miami of the 21st Century and beyond... Online web page for code update at www.miami21.org. Mihalopoulos, Dan; Becker, Robert; and Little, Darnell. How cash, clout transform Chicago neighborhoods. Chicago Tribune January 28, 2008. www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicode-overviewjan27,1,4395775.story. Includes a video: “Zoning in Chicago-A Pay to Play System.” Miller, Jason. Smart Codes Smart Places. National Association of Realtors, Summer 2004. www.realtor.org/SG3.nsf/Pages/summer04sm?OpenDocument. November 9, 2005. Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. From Policy to Reality: Model Ordinances for Sustainable Development. September 2000. Mitchell, Tucker. Going Whole Hog for New Urbanism. Planning Feb. 2002. www.planning.org/ planning/member/2002feb/wholehog.htm. Morris, Marya. Creating Transit-Supportive Land-Use Regulations. APA Planning Advisory Service, Report No. 468, Dec. 1996. Moskowitz, Harvey S. and Carl G. Lindbloom. The New Illustrated Book of Development Definitions. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, 1993. Nallathiga, Ramakrishna. An Evaluation of the Impact of Density Regulation on Land Markets in Mumbai. International Real Estate Review 9(1): 132-152. 2006.
B-8
Zoning Best Practices
Nasar, Jack L. & Peg Grannis. Design Review Reviewed. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65:4, 424 — 433. 1999. Nelessen, Anton C. Visions for a New American Dream. Chicago: American Planning Association, 2d ed. 1994. Netusil, Noelwah R. The Effect of Environmental Zoning and Amenities on Property Values: Portland, Oregon. Land Economics. 81(2): 227, May 2005. Common mistakes of form-based codes. New Urban News 13(3): 7 April/May 2008. New Urban Publications, Inc. New Urbanism: Comprehensive Report and Best Practices Guide. Ithica, NY: New Urban Publications, 3rd ed. 2003. Ohm, Brian W.; LaGro, James A. Jr.; and Strawser, Chuck. A Model Ordinance for a Traditional Neighborhood Development. April 2001, approved by the Wisconsin Legislature, July 28, 2001. Oregon Department of Transportation, Transportation and Growth Management Program. Infill and Redevelopment Code Handbook. Sept. 1999. Oregon Department of Transportation, Transportation and Growth Management Program. Smart Development Code Handbook. Aug. 1997. Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program. The Principles of Smart Development. American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 479. Parolek, Daniel G.; Parolek, Karen; & Crawford, Paul C. Form Based Codes: A Guide for Planners, Urban Designers, Municipalities, and Developers. Wiley, 2008. Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Sustainable Planning and Development: Opportunities for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission and Office of Strategic Planning. Policy Paper: October 7, 2005. Philadelphia Zoning Code Commission. Zoning does Matter!. Accessed November 26, 2007. Pogodzinski. Measuring the Effects of Municipal Zoning Regulations: A Survey. Urban Studies 28(4): 597-621 (1991). Porter, Douglas R., Patrick L. Phillips and Terry J. Lassar. Flexible Zoning: How it Works. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute, 1988.
B-9
bibliography
Quigley, John M., Steven Raphael, and Larry A. Rosenthal. Local Land Use Controls and Demographic Outcomes in a Booming Economy. January 1, 2002. Berkeley Program on Housing and Urban Policy. Working Papers: Paper W02-001. http://repositories.cdlib.org/iber/bphup/ working_papers/W02-001. Raterman. In the Tropical Zone: Design plays a big role in Miami’s zoning code overhaul. Planning Dec. 2007. Schilling, Joseph and Nadejda Mishkovsky. Creating a Regulatory Blueprint for Healthy Community Design A Local Government Guide to Reforming Zoning and Land Development Codes. International City/County Management Association, Item Number E-43346, August 2005. Schwieterman, Joseph. They’re in the Loop. Planning: Vol. 72, no.11, Dec. 2006. Pgs 16-19. Shen, Qing, Chao Liu, Joe Liao, Feng Zhang, and Chris Dorney. Changing Urban Growth Patterns in a Pro-Smart Growth State: The Case of Maryland, 1973-2002. National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education, April 2007. www.smartgrowth.umd.edu/research/researchpaperslanduseandenvironment.htm. Shen, Qing and Feng Zhang. Land-use changes in a pro-smart-growth state: Maryland, USA. Environment and Planning 39(6) 1457 – 1477. 2007. www.envplan.com/abstract.cgi?id=a3886. Smart Communities Network. Land Use Codes/Ordinances. Online resource at www.smartcommunities.ncat.org/landuse/lucodtoc.shtml. Smith, Peter. Design Review And Development In Boston: Not At Odds. Journal of Real Estate Development. Spring 1989. Snohomish County Transportation Authority. A Guide to Land Use and Public Transportation for Snohomish County, Washington, Vol. I. Lynwood, WA: SCTA, 1989. Snohomish County Transportation Authority. A Guide to Land Use and Public Transportation— Volume II: Applying the Concepts. Lynwood, WA: SCTA, 1993. Song, Yan and Knaap, Gerrit. Measuring the effects of mixed land uses on housing values. Regional Science and Urban Economics 34(6): 663-680. Jan, 2004.
B-10
Zoning Best Practices
Sutro, Suzanne. Reinventing the Village. American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 430, December 1990. Theaker, Ian G. and Cole, Raymond J. The Role of Local Governments in Fostering “Green” Buildings: a case study. Building Research & Information: Vol. 29, no. 5, Sept. 2001. Pgs 394-408. Tracy, Steve. Smart Growth Zoning Codes: A Resource Guide. Local Government Commission, 2003. Untermann, Richard K. and Anne Vernez Moudon. Designing Pedestrian-Friendly Commercial Streets. Urban Design and Preservation Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 3 Fall 1990. Urban Design Associates. A Sampler of UDA Commercial Guidelines. Nov. 1997. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Proposed Model Land Development Standards and Accompanying Model State Enabling Legislation. Washington D.C.: HUD, 1993. Part I-Standards, Pages 7-138. U.S. Green Building Council. LEED for Neighborhood Development Rating System: Pilot Version. Updated June 2007. See website at www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=148. Vranicar, John, Welford Sanders, and David Mosena. Streamlining Land Use Regulation: A Guidebook for Local Governments. Chicago: American Planning Association, November 1980. Wallace, Nancy E. The Market Effects of Zoning Undeveloped Land: Does Zoning Follow the Market? Journal of Urban Economics 23(3): 307-326. 1988. Wentling, James W. and Lloyd W. Bookout, eds. Density by Design. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute, 1988. White, S. Mark. Affordable Housing: Proactive and Reactive Planning Strategies. American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 441, December 1992. White, Mark. Classifying and Defining Uses and Building Forms: Land-Use Coding for Zoning Regulations. Zoning Practice. September 2005. White, Mark. Development Codes for Built Out Communities. Zoning Practice. Aug. 2006.
B-11
bibliography
White & Jourdan. Neotraditional Development: A Legal Analysis. Land Use Law & Zoning Digest, No. 8 at 3 (August 1997). White, Mark. Unified Land Management Codes. Municipal Lawyer. Aug. 2006. White, Mark. Writing Defensible Codes. The Commissioner Winter 2006. White, Mark. The Zoning and Real Estate Implications of Transit-Oriented Development. Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Legal Research Digest, No. 12 January 1999.
B-12
Zoning Best Practices
appendix c: city contacts Boston • Primary Contact: Rick Shaklik, Boston Redevelopment Authority Boulder • Primary Contact: Brian Holmes, Zoning Planner • Other Contacts: –– Peter Weber, Architects and Planners of Boulder (APOB) Fort Collins • Primary Contact: Cameron Gloss, Planning and Zoning Director • Other Contacts: –– Stuart MacMillan, President/CEO Everitt MacMillan –– Bruce Hendee, BHA Design –– Tom Livingston, Livingston Real Estate and Development – did not contact Milwaukee • Primary Contact: Vanessa Koster, Assistant Planning Director –– Contact Ms. Koster for a survey on citizen reactions to zoning ordinance
C-1
Portland • Primary Contact: Jessica Richman, Senior Planner • Other Contacts: –– Carrie Panard –– Regulatory Rethink White Paper, Prepared for the City of Portland Bureau of Planning by Dyett & Bhatia, et al, March 2006 San Antonio • Primary Contact: Bill Telford, Planning Manager • Other Contacts: –– Gene Dawson, Pape Dawson Engineers –– Jody Sherrill, neighborhood activist (did not contact) St. Petersburg • Primary Contact: Julie Weston, Director of Development Services • Other Contacts: –– Karl Nurse, former president of Council of Neighborhood Associations –– Mary Alice Lange, president of Old Northeast Neighborhood –– Randy Wedding, former mayor –– Bob Jeffrey, former Assistant Director
