The Rules That Shape Urban Form
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Rules That Shape Urban Form Donald L. Elliott, FAICP, Matthew Goebel, AICP, and Chad Meadows, AICP American Planning Association Planning Advisory Service Report Number 570 Donald L. Elliott, FAICP, is a senior consultant in Clarion Associates’ Denver office. He is a land-use lawyer and city planner with 25 years of related experience. He has served as project director for major zon- ing and development code revisions in Detroit; Philadelphia; Winnipeg, Manitoba; Duluth, Minnesota; Kalamazoo, Michigan; and Cedar Rapids, Iowa, as well as in numerous smaller cities and counties throughout the country. He has drafted award-winning land-use regulations for Denver and Aurora, Colorado; Routt County, Colorado; and Pima County, Arizona. Elliott is the author of A Better Way to Zone (2008), coauthor of The Citizen’s Guide to Planning (2009), and the editor of Colorado Land Planning and Development Law. Prior to joining Clarion Associates, Elliott served as project director for the Denver Planning and Community Development Office. He holds a master’s degree in city and regional planning from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, a law degree from Harvard Law School, and a B.S. in urban and regional planning from Yale University. Elliott is a past president of the Colorado Chapter of APA and a member of the American, Colorado, and Denver bar associations. Matthew Goebel, AICP, is partner and vice president of Clarion Associates. He works principally in the areas of planning and zoning, growth management, and historic preservation. His projects have included de- velopment codes and growth management plans for jurisdictions including Anchorage, Alaska; Buckeye and Oro Valley, Arizona; Pasadena and Sacramento County, California; Englewood, Erie, Lake County, Mesa County, and Pagosa Springs, Colorado; Boise, Idaho; Detroit; Henderson, Nevada; Santa Fe and Silver City, New Mexico; Apex, Cary, Morrisville, and Wake County, North Carolina; Broken Arrow, Oklahoma; Jackson County, Oregon; Beaufort County and Greenville, South Carolina; Arlington, Austin, Irving, and Rowlett, Texas; and Dodge County, Wisconsin. He also has prepared studies of the economic impacts of historic preservation for Michigan and Colorado. Goebel is a coauthor of PAS Report no. 489/490, Aesthetics, Community Character, and the Law. Chad Meadows, AICP, a senior associate in Clarion Associates’ office in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, is a planner with over 10 years’ experience in public- and private-sector planning. Prior to joining Clarion Associates, Meadows oversaw the land development ordinance update in Cary, North Carolina, worked on growth management issues in Monroe County, Florida, and worked in the telecommunications in- dustry. Meadows holds a master’s degree in urban and regional planning from Portland State University and a B.A. in geography from the University of North Carolina–Greensboro. Meadows chairs the Raleigh, North Carolina, Appearance Commission. The authors would like to acknowledge the many staff and consultants for the six case-study commu- nities who volunteered their time to explain those systems and answer questions about their perfor- mance. Those included George Adams and Jim Robertson at the City of Austin Planning Department; Steve Gordon, Tina Axelrad, Michele Pyle, and Chris Gleissner at the Denver Community Planning and Development Department; Christina Rodrigues at the Livermore Community Development Department; Luciana Gonzales and Dakota Hendon at the Miami Planning Department; Jennifer Smith in the Planning Division of the Arlington County Community Planning, Housing and Development Department; Tim Brown and Maureen Gable at the Mooresville Development Services Department; and Victor Dover and Amy Groves at Dover Kohl & Partners. At the American Planning Association, Ann F. Dillemuth, aicp, copyedited the manuscript. Cover design by Lisa Barton; this report is printed on recyclable paper. Cover image: In downtown Denver, offices, shops, and restaurants are close to home. Image by Jesse Goff The Planning Advisory Service is a subscription service offered by the Research Department of the American Planning Association. Four reports are produced each year. Subscribers also receive PAS Memo and PAS QuickNotes, and they have access to the Inquiry Answering Service and other valuable benefits. To learn more, visit www.planning.org/pas/index.htm. W. Paul Farmer, faicp, Chief Executive Officer; Sylvia Lewis, Director of Publications; William R. Klein, aicp, Director of Research. Planning Advisory Service Reports are produced in the Research Department of APA. Timothy Mennel, Editor; Lisa Barton, Design Associate. Missing and damaged print issues: Contact Customer Service, American Planning Association, 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200, Chicago, IL 60601 (312-431-9100 or [email protected]) within 90 days of the pub- lication date. Include the name of the publication, year, volume and issue number or month, and your name, mailing address, and membership number if applicable. © October 2012 by the American Planning Association. APA’s publications office is at 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200, Chicago, IL 60601–5927. APA headquarters office is at 1030 15th St., NW, Suite 750 West, Washington, DC 20005–1503. E-mail: [email protected] THE RULES THAT SHAPE URBAN FORM DONALD L. ELLIOTT, FAICP, MATTHEW GOEBEL, AICP, AND CHAD MEADOWS, AICP TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 Planned Unit Developments and Performance Zoning ........................................... 2 Form-Based Zoning ....................................................................................................... 3 Goals and Organization of This Report ...................................................................... 8 Chapter 2: The Wide Range of Form Controls .......................................................................... 13 Form Standards Inserted into Euclidean Districts: Nonresidential Design and Mixed Use Standards in Austin, Texas .......................................................... 14 Linking Building Types to Permitted Uses: The Use/Form Table in Mooresville, North Carolina ................................................................................... 26 Mandatory Form-Based Zones without Regulating Plans: Main Street Zones in Denver .................................................................................. 32 Optional Districts with Incentives: The Columbia Pike Form District, Arlington County, Virginia ..................................................................................... 42 Mandatory Form-Based Districts for Specific Areas: The Hybrid Code in Livermore, California .......................................................... 52 Mandatory Citywide Form-Based Codes: The Miami 21 Zoning Ordinance ........................................................................... 60 Chapter 3: Form-Based Controls in the Broader Planning Context ......................................... 69 Form Controls, Sustainability, and Climate Change ............................................... 70 Form Controls and Demographic Changes ............................................................. 80 Form Controls and Housing Affordability ............................................................... 91 Form Controls and Historic Preservation............................................................... 102 Chapter 4: Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 111 Different Approaches Are the Norm ....................................................................... 112 Form Controls Are Generally Working ................................................................... 113 Testing and Tweaking Are Often Required ............................................................ 114 Limited Effectiveness in Tackling Other Planning Challenges ........................... 115 A User’s Guide to Selecting Form-Based Tools ..................................................... 118 The Bottom Line ......................................................................................................... 119 References ............................................................................................................................... 121 CHAPTER 1 Introduction s Ever since New York City adopted its pioneering zoning ordinance in 1916, the field of land-use regulation has been evolving and af- fecting the physical form of urban development in a variety of ways. Before World War II, the pace of change was relatively slow. As cities gained experience in separating uses and managing densities, they found ways to better tailor zoning to neighborhood character. A single commercial district became several to accommodate different sizes and intensities of commercial activities. Residential districts proliferated to match different types and scales of homes and apart- ments. While early zoning systems were fundamentally grounded in separation of uses, most ordinances also addressed the form of new buildings in very general ways. Often, the starting point was 19th-century “light and air” requirements that prevented buildings from being built up to each lot line. 1 2 The Rules That Shape Urban Form Most early zoning districts implicitly defined an “invisible box” through a combination of front, side, and