|
JANUARY 1998
<br />
<br />AMERICAN
<br />PLANNING
<br />ASSOCIATION
<br />
<br />Flexible Zoning:
<br />A Status Report on
<br />Performance Standards
<br />
<br />By Douglas Porter, AICP
<br />
<br /> Adecade ago, I and several other authors examined and
<br /> evaluated current practices in the use of performance
<br /> standards as a central element in regulating community
<br /> development. The resulting report, Flexible Zoning: How It
<br /> Works, was published in t988 by the Urban Land Institute. At
<br /> the time, it appeared that performance-based zoning was on the
<br /> rise, propelled by planners' increasing frustrations with the
<br /> limitations of conventional Euclidean zoning. As I wrote in the
<br /> fo:'~word to Flexible Zoning: "the concept.., has attracted
<br /> many adherents with its promise of freedom from arbitrary
<br /> divisions of land uses, better control over site and building
<br /> design, and more reliable public decision-making."
<br /> How has this concept weathered the years? Have local
<br /> officials found performance standards a better alternative to
<br /> conventional Euclidean zoning in making decisions about
<br /> community development? Do local planning and zoning
<br /> administrators who deal routinely with performance provisions
<br /> continue to applaud their effectiveness? In other words, how
<br /> have performance standards performed?
<br /> A targeted sampling of experience with performance-based
<br /> ordinances across the United States suggests two cross-cutting
<br /> trends: first, several communities with long-standing experience
<br /> in using performance standards have returned to more
<br /> conventional zoning approaches; and second, performance
<br /> provisions appear to have found widespread acceptance as
<br /> significant elements in many otherwise conventional approaches.
<br /> to zoning. Performance standards, it seems, have "gone
<br /> underground" but play an increasingly important role in
<br /> guiding development.
<br />
<br /> Performance-Based Approaches
<br />Performance zoning employs regulatory provisions that allow
<br />consideration of specific qualities of a development site's
<br />location and characteristics, including compatibility with
<br />surrounding uses. Such an approach guides choices of land uses
<br />'and development designs. Performance measures are spelled out
<br />in criteria and standards that replace prescriptive lists of
<br />permitted uses and rigid density, lot size, and other
<br />requirements for site and building design. Various approaches
<br />to uses of performance standards were described in APA's 1996
<br />Planning Advisory Service report, Performance Standards for
<br />Growth Management. Flexible zoning applications include the
<br />widely popular planned unit development concept, industrial
<br />performance standards, performance-based determinations of
<br />appropriate land uses, point systems for rating proposed
<br />developments, many types of environmental and open space
<br />standards, adequate public facilities measures, and the use of
<br />communitywide threshold and benchmark standards.
<br />
<br /> The survey and evaluation conducted for this issue of Zoning
<br />News focus particularly on zoning ordinances that incorporate
<br />performance criteria and standards as fundamental determinants
<br />of appropriate land uses. The Fort Collins, Colorado, Land
<br />Development Guidance System and the version of performance-
<br />based zoning espoused by Lane Kendig are perhaps the best-
<br />known examples of such an approach. Fort Collins and a
<br />number of other communities formulated performance
<br />measures, including location and design criteria, which, with
<br />project rating systems, were used to determine the acceptability
<br />of proposed developments. In his 1980 book, Performance
<br />Zoning, Kendig provided the first comprehensive treatment of
<br />
<br />i'" .':: aPPear,i.~t°, be. Waning as a
<br />il~ ':f' fufiddrriehtal fraFh~Work for '
<br />~ ..... :.. ic~cat"~onilng~"e-~;bn 'as..';
<br />!~: ,;~; Piii-fo'l:m~hc~ measures'are
<br />i': · inc'Feai'i:ngly indoi:Porbted i'nto-'
<br /> i o!herwise convention, al...
<br />, :".': '." '- ": ordinances.:: · :'
<br />i "', I I
<br />
<br />the concept and offered a model ordinance that stimulated
<br />interest in performance standards as a guiding principle of
<br />zoning. Essentially, his approach focused on mitigating
<br />potential impacts of development by open space buffers---open
<br />space and density calculations play a major part in Kendlg's
<br />model provisions.
<br /> This issue of Zonlng News especially concentrates on zonlng
<br />for residential and commerdal uses, building on the February
<br />1993 issue (and a subsequent Planning Advisory Service report)
<br />that described trends and experience with industrial
<br />performance standards.
<br /> Data on the current status of performance-based zoning was
<br />obtained by a review of ordinance provisions and telephone
<br />interviews with local planning and zoning administrators in
<br />nine communities: Fort Collins and Breckenridge, Colorado;
<br />Hardin County, Kentucky; and Largo, Florida--ali zoning
<br />systems analyzed in Flexible Zoning; plus Queen Anne's County,
<br />Maryland; Lake County, Illinois; Tallahassee, Florida; Flagstaff,
<br />Arizona; and Pocatello, Idahc~all but Pocatello using zoning
<br />systems based on Lane Kendlg's model.
<br />
<br />Findings
<br />Performance-based zoning appears to be waning as a
<br />fundamental framework for local zoning, even as performance
<br />measures are increasingly incorporated into otherwise
<br />conventional ordinances. This evaluation demonstrates that the
<br />body politic in many communities views traditional prescriptive
<br />
<br />
<br />
|