|
JUNE 1994
<br />
<br />AMERICAN
<br />PLANNING
<br />ASSOCIATION
<br />
<br />Making Zoning Codes
<br />More Readable: Part I
<br />
<br />By Charles A. Lerab/c
<br />Zoning is arguably the most ~,sed and most important tool for
<br />regulating land use and devel,)pment, h figures prominently in
<br />most planning agencies, com~nanding a lion's share of attention
<br />
<br />from their staff, committees,
<br />
<br />Problem
<br />
<br />Zomng regulal~ons confhct with
<br />comprehensive plan and Olher
<br />development pohc~es.
<br />
<br />Decimons are regularly appealed
<br />or adlud~cated. .r
<br />
<br />:ommissions, and governing bodies.
<br />
<br /> Few local issues capture the public's attention more than the
<br />enactment of new zoning regulations or a neighborhood rezoning.
<br />The public's encounter with zoning is often one o£ extreme
<br />frustration with red tape and ambiguous regulations and proce-
<br />dures. Daih' administration, however, often goes unnoticed.
<br />Experienced planners find most regulations needlessly complicated.
<br /> Minimizing these problems starts with a zoning code that is
<br />well organized and communicates clea~rly. Good zoning codes
<br />reduce the time it takes to find information, are easier to admin-
<br />
<br /> Examples/Comments
<br />
<br /> Ihe Comprehensive Plan: Low-density residential development
<br /> shall not exceed 4 awelhng umts per net acre.
<br /> Zoning code: R-1 (single lamily) minimum lot size is 5,000
<br /> sduare feet.
<br />
<br /> Adm~nislrative procedures and ciesign guidelines are particular
<br /> problem areas. Standards do not reflect community values.
<br />
<br />Code is subject to diflerenl ~ Example: "Lanclscaping shall be sufhcient to enhance the
<br />interpretations, overall appearance of the silo."
<br />
<br />CoOe
<br /> is
<br /> not
<br /> administered
<br /> in
<br /> ~, yen- Regulations are unclear; administrative orocedures and
<br /> an
<br />handed and consislem manner,~: interpretations have not been wrflten ~nto the zomng code.
<br />Excesswe number of zoning d~lncts.
<br />Poor oevmopmem quahty.
<br />
<br />Standards not in keeping with
<br />modern development praclices.~
<br />
<br />inconsistent wrihng styles.
<br />
<br />Archaic terms; legalese; confusing
<br />language.
<br />
<br />Numbering system has become
<br />overly comphcaled.
<br />
<br />Over 15 zomng distncls suggests you may have problems.
<br />
<br />Lack of qualitatwe standards, e.g., design guidehnes.
<br />landscaping, i)edormance standards, and architectural review.
<br />Changed community standards.
<br />
<br />Examples: Lack of residential zero-lot-line standards and no
<br />provision for planned unit developments.
<br />
<br />'f arms used interchangeably, e.g., "apartments" and ~multilamily,"
<br />"unil" and "dwelhng," and "gas station" and "service station."
<br />
<br />"Tenement housing' and 'trafleK'; "The aforesaid districts are
<br />hereby established ~nsofar as the designations, locations, and
<br />boundaries thereof are set forth and indicated in this section,
<br />and m other sections of th~s ordinance which describe certain
<br />o! sa~ distr/cts."
<br />
<br />Sechon 18. ~23. ~4.3.
<br />
<br />"... as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety
<br />Code, or 10 percent of the total units of a housing development
<br />for very Iow income households, as defined in Section 50~05
<br />of the Health and Safety Code, or 50 percent of the toral
<br />Owelling unit of a housing development for qualifying residents,
<br />as defined in Section 51.2 of the Civil Code..."
<br />
<br />Excessive reliance on outside
<br />references.
<br />
<br />Lack of graphics, tables, and ch~.~s. "Lot width: Lots with a minimum area Of nine thousand nine
<br /> hundred ninety-nine square feet or less shall have a width of
<br /> not less than sixty feet..."
<br />
<br />No cross referencing. "The provisions of this chapter shall apply to any 'R-3' multiple.
<br /> family residential zones, except as otherwise provided."
<br />
<br />Code is too voluminous, You may have a problem if the code exceeds 300 pages.
<br />
<br />islet and amend, and reduce the
<br />potential for erroneous and
<br />controversial interpretations. In
<br />short, good zoning codes leave
<br />little to the imagination.
<br /> This issue of Zoning News
<br />presents the first of two articles
<br />that discuss ways to write
<br />readable zoning codes. These
<br />techniques should be viewed as
<br />a model, rather than an exact
<br />prescription, requiring
<br />adaptation to each agency's
<br />unique circumstances.
<br />
<br />Deciding to Update
<br />Your Zoning Code
<br />There are many reasons to
<br />update your zoning code. Some
<br />communities are still using codes
<br />adopted more than 25 ),ears ago.
<br />After dozens of amendments,
<br />codes become a pa:tchwork of
<br />misplaced provisions and dated
<br />regulations.
<br /> Properly diagnosing existing
<br />problems is an essential first step
<br />following the decision to update
<br />a code. Involve your agency's
<br />legal counsel and kev stafffrom
<br />other departments whose rules
<br />and regulations affect zoning
<br />administration. Dovetailing
<br />regulations within the public
<br />agenc), is key. Solicit community
<br />help, particularly from the devel-
<br />opment and real estate industries,
<br />because the), know problems
<br />first-hand. Also include staff
<br />with limited code experience.
<br />Their first impressions are likely
<br />to mirror those of the public.
<br /> Familiarity with a local code,
<br />while important, ma3, keep
<br />planners from seeing problems
<br />obvious to others. Ar the same
<br />time, consult those involved in
<br />
<br />'/5'
<br />
<br />
<br />
|