Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/01/2012

Home

For all of these reasons, cities that reform their development codes often try to consolidate their current menu of zoning districts back into fewer, more flexible dis- tricts. In my code writing practice that re- quest comes much more often than not—but the trend is not universal. As noted above, Denver recently adopted a new zoning ordi- nance with separate menus of form -based . districts for each of its seven context areas-- - a total of 107 districts. The number of zone districts was driven by Denver's desire for a more finely calibrated set of tools that would better tailor future development and rede- velopment to the context of the surrounding area. It fits in with comments I have heard from both city staff and consultants that "We don't care how many zone districts there are as long as they're the right ones." As a sec- ond example, both Chicago and San Diego operate "modular" zoning systems in which one portion of the zoning designation regu- lates permitted uses and a second module addresses permitted heights and densities. By allowing combinations of use and di- mensional zoning modules, the pressure to proliferate districts can be reduced and the need to consolidate districts may not arise. A third example is that many form -based codes also result in more zone districts than the codes they replace. Still, consolidation of existing zone dis- tricts is an effective tool to simplify develop- ment codes, and one that many cities want to try. It can be done, and it has been done. WINNIPEG, MANITOBA Between 2005 and 2007, Winnipeg revised all of its zoning bylaw provisions for areas outside the city center. When it started, the city had io different Ri districts that dif- fered based on the minimum lot sizes and widths. When it finished, there were just four variations. The consolidation is shown below. • As the table shows, no residential property owner was made nonconforming because the minimum lot sizes were low- ered or held constant. In fact the opposite was true. Smaller minimum lot sizes could allow subdivision and densification of the Ri neighborhoods over time, and that could be a problem. In many residential neighbor- hoods potential zoning controversy arises . not because zoning changes allow indi- vidual property owners to do less with their property, but because the change allows their neighbors to do more. Few suburban property owners want their neighbors to subdivide and create more units. To prevent that possibility, the Winnipeg Zoning Bylaw provided that when an Ri or R2 property is subdivided, all lots within ioo feet (ignoring rights -of -way) of existing RI. or R2 neighborhoods must match or exceed the minimum lot width of the exist- ing neighborhood. A new subdivision in the Donald Elliott 10 The City of Winnipeg in Manitoba successfully consolidated low- density residential districts into four new designations. new Ri -Small district across the street from developed parcels 5o feet wide would need to plat lots at least 5o feet wide, even if that meant that the minimum lot size for those lots exceeds 2,50o square feet. This helps promote similar development character ad- jacent to existing development. Further away from existing development, the property owner could plat narrower lots as long as they met the 2,500 square foot minimum lot size. The Winnipeg solution simplifies the structure of the zoning bylaw while avoiding claims of regulatory takings and relieving existing residents' fears about the character of new development nearby. Incidentally, it also helps defuse "the numbers game" in which property owners insist that neighbor- ZONINGPRACTICE 2.12 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION ipage 3