|
one or two sites in the city, special purpose
<br />districts often have few similarities with
<br />the heavy industrial or commercial districts
<br />that you may be tempted to group them
<br />with. Casino and stadium districts are no-
<br />toriously idiosyncratic. At a minimum they
<br />often require unusual amounts of parking
<br />and unique types and sizes of signs. The
<br />controversies surrounding the location of
<br />these economically desirable but locally
<br />unpopular facilities often forces cities to
<br />balance very detailed development stan-
<br />dards designed to control their impacts
<br />with very specific building program needs
<br />of the developer. The result is often a hash
<br />representing the personalities (or Loudest
<br />voices) involved rather than a thoughtful
<br />blend of controls that could be safely ap-
<br />plied in other contexts. It is often best to
<br />leave these types of districts out of the con-
<br />solidation discussion.
<br />KEYS TO SUCCESS
<br />After the list of districts to be consolidated
<br />has been identified, you still need to pro-
<br />ceed with caution. As with all planning and
<br />zoning activities, it is wise to keep in close
<br />communication with the neighborhoods
<br />that will be affected by the consolidation.
<br />Zoning changes make most property owners
<br />nervous, and often the only cure is repeated
<br />explanation of what is being done and why.
<br />Property owners want to know, and the city
<br />should be able to clearly communicate
<br />• what zoning designations will be affected
<br />(i.e., what districts are being eliminated and
<br />what will the new districts be called);
<br />Philadel hia's new "zonin code fixe
<br />manY f _regulatory
<br />"c racks " :;,
<br />a
<br />-st
<br />ad: ., : •:.:':�t- ::::::: _ -
<br />h em erg .:........
<br />x th r v�aus
<br />'s:
<br />... rgl.:::...__d.
<br />adoption �6:
<br />D i ::.t .. ot .c
<br />O who wilt gain uses or development options
<br />and what they are;
<br />• who wilt lose uses or development options
<br />and what they are;
<br />O who (if anyone) will be subject to new de-
<br />velopment or design controls; and
<br />O how the city will handle any nonconformities.
<br />Regarding that last point, lawyers and
<br />planners know that nonconforming uses
<br />and structures can almost always be con-
<br />tinued and can be bought and sold to new
<br />owners and operators, but citizens often
<br />need reassurances. A city program to clarify
<br />that those situations are deemed "not
<br />nonconforming" and a provision indicating
<br />that the city will issue letters to that effect
<br />upon request can go a long way to reducing
<br />anxiety.
<br />Testing is also important. Some cities
<br />have their staff go over the past six or 12
<br />months of applications to see how they
<br />would have been treated under the pro-
<br />posed consolidated district. If glitches are
<br />found—for example, the mix of large and
<br />small parcels in the `new district would al-
<br />low some buildings to be far taller or bigger
<br />than their neighbors—those can be fixed
<br />through revisions to the development stan-
<br />dards before the new district is adopted.
<br />If testing reveals that the consolida-
<br />tion will not work in part of the intended
<br />area, be prepared to map those areas into
<br />a different district. If a proposed consoli-
<br />dation doesn't work for io percent of the
<br />properties, that doesn't mean that the
<br />consolidation fails. It means that you need
<br />to either exclude those areas (i.e., remap
<br />them into another existing zone district)
<br />or develop a new use standard or a design
<br />or development standard to address the
<br />anomalies. As a last resort, you can include
<br />a qualification that "this standard shall not
<br />apply to structures with X characteristic
<br />constructed before the effective date of
<br />this amendment." while not elegant, this
<br />is a common solution. The "carve -out" only
<br />affects one or a handful of properties, so
<br />few planners and investors wilt ever have
<br />to deal with it. But failure to consolidate
<br />the districts just because of that anomaly
<br />would will keep life more complex for all of
<br />the other planners and investors operating
<br />in the area.The benefits of a simpler, more
<br />flexible district structure may be worth a
<br />few exceptions, ho'vever inelegant.
<br />So when codes evolve into a confusing
<br />plethora of districts, it is possible to get the
<br />cat back in the bag—or at least to get some
<br />cats back in some bags. It is possible to
<br />corral some of those "just slightly different
<br />from each other" zone districts into broader
<br />and more flexible consolidated districts.
<br />Using the techniques described above,
<br />district consolidations can help simplify
<br />life for planners, create new investment
<br />opportunities, increase housing diversity,
<br />and still preserve the established character
<br />of developed neighborhoods. The creation
<br />of new zone districts does not have to be a
<br />one -way ratchet towards a code complexity.
<br />And Peter Planalot can simplify the rest of
<br />the code to make room for the new districts
<br />that council wants.
<br />VOL. 29, NO.
<br />Zoning Practice is a monthly publication of the American Planning Association. Subscriptions are
<br />available for $95 (U.S.) and $120 (foreign).
<br />W. Paul Farmer, FAICP, Chief Executive Officer; William R. Klein, AICP, Director of Research
<br />Zoning Practice (ISSN 1548 - -0135) is produced at APA. Jim Schwab, AICP, and David Morley, AICP, Editors;
<br />Julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor;
<br />Lisa Barton, Design and Production.
<br />Missing damaged
<br />print issues: Contact Customer Service, American g p an Plannin g Association, 205 20 N.
<br />Michigan Ave., Suite 1200, Chicago, 1L 6o6oi (312 - 431 -9100 or customerservice[a)planning.org) within
<br />od
<br />days the publication li ativn d te. Include nclude the name of the publication, 9 Y P p atlon, year, volume and issue number or
<br />0
<br />m nth and an your name, mailing lin address, Y g' y and
<br />membership P number if applicable.
<br />Copyright ©2012 by American Planning Association, 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200, Chicago, IL
<br />60601 -5927. The American Planning Association also has offices at 1030 15th St., NW, Suite 750 West,
<br />Washington, DC 20005-1503; www.planning.org.
<br />Alt rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any
<br />means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and
<br />retrieval system, without permission in writing from the American Planning Association.
<br />Printed on recycled paper, including 50 -7o% recycled fiber and io% postconsumer waste.
<br />ZONING PRACTICE 2.12
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Ipage 7
<br />
|