Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/31/2013 - Special

Home

Beyond the Density Standard By Norman Wright, AICP Density requirements are a well-intentioned idea with unintended consequences. Fortunately, there are better solutions available. For decades, cities have used density as one of the principal means for regulating the built environment. In virtually every instance, from rote limits such as units per acre to more elaborate approaches such as floor area ratio, these standards have dic- tated much more than just the amount of de- velopment that can occur on a given acre of land. And for all the attention that has been directed toward land -use requirements, the use of density standards has largely gone unquestioned in general zoning practice. While the relationship between the absolute separation of land uses and sprawl is well documented, it is important to note that conventional density requirements also contribute to sprawl. When residential development is artificially limited to a finite number of homes per acre, more land is needed to satisfy residential demand and greater subsidies are required to encourage provision of affordable housing in desir- able neighborhoods. The good news is that zoning techniques rooted in the form and character of development can address com- munity concerns about compatibility better than simple density limits. PERCEPTIONS ABOUT DENSITY One of the common motivations for regulat- ing density, especially in residential devel- opment, is to preserve or improve an area's "quality of life," a term that changes mean- ing with every new development proposal. The logic is that the number of units allowed is inversely correlated to the "quality of life" for the surrounding area. As density increases, "quality of life" decreases. This argument is familiar to planners, and it is raised by the public in virtually every apart- ment building or town house proposal. Communities seldom agree on what "quality of life" is other than to suggest that they know it when they see it. In fact, a commu- nity's judgment of new development often hinges on aesthetics. A good example of this comes from a recent case in Iowa City, the home of the University of Iowa. In early zoiz Iowa City received a devel- opment proposal that sparked such a public outcry that the entire zoning ordinance had to be reexamined and parts rewritten in reaction to the protest. The controversy sur- rounded a pair of four-story structures that would be built in a block of town surrounded by single-family neighborhood. The develop- ment would feature a mix of commercial and residential space, and the developer would need to demolish three existing structures (including a restaurant and bookstore) to make way for the new construction. The proposal complied with all zoning regulations at the time, but the community resisted the change. Petitions were circulated and 4,60o residents signed their disapproval. Specific concerns covered the gamut of com- mon arguments where high -density develop- ment is involved. For example, like most high - density housing —especially in a university town —the proposal was for rental housing, and some commenters worried that the lack of home ownership would mean a lack of proper maintenance. There were also con- cerns over the potential for nuisances such as loud noise and vandalism. Others mentioned the likelihood of parking shortages as more people moved into the area. Weeks after the initial proposal, these concerns and many more continued to grow and crystallize until the city council decided to review its density regulations. The city declared a 6o-day moratorium on all proj- ects related to any proposed zoning change in order to give staff time to evaluate regula- tory alternatives. The subject development was initially included in this decision until officials discovered that certain permits had already been issued. Even so, the effort to reexamine the city's attitude toward high - density development was under way. Two months later the city council voted to make three changes to its zoning ordi- nance. All three changes were designed to limit the density of future developments like the one proposed. First, the number of unrelated persons allowed to live together in a dwelling unit dropped from five to three. Second, the number of parking spaces required for large apartment buildings in- creased by an additional space per unit, and third, the number of allowable bedrooms for multifamily uses was lowered to a maximum of three. While the city adopted these amend- ments in order to preserve the existing fabric of the neighborhood and minimize nui- sances associated with new student hous- ing, density regulations may not be the ideal tool to achieve these goals. For example, residents in the Iowa City case voiced concern over potential nuisances such as noise, vandalism, and late -night activities. The solution was to lower the number of potential habitants in the area. This action assumes that it is the number of people living in the area that de- termines the likelihood of nuisances, but a visit to any desolate, blighted neighborhood illustrates how fewer people often leads to more nuisances. Though high -density development may increase the potential for nuisances, the better solution for such problems is likely outside the realm of zon- ing and is found, instead, in the city's actual nuisance ordinance. A well -crafted and well - enforced nuisance ordinance can eliminate the issues of excessive noise not only for high -density development but for all devel- opments in all parts of the city. ZONINGPRACTICE 11.12 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Ipage 2