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

Home

solutions do exist. Unfortunately, many of the best new practices do not necessarily trans- late into simple changes in a zoning ordi- nance. Even a straightforward shared parking ordinance requires a comprehensive parking study to be effective. But solutions do exist, and most focus on the actual issue of parking demand, not housing density. Multifamily residents need parking spaces, certainly, but ensuring too many visitor spaces to allevi- ate any further concerns could lead to even greater issues. Large parking lots, especially in residential settings, create broad, empty gaps in the urban fabric. When multifam- ily housing is seamlessly integrated into a neighborhood, it is often because the devel- opment acquires the same lack of parking and same subdued, consistent building form. Broad expanses of asphalt change that. Large parking lots appear incongruous with the surrounding neighborhoods, so much so that residents often ask for screening and fences, essentially cutting off the multifamily devel- opment from the rest of the neighborhood. When a development requires screening, it is an acknowledgment of incompatibility, the very danger that citizens wish to avoid. Furthermore, the desire for larger parking lots runs counter to a neighborhood's character since parking lots require intense lighting at night, leading to nuisance concerns, and reduces or eliminates the iconic lawns that define a neighborhood setting. NUISANCES AND DENSITY As I stated before, no density requirements can replace the effectiveness of the en- forcement of a good nuisance ordinance. Nonetheless, planners often face pressure to alter density allowances based on the bad experience of neighbors living close to apartment complexes and other high -density residential areas. When such cases arise, and nuisance issues continue despite the best enforcement efforts, the likely second-best solution is to consider greater screening and buffering requirements. Too often, quality residential developments, no matter the den- sity, are hampered by regulation written in reaction to a few unruly tenants. DENSITY AND RURAL AREAS Finally, though the provided case studies focus mostly on urban and suburban develop- ments, the classic case of rural land being converted into higher density developments cannot be ignored. As stated before, many density requirements are designed to preserve rural land or, at least, prevent the overdevel- opment of such land. Overdeveloping rural land has countless impacts on more than just the character of its surroundings. Rural roads can become overrun with new traffic, crucial habitat can be lost, and city resources can be extended beyond budgetary means. In these instances, though, rote density maximums are still inadequate to address the potential issues for reasons already stated. Thus, physical form and character elements should be combined with other policies. The best possible means of preventing the nega- tive effects of greenfield development is to forego density maximums and focus, instead, on crafting a strong open space protection pol- icies. Crucial habitats and viable agricultural land will be far better protected by policies that require their preservation rather than al- low low -density development intrusions. Great examples of sustainable open space protec- tion programs include conservation subdivi- sion ordinances, which dictate the form of lot sizes and their arrangement around crucial natural lands. Notice in this case that "form" deals with something greater than building de- sign. For conservation subdivisions, form is a matter of lot design, showing that form -based standards have a great deal of versatility. It isn't solely a tool for making sure that front porches are provided for each house. It is also a tool to ensure that site plans are designed to meet conservation needs. CONCLUSION The use of density regulations often leads to unintended consequences and is often a symptom of an incomplete zoning ordinance. Density is a very limited tool for long-term, com- prehensive planning. When used to address so many of the issues that planners deal with, such as nuisance complaints, traffic and park- ing concerns, and character compatibility, the consequence is that more effective approaches are ignored. It is important to remember that the underlying issue facing a city's growth and change is not a matter of the number of units allowed on a given acre of land. The true issue, as expressed by citizens of Iowa City and so many others, is one of incompatible develop- ment or development that does not respect, conform to, or positively enhance the estab- lished character of the places they love. The result, then, is that the focus on den- sity comes at the cost of less focus on charac- ter. When new development fails to respect its surroundings, density is not the primary concern. Incompatible development harms an area —whether it is "high density" or not. This. is to say nothing of the impact density regulations have on housing markets. New studies and publications are showing that areas such as San Francisco and New York City are suffering from distorted housing markets where the demand for more homes is high but the supply is kept deliberately low through density limitations. This phenom- enon is still under examination, but the find- ings from authors such as MatthewYglesias and Ryan Avent are showing that density regulations carry even deeper impacts that go beyond the scope of this article. In conclusion, modern zoning practice must acknowledge the limits of density regula- tion. Whether the goal is to curb traffic conges- tion or make development more compatible, there is likely a better means to accomplish the goal at hand. The best policies are writ- ten to affect the direct relationship between causes and effects. Density is seldom a direct cause of any effect planners hope to manage. Cover image: Form -based codes control the physical characteristics of development with much greater precision than simple density standards. © Moule & Polyzoides, Architects and Urbanists VOL. 29, NO. is Zoning Practice is a monthly publication of the American Planning Association. Subscriptions are available for $95 (U.S.) and $izo (foreign). W. Paul Farmer, rAICP, Chief Executive Officer; William R. Klein, AICP, Director of Research Zoning Practice (ISSN 1548-0135) is produced at APA. Jim Schwab, AICP, and David Morley, AICP, Editors; Julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor; Lisa Barton, Design and Production. Missing and damaged print issues: Contact Customer Service, American Planning Association, zo5 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200, Chicago, IL 6o6oi (312-431-9ioo or customerservice@ptanning.org) within 90 days of the publication date. Include the name of the publication, year, volume and issue number or month, and your name, mailing address, and membership number if applicable. Copyright ©2osz by American Planning Association, zo5 N. Michigan Ave., Suite izoo, Chicago, IL 6o6oi-5927. The American Planning Association also has offices at 103o 15th St., NW, Suite 75o West, Washington, DC 20005-15o3; www,planning.org. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the American Planning Association. Printed on recycled paper, including 50-7o% recycled fiber and io% postconsumer waste. ZONING PRACTICE 11.12 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 7