|
Is the
<br />verall Code
<br />eorganized
<br />r Usability?
<br />Not in this
<br />example
<br />Low, primarily
<br />because it is a
<br />graphic design -
<br />usability exercise
<br />only
<br />No Low, primarily
<br />because it does
<br />not address the
<br />problems with
<br />underlying zoning
<br />No Low, primarily
<br />because this
<br />approach entails
<br />creating only new
<br />base zones
<br />Yes Medium to high
<br />depending on scale
<br />of city or county
<br />No Low to medium,
<br />depending
<br />primarily on
<br />extent of visioning
<br />completed
<br />Sometimes Medium, primarily
<br />due to the fact that
<br />a complete, parallel
<br />code is being
<br />created to replace
<br />the existing code in
<br />targeted areas
<br />Yes High, slightly
<br />higher than #4
<br />due to charrettes
<br />for FBC Focus
<br />Areas, extensive
<br />documentation and
<br />analysis phase, and
<br />careful vetting of
<br />all standards
<br />This is completely ineffective and should be avoided. This is what you will
<br />often get if your budget is too low for a true FBC: It will look good, but will not
<br />produce predictable results. Does not address obstacles for good development or
<br />process -related issues inherent in most zoning codes.
<br />Mostly ineffective due to typical issues inherent in existing code that are not
<br />addressed; may even contradict zoning. Adds another layer of regulations that
<br />confuses intent and negatively impacts usability and administration.
<br />Effectiveness depends highly on quality and clarity of existing code and
<br />development review process. If administration and the code document structure
<br />are good, detailed visioning is completed, and the mixed use zones are not
<br />oversimplified, this can begin to show good results. Existing parking, use tables,
<br />landscaping standards, etc., must be vetted.
<br />Addresses many of the issues above but ultimately still has use as an organizing
<br />principle, which limits the effectiveness of the code and stops it short of being an
<br />FBC. Does not typically complete documentation and analysis of place to extract
<br />the DNA that becomes the basis for the code but rather uses existing zone
<br />standards as starting point and makes changes to those.
<br />Administration, parking, landscaping, and all other elements within code must
<br />be vetted and coordinated with intent of the FBC and potentially included in the
<br />FBC and replaced when the overlay is triggered.
<br />Administration, parking, landscaping, and all other elements within code must
<br />be vetted and coordinated with intent of the FBC Division.
<br />If you are doing a complete code rewrite and you choose this approach, you
<br />are writing two complete, parallel code documents, which is not a good use of
<br />resources. This approach is still sending a message that the default is drivable
<br />suburban development and that FBCs are the exception.
<br />In this approach, the structure of the entire zoning code is completely rethought,
<br />a new operating system is established, and thus the entire table of contents of the
<br />code document is structured with a form -first philosophy. Every last bit of content
<br />from the preexisting code is vetted for its applicability to the form -first operating
<br />system before it is transferred so that it does not compromise the intent. This
<br />approach is perfect for a city that has made a strong commitment in its city policies
<br />to promote smarter, more sustainable growth. Let Euclidean zoning regulate
<br />drivable suburban contexts, and the FBC regulate walkable urban contexts. It
<br />is called a citywide form -based code not because the entire city has form -based
<br />coding applied, but rather the entire city has been assessed and the FBC applied to
<br />where it makes sense. The FBC application can then easily spread.
<br />able urban places, it can apply the
<br />form -based zones to these areas, after
<br />visioning, without requiring a new cod-
<br />ing effort. Note that it is best to call
<br />these hybrid codes, not hybrid FBCs,
<br />because it is not the FBC that is hybrid
<br />but rather the entire code because it
<br />has both form -based and Euclidean
<br />components.
<br />CONCLUSIONS
<br />The application and interest in form -
<br />based coding has exploded across
<br />disciplines since Zoning Practice's
<br />introduction to the topic in 2oo4. This
<br />is largely due to the ineffectiveness of
<br />a Euclidean zoning to address the de-
<br />mands of zest century cities, towns, and
<br />regions for walkable urbanism, diverse
<br />housing choices, more sustainable de-
<br />velopment patterns, and the desire to
<br />reinforce unique community character.
<br />The FBC, when applied correctly, has
<br />proven to be an extremely effective zon-
<br />ing tool for addressing these demands.
<br />Stay tuned. The next issue ofZon-
<br />ing Practice will cover more common
<br />mistakes to avoid in form -based coding,
<br />including omitting an extensive docu-
<br />mentation and analysis phase, not refin-
<br />ing land -use tables, using the urban to
<br />rural transect incorrectly, not graphically
<br />assessing your existing zone standards,
<br />using too many graphics, and not linking
<br />your form -based coding and comprehen-
<br />sive planning efforts.
<br />VOL. 3o, NO. 5
<br />Zoning Practice is a monthly publication of the American Planning Association. Subscriptions are available for $95 (U.S.) and $120 (foreign). W. Paul Farmer,
<br />FAICP, Chief Executive Officer; William R. Klein, AICP, Director of Research
<br />Zoning Practice (ISSN 1548-0135)1s produced at APA. Jim Schwab, AICP, and David Morley, AICP, Editors; Julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor; Lisa Barton, Design
<br />and Production.
<br />Missing and damaged print issues: Contact Customer Service, American Planning Association, 2o5 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 12oo, Chicago, IL 6o6o1 (312-
<br />431-91oo or customerservice©planning.org) within 90 days of the publication date. Include the name of the publication, year, volume and issue number or
<br />month, and your name, mailing address, and membership number if applicable.
<br />Copyright ©2013 by the American Planning Association, 2o5 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200, Chicago, IL 60601-5927. The American Planning Association also
<br />has offices at 103015th St., NW, Suite 75o West, Washington, DC z0005-1503; www.planning.org.
<br />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,
<br />recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the American Planning Association.
<br />Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber and io% postconsumer waste.
<br />ZONINGPRACTICE 5.13
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Jpage 7
<br />
|